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.
12:35 p.m.
Northumberland—Peterborough South, CPC
I believe we are given a wide purview when we are talking in committee. He was referencing the reason that there might be a distraction technique, and it was within the scope there. With respect, Mr. Chair, I believe Mr. Stewart's comments were within his wide purview.
12:35 p.m.
Northumberland—Peterborough South, CPC
I've certainly been here for many Liberal filibusters when they have gone on wild tangents—
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
I am listening. Within that wide scope, stick to the subamendment and the amendment.
Go ahead, MP Stewart.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Jake Stewart Conservative Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll go back to my original idea.
Basically, Mr. Ste-Marie's motion was in accordance with his interests and the issues that matter to him. With regard to the subamendment that I'm referring to now, when a political party at a committee hearing puts forth a subamendment to an amendment, there's always a route for that manoeuvre. We all do it. With every political party, this is something that happens at committee. It's perfectly legal.
I was just stating that the government, in my opinion and in the opinions of many Canadians, would have legitimate reasons to implement deflection or distraction from the issues at hand. In my role as national revenue shadow minister for the opposition, obviously I have to be here at the finance committee. I have to look at this subamendment. I also have to know why it's coming out.
When the Prime Minister is potentially being investigated and when whistle-blowers are saying they're not protected—
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
That's what it says: the timelines and the study. That is the subamendment and the amendment to the main motion.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Jake Stewart Conservative Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB
I really appreciate that, Mr. Chair. It's great to get that settled. Obviously the subamendment is what I'm referring to, and I believe the subamendment—speaking directly to the subamendment—is a distraction from the obstacles faced by the government. I could continue to list that trip over and over, but it hurts a lot of feelings, so I'll leave that part out.
There was no economic impact assessment. We're rushing the bill through committee. May 20, which is the date I see in the email I received, is only 11 days away. Probably only seven or eight of those are business days. That's not a lot of time when you're talking about $57 billion. There is $57 billion in new spending, and several economists have said that no new spending in the country is necessary.
I was also, Mr. Chair, when studying the bill, looking at the direct-and-control aspects of it. Many charities were prohibited or obstructed from being able to fundraise during the pandemic. We've all dealt with charitable organizations, including some of these charities operating right now around the globe, although Canadian charities, because of the direct-and-control legislation we already have, are facing increased costs and increased timelines. The jobs and the projects they are working on are not getting done to code, and so they're taking longer and costing more. That is certainly something on which there is already a bill before the House.
There are also the Canadians for Tax Fairness. I believe they are coming here today. I know they liked my motion because they know the bill isn't cutting it. The NDP has pandered to them for years, but clearly threw them out the window when they decided to form a coalition with the government.
If you look at the subamendment—
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
—the amendment and the main motion. The subamendment, the amendment, speaks to the timelines and what we will be studying, MP Stewart.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Jake Stewart Conservative Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB
Mr. Chair, I can't hear. There's a lot of verbiage from the NDP, because there are a lot of hurt feelings about that comment.
12:40 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
There are no disparaging remarks, Mr. Chair, just a lot of encouragement. That's all.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Jake Stewart Conservative Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB
I know they all go to caucus together and have to get along—I get it—but I have to get back to what I'm doing here, because the subamendment is the most important, isn't it?
When you go back to the beginning, you know, the wine producers are upset. You have direct-and-control issues around the country. You have an NDP-Liberal coalition. You have RCMP investigations for illegal trips paid for by lobbyists, and then you have this subamendment to poor Mr. Ste-Marie's.... Mr. Ste-Marie was literally trying to look at industry, international trade, human rights, and immigration issues that we are all facing in our constituency offices. Let's face it: If you are an MP in this country, you have immigration files that are seriously backed up. You have people trying to get a passport who have been waiting for it for three months. What we're dealing with in our constituency offices is unbelievable—unprecedented, actually.
I notice that regardless of—
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, can we please speak to the subamendment and not to what is happening in our passport offices or what is happening in our constituency offices?
Thank you.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
MP Stewart, again, speak to the subamendment, the amendment....
On a point of order, go ahead, MP Blaikie.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
On the same point of order, I think Mr. Stewart is trying to make an argument. I have confidence that he will come back to the subamendment. I think we've seen multiple points of order today on relevance. I'm not sure that they are helping debate.
My hope is that we'll give Mr. Stewart his time and that eventually he will exhaust his point, and we will know better what that point is once he is done making it. I think we're still in the process of discovering his point. I look forward to hearing it and then proceeding to a vote once he is satisfied that he has made his point. I think that interrupting him will only serve to prolong the experience, something that I would rather not see done.
Thank you.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you, MP Blaikie. As we look to the subamendment and the amendment, we're in discovery mode here.
Go ahead, MP Stewart.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Jake Stewart Conservative Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
With respect to the subamendment, we have to look at the processes we're using here at committee, and I haven't felt that all of them were fair. That's my opinion, of course. I know I'm entitled to that, unless, of course, I get censored by Bill 11 or something.
Mr. Chair, with the subamendment, to go back to the root of all this, we're looking at May 20 as the date the coalition wants to put in the subamendment, and that is really soon. Part of our job here as members of Parliament and committee members is to put proper oversight into spending—obviously, since we're the finance committee—but we're talking about $57 billion of new spending that the majority of economists in the country say is not necessary due to the influx of printed money over the past two years.
When I look at the subamendment, I think of what the original amendment intended to look at: immigration, human rights, international trade and industry. We all have in our constituency offices constituents who have issues with the Competition Act. I have issues with direct and control with certain charities, and I do have a small vineyard as well. I certainly wouldn't have as many as some of the members on the committee and in the House—