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
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Yes.
The subamendment to the amendment, to me, at the surface level, seems like it is a good faith exercise, but unfortunately, it's not.
Again, that's not on Mr. Beech. I know that he has a job to do. In fact, Mr. Chair, as a former parliamentary secretary I used to joke when people asked what I did. I'd say, “Well, there are really two types of parliamentary secretaries, and they both burn shoe leather. One shines the shoes of their minister, and the other one gets work done.” I'll let Mr. Beech decide which one he is.
With regard to this, the good faith nature of Mr. Ste-Marie's original amendment was to have a thoughtful scrutiny of several areas of Bill C-19.
On Bill C-19, I think it's important to get something on the record, Mr. Chair, because I've been raising concerns right from the very beginning. You will remember better than anyone that in front of this committee, we had officials from the Department of Finance. I had asked specifically, because we had a technical briefing by the parliamentary secretary on the ways and means motion, whether everything that was covered in that technical briefing was in Bill C-19, and they said no, there were other additions. We have yet to hear back from Department of Finance, and that is raising some questions.
I'll tell you what else concerns me. The copy that I have in this place is what I received as a courtesy copy. I went online, Mr. Chair, and found that there was a whole section from page 421 onward that simply cuts off. Here's page 421 in my copy; notice that it just goes blank. I find out at this late juncture that there are a large number of clauses in here, and even some charts and some areas with regard to duties on vaping products and qualifying flights for remote communities, and then a whole schedule on a table of weeks of benefits for seasonal workers.
I have to say that this process by this government has not been a good one, and that's where I see a pattern. Nixon used to say something to the effect that he was paranoid but that people were actually going after him. I guess I'm paranoid, but I see a pattern here. We see time and time again that the government gives us a courtesy copy, but it's not the whole bill. The government does a technical briefing, and it's not the whole bill.
Now, the parliamentary secretary has made a subamendment to a good faith initiative by Ste-Marie, and it is not in good faith, Mr. Chair. These are all huge challenges that members of Parliament have faced in this process.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Mr. Albas, I'm going to interject. The bill is complete online. I checked with the analysts—
Conservative
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
This has no bearing on you, Mr. Chair, but again, I received a copy. There was a nice binding, and I started going through it. I went through page after page because I couldn't get a clear answer on whether the ways and means motion was the exact same as in Bill C-19. We know from finance officials that it wasn't.
Again, on the courtesy copy that MPs were given in the opposition lobby—and again it's not your fault, Mr. Chair, and not reflective of the clerk or anyone other than the government—I've actually looked into doing a question of privilege, but you know what, Mr. Chair? It's already been said by the Speaker that these are considered “courtesy copies”.
Well, I'll tell you what: When a courtesy copy is not the whole bill, when we find out that the technical briefing does not cover the whole bill, and then we have a subamendment that actually allows for no clause-by-clause consideration by these committees that are actually far more versed in these things, Mr. Chair, that's again why I think Conservatives have said that we will simply bring in our critics and we believe that we can do most of the work to hold this scrutiny to account.
But we object—and I will say categorically object, Mr. Chair—to a parliamentary secretary bringing in a motion on a good faith amendment exercise by our colleague MP Ste-Marie, only to then find out that they are going to add a subamendment that actually does not do what it is intended to do. It is simply a deflection by the government. This is another step in a bad faith process, and I'm sorry that I have to see it, because the finance committee is one of the finest committees I've served on.
We had multiple witnesses who were supposed to speak here today, and I do hope that they are not personally insulted. We had many members decide to do points of order or make certain references in their comments, Mr. Chair, so I hope I'm not going to get points of order or be interrupted by anyone when I say this: They said specifically that if we just stopped talking, we could go hear them, but that's not what occurred. Either we would have had to cut the time for them to be able to speak their minds in their presentations or we would have had members here who never would have had the chance. Had members supported my motion to adjourn the debate, I think we all would have been better off by having heard those testimonies in full, and then we could have simply discussed the business of the committee, such as this particular amendment put forward by the parliamentary secretary.
Mr. Chair, I've said a number of times today that in the way this government operates, parliamentary secretaries again have started to move in what I feel is an interventionist way, and now we have the parliamentary secretary actually trying to push out work and trying to direct other committees so that he and his minister can look like they're making good faith efforts. I think it's a real shame, and they need to be called out for that.
Mr. Chair, I've made a number of points here. I do hope that Liberal members are right now pulling out their phones and are right now texting Terry Beech and saying: “MP Beech, this particular motion is not what we think it is. Maybe we should think about removing it.” Then maybe we should go back to MP Ste-Marie, who has already said that he has other amendments to try to make this process better from his viewpoint.
I do hope that members, especially those Liberal members, are reconsidering my arguments, are making their own arguments directed to the parliamentary secretary and are asking the parliamentary secretary to put them in charge. At one point this Liberal government was in its sunny ways approach. Now, as my colleague from Abbotsford has said, they're in the spendy ways approach, trying to boss around committees to push through billions of dollars of spending that quite honestly will not be reviewed in the proper way it should be.
Mr. Chair, I'm going to come to an end. I'm happy to answer any questions other members may have for me, but again, I have to say that the process has to be fair, and this particular deception by the parliamentary secretary..... He's been given a hard task. It's a hard task being the parliamentary secretary. It's a hard task being the Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary, but we have to call it out as we see it.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you, MP Albas.
We have MP Stewart, MP Blaikie and MP Ste-Marie.
Conservative
Jake Stewart Conservative Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
When you think of Mr. Ste-Marie's amendment, what he really wanted to do was drill down into the aspects of the bill that covered industry, international trade, human rights and immigration. I think he was certainly obviously caring about those issues in good faith and caring about the issues as they would face his constituents in his riding and across the country.
However, I think that when you look at the subamendment from the parliamentary secretary, it's very clear that it's just another distraction from the government. The government needs distractions, because there's a pending RCMP investigation of the Prime Minister for accepting a $216,000 illegal trip from a lobbyist. There are also the CRA whistle-blowers, Mr. Chair, who obviously wanted to do their work honestly and nobody was protecting them—
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
Are we still not speaking to the subamendment? Are we speaking to something else now?
Conservative
Jake Stewart Conservative Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB
I'm on the subamendment. I was just making reference—
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
It's nothing to do with the subamendment right now, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Do you know what, Mr. Chair? I find that you are the chair and you should be making the ruling, not other members.
Liberal
Conservative
Jake Stewart Conservative Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB
Yes, I will, Mr. Chair.
I was suggesting that I thought Mr. Ste-Marie's interest in the bill was legitimate. I think his ideas were in good faith in accordance with his constituents and with the issues that matter to him. In his original amendment, he was looking at industry, international trade, human rights and immigration, and dividing them up and looking at them separately in the committees that hold those priorities. I think his effort was responsible, for the most part.
I was indicating that I believe the subamendment from the parliamentary secretary is what my colleague Mr. Albas called a “deflection”; I use the word “distraction” on the subamendment. I'm speaking directly to the subamendment.
In order for me to do my job, Mr. Chair, when I was making a point on the subamendment about my belief that it's a distraction, I cited the $216,000 illegal trip that the Prime Minister accepted—
Liberal
Philip Lawrence Northumberland—Peterborough South, CPC
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
Liberal