Evidence of meeting #43 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
Mr. Chair, I don't think that you referred to anything in the proceedings that were done in camera. I also think we should note that the motion that Mr. Beech is about to read has been distributed by the clerk.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Mr. Chair, to be clear, I was speaking to MP Beech, not you.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
Let me correct that, Mr. Chair. I was also referring to Mr. Beech. I'm sorry. He wasn't referring to anything that was in camera.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
MP Beech, is that it? Okay.
I have hands up. I have MP Ste-Marie and then MP Stewart.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will speak to the motion. Bill C‑19, which is the budget implementation bill, contains a whole host of measures and legislation and hundreds of pages. We have had discussions about this. My intention is to ask my committee colleagues that we take the time to consider the implications of each part of the motion.
During the pandemic, the House rushed through government bills, and often had to come back with other bills to correct deficiencies that had not been identified. This is because we did not have time to study every implication of the proposed legislation. The 10‑day paid leave provision is reappearing in Bill C‑19 today because it had been worded improperly.
There are a lot of items in this bill. One of my major concerns is the application of the luxury tax. As I have often said, I am very much in favour of it in principle, as I think most of my colleagues are, but I have serious concerns about the impact on the manufacturing sector that we would not have taken into account. There has been no impact assessment on that. My Conservative colleagues have talked about the impact of this tax on the shipbuilding industry, particularly with regard to ship maintenance. I have talked a lot about the impact on aircraft. I hope that the committee will eventually suggest amendments to the proposed bill to the minister so that the manufacturing sector is not overly affected by this new tax.
We understand the government's intention in terms of passing this bill by the end of the parliamentary session, but as there is a huge amount to consider, I would suggest two solutions. The first is to work overtime in committee to study each section in depth. In that case, I would ask my colleagues who are the spokespersons for their parties on different issues to appear before the committee, accompanied by their witnesses, so that everything is dealt with properly.
The alternative, which has often been used in the past, would be to divide the study of the bill among various committees in the following way.
The Standing Committee on International Trade could consider, among other things, division 9 of part 5.
The Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, on the other hand, could consider divisions 15, 16 and 17 of part 5.
The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities would consider divisions 26, 27, 29 and 32 of part 5, which deal with various aspects of employment insurance.
The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration would deal with division 23 of part 5 relating to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Finally, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights would review divisions 18, 19, 21 and 22 of part 5.
I know that other committees have a lot of work and studies to do, but we are dealing with a major piece of legislation from the government here, and it deserves the full attention of members.
On Mr. Beech's motion, at this time, I am uncomfortable with setting a date for completion, as we have not had an exhaustive discussion and there are many implications related to the legislation being discussed in mammoth Bill C‑19. I would therefore be in favour of removing this part. I would also be in favour of dividing the study between various committees. I understand what that means for the other committees, but I think it is necessary to get to where we want to go.
So I am proposing an amendment to the motion. I have not drafted it yet, but it is to divide the study of the bill among the committees that I named earlier.
If it is convenient for everyone, I can name them again, speaking slowly.
I suggest that we refer part 5, division 9 to the Standing Committee on International Trade for consideration; part 5, divisions 15, 16 and 17 to the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology; to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, divisions 26, 27, 29 and 32 of part 5; to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, division 23 of part 5; and to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, divisions 18, 19, 21 and 22 of part 5.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you, Mr. Ste-Marie.
Now we have MP Stewart up, and then MP Fast and then MP Albas.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Are you in on the discussion on the amendment? Is this what you wanted to speak to?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Is anybody speaking to the amendment? Is there discussion on the amendment?
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
I'll speak to the amendment, Mr. Chair, but my original raised hand was to speak about the main motion.
I'm going to ask MP Ste-Marie to repeat.
I totally sympathize when suddenly the parliamentary secretary puts forward a motion effectively programming the committee. A lot actually happens in my mind. Immediately I say, “What, isn't this the government that promised they were going to free up the independence of committees by removing parliamentary secretaries from their proceedings?”
Of course, we know that they actually don't like the outcomes that happen with many promises, so where we are today, Mr. Chair, is right back to a parliamentary secretary actually programming the who, what, when, where and why. We all know the “why”: It's because he's in a mood, and so is his minister, to see this BIA study done in a way that fits their timetable, not with the proper scrutiny such a large piece of legislation deserves.
Again, to MP Ste-Marie, I concur that there are some concerns here with the government suddenly bulldozing in with this approach.
If he could please name the committees individually, and name the ones he would like it split out to, and then maybe give a few—
Liberal
Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac, QC
Again, Mr. Albas just referred to what happened in camera. It's the same point of order you referred to earlier.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
What? I don't understand, Mr. Chair. Maybe you can rule on that. I made no mention of any in camera conversation.
Liberal
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
To go back to my original point, the Liberals promised that committees would be independent. They have moved now to the point where parliamentary secretaries are actually pushing for it and programming the budget implementation act.
MP Ste-Marie is a very thoughtful member of Parliament. We come from different sides, Mr. Chair, and we don't always agree on everything, but I have to get back to his original point about the need to properly scrutinize a big bill. I understand completely that his constituents, particularly those in the aerospace sector, are going to have some concerns around the luxury tax components of this bill. He also raised some concerns around different parts of the bill, so maybe if the member....
I'm sorry to have to repeat myself, but I was interrupted earlier.
Could the member please list out which committees he would like to see study which parts of the bills, and his rationale for each one?
That would be helpful to my understanding.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
I'm not sure if MP Beech's hand was up or if MP Ste-Marie's hand went up first.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
Mr. Chair, Mr. Beech raised his hand before I did, but the question was addressed to me.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
I didn't know if MP Beech was speaking to the amendment.
However, MP Ste-Marie, go ahead, please.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
I thank Mr. Albas for his comments.
As I have said before, at the moment I am against setting a limit on the committee consideration of this bill. However, this could be the subject of a second amendment.
With respect to this amendment, I suggest in it that different committees share the work, so that we can properly study the whole bill.
So I propose that division 9 of part 5 be assigned to the Standing Committee on International Trade. This division amends the Special Import Measures Act. Thus, we must ensure that the legislation does not have perverse effects on the act for the industrial sectors of Quebec and Canada and that all possible effects are fully studied. If it were the Standing Committee on Finance studying this division, it would have to spend a lot of time on it.
I also propose that divisions 15, 16 and 17 of part 5 be referred to the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. Division 15 deals with amending the Competition Act. We know that the Competition Act is very weak in Canada, the weakest in the G7. I welcome the government's intention to amend it, but is what is being proposed enough to really change the game?
Then I propose that division 16 of part 5, which deals with the Copyright Act, be referred to the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. This is the committee that has the expertise to extend the term of copyright. It could also study division 17 of part 5, which deals with the College of Patent Agents and Trademark Agents Act. In my view, this would save us several sittings.
The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities would be assigned all the divisions of part 5 that deal with employment insurance and paid leave. These include divisions 26 and 27, which amend the Employment Insurance Act, and division 29, which amends the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code to reduce the time limit for medical leave, and so on. The latter does not deal directly with employment insurance, but with paid leave days. There is also division 32, which establishes the Employment Insurance Board of Appeal.
In my view, the study of these divisions represents several weeks of work and will require several witnesses, as well as a great deal of expertise and study.
Then I propose that division 23 of part 5, which amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, be referred to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration has a great deal of expertise in this area and it would save us time.
Finally, I propose that divisions 18, 19, 21 and 22 of part 5 be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice. Division 18 deals with the Civil Lunar Gateway Agreement Implementation Act. The implications of this division of the bill are the responsibility of the Standing Committee on Justice. Division 19 amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. In my opinion, the Standing Committee on Finance does not have the expertise to deal with body cavity x-rays, far from it, as I have already mentioned.
Division 21 of part 5 amends the Criminal Code to create the offence of wilfully promoting antisemitism. I believe that this division falls under the purview of the Standing Committee on Justice, as does division 22, which amends the Judges Act, the Federal Courts Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act and certain other acts.
So that is my motion. I hope I have answered my colleague Mr. Albas' question correctly.
Thank you.
