Finance Committee on May 29th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

That was sustained.

We are at CPC-10. There is a ruling here from the chair.

Bill C-47 amends several acts, including the Excise Act, 2001 to add inflationary adjustment clauses. The amendment seeks to establish new amounts of fines for alcohol offences in relation to section 76, 89 and 91 of the act.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition, states on page 770:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair, this addition is a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill as adopted by the House at second reading. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Chair, if we were in a hockey game, and if 10 penalties were called on one side and zero on the other, I might call into question the unbiased nature of the referee.

I'll leave that alone and just say we need a challenge, Chair.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I call into question the people being penalized.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

There is a challenge. Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?

Clerk, we will have a vote.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5)

Shall CPC-11 carry?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

We want a recorded vote on division, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We will have a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

Shall CPC-12 carry?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

I just want to confirm that it's in good order and within scope? Perfect.

We would like a recorded vote on division, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We will have a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 127 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

Now we're at part 4, “Various Measures”, and division 1, the “Bank Act”.

Members, I'm going to try this again as we're getting a little more into the evening. There are no amendments to clauses 128 to 136. If we had unanimous consent, then we'd be able to group those together.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

I don't think so, Mr. Chair. I appreciate your efforts, though.

(Clauses 128 to 136 inclusive agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Can we confirm that we can get resources till 2 a.m.? Is that possible?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We're going until we finish.

(On clause 137)

We are now at clause 137, and amendment BQ-5.

(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

It was defeated, but we have a point of order.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

I apologize to the interpreters for the crosstalk.

I just had a brief exchange with the clerk. Is it possible to defeat something on division? My understanding is no, but we've done this in the past and I just wanted to make that clear, so that we could speed things up and defeat some things on division, if that's possible.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

I can speak to that point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I'll let the clerk speak to that first, MP Blaikie.

[Miriam Burke]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Okay. That's a no.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Chair, I'd still like to speak to the point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Okay, MP Blaikie.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

I accept that the answer to that, properly speaking, is no, but we have on other bills established that as a precedent at this table. It seems to me that if the committee were to consent to defeating clauses on division, it's something we could do. We've done it in the past. We did it, I think, on Bill C-19. I want to say it was that one.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I'll look to the clerk.

As long as the committee provides consent for that....

Yes, MP Morantz.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

I think that the issue has to do with question, because the question is, “Shall this clause carry?”, and then it's on division. If the question was, “Shall this clause be defeated?”, then it would be defeated on division. That's my understanding of the logic or rationale.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

The clerk has nothing for me. We'll stick with “it's a no” right now.

We are at clause 137.

We'll keep that in our back pocket.

Shall clause 137 carry?

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

I have a point of order.