It's any and all.
Evidence of meeting #7 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.
Evidence of meeting #7 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.
3:15 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
Okay. The amendments that were in the package will not be considered.
3:15 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
I'm a little confused by the motion, because we are talking about any amendments being received by tomorrow at 4 p.m., yet we are hearing from witnesses on Monday. That's the reading I have.
3:20 p.m.
Liberal
Terry Beech Liberal Burnaby North—Seymour, BC
We will finish off any amendments that may be debated, but we will not allow any new amendments.
I was a little slow to your question. I apologize.
3:20 p.m.
Liberal
Terry Beech Liberal Burnaby North—Seymour, BC
We'll finish any amendments that need to be debated, but we will not accept any new amendments.
3:20 p.m.
Liberal
3:20 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Yes. You asked if the....
The problem with the amended motion is that Mr. Beech is now clarifying that this is just a friendly invitation. We want the witnesses here. That's what we're seeking in exchange for allowing the debate to terminate. We need the Auditor General here. This is a $7-billion addition to an already nearly $100-billion package. We need to hear from the Auditor General on where the previous expenditures have gone in order to vote on these new expenditures.
The Auditor General fortunately serves Parliament. The Auditor General does not just come here when he or she desires; the Auditor General comes to Parliament when Parliament requisitions him or her. We're seeking the Auditor General. We want the Auditor General here. For Conservatives to support going to a vote on the passage of this bill, we need the wording to be clear that the Auditor General will be here and testify before the bill is returned to the House of Commons. We are not prepared to support going to a vote until that is clearly worded in the motion.
We hope that arriving at that outcome is not overly time-consuming. We should all agree—this is actually a fairly easy thing to agree on—that if we're passing a piece of legislation of this magnitude, the Auditor General would come to comment. Mr. Fragiskatos has said that the Auditor General has produced reports on the predecessor programs and has cited the AG's work in order to bolster the case for the bill, so he should have no problem supporting that the AG will come, or someone very senior in the AG's office in the event that there is a health problem or that some incredible extenuating circumstance interrupts. We're not asking for something unreasonable here.
I see Mr. Beech; let's see if we can work this out.
3:20 p.m.
Liberal
Terry Beech Liberal Burnaby North—Seymour, BC
Could the clerk clarify for us the powers we have and the abilities we have? I don't think changes in language will help us here, with all due respect to my colleague across the way. I think this is a good-faith motion. I would encourage them to adopt it.
3:20 p.m.
The Clerk
I'm unclear on what the question is. “Powers” with regard to what?
3:20 p.m.
Liberal
Terry Beech Liberal Burnaby North—Seymour, BC
Well, without any sort of clear amendment or change to the language as it's currently stated, I think the language, with all due respect, accomplishes what the Conservatives are trying to do. I would encourage them to support it. If there is some stronger language, I'm certainly open to hearing it, but I don't think anyone's trying to pull a fast one here. I think we're all trying to be collaborative. It is our intent that those three witnesses will be here on Monday.
I don't know what other solutions I can offer the member opposite.
3:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you, Mr. Beech. It is up to the committee.
Go ahead, Mr. McLean.
3:20 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll beg your pardon on this side, because there are some things here that I don't think we can.... Remember, we talked about blocking out the space here about when we get this stuff done.
Mr. Beech, in here you talk about “4 p.m. on Saturday” to receive the amendments. That's before we're going to hear any witnesses on the Monday. I think the input from these witnesses will be important, so I'm hoping we can say “6 p.m. on Monday” as opposed to “4 p.m. on Saturday” with regard to when we can submit amendments based on the testimony we've heard here.
I'd also like to mention this part of the motion: “d) that at 10 p.m. on Monday, December 13, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment”.
However, we're talking about amendments here, so is that a misprint, or an oversight, or...? I mean, we're talking about putting forth amendments here.
Then it's those two things—those two words...or “amendment”, and the date, this Saturday, to submit those amendments prior to hearing the witnesses. Can we change those, get the Auditor General in here and make sure we have the input we require on Monday?
3:25 p.m.
Conservative
Jake Stewart Conservative Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB
My opinion, Mr. Chair, alongside that of my colleague Mr. McLean, is that I think the importance of having the Auditor General here is very clear. This is a very large amount of Canadian taxpayer dollars—more than $7.4 billion—and I think the government has repeatedly proclaimed just how much they listen to the AG and how they take the opinion of the AG so seriously. I think it's prudent that we have the Auditor General here so that we can ask questions about this $7.4 billion. Who better to have here than the Auditor General, alongside the CRA and other officials?
I want to state the importance of that. If the government is serious about their own assertions on the importance of the AG, they will absolutely support this, and this committee will ensure that the Auditor General is present here for these questions.
3:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you very much, Mr. Stewart.
If we are going to continue for much longer, we would need to take a 10-minute break for the resources that we have available to us here in this room, so I'm looking to members....
3:25 p.m.
Conservative
3:25 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Well, no, we're not. We still want to have the wording clarified, because it's not clear that we're getting the Auditor General before the bill passes. If it is simply a matter of inviting the Auditor General, we've already done that. It hasn't worked so far.
The Auditor General serves Parliament. We are a creature of Parliament. The Auditor General must be here to testify on this bill before it goes back to the House of Commons. We want wording in the motion that would clarify that, or we will not go to a vote, because there are many more things that need to be said in this debate.
As you know, Mr. Chair, this is not a time-limited debate, nor can members be interrupted when they're speaking on a motion like this. I think it would be in the best interests of all committee members that we come to a conclusion that is amicable and reach consensus instead of just ramming it through.
3:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Again, for the House resources, we are going to take a 10-minute pause.
I will suspend for 10 minutes.
