Evidence of meeting #20 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was c-8.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Perhaps the motion could say at the bottom “with amendments that will be agreed to at the subcommittee that's being held on Friday, February 18”.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Terry Beech Liberal Burnaby North—Seymour, BC
Yes, it could, as long as that is on the short version of the motion that I just proposed and not the full motion in itself, because we would not be in favour of passing the full motion in itself subject to potential amendments. If we can have a shorter version and get some of those people started, and finalize the wording of this motion at subcommittee, that's what we're proposing.
We would literally start the study on Tuesday, but we'd have an opportunity to shake out this language with everybody at subcommittee.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
I'd like to vote on this today, but we don't have to vote on this today, do we?
It's on the floor, but it didn't get official notice, though.
What I'm trying to—
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
Adam Chambers Conservative Simcoe North, ON
Well, no. Because we added committee business to the end and the chair agreed, it's now on the floor.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
My point is that we're just about to end, because another committee is about to throw us out.
We have a decision as to whether it's going to be what Mr. Beech has proposed—we start on Tuesday and figure out the language in an emergency subcommittee meeting—or we don't have an agreement.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
Terry Beech Liberal Burnaby North—Seymour, BC
No. I would have amendments if there was a vote, and I would start moving those amendments.
5:40 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
It has been my experience from time to time on certain committees that when committee meetings run long....
I recognize we're interfering with the business of another committee, but in light of the subject matter and the obvious importance of the timing, given that it pertains to the government's invocation of emergency measures and given that this is one of the most senior committees at the House of Commons, it is important that we get this sorted.
My understanding is that if a committee continues to meet, it does bump the other committee. While I don't think that's something we want to do with any regularity, given the seriousness of the subject matter and an apparent lack of consensus on a way forward, I think our meeting should continue.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
MP Blaikie, I don't know if that's a question for the whips to look at, but I'm looking to the members again and also to the clerk. We're really running up against the other committee.
MP Beech, go ahead.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
Terry Beech Liberal Burnaby North—Seymour, BC
I would just say to all my friends at this committee that I have always followed through on everything I've said. We're making this offer in good faith. We want to get to this. We want to get it done. I would just stress to other members that if we can come to this agreement, we're good to go and we can get this thing done faster than if we're delayed.
I'm making this offer in good faith and I hope we can work together on this.
5:40 p.m.
The Clerk
Mr. McLean wants to speak.
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
I accept in good faith. That's why I said that it would be subject to any changes to this motion that will be heard and agreed to at the subcommittee held on Friday, February 18. I do think it is something we need to have as an official motion to move this forward. This is good faith that I think we've established among all parties here to make this work. If there are more witnesses we need to call or if there's something that might be deemed inappropriate from what we need to look at, then we can hash that out tomorrow. I haven't seen any of Mr. Beech's proposed amendments at this point in time.
If we could incorporate Mr. Beech's last codicil, if you will, at the bottom that says “subject to subsequent amendments that arise at the subcommittee hearing on February 18”, I would be all in favour of making sure that his concerns are accommodated at that meeting.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
Terry Beech Liberal Burnaby North—Seymour, BC
It just puts us in this impossible position where we are supporting a motion that we don't support without amendments.
If we have the time, I can start going through the amendments. I've been told that we don't have the time. I wasn't aware that we weren't going to have the time. That's why I'm trying to push this forward so that we can actually take the proper time, go to the subcommittee and figure this stuff out. I'm sure it will be fine, but to support a motion.... What if we don't come to an agreement at the subcommittee and then we have this motion sitting on the table that we don't agree to? Do you see the problem from our side?
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Chair, the wording is very broad here, and it's not meant to be punitive. If there's something that he thinks shouldn't be in here, perhaps he can put that on there as opposed to having just specific wording that we have to agree to. If we look at a broad scope that he wants to limit here, or not have something as part of this study because he thinks it is ultra vires of this committee, then we can discuss that very quickly right now.