Thank you, Mr. Chair.
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.
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.
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
I was, but I'll yield to Mr. Blaikie. I think I know what he's going to say.
5:55 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
We have a telepath on the committee. This could be an important resource going forward.
As I said earlier when I presented this as a possible alternative, I'm only comfortable with doing that if we have unanimous consent. I think that's really important. I'm not prepared to to bring the hammer down on this.
I think we do need to deal with this in a timely way. It is a national emergency. These are extraordinary powers. It is appropriate for the finance committee to provide this oversight.
I respect that some members may want to change some of the wording around this. I'm certainly open to suggestions. I'm satisfied with the motion as it stands. If we're not going to vote on it today as a means of concluding this meeting, then I think we all have to be agreed on the path forward.
That's certainly my position. I won't be voting in a way to override anyone's wishes on the committee if we don't have a consensus.
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Thank you very much for that clarification. That was what I thought you were going to say, MP Blaikie. Maybe I am a telepath.
The challenge I have is that if we don't leave here with an agreement to have at least the study we've agreed upon with those details, we don't know what those amendments will be.
Mr. Beech, I know you're doing this in good faith, but you don't know where we'll be on that. We could get into an impasse there, not from anyone acting in bad faith, but until we know what those amendments are....
If you have those amendments with you, could you give us at least a high level? Whether we debate them or not tonight can be discussed.
6 p.m.
Liberal
Terry Beech Liberal Burnaby North—Seymour, BC
I'm happy to. I'm just waiting for the chair to tell me—
6 p.m.
Liberal
Terry Beech Liberal Burnaby North—Seymour, BC
I'm happy to give you the high level. If we have time we can break into the individuals.
I would like to add some language into the study around examining the economic impacts of the blockades. I would also like to add some additional witnesses. I would like to modify the language around the appearance of the minister. I would like to look at some of the language around the timing, including potentially moving it up—which I think you have already talked about—and changing some of the language around some of the statements. A lot of these changes are not changing the intent of the motions nor the scope, but perhaps adding to it.
That would be the high level intent of the amendments I'm currently looking at.
I would literally be willing to go through all of these things if we had the time today. I'm happy to go through them all at subcommittee as well.
6 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
As I said, Mr. Beech, in good faith, we're letting a number of issues go with regard to C-8 and the minister's appearance for that purpose. We're compromising here as effectively as we can, as far as moving something forward that Canadians are very concerned about right now.
If there's extra language and things that you would like to add, I think that is very well covered in what I suggested for the amendment we put at the bottom here, which is that it be subject to any amendments that will be arranged at a subcommittee of this committee to be held on February 18.
It didn't sound like there was much there, except potentially excluding the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance from appearing, that seemed like it was outside of the scope of what we've already put on the table here.
We know this may not be complete. We know there may be other people that we add. The language is open to accommodate that from all parties. In the spirit of goodwill, if you can pass this with the opportunity to amend at the subcommittee, I think we're all the way home.
6 p.m.
Liberal
Terry Beech Liberal Burnaby North—Seymour, BC
Yes, I have a couple of things.
First of all, I have no intention at all to remove the Deputy Prime Minister. The Deputy Prime Minister, I'm sure, would be happy to attend and speak to these matters, so please don't interpret some tweaks to the language on her appearance to be that we don't want her to appear. I think we should have her appear.
The fundamental problem is that I don't think anybody on this committee from any party would want to be asked to agree to a motion that they don't agree with subject to future amendments that might not happen. That will set into motion things that, without future agreement, will continue to proceed in the manner that is listed in this motion.
The alternative that I suggested is the opposite of that. It says to take those elements that we know we can approve today, which is that we are going to have the study, that we are going to invite some of those witnesses, and between now and Tuesday, we are going to have a meeting to finalize this language. This is basically just acknowledging that we don't have time at this meeting and gives us time at the subcommittee to accomplish it.
That is less problematic than what you're proposing, which is to make us agree to a motion when we don't necessarily agree with 100% of the language.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Thank you.
Mr. Beech, I appreciate what you said. I'm willing to scribble out parts of these words that you might find difficult. If the issue of the Deputy Prime Minister still attending is a definite on this, which we think it should be, then we can take out the part that's offensive very quickly here.
If the number of meetings is a problem, then we can take out and amend that as you see fit right here very quickly. We can amend the logistics of this as far as when we meet, but our initial focus, of course, is to have the first two meetings next week.
There's not much logistically here that I think we're stuck on. We need to get this motion moving forward, and I think that has to happen here today.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
Terry Beech Liberal Burnaby North—Seymour, BC
Yes, the longer we talk about this, I feel silly for not just moving the amendments when we started a while ago.
6:05 p.m.
Some hon. members
Move the amendments.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
Terry Beech Liberal Burnaby North—Seymour, BC
All right, so can I move my first amendment?
I would like to move an amendment, Mr. Chair.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Terry, just go through them, and we'll just kind of pencil them in or scratch them out as we go through this.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
Terry Beech Liberal Burnaby North—Seymour, BC
Sure.
The first is under the study, examine to add a new section that would state, “The financing of the illegal blockades, and the impacts of these blockades on the Canadian economy and Canadian workers.”
I would so move.
