FINA Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
Standing Committee on Finance
|
l |
|
l |
|
EVIDENCE
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
[English]
I call this meeting to order.
This is the 94th meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance. Our orders of the day are pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 30, 2012. This is our study of Bill C-45, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures.
Colleagues, before we get into the clause-by-clause consideration, we do have a notice of motion from Ms. Nash. I think we should deal with that item first, since we do not know how long we will be dealing with clause-by-clause.
Ms. Nash, I give the floor to you, please.
I'm sorry this coincidentally comes up today. We have a lot on our plates, but I have a motion that the committee members should have, and the motion reads:
That the Committee invite the Honourable Jim Flaherty, Minister of Finance, to appear before the Committee regarding the Supplementary Estimates (B) 2012-2013 before December, 4, 2012 and that this meeting be televised.
I so move.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to propose a friendly amendment to the motion.
But as a Métis person, I do want to acknowledge some elders that are here today. I want to welcome them, as well as the chief and some council members.
Having said that, I would like to a propose very small friendly amendment. Because of the charged agenda that we have, and of course the Minister of Finance also has a very charged agenda, I would suggest the committee invite the department officials to appear before the committee who might answer questions with regard to this. I would hope Ms. Nash would support that.
You're amending it to read that the committee invite officials from the Department of Finance to appear before the committee—
You want to replace “the Honourable Jim Flaherty, Minister of Finance”, with “department officials”.
Okay. I'll take that as an amendment. Is there discussion on the amendment?
We have bells. Are they 30-minute bells?
Yes. Can I ask the consent of the committee to continue for, say, another 15 minutes?
I call this meeting back to order, the 94th meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance. We were discussing the motion by Ms. Nash and the amendment by Ms. Glover.
I will take speakers for the amendment of Ms. Glover, please.
We'll go to Ms. Nash and then Mr. Brison.
Mr. Chair, the amendment is that we have officials come here in place of the minister, and we don't believe that's acceptable. There is such a thing as ministerial accountability. We believe the minister is, of course, responsible for the estimates, and he should be here to answer to the finance committee. We don't accept that officials would replace the minister.
Ms. Glover said it was a friendly amendment. I want to clarify. Was it to have the officials with the minister? In that case it would be a friendly amendment. It would probably be redundant because that would be assumed.
If it's to replace the minister with the officials, that would not be a friendly amendment. It changes the intention I think of the motion. Certainly the Conservatives are confident in their minister's capacity to deliver before committee, or I assume so, and as such they would probably have no problem with hearing from the minister as per Ms. Nash's motion.
Clearly, ministerial accountability is essential to our system, and as such we do not understand any quarrel with the idea and the principle behind having Minister Flaherty appear before the committee, and perhaps Ms. Glover, because she did say it was a friendly amendment...perhaps we misunderstand and maybe it was simply her intention to affirm that the minister would be joined by department officials that day. If, in fact, that's what she was suggesting in her amendment, assuming it was in fact a friendly amendment, then we would have no difficulty with that. But we believe that would be assumed and redundant as such.
Thank you.
[Translation]
I am also opposed to the amendment. The excuse we are given is the minister's heavy schedule. We are all familiar with ministers' responsibilities—be it when it comes to this committee or other committees. They are all very busy, but they are required to appear before the committees under whose jurisdiction those departments are, to fulfill their accountability obligation regarding results.
In order for us to be able to study supplementary estimates (B), the minister, pursuant to his obligations, will have to appear before us. The reason put forward—the minister's heavy schedule—does not justify his avoiding the obligation to account to this committee, in my opinion.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Certainly, we have the greatest of confidence in the minister, who, of course, has led Canada through tremendously difficult times. Unfortunately, he's not available before the time deadline that has been asked for in the motion.
Therefore, understanding that supplementary estimates are important, we thought the officials could provide the important information needed.
Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. McLeod.
We have bells again, presumably for a vote.
I have to have consent to continue the meeting, so I either have consent or I don't. Do I have consent to continue the meeting?
No, I do not have consent to continue the meeting.
The meeting is suspended. I will see you after the vote.
I call this meeting back to order, the 94th meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance. We are still on the motion by Ms. Nash and discussing the amendment of Ms. Glover.
I have Ms. Glover on the speakers list.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I was just going to put forward a motion to adjourn this discussion on the amendment and proceed to a vote.
Ms. Glover, can I just get a verification? Do you want to set aside the debate or do you want to go to the vote on the amendment?
I don't know if you want to refer to O'Brien and Bosc, but you can make a motion that the question be now put, so we can limit debate. I'm not sure what the procedural support is for your motion that we adjourn and go to the vote.
Forgive me, Chair, I'm mistaken in saying that we're going to the vote. Adjourn the debate and proceed with what other matters we have on the agenda.
Thank you for that clarification, Madam Glover. I'll just refer members to O'Brien and Bosc, page 1057:
A member who moves “That the debate be now adjourned” wishes to temporarily suspend debate underway on a motion or study. If the motion is carried, debate on the motion or study ceases and the committee moves on to the next agenda item.
And that would obviously be discussion of Bill C-45.
Therefore, I will call the question on that, that the debate be now adjourned.
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We will therefore move to discussion of Bill C-45.
Monsieur Caron.
[Translation]
I just want to clarify something.
We have adjourned the debate on the amendment, correct? We were previously discussing an amendment to the proposed motion. So, we should now talk about the main motion, right?
[English]
Yes, that's correct, Monsieur Caron. We have adjourned the debate on the amendment and we are therefore on the motion by Ms. Nash.
Ms. Nash, did you want to discuss the motion?
Sure. I believe that when we have estimates coming out it is important for the minister to have the opportunity to come before the committee and for the members of the committee to be able to ask for clarification and to question the minister on these estimates. We think it's an important part of the minister's responsibility to be accountable to this committee and to the House, through our committee, and we'd like to have the opportunity to be able to put questions to the minister face to face and to hear the minister's personal explanation for the estimates. We think that's part of our accountability to our constituents and to the country.
Mr. Chair, I want to speak in support of Ms. Nash's motion. Clearly, it is fundamental to our parliamentary system—ministerial accountability. I must say that earlier in the debate today Monsieur Caron referred to the minister as shirking his responsibilities.
Monsieur Caron, I want to defend our finance minister. I think it's a very unfair characterization, because I'm quite certain if he were asked by this committee to appear, he would definitely appear, and I'm sure you as a fair person, Monsieur Caron, would give him the benefit of the doubt.
So we certainly would hope and expect and believe that this minister, who has extensive experience in the provincial legislature of Ontario, in which he served as a minister, and as a federal member of Parliament and minister, would have respect for and an understanding of the fundamental principle of ministerial accountability, and as such would gleefully accept the opportunity to exercise ministerial accountability at the committee.
I just wanted to speak in defence of the minister. I'm sure Monsieur Caron may want to speak to that, come back to that, because in retrospect, he may perhaps withdraw.... I don't think he would want to attack a minister unfairly in that sense.
I thank you.
I take it that Mr. Brison just suggested that the minister be asked instead of told to come to the committee meeting, so we can put this matter to a different committee time and then deal with what we have. It sounds like he's suggesting that we put it off, and that we actually ask the minister to come, instead of demanding that he do so.
Mr. Jean, as an experienced parliamentarian, I think you know that's not a point of order. The motion is that the minister be invited.
Thank you for that intervention.
Madam Glover, please.
A motion to adjourn debate on Ms. Nash's motion.
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: I will therefore move to our clause-by-clause discussion of Bill C-45, a second budget implementation act.
You all have a copy of the motion that was adopted by the committee to deal with the bill in front of you. I would like to ask you all to review it and read it again.
I want to outline for members the motion adopted by the committee on October 30, 2012, in relation to the study of Bill C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures. I would like to remind the committee of certain important elements of this motion.
First of all, with respect to the timing, in paragraph (d) of the motion adopted by the committee, it states that:
...the Chair may limit debate on each clause to a maximum of five minutes per party per clause before the clause is brought to a vote;
So it's five minutes per clause. This is prior to 11:59 p.m., not for amendments. I just want to make sure everyone understands that.
I have two more items. The second is with respect to the end of debate. Paragraph (f) of the motion adopted by the committee states:
(f) if the Committee has not completed the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-45 by 11:59 p.m. on Wednesday, November 21, 2012, the Chair shall put, forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment, each and every question necessary to dispose of clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill....
So at that point I will deal with all of the clauses that are left, if we have not completed our work by 11:59 p.m. That is the second point I want to make.
The third point is an amendment that has been sent to this committee. As you recall, the motion called for the chair to communicate with other committees and invite them to submit suggested amendments to the finance committee. I have received answers from all of the committees, none of which have forwarded any amendments.
However, there is an amendment from a member. This amendment will be considered by the finance committee according to paragraph (c) of the motion. This amendment is from Dr. Fry , who is a member of the health committee.
In paragraph (c) of the motion adopted by the committee, it states:
(c) any amendments suggested by the other Standing Committees...shall be deemed to be proposed during the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-45....
To explain this so that everyone understands, if we go past 11:59 p.m., at that point I will just be putting the votes on the clauses. If we have amendments left to deal with, I will not be putting forward votes on those amendments.
I do have a point of order on that, Mr. Chair, and as you know, no one respects you and your position and your history in this place more than I, and I understand you're bound by the rules. But on that point of order, Mr. Chair, I would ask you to consider the motion adopted by the committee on October 31 as allowing us to vote on every amendment to Bill C-45 that has been put on notice.
I can tell you our intention—I know through discussions on the government side—was to maximize study and deliberations on this bill while keeping to a reasonable working plan, so that of course we could get things done. By asking 10 other committees to study portions of this bill as part of it, and, if they saw fit, to suggest amendments, which would be considered here, and by confirming that members of this committee were not going to be blocked at any stage from tabling their own amendments either, according to the rules, we wanted to give the fullest possible airing for all of the important measures set out in our budget implementation bill, and that, of course, includes the opportunity to vote and voting itself.
The motion says at 11:59 p.m. the chair is to put “each and every question necessary to dispose of clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill”.
Now, Mr. Chair, to limit it to just the clauses is not, in my mind, reasonable. Today's notice of motion said we were to give the bill clause-by-clause consideration, yet we will be dealing with amendments up until midnight. How is it that those words take on a different meaning at midnight and after than before?
I believe the words “each and every question” includes every one of the amendments filed by every party in this place, which have been duly filed with the committee clerk.
When the House adopts a time allocation motion, it uses the same phrases about, and I quote again, “every question necessary for the disposal of the stage” being “put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment”.
When the time allocated period ends, the speaker still puts every selected stage motion to the House. Taking Bill C-38, for instance, 15 motions had been moved when report stage debate was interrupted, yet the House voted on all of the selected report stage motions, not just 15.
The same logic that happens in the House should apply to the same wording here, Mr. Chairman, in my respectful submission.
While I will admit, of course, that committees are somewhat different from the House, in which ways are they really different? For example, motions here do not need seconders, the previous questions cannot be moved here, and unless a committee orders, there are no limits on the length or number of speeches a member can make.
Now, Mr. Chair, all of those things have in common a view to expand participation by the committee members and all parties, not to limit it.
My position, I think, supports fairness, due process, and the rule of law, and certainly the ability to speak your constituents' voice. So I do not think it would be logical to interpret our motion of October 31 in a way that is even more restrictive than how the same words would be interpreted in the House, particularly, Mr. Chair, as the spirit of the committee rules is to allow for more participation.
If it is your ruling, Mr. Chair, that we cannot vote on the amendments, which were duly filed with the committee clerk, then I must challenge the chair.
I appreciate that. That's actually a substantive point of order, one of the few we've had at this committee, I must admit.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chair: I will say, though, that it is still my view, and it's the view based on advice from our clerks, that the section you quote, paragraph (f), says: “...the Chair shall put...without further debate or amendment, each and every question necessary to dispose of....” It says “without further debate or amendment”. That is my view, and that's how I....
I understand, Mr. Chair.
With respect to you and your position, I would still challenge your ruling.
I have bells, so I need consent to keep the committee going.
Do I have consent to keep the committee going?
I do not have consent.
Okay. We'll return, and we'll return to this as soon as we come back after the votes.
Thank you.
The meeting is suspended.
Colleagues, I want to run through exactly what's going to happen here.
I outlined at the beginning issues with respect to time allocation, end of debate, and the amendment from Dr. Fry.
Mr. Jean asked me as the chair for clarification; I presented the clarification, the interpretation that I had. He presented an alternative interpretation with respect to the “end of debate” section. I have ruled that his interpretation is incorrect. Therefore, Mr. Jean challenged the ruling of the chair with respect to my interpretation.
I'll read from chapter 20 of O'Brien and Bosc:
Decisions by the Chair are not debatable. They can, however, be appealed to the full committee. To appeal a decision by a Chair, a Member must inform the committee of his or her intent immediately after the decision is announced. The Chair then asks the committee to vote on the following motion: “That the decision of the Chair be sustained”.
And I will ask for that motion.
I'll just finish up here.
If my ruling is sustained, we will proceed as I previously explained. If my ruling is overturned, then Mr. Jean's interpretation will stand.
As the chair, I will give any member the opportunity to withdraw any motions in the package that they do not wish to proceed with, if we go with Mr. Jean's motion, because if we go with Mr. Jean's interpretation, what it means is that we consider all amendments deemed to be moved.
That's as full an explanation as I can give. Therefore, I will put the following motion to the committee—
I just need clarification before I vote.
Are you saying that if this motion goes through, all of our amendments are deemed moved, so that we do not need to move them even now, prior to midnight? Or is this after midnight?
That is the clarification; those are the implications of the decision.
So the committee has to make a decision whether what I've told the committee is correct or whether Mr. Jean's interpretation is correct. Therefore, the committee has to vote on the following motion: that the decision of the chair be sustained.
If you agree with my interpretation, you vote yes to this motion. If you do not agree, you vote no.
All those in favour that the decision of the chair be sustained—
Chair, if the committee votes to agree with Mr. Jean's position to challenge the chair, that doesn't mean that the committee agrees with Mr. Jean's full interpretation. It means that the committee doesn't agree with your interpretation; it does not mean the committee agrees with Mr. Jean's interpretation. It's a complete non sequitur to say that because the committee votes to reject your interpretation, it embraces his.
Thank you, Mr. Brison, but I consulted extensively with our clerks, and what I read is the clerks' judgment in terms of what exactly happened and what the implications are in voting in favour of my interpretation—of sustaining the chair's ruling or not sustaining the chair's ruling. I was very clear on what's going to happen.
If my ruling is sustained, we will proceed as I explained. If it's not—if my ruling is overturned—we will proceed as Mr. Jean's interpretation was outlined.
I just want to make sure I understand this correctly, because there was something added there that I wasn't aware of.
Could you clarify for me, Mr. Chair? What Mr. Jean has suggested is that we proceed and go through each of the amendments. Then you added something there about withdrawal of amendments. But Mr. Jean's position was to proceed and deal with the amendments.
So I'm a little confused. Could you clarify?
When 11:59 hits, my interpretation is that I move to clause-by-clause. I would not deal with any amendments that are left at that point. Mr. Jean's interpretation is no, that I have to deal with all of the amendments that are left at that point. His interpretation means that all the amendments are deemed moved. For instance, if—
I'm not making a ruling. This is—
Hon. Scott Brison: You—
The Chair: If you want the legislative clerk to outline that...but this is.... We've consulted extensively with the clerks: this is the process that occurred here and these are the implications. If they overturn my ruling, those are the implications of overturning my ruling.
Okay. We will vote on this.
All I do as the chair is attempt to be fair, and attempt, as much as possible, to rely on the excellent procedural advice of our clerks. That is what I have done in this case.
Therefore, I will ask for a vote on the following motion: that the decision of the chair be sustained.
(Ruling of the chair overturned)
The Chair: Okay.
So the chair's ruling is overturned. All right. My Christmas card list is shorter this year.
Voices: Oh, oh!
The Chair: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1 is postponed. Therefore, the chair calls clause 2.
(On clause 2)
The Chair: Under clause 2 I have Liberal amendment 2, Liberal amendment 3, Liberal amendment 4, Liberal amendment 5, Liberal amendment 6, Liberal amendment 7, and Liberal amendment 8, and I will remind you of the five minutes maximum per party per clause.
I will recognize Mr. Brison for five minutes.
Mr. Chair, I challenge your interpretation of your decision. Effectively, your interpretation of this is that the rejection of your earlier decision by the committee means automatically that we support Mr. Jean's interpretation, and I would assert that this is not consistent with any parliamentary precedent or rule. As such, I would challenge that, so I challenge your decision.
If I may, Mr. Chair, the fact that the committee voted to repudiate its own chair does not tell us what the procedure will be. It tells us what the procedure is not.
The vote of the committee doesn't substitute the chair's view with the government's view. It merely leaves us without a procedure because the chair's obvious interpretation of the motion has been overturned.
The overturning of the chair is a blunt instrument that can't be used to selectively amend a lengthy motion through the back door. If they want to do that, they should move a motion for that purpose. It is possible to move a motion for that purpose.
If the government wants us to follow a procedure that was (a) not part of the normal practice and (b) not part of the motion we adopted to govern our work on Bill C-45, they need to move a motion to establish such a procedure. Without such a motion, we must revert to our basic procedure, which means to debate every clause, without time limits on debate.
If the government wishes to propose a new procedure, let them propose a motion for that purpose. If not, let's begin clause-by-clause under our normal rule of no time limits. It's embarrassing to see the Conservatives repudiate their own chairman to save themselves from what seems to have been bad drafting, but they rammed this motion through here in the first place. They didn't allow amendments to improve it—
—and when they realized that they had put themselves in a box and hoisted themselves on their own procedural petard, they were so desperate to get out of it that they were willing to embarrass the chairman and repudiate him in public.
I can say, Mr. Chair, that I respect your decision earlier, and I feel sorry for the position that you've been put into by members of your own party.
I do. Mr. Chair, you can challenge a decision by the chair, but you cannot challenge an interpretation by the chair or a pre-interpretation of something that's going to happen in the future. I would suggest that Mr. Brison's challenge is not a challenge at all that is available under the rules.
I'm going to again, just for clarification, explain exactly what happened.
The motion that was adopted by the committee was distributed to all the members for reference again, and then I clarified some points on the motion to ensure that we had clarity in terms of how we were proceeding with respect to the three items I raised.
Mr. Jean then raised a point of order and asked for clarification of my interpretation. I presented my interpretation. He presented an alternate interpretation. I ruled. So the ruling is this: my ruling was that his interpretation was incorrect, and that's when he immediately challenged me, as you're supposed to do if you choose to challenge the chair. So he challenged my ruling.
My initial thing with respect to the three items was not a ruling; it was an explanation to the committee. So he presented an alternate interpretation. I ruled that his interpretation was incorrect. He challenged the chair. A challenge to the chair is not debatable. That challenge carried the day, so we are proceeding with Mr. Jean's interpretation. That is the best advice I am getting here from procedural clerks in terms of how to proceed.
Now, it is a very unusual situation. It's also an unusual situation that it seems you don't want to vote on your own amendments, Mr. Brison. So it is an odd procedural matter here in the committee.
I am proceeding as well as I can with the best procedural advice that I am given, and I suggest that we return to clause 2 and proceed with your amendments.
Mr. Chair, the committee has made a decision as to how to proceed, and our members did not change that. It was the Conservative members who changed that midstream. I would challenge your decision that the decision of the committee to repudiate your ruling automatically means—
I don't believe that the interpretation, or the assumption, or the corollary would be that we would simply go on to these procedures, as Mr. Jean has suggested. That does not make any sense in parliamentary—
I don't know if I can make it any clearer than I already did by reading the process I went through. The process was very clear. I've outlined it here. My ruling has been overturned, and I am proceeding, as was mentioned. The implication of overturning my ruling was that amendments are deemed moved, and we are now dealing with clause 2. We are now moving to the five-minute clause-by-clause.
Mr. Brison, you have amendments 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. You can address any one of them.
Certainly, Mr. Chair. Again, I would assert that we ought to simply revert to the initial proposal, and that is that we debate the clause-by-clause and the amendments without a time limit.
You're on your five-minute time now, because the committee has made a decision to overturn the decision of the chair.
As we discussed earlier, there will be a challenge at the House as well.
Mr. Chair, to begin with, on clause 2 we have proposed several amendments. Two amendments remove provisions related to group sickness or accident insurance plans. We also have five amendments that delay provisions related to group sickness or accident insurance plans.
Clause 2 deals with income from office or employment. Section 6 of the Income Tax Act provides for the inclusion of an employee's income of most employment-related benefits, other than those that are specifically excluded.
Mr. Chair, paragraph 6(1)(a) of the act provides for the inclusion, in computing the income of a taxpayer from an office or employment, of the value of employment benefits received or enjoyed by the taxpayer in respect of or in the course of employment, subject to a number of specified exceptions in subparagraphs 6(1)(a)(i) to (v). The first of these exceptions is subparagraph 6(1)(a)(i), which describes benefits that are derived from an employer's contribution to various types of plans for employees.
As a consequence of the introduction of PRPPs, or pooled registered pension plans, for the edification of members, and income tax rules to accommodate them, subparagraph 6(1)(a)(i) is amended to add a reference to an employer's contribution to a PRPP. Generally, therefore, benefits derived from such contributions are not included in an employee's income from employment.
For further information regarding PRPPs, Mr. Chair, please see the commentary on the new section 147.5. This amendment will come into force on the day of the coming into force of the PRPP, the pooled registered pension plans act.
Mr. Chair, new subparagraph 6(1)(e)(i) of the act includes the amount of an employer's contributions to a group sickness or accident insurance plan in an employee's income for the year in which the contributions are made, except to the extent that the contributions are in respect of a plan that provides wage loss replacement benefits paid on a periodic basis.
In those cases, paragraph 6(1)(f) will apply with respect to benefits received by the employee. For example, this new paragraph would apply to critical illness insurance or dismemberment insurance, which provides benefits paid in lump sum payments—for instance, similar to a committee chair's authority being amputated by Conservative members.
Mr. Chair, this amendment applies in respect of an employer's contributions made after March 28, 2011, to the extent that the contributions were related to the coverage after 2012, except that such contributions made after March 28, 2012, and before 2013 are included in the employee's income for 2013.
Mr. Chair, in the C.D. Howe report on pooled registered pension plans, as of June 2012, it refers to the PRPPs of Bill C-25, which contained, of course, the regulatory framework for pooled registered pension plans. It also included a new kind of retirement savings vehicle, described by the government at the time as an effective and appropriate way to help bridge existing gaps in the retirement system.
According to the report of a federal-provincial research working group on retirement income—
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to express my happiness about the fact that we are actually going to proceed and look at these amendments.
I find the comments Mr. Brison made fairly disturbing. This seems to reflect—and I'm glad I have five minutes to explain this—the randomness of 3,000 amendments being submitted and the Liberals not wanting to actually look at any of them. It's odd.
All members of this committee, including the NDP and Conservative members, voted to look at these amendments. We take them seriously. It's odd that a member who submits 3,000 amendments would try to force the committee, when he's the only one who's voted not to look at them, to actually not look at them. It's the most bizarre thing I've ever seen.
It reminds me of when we voted on sending this to committees. We wanted fulsome debate. We wanted all interested committees to have an opportunity to look at this and to allow witnesses to come. The Liberals were the only party that voted not to send it to committee. It boggles one's mind.
Nevertheless, I'm going to proceed with the amendments that have been put forward. Out of the 3,000, we're proceeding with the ones under Liberal amendments 2 and 6. These motions would actually delete the amendments related to group sickness or accident insurance plans. This measure addresses a non-neutrality in the taxation of benefits related to the provision of insurance.
With regard to Liberal amendments 3 to 5 and 7 and 8, these motions would delay by one year the implementation of the measure relating to group sickness or accident insurance plans. In commenting on this measure, Mr. Chair, stakeholders did not express concern that the timing of its implementation would pose administrative challenges. So to delay would actually have a fiscal cost.
For those reasons, we will not be supporting the amendments put forward by the Liberals.
But again, I question the sincerity of the Liberals issuing 3,000 amendments that they then vote to not look at. It's the craziest thing I've ever seen. I don't know why they didn't want to study them in subcommittees either. I want to put that on the record.
Thank you.
I will move to the vote on Liberal 2.
If Liberal 2 is adopted, Liberal 3, Liberal 4, and Liberal 5 cannot be moved, as they are along the same lines.
Okay. We'll have a recorded vote on Liberal 2.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Since Liberal 2 has been defeated, that deals with Liberal 3, Liberal 4, and Liberal 5. We will therefore go to Liberal 6.
Sorry, if Liberal 2 had been adopted, we would not have to deal with Liberal 3, Liberal 4, and Liberal 5. So we will deal with Liberal 3 now.
Order. I assume all members have read all of the amendments—all 3,000-plus amendments.
Liberal 5, please.
All in favour?
I would like a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, this amendment delays provisions related to excess employee profit sharing plan amounts.
If I may, section 8 of the act provides for the deduction of various amounts in computing income from office or employment. Proposed paragraph 8(1)(o.2) introduces consequentials on the introduction of proposed section 207.8, which generally imposes a special tax on excessive allocations to specified employees, as defined in subclause 24(1), under employee profit sharing plans.
Also, proposed paragraph 8.1(o.2) allows a taxpayer to deduct an amount that is an excess EPSP amount, as defined in proposed subsection 207.8(1), in computing income for a taxation year. In general terms, under proposed subsection 207.8(1), a taxpayer's excess EPSP amount, in respect of an employer for a taxation year, is the portion of the employer's total contributions to an EPSP allocated to the taxpayer for the year and that exceeds 20% of the taxpayer's total other employment income received in the year under the employer.
From the “Introduction to Federal Income Taxation in Canada”, 31st edition, under the paragraph entitled “Employer's contribution under a deferred profit sharing plan”:
Employer contributions to a deferred profit sharing plan...are deductible within limits. An employer may deduct an amount which is paid in the year or within 120 days after the end of the year to a trustee to the extent that the amount was paid in accordance with the terms of the plan and was not deducted by the employer in a previous year.
A formula is provided to determine the amount of an employer's contribution to a DPSP that is deductible. Generally, where there is no RPP, the employer's contribution limit in respect of an employee for a year is the lesser of:
(a) one-half of the money purchase dollar limit for the year, as discussed [previously]; and
(b) 18% of the employee's compensation (as defined) for the year.
Therefore, to be deductible in a year, contributions should not exceed the lesser amount computed.
Where an employer participates in both a DPSP and an RPP for the benefit of an employee, the employer's total contribution to both plans is limited. It is rare for an employer to provide both a DPSP and an RPP together.
I draw the committee's attention as well to an article published in The Medical Post by Manfred Purtzki on this issue: “Maximize cash flow with an employee profit sharing plan”. In this article, Mr. Purtzki says:
While the Employee Profit Sharing Plan is not as popular as other tax shelters such as RRSPs or Tax Free Savings Accounts and family trusts, it is an effective tax planning tool for doctors who wish to defer taxes, enhance income splitting with family members, and avoid Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and Employment Insurance (EI) premiums. EPSP is an arrangement where the employer, usually the medical corporation, makes payments with reference to the employer's profits to a trustee for the benefit of those employees who are members of the plan. It is important to note that not all employees of the practice must participate in the EPSP. Further, it can be restricted to just family members, as long as they have a bona fide employment relationship with the medical corporation.
Mr. Chair, according to Mr. Purtzki, setting up an EPSP is easy. It requires a trust document, a director's resolution, in the case of the employer being a corporation, and a separate bank account.
The EPSP, according to this article, allows for a 12-month tax deferral, and any amounts paid by the corporation to the EPSP within 120 days after the taxation year are deductible in that year.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I guess there's no point in me expressing the same surprise that my colleague expressed in terms of the Liberals not wanting a full and robust review of their amendments.
Having said that, I think I'd really like to talk about this. As I understand it, this motion was actually delayed by one year, and that's until 2013, the implementation of the employee profit sharing plan. This is an anti-avoidance tax measure, so delaying its implementation is certainly going to provide opportunities for inappropriate interactions, transactions, and certainly some fiscal implications.
I don't know if the officials have any specific comments in terms of that particular clause and the implications of the proposed amendment.
As I think Mr. Brison pointed out, he talked about some of the tax advantages that EPSPs have, and certainly to deal with them is one of the reasons why the EPSP measure has gone forward with respect to CPP, EI, and the ability to avoid those types of premiums.
I think the amendment would certainly create some great challenges, so I don't think our side will be supporting. I know we won't be supporting this amendment.
Okay. Thank you.
All right. I will therefore call the vote on Liberal 9.
An hon. member: I would like a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 3 carry?
An hon. member: I'd like a recorded vote.
(Clause 3 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
(On clause 4)
The Chair: I have one amendment, Liberal 10, for clause 4.
Is there any discussion, Mr. Brison?
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This amendment delays provisions related to partnerships. Budget 2012 announced the extension of the thin capitalization rules in subsection 18(4) of the act to debts of a partnership of which a corporation resident in Canada is a member. As part of the implementation of this budget measure, proposed paragraph 12(1)(l.1) is introduced to include an amount in computing the income of a corporation in certain circumstances. The amount included in a partner's income is determined by reference to interest paid or payable by a partnership of which the corporation is a member on the portion of the debts of the partnership that is allocated to the corporation under proposed subsection 18(7). That exceeds the corporation's permitted debt-to-equity ratio under the thin capitalization rules. Since partnership income is calculated at the partnership level and allocated to its partners on a net basis, i.e., after any deduction of interest expense, a partnership's interest expense cannot be denied at the partner level.
This income inclusion effectively adds back the relevant portion of the interest that is deductible at the partnership level to the partner's income. The net effect is therefore similar to the interest restriction rule in subsection 18(4). For further information, please see commentary on subsection 18(4) and proposed subsection 18(7).
Further, the amount included in computing a taxpayer's income is the total of all amounts determined on a partnership-by-partnership basis by the formula A times B divided by C minus D. Variable A is the deductible interest on the taxpayer's share of the outstanding debts, of the particular partnership owing to specified non-residents. The taxpayer's share of the debts is determined by reference to its debt amount as defined by proposed paragraph 18(7)(a).
Now, consistent with the look-through approach to partnerships in proposed subsection 18(7), the taxation year of the corporation is the relevant period for determining what interest is included. Interest that is paid by the partnership in the corporation's taxation year or that is payable by the partnership in respect of the corporation's taxation year, depending on the method followed by the corporation in computing its income, is therefore included regardless of the fiscal period of the partnership. So B divided by C is the fraction if any of the taxpayer's debts, including its share of the partnership debt that exceeds the allowable debt-to-equity ratio specified in the thin capitalization rules....
Variable D effectively reduces proposed paragraph 12(1)(l.1) income inclusion by the amount of any foreign accrual property income of a controlled foreign affiliate of the taxpayer that is in respect of interest described in A. That is included in the taxpayer's income for the year or a subsequent year or included in computing the income of the partnership. This variable is the corollary in the partnership context of proposed subsection 18(8), which applies in respect of interest paid or payable to a corporation by the controlled foreign affiliate of the corporation. For further information, you can see the commentary on proposed subsection 18(8). This paragraph applies to taxation years that begin after March 28, 2012.
Further, Mr. Chair, according to the Introduction to Federal Income Taxation in Canada, the 31st edition, interest on loans used to earn income from business or property is deductible in computing taxable income of a Canadian corporation. The tax deductibility of interest creates preference for financing Canadian corporations through debt rather than equity, particularly where tax rates are lower in the lending jurisdiction.
The thin capitalization rules are a set of rules designed to prevent specified non-resident shareholders who hold significant equity positions, which would be 25%—
Thank you, Mr. Brison. Your five minutes are up.
Is there further discussion on this?
Mr. Adler, please.
I would also like to express my shock and outrage, as my two colleagues, Ms. Glover and Ms. McLeod, have done so far, that Mr. Brison has put forward 3,000 amendments and does not wish to debate any of them, which would lead me to believe that he's not interested in a robust and sincere discussion of public policy, but rather in mischief.
No, no, of course, it would never be.
Mr. Chair, I do not have a challenge with debating my individual amendments. What I have a problem with is the fact that they are deemed moved and I did not have the opportunity to move them individually. That's the opportunity I'm being denied.
Mr. Brison, as an experienced parliamentarian, I think you know that is debate. That is not a point of order.
I will return to Mr. Adler, please.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Pardon me for speaking while Mr. Brison was trying to interrupt me.
I'm not surprised at the temerity of the Liberal Party that they would be proposing such mischievous activities. However, speaking to the substance of the motion, I would like to say that if this motion is adopted, it would have very serious fiscal implications. It would delay, of course, by one year the implementation of the thin capitalization measure relating to partnerships. This is an anti-avoidance measure. Delaying its implementation would provide an opportunity for taxpayers and their advisers to undertake inappropriate transactions in the interim.
It would encourage tax avoidance by individuals. I am really surprised that Mr. Brison would be advocating a position such as tax avoidance.
In the interests of good, solid fiscal management and sound public policy, this motion put forward by Mr. Brison should be defeated.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Adler.
I will then call the question on Liberal 10.
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 4 carry?
I never heard “recorded vote”. That's on division.
(Clause 4 agreed to on division)
(On clause 5)
The Chair: We have Liberal amendments 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16.
On that, Mr. Brison.
Mr. Chair, we have several amendments to clause 5.
I'd like to first of all discuss the overall issue of the shareholder debt. Subsection 15(2) of the act requires that certain shareholders' indebtedness be included in the income of the debtor. Where the debtor is a non-resident, subsection 15(2) works in conjunction with subsection 214(3) to deem a dividend that is subject to non-resident withholding tax under part XIII of the act. Subsection 15(2) is amended in two ways.
First, the French version is amended to correct an unintended inconsistency in terminology by replacing the expression “contracter une dette”, to incur a debt, with the expression “devient la débitrice”, has become indebted. Subsection 15(2) was amended in 1998 by S.C. 1998, c. 19, subsection 17(1).
Mr. Chair, I'd like to draw to the committee's attention to some of the representations we've received on these changes, particularly some of the representations we've received from the TMX, the Toronto Stock Exchange. They have expressed concerns. The TSX is writing to express concerns with the foreign affiliate dumping provisions as contained in Bill C-45. The TSX says:
It is our belief, based on careful analysis, and discussions with issuers and other market participants, that in their current form, the Proposed Rules could have a significant negative impact on the efficiency and effectiveness of Canadian capital markets as well as Canada's reputation as a global leader in resource financing and listing.
This is important, Mr. Chair. This is the TSX saying that these changes will have a very negative impact on natural resource financing and the natural resource sectors in Canada. They go further to say:
We are concerned that the Proposed Rules could unnecessarily penalize hundreds of issuers on our markets, leading to a negative impact to the entire eco-system of legal and financial advisors, geologists, engineers, and the resource sector analysts that depend on the leadership of Canadian markets in the global resource sector to earn their livelihood.
Mr. Chair, it's important to remind the committee that over the last five years, 80% of mining transactions or financings in the world were transacted in Toronto. So the TMX warns us that these changes will have a deleterious effect on Canada's capacity to remain a leader in this area, which is creating a lot of jobs in Toronto, but also a lot of jobs across Canada within these sectors, and it's also increasing the reach of Canada's extractive sectors and Canada's extractive companies around the world, with the capacity to create jobs in Canada and globally. I think we should take this warning from the TMX very seriously.
They go further:
As operators of Canada's two leading equity exchanges we believe we have a central view of the issues being raised by the Proposed Rules.
We believe that the Proposed Rules, in their current form, cast too wide a net and risk impacting or diminishing legitimate and entirely appropriate activity by hundreds of publicly listed companies on our markets. Should the rules be introduced without further appropriate amendment, Canada's world-leading position and reputation as a market for resource issuers may be negatively impacted by creating inefficiencies in accessing capital and harming corporate valuations.
This speaks particularly to members from Toronto. This is going to have a terrible impact on the financial industry in Toronto. It will have a very negative impact on our resource sector, which employs Canadians in every province.
This is from the TMX, Mr. Chair:
Based on our preliminary research, we estimate that in excess of 700 publicly-traded Canadian corporations with operations in a foreign jurisdiction could potentially be inadvertently and inappropriately impacted by the Proposed Rules, in particular by the “indirect acquisition”—
Thank you, Chair.
The Liberal amendments to clause 5 have some serious ramifications. They would delete amendments relating to foreign affiliate dumping, particularly those that allow an elective income inclusion rather than a deemed dividend. The foreign affiliate dumping measure responds to avoidance transactions that seek to erode the Canadian tax base and to extract amounts from Canada, without paying appropriate tax. The elective income inclusion is a relieving measure developed after consultations with stakeholders.
These motions—specifically 12, 13, and 14—would delay by 15 months, until July 1, 2013, the implementation of amendments related to foreign affiliate dumping. This is an anti-avoidance measure. This is the third amendment. We're talking about tax loopholes. This is the third amendment that would protect tax loopholes. So delaying its implementation would provide an opportunity for taxpayers and their advisers to undertake inappropriate transactions in the interim, and this would subsequently have fiscal implications.
We will not be supporting these amendments.
We would like a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
I want to hear your voice, Mr. McCallum.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Do you have a point of order, Madam Glover?
I'm following the sheets that were given to us. I want to make sure that I can follow them, and I don't see Liberal 11 on the sheet. I want to make sure I'm not missing a sheet. I wish Mr. Brison had stayed—we have 3,000 amendments and he doesn't stay for more than three.
Anyway, is there a clarification, or am I missing something? I don't want to be missing a page on this one.
Sorry, I'm following a special chair's agenda here. Liberal 11 should be on there. It is in your package of amendments. But...it's not correct. I apologize.
My understanding of the rules on page 1062 is otherwise. Is he asking for a recorded division, or is he asking for a recorded vote? Passing on division is different from a recorded vote.
Okay, you want a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Liberal 14.
Could we have a recorded vote, please?
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Could we have a recorded vote, please?
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We'd like a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 5 carry?
Mr. John McCallum: We'd like a recorded vote, please.
(Clause 5 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 6)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is not unrelated to the previous case about foreign affiliate dumping rules. I'm surprised I heard so many “noes” in those votes, because as the TMX made very clear, this legislation could have important negative, unintended consequences for investment in mining in Canada. I think it is an important and totally non-trivial issue.
Clause 6 relates to deemed interest income, and new subsection 17.1(1) of the act provides the interest-deeming rules for the new elective pertinent loan or indebtedness, in these notes referred to as PLOI regimes, in the context of subsection 15(2) and section 212.3.
More specifically, subclause 17.1(1) applies to pertinent loans and indebtedness as defined either in new subsection 15(2.11), discussed above, or subsection 212.3(11), discussed below.
Subclause 17.1(1) generally requires that the interest inclusion for a corporation resident in Canada, the CRIC, in respect of such loans and indebtedness, be at least equal to the amount determined by computing that interest at the rate prescribed under subparagraph 4301(b)(i) of the income tax regulations, or, where the CRIC has incurred one or more debt obligations in order to fund the loan or indebtedness, the amount of interest payable on that debt obligation if it is greater than the amount determined using the prescribed rate.
The references to indirectly funded and to interest payable by persons or partnerships other than the CRIC are intended to deal with situations where, for example, a corporation resident in Canada that does not deal at arm's length with the CRIC borrows money, makes an equity contribution to the CRIC, and the CRIC then makes the loan to the relevant non-resident debtor. In such a case, the imputed interest under subclause 17.1(1) is intended to be based on the interest payable by the other corporation if that actual borrowing cost exceeds the interest determined using the prescribed rate.
I turn now to the issue of acquisition of control. New subclause 17.1(2) of the act provides 180 days of transitional relief from the application of the interest imputation rules in subclause 17.1(1) where a non-resident acquires control of a CRIC that was not controlled by a non-resident corporation immediately before the acquisition of control.
New subclause 17.1(2) applies to taxation years in fiscal periods that end after March 28, 2012, but additional transition relief is provided for acquisitions of control that occur before October 15, 2012.
The last section refers to tax treaties, but since I might be running low on time, I thought I'd skip that and move on to deal again with this very important testimony from the TSX. I would like to read a little more where they say “Capturing lost tax revenue by penalizing legitimate business activity is not the answer”. That's a pretty clear statement.
This is the TMX speaking:
We believe that the Proposed Rules, in their current form, cast too wide a net and risk impacting or diminishing legitimate and entirely appropriate activity by hundreds of publicly listed companies on our markets.
That's a pretty strong statement. I hope I won't hear just “noes” to our amendments this time around. They say:
Should the rules be introduced without further appropriate amendment, Canada's world-leading position and reputation as a market for resource issuers may be negatively impacted by creating inefficiencies in accessing capital and harming corporate valuations.
Based on our preliminary research....
I again emphasize that this is the TMX speaking, not the Liberal Party, legitimate though we are. They say:
Based on our preliminary research, we estimate that in excess of 700 publicly-traded Canadian corporations with operations in a foreign jurisdiction could potentially be inadvertently and inappropriately impacted by the Proposed Rules, in particular by the “indirect acquisition” rule. At a minimum the provisions in the Budget Bill introduce uncertainty in how legitimate investments in foreign affiliates and certain mergers and acquisitions will be treated under the Income Tax Act....
As you know—
I hope you do.
—market activity is influenced by reputation and confidence....
That's a good note to end on.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Once again I find it very disturbing that the Liberal Party has yet again brought forward amendments to defend tax loopholes.
I'm just boggled by this, Mr. Chair. Not only that, but it doesn't matter what you read to try to defend the positions you put forward in this place, they're defending tax loopholes. This should be outrageous to Canadians. I thank the NDP for standing with us to try to deal with tax loopholes so that all Canadians pay their fair share. It's appalling that the Liberals brought forward 3,000 amendments that they didn't think out very well, which means they continue to go back to some binder they've brought with them to just read off things to fill their five minutes.
The delays are not helpful. This is a serious bill. I would hope that the Liberals would take it seriously and really think about their outrageous position on defending tax loopholes. These measures in particular will delay, once again, by 15 months the implementation of what needs to be done with regard to foreign affiliate dumping. This is an anti-avoidance measure. I hope Canadians understand that: it's an anti-avoidance measure. We will not stand by and allow tax loopholes to flourish and for Canadians not to be treated fairly and equitably.
The Liberals have really fallen off here, with delay for the sake of delay. But to also put Canadians in jeopardy here...we just can't stand by and let that happen.
In any event, we will be voting against the Liberal amendments to defend tax loopholes once again. Thank you to the NDP for seeing the need to defend our position and assure that tax loopholes are closed.
Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Glover.
I have three amendments.
Can I appeal to the wisdom and generosity of the honourable member for Markham—Unionville to group them, or does he want separate votes on each?
I think I should not deviate from our past practice, so I would like to ask for recorded votes on each, please.
All right. We'll have a recorded vote on Liberal 17 then.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Now we'll have a recorded vote on Liberal 18.
Mr. Jean, on a point of order.
I just want to clarify that the rules specify that the member must ask for a recorded vote after the question has been put on each and every one, not lumped together.
You are correct, in fact, Mr. Jean. I've been rather relaxed with the rules on this specific point. Thank you for reminding me.
A recorded vote on this, Mr. McCallum?
We'd like a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
I'd like a recorded vote, please.
(Clause 6 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 7)
Yes, I would like to speak to clause 7. But before that, I'd like to use a little bit of my five minutes to respond to the parliamentary secretary.
Of course, Liberals are not in favour of tax loopholes. We, in fact, have gone after the Conservatives for not attacking tax havens seriously enough using the resources of CRA, as we did when we were the government. So that is not the question.
The question is this. Sometimes in an attempt to do a good thing, such as go after tax loopholes, sloppy legislation can lead to unintended negative consequences on perfectly legitimate job-creating business activities. And this is what we believe is the case.
The clause under consideration involves two amendments concerning provisions related to thin capitalization. In particular, we deal with limitations on employer contributions to profit sharing plans. The Department of Finance states:
Paragraph 18(1)(k) of the Act prohibits the deduction of employer contributions to a profit sharing plan other than an employees profit sharing plan, a deferred profit sharing plan or a registered pension plan. Subparagraph 18(1)(k)(iii) is amended to add pooled registered pension plans (PRPPs) to the list of plans that are excluded from the application of paragraph 18(1)(k).
For further information regarding PRPPs, please see the commentary on new section 147.5, and in particular, the commentary on new subsection 147.5(10). The subsection provides a deduction to an employer for its contributions to a PRPP in respect of its employees (or former employees).
There's also the issue of the limitation regarding deduction of interest by certain corporations:
The thin capitalization rules in subsection 18(4) of the Act prevent corporations resident in Canada from deducting interest on debts owing to certain specified non-residents to the extent that the debts exceed the corporation’s permitted debt-to-equity ratio.
Budget 2012 announced the following amendments to the thin capitalization rules.
The permissible debt-to-equity ratio in subparagraph 18(4)(a)(ii) is reduced from 2:1 to 1.5:1. The new ratio applies to taxation years that begin after 2012.
The thin capitalization rules are extended to include debts of partnerships that have Canadian resident corporate partners, either directly or through multiple tiers of partnerships. For further information, please see the commentary on paragraph 12(1)(l.1) and subsection 18(7).
The portion of subsection 18(4) before paragraph 18(4)(a) is amended to allow for the introduction of an exception to the thin capitalization rules in subsection 18(8) that applies in respect of interest on loans from controlled foreign affiliates. This amendment applies to taxation years that end after March 28, 2012. For further information, please see the commentary on subsection 18(8).
Interest that is denied under subsection 18(4) or included in a corporation’s income under paragraph 12(1)(l.1) will be treated as a dividend and not as interest for the purposes of Part XIII withholding tax. For further information, please see the commentary on new subsection 214(16).
In case this seems a little complex for some members, let me provide you with an example, which might make it easier to follow:
Canco 1 and Canco 2 are Canadian-resident corporations and are equal partners in a partnership that earns income from a business. Canco 1 is wholly owned by Forco, a non-resident corporation. The Canco 1 shares owned by Forco have paid-up capital of $4,000 but Canco 1 has no other capital for the purposes of the thin capitalization rules. Forco lends $3,000 to the partnership and lends $8,500 directly to Canco 1. Absent the application of the thin capitalization rules, interest on both loans is deductible. Interest on both loans is payable on the 15th of every month.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I must say that this is my first time sitting on the finance committee, and I'm absolutely astounded that once again the Liberals are defending tax loopholes. It's astounding to me.
It's exceptionally disappointing that while we—I think the majority of parliamentarians here—are trying to close these tax loopholes and make sure there's tax fairness for individuals....
Oh, now he's not even going to listen. There are no Liberals at the table now defending any of their amendments.
That's great. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In my riding in Simcoe—Grey, my constituents actually want these tax loopholes closed. They want tax fairness. Again, I'm astounded that the Liberals continue to defend tax loopholes as something that should be justifiable in our tax code.
Could we have a recorded vote, please?
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
I'd like a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
I'll deal with the vote first.
Shall clause 7 carry?
Mr. McCallum has asked for a recorded vote.
Who's at the table for the Liberal Party of Canada? The clerk tells me it's Mr. Brison.
The Liberal Party of Canada has one member on the finance committee. Who now is the person representing the Liberals on the finance committee?
Just hold on. Mr. Brison is the full member of the finance committee and Mr. Brison is at the table. It should be Mr. Brison who speaks for the Liberal Party if he is at the table.
I am at the moment, Mr. Chair, but perhaps I could read this one Standing Order, “Any Member of the House—”
Yes, it's my point of order, if you will. I want to read section 119 from the Standing Orders. It says:
Any Member of the House who is not a member of a standing, special or legislative committee, may, unless the House or the committee concerned otherwise orders, take part in the public proceedings of the committee, but may not vote or move any motion, nor be part of any quorum.
I think that answers your question. The Liberal Party can have more than one person possibly speaking for it, but not more than one person voting for it. Is that a legitimate point?
Hold on. We're clarifying with the clerks. May I have your patience on this?
My perception, and I'm confirmed in this by the clerks, is that if Mr. Lamoureux wants to speak, he should be subbed in, unless the committee grants that they want to hear from Mr. Lamoureux. If not, he will have to be subbed in for Mr. Brison.
Does the committee wish to hear from Mr. Lamoureux?
Some hon. members: No.
Order.
I'm asking you a question as the chair, based on advice from the clerks.
Does the committee wish to hear from Mr. Lamoureux?
Some hon. members: No.
The Chair: If Mr. Lamoureux wishes to speak, he can be subbed in.
Members can be subbed in very easily. They just have to provide a sheet to the clerk of the committee. It takes about five seconds.
Frankly, Mr. Lamoureux, you are not recognized. The person representing the Liberal Party right now is Mr. McCallum.
If Mr. Lamoureux wishes to speak, I would suggest that he be subbed in.
I'm moving ahead here. I'd really like to move ahead.
I do not have any amendments with respect to clause 8.
Is there any discussion on clause 8?
Mr. McCallum?
Mr. Chair, I rather question your ruling, because Standing Order 119, which I just read out, doesn't say he has to be subbed in. It says that a member of the House, unless otherwise stated, should be allowed to speak.
I just read it out. It says:
Any Member of the House who is not a member of a standing, special or legislative committee, may, unless the House or the committee concerned otherwise orders, take part in the public proceedings of the committee, but may not vote or move any motion, nor be part of any quorum.
It doesn't say he has to be signed in. It just says that if he's a member of Parliament, he may participate.
I think he just challenged the chair. I think that's what he wanted to do; at least, it appears that you made a ruling and he challenged your ruling.
Well, he can't move a motion on a point of order, so....
Order.
The advice from the clerks is based, in fact, on what was I believe read by Mr. McCallum—Standing Order 119, on page 90 of the Standing Orders:
Any Member of the House who is not a member of a standing, special or legislative committee, may, unless the House or the committee concerned otherwise orders, take part in the public proceedings of the committee, but may not vote or move any motion, nor be part of any quorum.
This is why the practice we have used in the finance committee—in fact, that we had in the last Parliament, in which the Liberal Party had an extra member, Ms. Martha Hall Findlay—is that I would ask, “Do we have the consent of the committee for Ms. Findlay to ask questions?” Consent was generally given.
Consent was not given here. It says “unless the House or the committee concerned otherwise orders”. This is the advice the clerks are giving me; this is the statement that I'm reading here today.
There's actually an easy way to address this, which is to have a substitution sheet passed to the clerk who is sitting next to me, and this would be addressed in about five seconds, or we can continue with the gamesmanship that's being played here.
But you're testing the chair's patience. Frankly, we're following the words in the Standing Orders, following the advice of the clerks. I can have the clerks amplify this ruling for the Liberal Party so that they fully understand it, or we can move on to clause 8, which is what I will do as the chair.
I'm moving on to clause 8.
I've given my ruling. It's not a point of order.
Mr. Lamoureux, you're not recognized by the chair.
Is there any discussion on clause 8?
Mr. Lamoureux, the committee has clearly indicated that unless you're subbed in, they do not wish to hear from you.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: I am subbed in, Mr. Chair...[Inaudible—Editor]
The Chair: Okay, he is subbed in. Let's start the five minutes.
Mr. Lamoureux.
Mr. Chairperson, not to test your patience or anything of that nature, I'm going to first address it in the form of a point of order, before we go on to the clause, because I think this is a very important point.
In procedures—and I've had some experience in dealing with procedures in the past—the Standing Orders are very important. They supersede such things as Beauchesne's. These are rules.
Having been here for just under two years, I've had the opportunity to participate with other standing committees. On those other standing committees, I believe, if my memory serves me correctly, I have seen other members address the committee, even though they weren't necessarily committee members and didn't get consent of other members.
When I look on page 90, at Standing Order 119, and read it, I think the reading of the Standing Order is fairly clear. I quote from it:
Any Member of the House
—and I am one—
who is not a member of a standing, special or legislative committee, may, unless the House or the committee concerned otherwise orders, take part in the public proceedings of the committee, but may not vote or move any motion, nor be part of any quorum.
As a common courtesy, Mr. Chairperson, what has happened in the past is that individuals have been afforded the opportunity, and it's just to save time more than anything else, because at the end of the day there are only five minutes for any given clause. Whether it's member X or member Y who poses the question, I suspect that it's much more advantageous to allow members to contribute, even if they're not necessarily members of the committee.
I'm going to rule on your point of order. Thank you for your contribution here tonight. I'm going to rule on his point of order.
I very clearly stated in the last Parliament the practice we follow. Mr. McCallum knows this very well, as does Mr. Brison, as do all the members. When an extra member of the governing party or of an opposition party shows up, we ask for consent as to whether that person can ask questions. In reference to the section Mr. Lamoureux just referred to, every clerk in this room has indicated to me that this is the correct ruling.
Now, I suppose we could assume that the chair and six clerks of the House of Commons are incorrect, or we could assume that six clerks of the House of Commons plus the chair are correct. Therefore, the easy thing for the Liberal Party to do is either to ask for consent if they don't have it or to substitute in the member they wish to have speak at this committee. That is my ruling, and I'm not going to entertain further points of order on this issue.
I will therefore ask Mr. Lamoureux, who is a subbed-in member, to address clause 8.
The chair's ruling has been challenged. There is no debate, as you know from earlier today, on a challenge to the chair's ruling.
The question is that the chair's ruling be sustained.
We want a recorded vote.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 10; nays 1)
The Chair: Does anyone wish to speak to clause 8?
Is this on clause 8?
We're talking about employment insurance, specifically about contributions. With employer contributions, there is a huge impact.
The Liberal Party has made it clear that we have concerns about the government's putting so much into this budget bill that it's going to have a significant and profound impact. I think the committee members need to reassess this as we go through the different clauses. That's one of the reasons we felt that it would be in the government's best interests to rethink clause 8. We like to think the government wants to improve the bill by going through clause by clause, and deleting this particular clause would make the bill a better and more productive piece of legislation.
I don't claim to understand every clause and how it's going to have an impact, but I know that there is a need for us to have a good understanding of each clause. In going through clause by clause, I understand there is the opportunity for us to ask questions. We have civil servants here who could provide answers to questions we might have. I'm wondering, Mr. Chair, if it would be appropriate for me to ask questions on this clause to the civil servants.
My question, then, would be in regard to this particular clause. Can you explain specifically what this clause will be doing, if in fact it passes?
This clause relates to the implementation of pooled registered pension plans. It provides two things.
Subclause 8(1), the amendment to paragraph 20(1)(q), would allow employer deductions for contributions to pooled registered pension plans.
Subclause 8(2), relating to paragraph 20(2.2)(a), is an exception from the definition of life insurance policy. That allows a deduction for interest for money used to make employer contributions in respect of life insurance policies issued under a PRPP.
When we think of the pooled registered pension plan, the government earlier in the year introduced legislation that created a pooled pension plan. What impact does that have on that particular piece of legislation? Are we familiar with that legislation?
I think the simple answer is the amendments—and there's a whole suite of amendments throughout part 1 of the bill—implement the taxation rules that ensure that a PRPP is operated in the way intended, for Income Tax Act purposes.
If we deleted this one specific clause, it would throw into question the ability of employers to make deductions for contributions to PRPPs on behalf of their employees.
Do we have a sense of what sorts of costs we would be looking at? How much would be coming through donations? The pooled pension plan through businesses is relatively new, from what I understand.
Certainly.
I believe that there has been no specific fiscal figure booked for the PRPP changes included in part 1.
As Mr. Jean correctly pointed out in a point of order earlier, members have to ask for a recorded vote. The chair cannot do recorded votes on their own. It did pass on division.
We will therefore move to clause 9.
(On clause 9)
Mr. Chair, on a point of order, is there not an obligation to look around the table to find out if in fact a member wants to be able to—
I've looked around the table, and I've never been accused of moving too quickly in my entire life. I don't know, but if you can't keep up with me, you might want to put some jets on the feet there, my friend.
We are moving on to clause 9. I have Liberal amendments 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26. I have NDP-1. I have LIB-27. I have NDP-2, Liberal-28, and NDP-3.
I am advised that because they're all being moved, we start with the official opposition. I will go to Ms. Nash for five minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We have focused our amendments on substantive changes to this omnibus bill, Bill C-45, because we believe that Canadians would want us to debate the substantive issues here.
We're very concerned about the changes to the SR and ED tax credit, the research and development tax credit, in clause 9 and later on in clause 27. In essence these changes will cut $500 million annually to research and development for business in this country. We already know that our business expenditure on research and development intensity, which is a key factor in productivity growth, is less than half of our U.S. neighbours and well behind the OECD average, and it is declining.
We live in a challenging global economy and we must innovate in order to compete, but sadly the Conservatives are taking Canada in the opposite direction. These changes will hurt innovation in Canada, and as we've heard from companies, it will drive them to reduce the research and development activities dramatically or shift their activities to other jurisdictions.
The changes we are proposing will give more time for consultation and a more balanced approach to improving the SR and ED program and other government supports for innovation. There has been talk about offsetting the changes to the SR and ED program with possible future funding, but, sadly, we haven't seen that, and businesses are making decisions right now. We think that any attempt to try to balance the books at the cost of innovation, at the cost of research and development, will just harm our economy and is short-sighted and poor economic management.
Some of the specific changes that are included here in these cuts, for example, would eliminate the eligibility of capital expenses and reduce the eligibility of contract payments to just 80%. These cuts will total more than $100 million by the Department of Finance's estimate, but as we've heard from the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, they believe the true cost might even be as high as double that amount.
In our proposed amendments NDP-1, NDP-2, and NDP-3, we would delay the Conservative changes by five years. We disagree with the Conservative rush to impose these major cuts to support business research and development at a time when our economy needs greater investment in innovation.
The cut to the amount of contract payments for eligible SR and ED credits from 100% to 80% will hurt specialty research and development businesses and contractors. It will also increase the cost of R and D initiatives for companies and could push the marginal projects to other jurisdictions, which would cost Canadians jobs, reduce our innovation outcomes, and further erode the business expenditure on research and development.
We also oppose the cuts to capital eligibility, which we believe will disproportionately hurt sectors that depend on capital-intensive R and D, such as pilot plants, and given the increasing competition from low-wage countries, Canadian manufacturers must increasingly innovate.
We've heard from the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, who conducted a survey of their members, that 69% would reduce their R and D spending and 18% would relocate R and D activities outside Canada as a result of these Conservative cuts. That's why we believe these cuts should be postponed. We need to consult more and we need to have a practical plan to boost research and development and innovation and not cut business opportunities and jobs here in Canada.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First of all, I want to say it's a real pleasure to be here to talk about something that I care about, namely research and development and in particular research and development in our private companies.
I have been speaking to a number of companies in my riding of Kingston and the Islands, small and medium-sized enterprises, that rely very much on it, and they've told me that their companies have benefited enormously from the scientific research and experimental development tax credit. They always take the credit and plow it right back into their business, and they create jobs in my riding, Mr. Chair. They do that. There are other companies across the country that are creating jobs.
I want to say that the difference between a tax credit for research and development and simply an overall tax cut on corporations is that you can imagine just cutting taxes on corporations and increasing the amount of cash that they have in their balances, but the company doesn't need to take any risk. They could simply take that extra cash and pay a dividend.
On the other hand, a tax credit that incentivizes the taking of risk by investing in research and development encourages companies to take risks, to do the research and development that can make Canadian workers more productive and give them a leg up on the competition from other parts of the world over the coming decades.
I want to start out with that overall idea for why it's important to have these tax cuts.
First of all, I want to say that we agree with the NDP amendments. They are very similar to the amendments that we have proposed. I'm concerned about the decrease to the credit for third party expenditures from 100% of the expenditure to 80% of the expenditure. The reason for doing so is that we don't want to give a tax credit for the profit margin of the third party, but some of the third parties could be, for example, universities or other not-for-profit organizations, and in those cases it would be inappropriate to make that change. I believe we're going to be discussing that more a little later in the evening.
The exclusion of capital expenditures penalizes certain sectors. In particular, for example, in my riding there's a company that works in factory automation. You can just imagine that there's a lot of capital expenditure involved in that.
It's not the same case for another company in my riding, for example, that takes advantage of the SR and ED tax credit. It's a software company. They do software for customers around the world. They may not care so much about capital expenditures, but my local company that works in factory automation may care a lot.
The other sector that really cares a lot about capital expenditures and that would be hurt by exclusion of capital expenditures from eligibility for the scientific research and experimental development tax credit is the sector that includes oil and gas technology companies.
The interesting thing about oil and gas technology companies is that we extract a lot of oil from, say, the oil sands in Alberta, but we have this problem of not having enough pipeline capacity to get the oil to market. However, we are also world leaders not only in the amount of oil and gas we have in the ground but in oil and gas technology.
To export that technology, you don't need pipelines, in fact. We don't want to hurt this particular part of the oil and gas sector, which exports around the world, which has a world-class reputation, in which Canadians are developing world-leading technology to make oil and gas extraction more efficient, more safe, more healthy, more environmentally sensitive.
I think it would be a real shame, Mr. Chair, if here in Canada we excluded capital expenditures and hurt this very important sector of the economy which, as everybody in this committee knows, is creating jobs all across the country.
Those big tires that are on the trucks that carry bitumen with sand are made in Nova Scotia. We know that the jobs come from all over the place. It's very important that we not exclude capital expenditures from eligibility for the SR and ED tax credit.
Thank you.
I have heard it all now: the Liberal Party and Liberal members standing up for the oil sands and the Northern Gateway pipeline.
Their policy is against the Northern Gateway pipeline, so all those patents that we have in northern Alberta wouldn't happen if the Liberal Party had their way. The bluntness of the position that they put forward is unbelievable, but I will say this. When we heard testimony earlier, about a week ago, I asked Mr. Cook, I think it was, this very question as to what would happen with the money that was taken off the SR and ED tax credit to improve SR and ED, and it was that it was going back into direct funding. Any money that would be saved from these amendments by the government would actually go directly back into direct spending, so there are no cuts here. There are no changes as far as the money that goes into R and D is concerned. It's just simply a matter of a reallocation and a streamlining.
I really appreciate your standing up for Alberta and the oil sands, and I would appreciate if you would talk to your leadership hopefuls about doing the same.
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, excuse me. I really have to interrupt you. Because of what happened last time, I'd like to ask for a recorded vote.
I was a little uncertain.
On Liberal amendment 22, we will have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We'll move to LIB-23.
We will have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is LIB-24.
We will have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We'll move to Liberal amendment 25.
We will have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is LIB-26.
We will have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: I'll now move to NDP-1.
We will have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: I'll move now to LIB-27.
We will have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is NDP-2.
It's a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We will go to LIB-28.
We will have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is NDP-3.
We will have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 9 carry? Do you want a recorded vote?
I would like a recorded vote, please.
(Clause 9 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 10)
I will therefore move to clause 10. In clause 10 I have one amendment. I have LIB-29.
I will have Mr. Brison speak to LIB-29.
Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chair. We brought in Mr. Lamoureux so that you would appreciate me a little more at this committee.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Hon. Scott Brison: We just sort of.... I have never felt so welcomed by the Conservatives. It's good to be back.
Thank you, Mr. Hsu, Mr. Lamoureux, and Mr. McCallum.
On clause 10, dealing with transfer pricing, secondary adjustments, and tax avoidance to partnerships, here are some explanatory notes as background.
Paragraph 53(2)(c) of the act provides for deductions to the adjusted cost base of the taxpayer's partnership interest. Proposed item 53(2)(c)(viii) is introduced consequential on the introduction of the provisions relating to transfer pricing secondary adjustments found in subsections 247(2) to 247(5). These subsections apply only to corporations, and as a result, proposed item 53(2)(c)(xiii) is only relevant for corporate partners.
On this issue, I'd like to read from an article entitled “Transfer Pricing—The Basics from a Canadian Perspective”, by Jamal Hejazi.
He says that transfer pricing investigates the price that multinational firms charge a related party for goods, services and intangibles, and that
Related party transactions account for a significant part of global trade with approximately 80% of international trade between related parties and the remaining 20% of international trade between unrelated, multinational companies.
According to this article, transfer pricing encompasses the investigation of the price associated with intercompany or intracompany transactions. While the typical example in transfer pricing textbooks involves the sale of manufactured goods to a related distributor, it also includes the price that one related party charges another for the provision of services or the use of intangible property. Transfer pricing attempts to determine the appropriate intercompany price between related parties by asking the following question: if the related parties to the transaction were at arm's length, what would they pay for the goods, services, or intangibles?
According to International Taxation in Canada, second edition, from which I will now read, with some paraphrasing, transfer pricing is generally viewed as the most difficult and fundamental problem in international taxation. It affects transactions between members of multinational corporate groups that dominate cross-border trade and investment. It concerns the heart of international taxation and the allocation of the international income tax base among countries, and it presents tax planning opportunities and tax compliance headaches for multinational corporations. For these reasons, transfer pricing has become an important issue for taxpayers and tax authorities, as it can play a major role in reallocating corporate profits from relatively high-tax countries to relatively low-tax countries, or in some cases, almost nil tax countries.
At a technical level, transfer pricing refers to the situation where multinational firms with related parties in more than one country transfer goods, services, or capital among these parties, so these transfer prices are the prices typically set for these transactions and related parties, including both separate legal entities like corporations and unincorporated related parties within the same legal entity. For example, in some cases, you may have a branch or a permanent establishment.
The transfer price received or charged for goods, services, or financing will be included in the income of the supplier, and the corresponding cost or payment will be deducted from the profits of the related parties. The price is thus crucial to the allocation of the profit and from the transaction to the parties. Tax regimes recognize that distortions of the reported income of related corporations may occur or, perhaps just as accurately, doubt that those distortions would not occur, because their activities are integrated in one manner or another as the result of common control and its functional manifestations.
In effect, Mr. Chair, these multinationals or global businesses tend to operate as singular businesses in economic and even financial respects, even though the compartmentalization of their activities and entities dictates that the law and financial accounting treat them as separate—
It is a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 29.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 10 agreed to on division)
The Chair: Colleagues, I am going to suspend for five minutes for a health break.
I call this meeting back to order. I encourage all colleagues to take their seats, please.
We finished with clause 10.
(On clause 11)
The Chair: We are therefore on clause 11. I do not have any amendments on clause 11. Is there anyone who wishes to speak to clause 11?
Go ahead, Mr. Brison, on clause 11.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This provides further opportunity to discuss the issue of pooled registered pension plans.
The Liberal Party believes that PRPPs are an additional tool for Canadians saving for retirement, but we're concerned that the government may be ultimately overselling the benefit. We don't agree with the NDP that the PRPPs do not provide any additional benefit to Canadians saving for retirement, but we do have some concerns.
We don't agree with a mandatory CPP increase at this time because of what still remains stubbornly high unemployment, particularly in some regions, as you break out the unemployment rates across the country. At the same time, we believe an optional voluntary supplemental CPP in addition to the PRPP would be good public policy. It would help provide Canadians with, among other things, an additional option in terms of their savings.
The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board is well managed. It achieves a very low cost of management, largely due to the size of the asset base being managed, which I think is around $155 billion. It is well diversified across asset class—everything from natural resource investments to private and public equities to infrastructure. It's well diversified in terms of geography. The Canada Pension Plan has become one of the most impressive vehicles for global investment, reach, and influence on behalf of Canada around the world, in addition to other Canadian sovereign wealth funds, including AIMCo, teachers' pension plans, OMERS.
Mr. Chair, what we have proposed is a voluntary supplemental CPP in addition to the PRPP. One of the benefits would be that by providing that kind of competition, you would potentially have a really well-managed and well-diversified option for Canadians. It's an option that Canadians would have trust in. It would potentially encourage greater levels of savings.
The first decision a Canadian has is how much they want to contribute, if in fact they can. One of the challenges, Mr. Chair, with any voluntary plan is that left to their own devices, particularly cash-strapped Canadians, at a time when personal debt as a percentage of income for families is around 161%, find it really tough to save, and not enough savings are occurring.
When Canadians make the decision to save for retirement, the decision of where to invest is a big one. While the PRPPs are one option, having a voluntary supplemental CPP would provide what I believe would be a lower-cost option in terms of potential fees being charged ultimately to investors and future Canadian retirees. Therefore, the offering of a voluntary supplemental CPP would help keep fees on the PRPPs low. All members of the committee, the Conservatives included, will appreciate that there is a benefit to providing a low-cost, well-managed, highly diversified alternative.
Mr. Chair, the Canadian Association of Retired People, CARP, recently appeared before this committee, and they have supported our Liberal plan to have a voluntary supplemental CPP. Additionally, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the CFIB, has endorsed the plan to have a voluntary supplemental CPP option.
I reiterate, Mr. Chair, this is not instead of PRPPs. This would be in addition to PRPPs and would potentially actually strengthen the option for Canadians. Again, with the endorsement of several national organizations, we would hope the committee would have—
It's a recorded vote.
(Clause 11 agreed to: yeas 7, nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 12)
The Chair: I shall, therefore, move to clause 12. I have no amendments for clause 12. Is there anyone who wishes to speak to it?
Go ahead, Mr. Brison.
Mr. Chair, further on PRPPs, there's been extensive work done by Canadian think tanks. The C.D. Howe Institute produced one of the most substantive reports in this area. Again, the conclusion of the C.D. Howe Institute report is that while the PRPPs may improve pension coverage, it will continue to leave a significant gap in the options available to and likely to be capitalized on by Canadians. Further, Mr. Chair, and I'll quote directly from the report:
When the federal government first announced the basic PRPP framework in 2010, it indicated that it would develop tax rules to put PRPPs “within the basic system of rules and limits” for Registered Retirement Savings Plans (RRSPs) and pension plans.
Proposed tax rules for PRPPs were released, as you know, Mr. Chair, on December 14, 2011. The main elements of those were that PRPP contributions will be limited to an individual's available RRSP contribution room. I want to touch on that for a moment.
The reality is that most Canadians, the overwhelming majority of Canadians, are not even coming close to maxing out their RRSP contributions. In fact, most Canadians will not be able to max out their PRPP contributions.
You can say that this is a reflection that maybe a mandatory option forcing Canadians to put away more would be helpful, but again the challenge to that is that you'd actually be increasing payroll deductions at a time when there's quite stubbornly high unemployment, particularly in non-resource-rich provinces. As well, you'd be cutting the take-home pay of Canadians at a time when personal debt is extremely high, in some cases because Canadians are trying to replace full-time work with part-time jobs. It is a real challenge. While I posit that in the long run moving towards more mandatory approaches may be the best approach, in the short run, I understand the government's rationale in putting something forward.
The challenge we have to consider is that these changes can disproportionately benefit those who have an opportunity to save. In this place we should always consider the progressivity of our measures.
We've heard from Governor Carney and we've heard from Dean Roger Martin of the school of business—I was going to say Dean Martin, but Conservatives may think I was thinking of the guy who used to sing in the Rat Pack or something. Roger Martin, Governor Carney, the Conference Board of Canada and others have indicated the growing issue of income inequality in Canada. We have to be careful in this place that we consider unintended consequences that may actually contribute to income inequality.
If, in fact, the measures we are offering to Canadians—even with our hearts in the right place of helping Canadians have better options for saving for retirement—are designed in such a way that they only advantage those with the means to pay into them, it could actually contribute to a growing income inequality. Governor Carney spoke to the journalists in Nova Scotia this summer and said that those who say income inequality is not an issue are wrong, but those who want to create a sense of class warfare around it are wrong, too, in that we should be focusing on equality of opportunity.
The reality is that the opportunity to contribute to plans like PRPPs and RRSPs belongs to a very small number of Canadians who actually have the means to do it. I posit that, Mr. Chair, because I think that all of us in this committee, regardless of party affiliation, want to help all Canadians achieve retirement incomes that are sustainable and can provide a decent retirement income for themselves and for their families, particularly with the demographic shift that is upon us, which will only become more pronounced in the future.
I think it's important that members consider that as we're considering this measure.
Okay.
(Clause 12 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On Clause 13)
The Chair: We'll go to Mr. Brison on clause 13.
Clause 13 is on the rollover to a registered disability savings plan after the death of a registered retirement savings plan or registered retirement income fund annuitant or a member of a registered pension plan. I think, in fact, members of the NDP, even though they may disagree with pooled registered pensions plans, may agree with the merits of this individual clause in terms of its effect on people with respect to fairness to survivors.
It also gives us an opportunity, Mr. Chair, to consider further this whole issue of whether we are helping Canadians adequately prepare for retirement. This demographic shift is going to impose on governments federally, provincially, and even municipally, and on Canadian households, tremendous burdens in the future.
I'll say frankly that the impact of the demographic shift on the well-being of Canadian citizens is going to be quite different depending on the province you're in. In a province like Nova Scotia and in the Maritimes, where we are teetering on a declining population and an aging population concurrently, there is going to be a very different burden than there will be in a province like Alberta or Saskatchewan, where there is a younger population.
The challenge when we're designing these types of plans is to ask whether they're actually going to help families across the board. That is an important question. It not only has an impact in terms of the consideration of how progressive the measure is; it has an impact on the regions if, in fact, in some regions there are a larger number of low-income seniors. Specifically in the Maritimes, we have a lot of senior citizens. We are seeing a lot of our younger citizens moving to other parts of the country.
I was in Fort McMurray, in fact, in Mr. Jean's riding, over the weekend, and I saw a lot of fine Atlantic Canadians. He and his mother gave me a drive, in fact, to my Liberal event, which was very fine of him, and to the McMurray Newfoundlanders Club.
I want to say that while I congratulate Fort McMurray and I congratulate Alberta for its success, it's important to recognize that before people had the vision, foresight, and wisdom to put oil and gas under the ground, there were some challenges out there too, so it's important that we, as legislators, consider all regions of the country in the design of these kinds of measures.
The reality from a demographic shift perspective is that in the Maritimes—and Quebec is facing some similar challenges—where you have an aging population and a population teetering on decline, retirement savings vehicles are critically important. My concern is that PRPPs are being oversold, and a lot of organizations and groups think they're going to solve every problem. I really don't think they will. In the same way, RRSPs—and for the record, I support RRSPs and the PRPP options—are not addressing this aspect.
What we really have to consider in terms of retirement security for Canadians is not always simply focusing on what is there for those who can afford to retire. As legislators, we have to be considering what is going to be there for those who can't afford to pay into plans right now. The burden of responsibility on us in this place, regardless of partisan affiliation, is to think of those most vulnerable. What I'm concerned about is the lack of discussion about those people who are not making enough to contribute to either RRSPs or pooled registered pension plans.
I would hope that the Conservatives and all members of this committee would endeavour to address what continues to be, according to the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, and even the CFIB and other national organizations, a supplemental—
Thank you very much, Mr. Brison. I appreciate your intervention and informing us of your adventures with Brian Jean in Fort McMurray. Thank you.
Are there any further interventions?
Shall clause 13 carry?
An hon. member: I'd like a recorded vote.
The Chair: There's been a call for a recorded vote.
(Clause 13 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 14)
I do not have any amendments for clause 14.
Do I have anyone who wishes to speak clause 14?
Mr. Brison, you have five minutes, please.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This speaks as well to the issue of fairness and the issue of growing income inequality and the importance that we as legislators consider the challenges and the plight faced by low-income Canadians, the people we ought to be most concerned about.
Theoretically, pension income splitting is something that sounds pretty innocuous, except when we consider there is a significant tax expenditure through pension income splitting and when we really consider who benefits from pension income splitting. We have been informed by witnesses, numerous studies, and experts in the area of retirement income and pension policy that the disproportionate benefit for income splitting in general goes to people with higher income.
I think it's important. We all represent people from all walks of life, and in the House of Commons we bring our own experiences as well as those of a lot of the people we meet with on Saturdays in our constituency offices across Canada and during break weeks. The people coming to see us on issues are people who are struggling, people who face real challenges.
We're struggling with budget deficits. The minister recently announced that he was going to miss another target and that the budget wouldn't be balanced until 2016-17, but now the Prime Minister has subsequently announced that the minister was wrong and we would be balanced before the next election. In any case, my point is that we do live in a period....
I have heard Mr. Van Kesteren sometimes say there are no free lunches, usually after members of Parliament have just had one here, but the reality is that tax revenues and the fiscal situation today are such that any decision that involves a tax expenditure has to be taken very seriously.
While I understand on the surface why pension income splitting would be supported overwhelmingly by tax planners, you have to ask yourself why. Who do tax planners work for? Typically the people hiring tax planners are people who make a fair bit of money, so it's not surprising that tax planners ought to support pension income splitting. What we should be looking out for at this committee are the people who can't afford to hire tax planners, the people who can't necessarily afford to hire professional accountants, the people who shuffle down to H and R Block and do their best to get their tax returns in but don't really have the resources to hire the sophisticated financial and tax advisory services that are hired by the well-paid people who tell us that pension income splitting is good. Pension income splitting is good for their clients.
The problem with this, Mr. Chair, is that it does involve reallocation of money from other areas. We heard from Ms. Glover, Ms. McLeod, Mr. Adler, and witnesses who called for tax reform. We have not had significant study of our personal tax system in Canada since the Carter commission changes of 1971.
Some people advocating tax reform were advocating it for building a fairer tax system and addressing some of the inequities and closing some of the loopholes and addressing those issues. Some others approached it from the perspective of competitiveness, but the reality is, Mr. Chair, at a time when we face significant budget deficits and significant challenges in balancing the books and also at time of rising poverty and rising income inequality, I question the judgment of the government and the decision of the government to go forward with pension income splitting. I just think there are better ways we can help low-income seniors.
Ironically, this government wants to take people on old age security and—
I'm sorry, I was just getting started, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
Shall clause 14 carry?
An hon. member: I would like a recorded vote.
(Clause 14 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 15)
The Chair: I do not have any amendments for clause 15.
Does anyone wish to speak to clause 15?
Mr. Brison, you have five minutes.
Mr. Chair, I'd like to speak to clause 15, which deals with exception from attribution rules.
This issue, Mr. Chair, is important. Subsection 75(3) of the act exempts a number of trusts from the attribution rule in subsection 75(2) under which any income or loss from trust property held by certain reversionary trusts can be attributed for tax purposes to the persons from whom the property was received.
Mr. Chair, paragraph 75(3)(a) exempts certain trusts governed by plans such as registered pension plans, registered retirement savings plans, and employee benefit plans. This amendment will come into force with the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, and again, Mr. Chair, the C.D. Howe Institute's report referred to this in saying that that pooled registered pension plans do not really address some of the challenges.
For instance, the C.D. Howe Institute said that “While the federal government presents PRPPs as a way to ‘bridge existing gaps’ in Canada’s retirement-saving system, they have received a tepid response from many pension experts and commentators.”
Now again, these are pension experts who are looking at it from the perspective of all Canadians and the future of their retirement security. It's important that we differentiate advice we get from tax planners, who are very important professionals and do good work in Canada, from people who are experts in the public policy of pension design. We've listened to people who, directly or indirectly, actually benefit from these new plans and assume that what they said applies to all Canadians. The truth is, it doesn't. As the C.D. Howe Institute says, the PRPPs cannot require mandatory participation and therefore will have very little advantage compared to a group RRSP.
Again, the C.D. Howe Institute has compared the PRPPs to a group RRSP and said that there is very little advantage in a PRPP as compared to a group RRSP. Secondly, the C.D. Howe Institute has identified that unlike employer-sponsored defined benefit pension plans and the Canada and Quebec pension plans, a PRPP represents another savings vehicle that “will not guarantee any particular pension”.
That brings us to the whole issue of defined benefit pension plans, such as the CPP, for example. I acknowledge that there has been a movement away from defined benefit plans, and there have been significant challenges around the prudential strength of many defined benefit plans, but there's a real advantage to defined benefit plans, particularly as people near their retirement and the global capital markets face a downturn. Even though the returns garnered on someone's investment into a defined benefit plan potentially may be lower, the risk is lower as well.
For Canadians, one of the advantages of the CPP as it is now, and as it could be with a voluntary supplemental CPP option, is another option—a defined benefit plan, one that would insulate Canadians against the vagaries of market fluctuations, particularly as Canadians get close to their retirement.
Mr. Chair, we can't expect, even with your initiative and that of others on financial literacy, to turn all Canadian workers and future retirees into Warren Buffetts overnight. In the interim, I have great faith in the Canada Pension Plan and a defined benefit option.
MPs are one of the groups in society with defined benefit options. I can't for the life of me understand why we wouldn't do more to help more Canadians have access to a greater level of participation and investment in individual voluntary supplemental CPP defined benefit options.
Thank you very much, Mr. Brison.
Is there discussion on this clause?
Shall clause 15 carry?
An hon. member: I request a recorded vote.
(Clause 15 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 16)
The Chair: We are on clause 16.
I have one amendment there, LIB-30.
Go ahead, Mr. Brison.
Mr. Chair, I'd like to speak to this again. I ask the Conservatives to think about this, because the reality is that although we are hearing from people in the capital markets in Toronto, we're also hearing from the extractive sectors.
I remind the committee that 80% of the mining deals in the world over the last five years were transacted in Toronto. Toronto has emerged as a global leader in the financing of extractive sector opportunities. That has created wealth across the country. The reality is that our mining industry, our extractive sectors, our oil and gas and natural resource sectors have broadly generated and are generating significant wealth to Canadians. The TMX and the Toronto Stock Exchange, where 80% of the mining deals in the world are transacted, are telling us very clearly that these changes will have a deleterious effect on the investment environment in Canada. I would hope that the Conservatives would consider that.
Again, the estimate from the TMX is that over 700 publicly traded companies with operations in foreign jurisdiction would be inappropriately and inadvertently negatively impacted by the proposed rules.
There has been a lot of talk, Mr. Chair, about the CSR of Canadian mining companies in the world. We can all do more in terms of strengthening the corporation social responsibility of any Canadian company doing business anywhere in the world, but I've got to say that by and large, Canadian companies globally are actually punching above their weight in terms of corporate social responsibility in labour and environment. I would like to see us strengthen corporate social responsibility in areas of labour standards and social investment and the environment, but one of the first steps is to make sure there are Canadian companies actually operating in those places.
Now my fear, if we listen to the TMX and the Canadian financial community, is that there is a real risk that a lot of these financings will not be taking place in Canada; they may be in London or somewhere else, and essentially there will be a diminution in the influence that Canada has on CSR of the extractive sector globally. I'm a guy in the centre, so I have the NDP to the left and the Conservatives to the right. I'm trying to bring everyone together because we've seen what polarization does in the U.S. system.
For the guys on the right, I can say this is going to cost the financial sector and the business sector in Canada jobs and opportunities. It's going to cost Canadian investors a lot of money and it's going to hurt them. For the folks on the left—and I share with them an interest in strong corporate social responsibility—Canada is going to lose influence in the world as we see a reduction in the influence of our extractive sectors, as we lose head office jobs from Canada in these sectors, and as we see fewer financings in Canada.
I will also bring the committee's attention to the representation from the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada. PDAC has been very clear on this. PDAC is saying that effectively these changes are going to cost jobs and that we are going to see a reduction in the financings and the extractive sector head office jobs. It's important that we also consider all the spinoffs of this.
For young Canadians graduating from university today—whether in finance, geology, or engineering—these mining and extractive sector jobs are good jobs. We have the benefit, and I've heard the Conservatives say that we have a stable economy. We do, and it's a good thing the Conservatives had the vision, wisdom, and foresight to put that oil and gas under the ground and off the coast of Newfoundland as well. How smart. I thought that was Danny Williams.
The reality is, Mr. Chair, that we have a responsibility to continue growing those jobs, and I do not want to see the Conservatives imposing this job-killing kind of measure.
Thank you very much for that.
Seeing no further interventions, I will therefore call the vote on LIB-30.
We'll have a recorded vote on LIB-30.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Now we will vote on clause 16.
An hon. member: I ask for a recorded vote.
The Chair: We'll have a recorded vote.
(Clause 16 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 17)
The Chair: I'll move to clause 17. I have one amendment, Liberal amendment 31.
Go ahead, Mr. Brison, on that amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This amendment delays provisions related to amalgamations and windups. It's important, Mr. Chair, that we recognize as well that in partnerships....
I'll draw your attention to Introduction to Federal Income Taxation in Canada, 31st edition.
First of all, it's important that we understand specifically the nature of a partnership. The term “partnership” is actually not defined in the act; the act merely outlines the tax consequences if a partnership exists. In order to determine whether a particular relationship is a partnership, reference must be made to the definitions contained in the various provincial partnership acts. Generally these statutes define a partnership as a legal relationship existing between two persons who carry on a business in common for the purpose of a profit.
Partnerships, Mr. Chair, can be formed by individuals, corporations, or a combination of individuals and corporations. In addition, two other factors generally suggest the existence of a partnership: first, joint and several liability with respect to debts incurred by the partnership, and second, an agreement indicating the method by which profits and losses are to be shared.
Mr. Chair, it's important to recognize the difference between a partnership and a joint venture, because there are distinguishing features that apply to this clause specifically.
A partnership is to be distinguished from a joint venture because the tax consequences of being a partner or co-venturer—a member of a joint venture—are actually quite different. A partnership is a separate entity, and therefore unless a rollover provision applies, transfers of property by the partner to the partnership take place at fair market value.
On the other hand, a co-venturer generally retains title to any property used in the joint venture, so if a co-venturer should contribute property to the joint venture, this is not a taxable transaction, as the contribution to a joint venture is not a disposition; there has been no change in ownership.
Also, in a partnership net income is computed at the partnership level; therefore, for instance, capital cost allowance is deducted at the partnership level. Each partner has the discretion to deduct capital cost allowance independently of the other partners. However, in a joint venture, each co-venturer computes net income separately; therefore each co-venturer is able to deduct capital cost allowance independently of the other co-venturers.
It's important, Mr. Chair, to recognize as well that some of the....
Actually, I want to draw from a specific tax article by Vern Krishna in The Fundamentals of Canadian Income Tax, ninth edition: “A partnership is the relationship that subsists between persons carrying on business in common with a view to profit” and “A Canadian partnership is a partnership in which all the members are resident in Canada”.
Furthermore, Mr. Krishna defines that
It's a fundamental principle of Anglo-Canadian tax law that a taxpayer is entitled to arrange his or her affairs to minimize tax. Parliament has endorsed this principle, generally known as the Westminster principle, as a legitimate and accepted part of Canadian tax law. Tax avoidance implies the reduction of tax payable by lawful means
which is obviously different from tax evasion. This raises the issue—we've all talked about it—of clamping down on foreign tax havens. As we're talking about tax fairness, this issue that we're talking about leads us to issues of tax avoidance and tax fairness. This committee has studied the issue of foreign tax havens; Mr. Mai has done quite a bit of work on this, and Senator Percy Downe, in the other place, has done a lot of work on it.
The reality, Mr. Chair, is that we need to do more on this. Back in 2005, the Liberal government gave CRA an additional $30 million, I think it was, which I believe yielded more than $2 billion in increased revenues as a result of identifying and bringing in what would have been lost revenue from people utilizing offshore tax havens.
Spending $30 million to bring in more than $2 billion strikes me as a good investment for any government to make in CRA's capacity, which is why I'm concerned, Mr. Chair, about the government's cuts to CRA. I think that is something we all ought to be concerned about, because ultimately it's not just about tax fairness—which it is about—but also about meeting the significant expenditures required to run the country, and at a time when we see significant pressures on the government and taxpayers and see significant deficits.
Therefore, Mr. Chair, I would urge committee members to consider this in the broader context of tax fairness and of addressing some of these other tax loopholes and offshore tax havens as we consider what Mr. Krishna has defined as the difference between legitimate tax avoidance and illegitimate tax evasion.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Here we go again. The committee has been here since 3:30. The committee was delayed by the Liberal Party. We didn't even get started on this because the Liberal Party put forward 3,000 amendments that they chose, for whatever reason, to try to force the committee not to hear. Now we're discussing what is I think their tenth anti-avoidance....
They're against these anti-avoidance measures. This measure, which we would like to see go forward, will in fact help Canadians. The member from the Liberal Party talks about tax fairness. Well, Canadians expect all parliamentarians, when they're aware of tax loopholes, to close those tax loopholes. The NDP believes in it; Mr. Mai clearly believes in it—he was just commended by Mr. Brison over it. Unfortunately he wasn't here for the tax haven study, but we know that he is committed to it.
Here we have another measure put forward by this government to close tax loopholes, and the member from the Liberals and the Liberal Party choose to defend the tax loophole. It's unbelievable. I would suggest to Canadians watching tonight that they clearly see this for what it is: this is a delay tactic. It is simply to delay.
This is an important anti-avoidance measure, and it is important to Canadians. The Liberal Party is making an absolute mockery of what's happening here tonight. Frankly, I'm very disappointed in what's going on.
We are going to support closing every tax loophole because we believe in fairness. We don't just say we believe in fairness: we put forward bills that include measures to close those tax loopholes; we vote to support measures to close tax loopholes. Canadians ought to see this for what it is. This is a game being played here by the Liberals, and it's unfortunate.
We're going to vote to support what we have put forward to close tax loopholes. I would urge the Liberals to stop playing games and start telling Canadians exactly what it is they're doing, which is delay to delay. They must start to think about the long-term implications of these anti-avoidance measures and choose to start supporting them. That is what the prudent parliamentarian ought to be doing. I don't think there's a Canadian in this country who would side with the Liberals in trying to keep tax loopholes open.
If he really believes in closing them, he will vote down his amendment and will vote in support of the government's bill.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to say first of all that there is so much in this omnibus budget bill that we disagree with. We've called it a monster budget bill because it has crammed so many changes into one bill. There are over 60 bills that are being changed, many of which—I think over 20—that were never identified initially in the budget earlier this year. We've been highly critical of this bill, and that's why we have been voting against it.
There are changes in here that would kill jobs and investment through changes to the SR and ED tax credit, changes that will harm research and development in this country. There are serious changes to the Navigable Waters Act that will seriously impact our environment, and we'll get to those changes. There are changes here to the Fisheries Act, some of which are attempting to correct changes that this government made this spring that were hastily done, and in fact they have to go back now and correct them before they've even begun implementing them.
My colleague from the Liberal Party has proposed a number of amendments. We've proposed some amendments. We've tried to propose substantive amendments on the issues that we are concerned about. We've had consultations with Canadians across the country, and we've tried to reflect in our amendments the issues we've heard about.
However, I have to say there are some amendments that my colleague has made that we have trouble supporting. Some we have supported, but we have been fighting on this committee to finish a study of tax havens because we believe, in an era when Canadians are counting every dollar, that it is the obligation of this government to try to close tax loopholes, and if wealthy individuals or companies are putting money away in tax havens that really ought to be taxed fairly here in Canada, that is something this committee should address and study, and the committee should recommend when these are changes that the government should seriously consider.
It is in this spirit that I have to say that although we disagree strongly with the whole omnibus budget bill process that this government has put forward and many of the specific measures in this bill, where there are specific tax loopholes that the government is attempting to close, we fail to understand why the Liberal Party would introduce amendments to block those changes. We really don't understand that.
As I said, we've taken a position against the whole omnibus bill process and we will be voting accordingly. We don't understand why there are—and it's not just this amendment we're voting on, but a whole serious of amendments that would basically leave wide-open tax loopholes. I don't think Canadians find that fair. They have to pay their taxes—why should some who are able to exploit these loopholes be able to not pay their fair share in taxes?
I just had to go on the record. There are many amendments that deal with this, and where we feel they're trying to pry open tax loopholes, we will vote against them.
Thank you, Ms. Nash.
I will move to the vote on Liberal amendment 31. It will be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 17 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 18)
The Chair: We'll move to clause 18. I have two amendments for clause 18. I have LIB-32 and LIB-33.
Mr. Chair, I'd like to speak on this. I'd like to explain the broader issue, as Ms. Glover and Ms. Nash have explained their parties' position.
I understand Ms. Glover's position. I don't agree with the position, but the reality is this government's approach to omnibus legislation and respect for Parliament has been a direct attack on the ability of individual members of Parliament to vote on legislative changes as individual pieces of legislation that affect over 60 rules and laws across departments and agencies.
Prime Minister Harper has said in the past that these kinds of approaches are inappropriate, yet his government has taken it to a different level.
The opposition members are following the rules. The Conservatives are changing the rules as they go, but I think they consider themselves a little bit omnibusted, if you will.
I find curious Ms. Nash's response that she will not support amendments that would delay the implementation of a particular clause, but she will vote against the clause being implemented at all. Theoretically you would think that if you supported the delay of a particular clause or the effects of it, if you supported killing the thing, you would also support a delay to it, so I don't necessarily understand. In the same way I don't understand her decision to vote against the chair earlier tonight. I have great faith in the chair—I guess I'm alone in that, Mr. Chair—but at the end of the day we all have to live with those decisions, and I look forward to your Christmas card as well, Mr. Chair.
This issue of tax avoidance is a broader issue than simply that which is reached through partisanship. It really is a question of resources and taking a look at foreign tax loopholes more broadly. Again, Mr. Chair, when we have proven a $30 million investment in the resources of CRA back in 2005 under a Liberal government has yielded, I believe, over $2 billion, which is a pretty good return on investment, I can't understand for the life of me, if the Conservative are serious in cutting the use of foreign tax havens, why we would be reducing the investment in the resources of CRA at this point. That is our broader concern.
Frankly, Mr. Chair, this is one of the reasons. If the finance committee were considering provisions that applied purely to the fiscal framework and we weren't forced to consider everything from changes to navigable waterways to some of these other provisions that have nothing to do with the fiscal situation or the fiscal framework of the country, it would enable us to do a better job on these types of provisions.
The fact is that we have heard from witnesses and we have talked to people in these sessions who have some concerns in simply providing a delay to these provisions for a period, which would enable us to conduct a more thorough study. Again I would say to Ms. Nash that if she is opposed to this clause, she ought not to have a problem with at least delaying it, which I think makes absolute sense, and perhaps that will be reflected in her party's decision on the next vote in terms of this amendment.
I do think that when you ultimately are planning on voting against a provision, simply delaying it ought not to represent a problem to you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Brison.
Are there any further interventions?
I will move to the vote on LIB-32.
We will have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: I will now take the vote on LIB-33.
We will have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 18 carry?
We will have a recorded vote.
(Clause 18 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
(On clause 19)
The Chair: Colleagues, in the interest of perhaps somewhat moving things along, I'm going to ask Mr. Brison, with his goodwill and his strong faith in me, to perhaps speak to clauses 19 to 25 inclusively.
Would you be willing, Mr. Brison, put these clauses together? Would that be a possibility?
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: He always succumbs to your wisdom.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm really trying to help all members of the committee with this, because I've heard the Conservatives and I believe their hearts are in the right place when it comes to wanting to help the extractive sectors and the oil and gas sectors in Canada. The fact is that we have heard representations from the TMX, from people within the financial community at large and people who are responsible for the financing of the extractive sectors in Canada. We've also heard from the prospectors and miners of the country that these changes are going to have a very negative effect. We heard that from the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada.
I really urge the Conservatives to reconsider their position on this, because we have had very well-considered representations before this committee and in writing to individual members of this committee. I have a letter here from the TMX and another one from the PDAC, the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada, and from people such as John McCoach, who's president of TSX Venture Exchange, as examples. These are people who have spent their lives in financing the exploration and development of extractive sector opportunities in Canada and around the world, but they are based here in Canada. They are telling us in no uncertain terms, Mr. Chair, that these changes have the capacity to significantly damage our extractive sectors and our financial community in raising money for our extractive sectors at a time when it is not easy raising money for mining companies. It is a real challenge. We know what's happening around commodity prices right now.
The fact is that it costs Canadian jobs. It costs Canadian investors. I'm concerned particularly, given the precarious nature of mining finance in Canada right now, about a public policy measure that makes it tougher. We all know that commodities, the mining sector, and these things are cyclical. My concern is that if, through this type of change, we make it tougher for our mining sector during a period that is already difficult, we may see a real loss of activity in the future as things turn around.
I'll remind the committee that 80% of the mining deals transacted globally in the last five years were transacted in Toronto. I'll remind you of the jobs and the spinoff jobs from this.
As a country, we are very good at mining. It's something we have a tremendous efficacy in, and an exportable efficacy. We can take what we are good at here in Canada and we can actually help other countries develop their mining sectors. The good news from that—again, I appeal to the NDP on this as well—is that we can also export our corporate social responsibility in some ways.
Mr. Chair, I've spent some time in Latin America in places such as Colombia. The reality is that in a lot of places in Latin America, they have some of the same realities in developing their extractive sectors as we face in Canada. One of those realities is the existence of indigenous peoples. In Canada, our aboriginal and first nations peoples are an important part of our Canadian society and can represent a greater part of our Canadian economy. Twenty years ago, frankly, in our aboriginal and first nations communities there was a lot of opposition to mining and oil and gas activities. Today some of that has changed. We see aboriginal and first nations leaders as partners in the development of some of these sectors.
My concern is, Mr. Chair, that we could actually be helping countries like Colombia and countries throughout Latin America develop their mining sectors and at the same time develop wealth that is shared with their indigenous peoples. This is something that is being—
Thank you, Mr. Brison.
Is there any further discussion?
I will call the vote on LIB-34.
An hon. member: I request a recorded vote.
We'll have a recorded vote on LIB-34.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: That is defeated.
Shall clause 19 carry?
We will have a recorded vote.
(Clause 19 agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On Clause 20)
The Chair: I'll move to clause 20. I have one amendment, LIB-35.
Will you speak to this, Mr. Brison?
Yes, please.
Mr. Chair, I want to continue on this discussion around the importance of our extractive sectors in Canada and also on their capacity to augment our reach in the world.
First of all, within Canada one of the biggest challenges facing our country is the reality, the sad reality, that our fastest-growing and youngest population, aboriginal and first nation Canadians, is also our most economically disadvantaged and socially disenfranchised. One of the industries that has had, and has in the future, the greatest capacity to strengthen and improve the standard of living for aboriginal and first nation Canadians is our mining sector, our extractive sectors, and I would add to that our oil and gas sectors, because exploration and development of these natural resources frequently take place in communities that are contiguous with or part of aboriginal and first nation communities.
I was in Mr. Jean's riding over the weekend, as I mentioned. We met with aboriginal and first nations Canadians and heard from them directly on the benefit of natural resource development in creating jobs and opportunities for their young people. My fear is that these changes....
If we are to believe the representatives of the TMX, which is not just a stock exchange in Canada but the stock exchange wherein 80% of the mining deals in the world are transacted, these changes are going to harm Canada's leadership in the extractive sector.
Now, just think for one moment of what that is going to mean for the future jobs and opportunities in the extractive sectors for Canada's first nations. I think it's going to have a negative effect.
It's not just from the stock exchange and the financial communities. We're hearing from the prospectors and developers of the country. We are hearing from the junior miners. The reality is that we have a lot of big mining companies, but do you know what, Mr. Chair? There's a lot of wealth and opportunity created by some of the smaller ones, and in some cases some of the bigger ones started pretty small as well. If you look—and this is not in the mining sector—at a company like Suncor, and you go back long enough and look at the roots of Suncor and some of these companies, you will see that they started off pretty small.
My concern again is whether, at a time when it is tough to finance mining deals, it makes sense to pile it on and do something that we're being told absolutely and unequivocally is going to be damaging.
Furthermore, Mr. Chair, if you look at Canada's role in the world.... I mentioned Latin America on this. I want to talk a little bit about Africa and the opportunities we have in the extractive sectors in places like Mozambique and sub-Saharan Africa in mining, and places like Gabon. Canada has had historically a strong relationship with Africa. This goes back across governments, including the Liberal governments and the Progressive Conservative government of Brian Mulroney.You can go back to the leadership role that Joe Clark played as a foreign minister in fighting apartheid, and Canada's role at that time in ending apartheid. The incredible amount of goodwill we have in Africa is important when you're considering the amount of wealth that's going to be generated in Africa in the extractive sectors over the next decades.
Now China's there. China's there in a big way, and they're successfully investing in and building infrastructure in Africa, but I can tell you, Mr. Chair, that I believe Canada's influence could benefit Africa and help influence Chinese investment in terms of corporate social responsibility. It's not enough to send in three boats—one with the workers, one with the steel, and one with the concrete—ready to build the infrastructure.
I think Canadian CSR can help guide not only activities of Canadian companies but the activities of massive foreign investors from places like China as well. I think we can play a partnership role in that, and I'm worried we're going to diminish our opportunity to do that—
Thank you very much, Mr. Brison. I appreciate that.
Is there any further discussion on LIB-35 for clause 20?
Okay. We will take the vote on LIB-35, a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 20 carry?
It will be a recorded vote.
(Clause 20 agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 21)
The Chair: I will move to clause 21.
I have one amendment in clause 21, LIB-36.
Mr. Brison, perhaps you could be somewhat more specific to the amendment you're introducing.
Certainly, Mr. Chair.
Acquisition of property by partnerships in section 97 of the act sets out rules that apply when a partnership acquires property from a taxpayer.
Subsection 97(2) of the act sets out rules that allow a taxpayer to transfer certain types of property on a tax-deferred basis to a Canadian partnership. Subsection 97(2) is amended to make it subject to new subsection 97(3), which is described as follows. The amendment applies in respect of dispositions made after March 28, 2012.
All of us at this committee want to clamp down.... This deals with tax avoidance. The broader issue, and probably the more important one, is outright tax evasion. I think we're not doing enough to actually focus on the issue of tax evasion.
Again, Mr. Chair, other countries have done work on this. Mr. Mai and Senator Percy Downe have done a lot of work on this. We have identified that we have not done an adequate job on what really is more of a tax evasion issue rather than tax avoidance.
My concern is that these types of actions may make somewhat of a difference but actually do not have the same level of impact of simply a targeted, focused, and well-resourced effort by CRA. Ms. McLeod, the parliamentary secretary for CRA, is here. This is something I would argue Ms. McLeod's department deserves more resources for. If Ms. McLeod's department had more resources, they would be able to have a multiplier effect in terms of collections from those who would have sheltered money through international tax havens. I think that ought to be the focus.
It has not been clear, Mr. Chair, at this committee that this is going to have a significant impact if, in fact, the resources are not going to be there to really focus on what is the bigger prize and the bigger challenge and issue, and that is outright tax evasion and the use of foreign tax havens. Frankly, that's where the focus ought to be.
I go back to this partnership issue. We have heard from tax experts on this and there are various opinions out there, and I quoted earlier Vern Krishna, who is well known in terms of his views on this issue. There is some ambiguity in terms of the effect of these changes, some ambiguity as to whether or not they will have unintended consequences. I want to cite Mr. Krishna's piece one more time. This is an issue that ought to be considered important by all members, the issue of taxpayers' rights.
It is well settled that one is entitled to arrange one's affairs so as to attract a minimum amount of tax. We usually identify this principle with a decision of the House of Lords in IRC v. Duke of Westminster, where Lord Tomlin said:
Every man is entitled if he can to order his affairs so as that the tax attaching under the appropriate Acts is less than it otherwise would be. If he succeeds in ordering them so as to secure this result, then, however unappreciative the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or his fellow tax-payers may be of his ingenuity, he cannot be compelled to pay an increased tax.
That's about tax avoidance.
The bigger issue is that of outright tax evasion. At a time when you say you want to clamp down on tax evasion, you can't cut the resources of the agency that's actually in charge of enforcing that.
I think the context of this clause has to be considered at a time when we're seeing a reduction of the resources of our public servants, our professionals at CRA. I think that's important.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
I appreciate the applause from my Conservative colleagues. I am absolutely delighted. It's so nice to see the minister here, because earlier today we were told by Conservative members that he wouldn't be able to appear before the committee. This is really nice.
The Minister of Finance, I assume, Mr. Chair, is going to be distributing whatever he has here on an non-partisan basis, or this could be a very long night.
The issue here, Mr. Chair, and I'm glad the minister is here to listen in on some of this—
Thank you so much, Mr. Brison. He'll have to listen to your next intervention.
If there are no further comments on LIB-36, we'll have a recorded vote on Liberal 36.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Shall clause 21 carry?
Okay, it carries, on division.
An hon. member: We asked for a recorded vote.
The Chair: A recorded vote? Okay, but as Mr. Jean pointed out, Mr. Brison, it does have to be asked for immediately after I ask.
(Clause 21 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 22)
I have the following amendments on clause 22: LIB-37, LIB-38, LIB-39, LIB-40, LIB-41, LIB-42, LIB-43, and LIB-44.
We'll go to Mr. Brison.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Again, the broader and more important issue is not simply tax avoidance through partnerships, but the broader issue of tax evasion and the use of foreign tax shelters. We have said repeatedly that this is an area in which other countries have done a better job of clamping down on some of the foreign tax shelters.
We have seen in the past, in 2005, an investment of $30 million yield over $2 billion in tax revenues from simply enforcing rules that already exist to clamp down on those foreign tax havens.
Again, Mr. Chair, I would ask the committee to delay these changes such that we have an opportunity to consider this in the broader context of what we should be doing from a public policy perspective to ensure that we tackle what ought to be a priority. I don't think we're doing a good enough job on it.
Again, I reference the work Mr. Mai and Senator Percy Downe have done on this.
It does not make sense, Mr. Chair, at a time when we face budget deficits. We were told by the finance minister recently that they wouldn't be balancing the books until 2016-17. We learned from the Prime Minister a couple of days later that in fact that was wrong and that the books would be balanced by the next election. Regardless, I acknowledge these are challenging times in terms of trying to get back to the balanced budget days of Liberal governments of the past. Those were the good old days when budgets were balanced, the federal debt was paid down, and that kind of thing.
This is important for the minister and the committee members. We're being entirely constructive in suggesting that investments in CRA, in the department Ms. McLeod represents, that enable them to clamp down on tax evaders will yield a far greater reward for taxpayers and for the fiscal framework than some of these measures. This is something we would hope the committee would consider. We would have hoped that the government would have considered it as well.
Mr. Chair, I think we all agree on issues of tax fairness. I don't want to rib my Conservative colleagues over this, but the reality is that we do need a broader look in Canada at reforming our tax system. We have not had a significant study of our personal tax system in Canada since 1971. If you were to try to sum up in a word what has changed in the Canadian economy since 1971, the word would be “everything”, not just in the Canadian economy, but in the global economy. Other countries have reformed their tax systems to build, in some cases, fairer and also more competitive tax systems.
We speak about the issue of income inequality. Governor Carney has raised this as an issue. It's also an issue we should consider when we're looking at tax policy in the overall design of our tax system. I think when we consider measures, whether you're talking about PRPPs or about income splitting, there's only so much money to go around. There's only so much tax expenditure. We ought to take a serious look at real tax reform in Canada. That's where we should be focused.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to begin by thanking my colleague Mr. Brison for all the praise he is giving me about my work in tax evasion. I agree with him that we are working very hard in that area. Ms. Glover also mentioned that, and I thank her for it.
I also want to thank the committee for accepting my motion, which calls for us to study everything related to tax evasion and tax havens. I think this is a step in the right direction.
Although my colleague Peggy Nash said this bill contained many things we disagreed with, in this case, we do agree with what has been set out in this bill. Mr. Brison just spoke about how important any kind of tax evasion is for people and how much it affects them. So it is a matter of fairness and equity.
I think this is a step in the right direction when it comes to things like transfer pricing. That is why we will vote against the Liberal amendment, since it aims to slow down that application. We truly think that, in this case, a step in the right direction is being taken.
We fully agree with Mr. Brison's statement that, on the one hand, the government says that it is clamping down on tax evasion, and on the other hand, it is cutting Canada Revenue Agency's budget. We know that the tools are insufficient. The Auditor General's report shows that the Canada Revenue Agency unfortunately does not have sufficient resources to deal with everything involving non-filers. We understand that more resources are needed. The government has decided to cut Canada Revenue Agency's budget, and that is a step in the wrong direction. Nevertheless, we support the measure introduced.
So we will vote against Mr. Brison's amendment.
Mr. Chair, I am sure anyone watching this on television might be appreciative of a deviance from the soliloquy we've had going tonight, so I thought perhaps with Mr. Mai's interjection, I would also add a few points.
It's really important that we have all recognized tax havens as a significant issue.
I do think you were deviating a little in terms of you continue to have amendments here that are just stalling the closing of tax loopholes. When you talk about tax fairness—
What we are looking at is amendment after amendment that actually go against the points he's making. It really speaks to 3,000 amendments being strictly a stall, a delay tactic, really not serious in intent.
I hope when we do head into the tax haven study, which all of us are very keen to do, that we do it with the intent to have good accomplishments. To be quite frank, these are important measures in a budget implementation bill that are in there to close tax loopholes, and really it's quite, quite surprising that the Liberals are continuing to have amendments that go directly opposite of what he's suggesting.
I do need to talk a little in terms of the CRA and our work with the tax havens issue. In actual fact, the auditors who are specialized in overseas tax evasion haven't been reduced at all. They've been doing an excellent job and they've been refocused in terms of working with the RCMP and with the Public Prosecution Service of Canada. We really have picked up the ball that the Liberals left very.... I don't think they did much at all in all their years in office.
We've done tremendous work in terms of moving forward and we've certainly been lauded. Can we do more? Absolutely, but again, I think we really need to keep our dialogue tonight focused on what the actual amendments are to the proposed legislation.
Thank you very much, Mrs. McLeod.
We'll move to the votes for Liberal amendments LIB-37 to LIB-44. In the interests of time, would the committee allow me to group these amendments together for a vote?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Chair, this brings us back to the issue of pooled registered pension plans. The Liberal Party has voted for and supports the government's decision to introduce pooled registered pension plans, but we agree with the C.D. Howe Institute and others who have told us that in fact the pooled registered pension plans will be a small step forward but not a significant step forward in terms of retirement security for the broadest number of Canadians.
One of the challenges we have with PRPPs or RRSPs is the reality that not enough Canadians are able to actually contribute to or maximize their contribution to them. The people who are able to maximize an RRSP contribution could potentially maximize a pooled registered pension plan contribution. The same goes for the tax-free savings account, TFSA. There is a benefit in the TFSA, but again it belongs to those who have the means to make that investment.
Our concern is that more broadly...and the NDP want to have a mandatory increase to CPP at this time. We feel that at a time when we have high unemployment in Canada, and stubbornly high in some provinces, particularly in certain sectors, that increasing mandatory payroll premiums is something we ought not do. Where we do agree is that some compromise would actually achieve a stronger PRPP. We proposed a voluntary supplemental CPP. That recommendation was endorsed by the CFIB, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, and by CARP, the Canadian Association of Retired People. It would have the benefit of giving Canadians not a defined contribution but another defined benefit option in an expanded voluntary supplemental CPP.
The reality is that the CPP is very well managed. It has a relatively low cost structure. The potential benefits of passing on to Canadians on a voluntary basis greater access to an investment vehicle that is well diversified across asset class, geography, and sector, and has low management costs would actually strengthen the PRPPs.
I think the minister would agree that one of the challenges with PRPPs could be that fees could be quite high. We always have to be careful to ensure that we're doing everything we can to make sure that the fees on retirement investment vehicles are low. One of the best ways to do that is to create competition.
Having as an investment option a voluntary supplemental CPP with lower fees might help keep management fees that are paid on to investors lower. It would potentially strengthen the PRPP option and would help to address.... This is where the C.D. Howe Institute and others have identified that a lot of Canadians believe that somehow a PRPP is going to be miraculously insulated against the vagaries of market fluctuation. The reality is it will be no more insulated from market fluctuations than RRSPs or any other investment vehicles are.
With a defined benefit option you don't have necessarily the same returns during the good times, but you have that guarantee.
We believe that in addition to PRPPs—and we will be voting ultimately to support this clause—an additional expansion of the Canada pension plan to include an optional supplemental CPP would improve, strengthen and fortify the PRPP and increase and improve the retirement options for Canadians.
Thank you very much for your comments, Mr. Brison.
Any further comments on clause 23?
I will go to Madam Glover.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Once again, I have to voice my displeasure with the comments made by the member of the Liberal Party. Of course, as we all know from finance committee, we've done a number of things to try to help Canadians, including doing things through the pooled registered pension plans, which the Liberals have said that they do not support. They've said in the last six hours that they want to ensure that tax loopholes remain open so that Canadians—
Hon. Scott Brison: Mr. Chair, a point of order.
I hope this is a point of order and not a point of debate. Is this a genuine point of order on procedure?
Mr. Brison, you know that's not a point of order. That's a point of debate.
I will return the floor to Madam Glover.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
To correct the member from the Liberal Party, the amendments he's put forward in the last six hours have tried to undermine the PRPP, a system that would be available to over 60% of Canadians who currently do not have a workplace pension plan.
I would say to all members of the committee that as we sit here tonight and we listen to some of the regurgitated commentary by the Liberal Party, I ask myself how do we sit here as parliamentarians and continue to listen to this nonsense knowing there are over 50 public servants sitting here waiting to do their part to improve our country. Canadians at home don't see them, but I want Canadians to know, Mr. Chair, that with regard to this clause and with regard to this bill, there are some hard-working folks here. We appreciate everything they have done. We appreciate their patience as we listen to this nonsense.
I want to assure Canadians that on this side of the table, we do not agree with this kind of delay tactic with regard to the implementation of this very important bill. These clauses are here so we can protect the interests of Canadians.
The Liberal Party members have said tonight that they do not want to close tax loopholes, which is atrocious. They've said they do not want to allow the PRPP system to move forward, a system which would give Canadians without pension plans the option of saving for their retirement. The Liberal Party members have said they don't even understand their own amendments. They've put forward 3,000 of them that they've tried to vote down from even being considered here tonight. When they had an opportunity, they voted to send all these different topics from a budget bill to different committees for extensive and fulsome study. The Liberal Party is the only party that stood up and voted against doing so, and yet they're standing up again tonight trying to convince Canadians otherwise.
Canadians will not be fooled. I hope Canadians are watching this tonight because these 50 public servants sitting here, who should be appreciated for all they've done to make sure this bill helps Canadians and makes our country a better place, ought not to be put through this. Canadian taxpayers ought not to be put through this. Every moment of delay is another dollar out of a taxpayer's pocket.
As I look around this room and I see how many members of Parliament and how many clerks and how many analysts and how many translators and how many public servants are in this room listening to this delay for the sake of delay, it crushes me to know that Canadians are being robbed at this very moment by those who are supposed to be prudent parliamentarians with their interests at heart. It's despicable. It is not protecting the long-term interests of our country. I would urge the Liberal Party to stop this nonsense, to get on board to protect this country, because if the Liberals think 35 seats is just a fraction, I can't wait until the next election. I can assure them that Canadians are not going to forgive this one and the Liberals won't be left with many seats, except for maybe one.
Thanks.
Yes. I want to pick up on Ms. Glover's point about the officials. It's almost 11 o'clock. As I understand it, once midnight comes, the officials can go. Many of the amendments we're dealing with are not substantive. I don't anticipate that we're going to need to ask the officials anything in the next hour, so from our side we'd be happy to let the officials go. It's only an hour, but they might appreciate getting out of here before midnight rather than after.
I appreciate that comment very much, and I do apologize to our officials this evening. I'm sincerely sorry on behalf of the committee. I'm told that if it's a majority vote by the committee we can release the officials. It was a point of order, but perhaps I'll ask for a motion.
Mr. Brison, do you have a point of order on Ms. Nash's point of order?
Yes, I would agree with what Ms. Nash said, and I have no difficulty with that, but I think it's almost insulting to our officials to assume that they're not citizens. As citizens they are probably concerned about the fate of democracy under this government. This government tells Canadians that you have a choice.
Mr. Brison, I'm sure you'll make those points during debate.
I'm going to ask whether I have majority support for allowing the officials to leave. Of course, they can stay if they wish, but I assume from the laughter in the crowd that not many of them will.
Do I have majority support for that? All in favour?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Again, I thank you so much for your patience tonight. You are released.
(On clause 24)
The Chair: I have no amendments for clause 24. Is there discussion on clause 24?
Mr. Brison.
Mr. Chair, I want to thank Ms. Glover for her advice. I appreciate very much her advice when she said that the Liberals have not supported the PRPP initiative. We actually have, but we've also expressed concerns that the PRPP initiative does not do what the government says it would do in terms of transforming Canada's retirement savings framework. The fact is that people who can't afford to participate in an RRSP are unlikely to benefit from a PRPP, which is why we have proposed an additional vehicle, a voluntary supplemental CPP.
There is a bigger concern that I have. This is a time when we know that income inequality is an issue that 75% of Canadians believe is an important one. We need to be designing our retirement vehicles and our public policy around retirement, particularly with the demographic shift that we are undergoing in such a way that it benefits low-income Canadians. What frustrates many of us is that every measure the Conservatives propose will benefit people who are actually doing fairly well. Income splitting is one of those areas.
In a perfect world, when books were balanced and you weren't dealing with ongoing deficits and challenges and having to cut social investment in areas of equality of opportunity, you could be frivolous in this, but at a time when these challenges are before us, I think we should be very careful in how we provide tax expenditures.
The PRPPs, like RRSPs, we support them, but we don't believe they go far enough in terms of addressing the significant gaps in the retirement savings framework for Canadians.
The other issue, Mr. Chair, is that if you look, going forward, at the measures the Conservatives take when it comes to retirement provisions, when it deals with low-income Canadians or lower income Canadians, they perversely go in the opposite direction. The change to old age security moving the qualification age from 65 to 67 is going to have a disproportionately negative effect on the lowest income Canadians. Forty per cent of the people who qualify for old age security make less than $20,000 a year. Fifty-three per cent make less than $25,000 per year. Yet, we are saying to those people when it comes to old age security that they have to wait another couple of years. For someone collecting GIS—and to qualify for GIS you have to qualify for old age security—it will cost that person around $30,000. Can you imagine taking $30,000 out of the pockets of low-income seniors at a time when you are proposing income splitting and PRPPs? Nobody at this table can benefit. The disproportionate benefit will go to people who already have some retirement choices.
Contrary to what Ms. Glover said, we do support the PRPP as an additional retirement vehicle, but we do not think it actually addresses the bigger challenge, and that is retirement security for low-income and lower middle-income Canadians, which in a civilized Parliament we ought to be most concerned about, the country's most vulnerable. The Conservatives may have figured out that's not where their votes are so it doesn't matter, but I think it does matter. You don't just create public policy around the people who are voting for you.
In terms of Ms. Glover's other advice to us—
—I would say to her—
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Hon. Scott Brison: —that we don't have to give Canadians a choice—
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Brison.
Hon. Scott Brison:—between talking about the economy and respecting democracy.
Thank you for the opportunity. I hope the timekeeper is keeping track of my time. I don't want to go over.
One thing that I promised to do when I came here was to try to be efficient so that taxpayers would receive their proper return on investment. We in this place are quite expensive, as are the officials. That's what I would like to talk to. Taxpayers expect us to defend things for them. I've seen some defence on this side, and I've seen other defences on that side.
I'm quite offended, as I think most Canadians would be, to see the Liberals defend tax loopholes. I'm talking about Mr. Brison, and I am talking about this clause, but also all the other clauses. I'm offended that he didn't listen to the experts.
Mr. Cook brought forward testimony about the SR and ED. I asked him specifically whether or not this meant a cut. He said no. There will be a reallocation of any funds saved from SR and ED. They will be reallocated to direct payments and to direct contributions to programs. There were no cuts. He answered that and then we heard a five-minute tirade from Mr. Brison about how it's a cut and SR and ED is going to be destroyed and the end of the country is near. I take great offence at that, especially because we've heard from impartial experts that this is not the case.
I've also seen many of the recommendations made by the Jenkins report. I've had discussions with Mr. Brison and he has opposed those recommendations. I find that to be very troubling, given the situation he's in now. I understand that the members on the other side have their opinions. I think it's good to have an opinion and to make a decision on that opinion and to vote on that opinion after putting forward a reasonable argument. PRPPs, though, are just another quiver in a bunch of arrows that we need to make sure Canadians save more money. This quiver also contains the tax-free savings account, which this government brought in, together with CPP.
I am concerned about the five-minute allocation. I know that I get five minutes, but I haven't used five minutes before. We've seen Mr. Brison and the Liberals use five minutes each and every time, which is their prerogative. They are also using another method that comes to nothing less than wasting time and taxpayer money. They are filibustering and continuing to ask for recorded votes. This is their privilege; it's allowed under the rules. However, the recorded vote is in the rules for one reason, to find out where individual members stand. He is using this to waste time, as is the Liberal Party. Placed by voters at the end of the list as a major party in this country, the Liberals have taken it upon themselves to do anything they can to become relevant to Canadians. In this case, they are causing the committee to pick through 3,000 amendments. They want to make sure that Canadians know they are the tail that wags the dog, or at least tries to.
I take offence at this because it's a waste of money. It's a waste of taxpayers' money. We've let many of the officials go home. There was unanimous agreement. Many of the experts from the departments have been allowed to leave, but we still have many people here who continue to be paid and continue to put in good time. Of course, their efforts are valuable and we appreciate them very much, but they are here only because the Liberals continually do everything they can to waste time and money.
The best example of this for Canadians to see is the fact that all of the votes have been 10 to 1. That means that the NDP members have actually collaborated with the Conservatives on votes. I do not believe that our policies go together on many things. I would have to say they are on the far left of any spectrum that I would be on, but we have agreed. Why? We've agreed because of the ridiculous nature of the amendments put forward by the Liberal Party. Even the NDP cannot support them. That's how ridiculous they are.
I think this shows Canadians exactly where the Liberals are right now. They are the third party. They are looking for relevance, but they will not find it here. I would suggest they will be the fourth party after the next election, and after the following one, they will have no party at all. That would be my guess.
Thank you, Mr. Jean.
Shall clause 24 carry?
An hon. member: I would like a recorded vote.
(Clause 24 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 25)
The Chair: I do not have any amendments for clause 25. Is there any discussion on clause 25?
I have Mr. Van Kesteren and then Mr. Brison.
Mr. Chair, I have been quiet for quite some time during this process and on this side of the table, we've all spoken about the huge waste of energy and money trying to prove I don't know what, especially why we are spending time on this again, because this clause is in regard to pooled registered pension plans.
Pooled registered pension plans are something the Liberal Party has supported and has also agreed to with our government. We have heard lots from the Liberal Party with regard to the CPP and the changes that have to be made. They keep talking about the changes that were made to CPP, the upcoming change in age from 65 to 67.
It's never mentioned, of course, that those changes will not come into effect until, I believe it is 2023. This government has seen the necessity to act upon something which not only we, but economists also have said is a looming train wreck. Consequently, we have given people a long measure of time to prepare for that.
To supplement that and to narrow the gap between what is increasingly evident, the disparity between the public sector pensions and the private sector pensions, and often there is no pension for someone in the private sector, this government has introduced the pooled registered pension plan. We are here tonight, not because there's much disagreement or relevant change to this budget, but as a measure to slow the process down. I think Mr. Jean is correct. It's becoming increasingly more evident that the Liberal Party wants to become more and more relevant. That's unfortunate, because the Liberal Party has a long history of relevance, but this is certainly not the way to do it.
This is a measure that is important to Canadians. The people and businesses that I have talked to in my riding welcome this. They welcome this as an opportunity for businesses that don't have the deep pockets of some of the larger corporations or those that are funded by taxpayer dollars, and I'm speaking specifically of the public pensions. Those that are at a disadvantage are able to use this measure to offer pensions for their employees. Oftentimes they are mom and pop shops.
Here we are tonight going through these amendments. We've got a humongous, thick booklet of amendments. I don't know what to call many of them. In this particular case, this is a clause that should be carried rapidly.
I don't know if the opposition is in favour of this, but for the Liberals, who have requested a registered vote, to ask for that when they will undoubtedly vote for this clause is again an example of wasting time here on the Hill. As was mentioned before, we've got people who would much rather be at home with their families. Clerks, members of Parliament, the library of Parliament analysts are getting a little tired.
I guess we need to go through this process. I just wanted to express my disappointment. I hope that the Liberals will see a way to speed this up, do the right thing, and move through these areas that don't need to take this kind of time.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
The outfall, the logical corollary, of Van Kesteren's and Mr. Jean's argument is that “Gosh, this democracy thing is really expensive. If we shut the thing down altogether, we could save a hell of a lot of money”—which would be entirely consistent with this government's approach to Parliament.
The reality is that we wouldn't be here at this hour tonight if the government had actually introduced a budget bill that was focused on fiscal measures—the budget—rather than on all kinds of other, unrelated areas.
When you have conservative commentators such as Andrew Coyne attack the government for its disrespect for democracy with these massive budget bills, these omnibus pieces of legislation, and when you look at the Prime Minister's statements on legislation that was not nearly as varied or as diverse....
I quote the Prime Minister from March 25, 1994, when he said:
That was on a piece of legislation that was not as diverse in its effect or as disparate in the number of agencies, departments, pieces of legislation, and regulations affected.
Mr. Speaker, I would argue that the subject matter of the bill is so diverse that a single vote on the content would put members in conflict with their own principles.
Furthermore, this is from the same government that won't provide the Parliamentary Budget Officer with the information on its government expenditures or cost and that was found in contempt of Parliament in the previous Parliament for its failure to provide to Parliament the costs of its legislation.
I couldn't help but notice that Mr. Van Kesteren waited to mention the changes to public service pensions until the public servants had left the room. The reality is that public servants are proud of their service to Canada—they choose public service—and there has been no government that takes as many gratuitous swipes on the floor of the House of Commons at public servants and the unions that represent them as this government.
Beyond that, Mr. Chair, they're also citizens. They are just as committed to democracy as any other citizens. I can tell you that those public servants—some of them are sitting here now, but those who were sitting here earlier tonight—are concerned about the lack of respect for democracy.
Again, on PRPPs, we believe.... I think Mr. Jean said it was another quiver in the arrow. I'm trying to understand that; I thought it was more like an arrow in the quiver. In any case, the reality is that it's a very small arrow and a fairly inaccessible quiver that only a few Canadians have access to. What we should be concerned about is the people who don't have access to adequate retirement savings. That's what we're not addressing.
Mr. Van Kesteren was talking about changes to OAS. First of all, OAS was sustainable before, on its current track. We got that information from the Parliamentary Budget Officer and from the OECD and from Department of Finance figures. If it were not sustainable, there are ways to make it sustainable that would be progressive, and not by punishing low-income Canadians. Again, 40% are making less than $20,000 a year; 53% are making less than $25,000 a year.
Maybe we could address the issue of clawbacks, if it were not sustainable; maybe we should be making it more of a benefit for truly low-income Canadians and clawing it back at an earlier level. These are just some of the types of discussions we would have, if we faced a crisis.
But if it is not for sustainability, why is the government doing it? If you look at the measures now, Mr. Van Kesteren said the PRPP will help—
Thank you very much, Mr. Brison. Unfortunately, your time has expired. Thank you.
I will then ask, shall clause 25 carry?
Some hon. members: On division.
The Chair: On division.
Hon. Scott Brison: On a recorded vote. Sorry: it's late.
The Chair: I said on division, so we're carrying it on division.
I call this meeting back to order, and encourage colleagues to take their seats, please.
We dealt with clause 25; therefore, I am moving to clause 26.
(On clause 26)
The Chair: Amendments LIB-45 to LIB-60 are all within this clause, and this clause 26 addresses the overseas employment tax credit.
Speaking to this clause, we have Mr. Lamoureux.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Over the last little while I've had the opportunity to listen in. I must say it's hard to listen to a lot of the things that have been said from the other side of the committee room and not necessarily be able to participate in providing some comment or feedback.
I realize that this particular clause deals with the overseas employment tax credit, and there is a series of amendments that we're trying to get the government to be sympathetic to, as we go through this particular clause. But in listening to some of the feedback and some of the comments, especially when we were talking about the civil servants, when we were talking about why it is we're going through this process, there were a number of thoughts that went through my mind and I think it's important to put things in a proper perspective, Mr. Chair.
As much as possible, I think it's very important that we recognize that we are here this evening because, in good part, there is an attempt from the Liberal Party to say to the government that what you are doing is wrong; that this particular budget bill is historic in the sense that never before have we seen such abuse of democracy inside the House of Commons.
It's unfortunate that the government hasn't recognized to what degree they have actually abused the system, Mr. Chair. In good part, that's what this is about. We are bringing forward amendments to different clauses. Now it just happens to be the overseas employment tax credit. At the end of the day, we hope to see some of these amendments actually pass, but we need to recognize that opposition parties today and in the past have taken actions through procedures to try to emphasize where the government has gone wrong.
It's unfortunate that the government tries to portray something that's not necessarily true. What is true is that never before in the history of Canada have we had to deal with a budget bill of this size, of this magnitude. It is changing so many pieces of legislation, not only the overseas employment tax credit, Mr. Chairman, but numerous pieces of legislation, and it is unprecedented.
I believe, at the end of the day—
I really apologize for interrupting, but I just wanted to point to the relevance of this particular issue.
Is he talking about the amendments, which of course are many more pages than the bill itself? The Liberal amendments, I mean. I just want to confirm if he is talking about the 3,000 amendments, because that's more pages than the budget bill. So if he's complaining about the length of a bill—
We're getting into debate.
The point of order is with respect to relevance. Obviously, as members well know, relevance has been interpreted very broadly by speakers for many years. There are 16 specific amendments in this specific clause. It's dealing with the overseas employment tax credit. So I encourage members to speak to these amendments and this clause as directly as possible.
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.
I sat, as I say, for quite a while listening to government members trying to say why it is we are wasting taxpayers' dollars, because they don't believe in democracy inside this chamber. I sat patiently and I didn't interrupt when they had the floor and they were waxing on about how bad the Liberal Party was, when in reality, Mr. Chairperson, it is in fact the government of the day that has been abusing the House of Commons. They've taken an approach at passing budget legislation that is second to no other government's in the history of Canada. This particular amendment is one of many amendments. As the member Mr. Jean points out, there are some 3,000 amendments, which again one could ultimately argue is likely unprecedented. We don't know for sure. I couldn't tell you. I haven't been around long enough to say that it's unprecedented.
But if you introduce a bill of this nature, I would suggest that members should not be surprised that there'll be a reaction—not only a reaction but a very negative reaction by Canadians as a whole.
If you sit down with your constituents and you talk to your constituents about what it is that this particular Minister of Finance is doing, you will hear that it is disgraceful.
Thank you, Chair. I'm delighted to be participating and to be speaking on this amendment on the overseas employment tax credit.
Mr. Lamoureux spoke about effects and consequences. I'll tell you something: the consequences of our economic policies have led to 840,000 net new jobs being created since July 2009.
The World Economic Forum has rated our financial institutions the soundest for the fifth year in a row. The OECD just two weeks ago said that Canada has the soundest economic policies—
The OECD said that we have the strongest economic fundamentals and that we'll have one of the fastest-growing economies over the next 50 years.
Forbes Magazine said that we are the best place for business to invest.
This is not what we are saying as a government. This is what the international institutions, international associations, and credible business magazines and—
Order.
Mr. Lamoureux, you had your five minutes.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Sorry, sir.
The Chair: The other side listened to you while you had your five minutes. Mr. Adler has the floor, and I expect you to show the same courtesy he showed you.
Mr. Adler, I apologize.
Thank you, Chair. I appreciate that.
This is not what we're saying. This is what credible international institutions and organizations are saying about Canada.
I have to tell you that when I sit here and listen to what the Liberals are proposing—the flummery—I'm just astonished and shocked and appalled at what they're saying.
With respect to the overseas employment tax credit, as you know, just by way of history, this was introduced first in 1979. For all those years, from 1979 until this government, in the budget, decided to phase out, over the next four years, the OETC, we needed the overseas employment tax credit, because Canadian companies, particularly in the areas where the OETC was applicable, were not competitive. They weren't competitive because first, they were overtaxed. They couldn't meet the competitive standards set out around the world. We needed to attract the kind of labour that was necessary to attract the kind of employees we needed to these companies. They needed an incentive from government to do so.
Now we find that since our government has been in power, corporate tax rates have been lowered to 15%. We are branded around the world as one of the most competitive business and corporate environments in which to invest, in which to do business, and in which to employ. So the overseas employment tax credit is no longer necessary.
Therefore, what we'll be doing is phasing it out over the next four years. As a result, during the phase-out period, we'll be lowering the 80% factor on the first $100,000 of income to $60,000 in 2013, to $40,000 in 2014, and to $20,000 in 2015. It will then be nil for 2016 and subsequent years.
What the Liberals are proposing is that on the one hand, we need to increase corporate tax rates. On the other hand, through this amendment, which will totally decimate the overseas employment tax credit phase-out, we'll have tremendous amounts of lost income. It'll be a fiscal disaster. This is the Liberal Party economic policy. They move from one disaster to another.
The phase-out of the employment tax credit provides a reasonable transition time for taxpayers. If we stick to what the Liberals are saying, the employment tax credit may not be phased out at all, in which case, we will be forsaking some serious tax revenues for our government at the same time as the Liberals are complaining about a deficit on the federal books.
Chair, it's passing strange, I find, that the Liberals on the one hand are complaining about—
How much time do I have?
Okay.
It's really passing strange that the Liberals will be defending their fat-cat friends and protecting tax loopholes—
Now you have no seconds. Thank you.
Order.
Thank you very much, Mr. Adler.
Is there any further discussion on these amendments or on clause 26?
I will ask for consent, and I hope I will have it, to deal with amendments 45 to 60 with one vote.
Do I have consent?
I'd like a recorded vote, if I could, Mr. Speaker.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Could we have a recorded vote? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Again, I would request a recorded vote, Mr. Chair.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Again, Mr. Chair, I would ask for a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
I would request a recorded vote, please, Mr. Chair.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
I would ask again for another recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Again, Mr. Chair, could I request a recorded vote, please?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, could I request a recorded vote, please?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Again, Mr. Chair, I would request a recorded vote, please.
(Clause 26 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 27)
Colleagues, clause 27 has a number of amendments, by both the NDP and the Liberal Party.
I'll remind you that we're at 11:52 p.m., so at 11:59 I will make the changeover, as we discussed earlier.
I will start with the official opposition for their amendments, please.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
With the last five minutes I'll have to make comments here at the finance committee before we're obliged to just vote without debate, I do want to make the point that we have tried to make substantive amendments and we've restricted our comments to those substantive amendments, but it does speak to the really offensive nature of the overall omnibus bill that has so much crammed into it and so little time. That we're forced to deal with all of this before the finance committee, it really is unacceptable.
I want to speak specifically to clause 27. We have amendments NDP-5 to NDP-9 on this clause, and others have other amendments. Because there are so many unrelated changes crammed into this one clause, there are many different things that it addresses.
For example, the Conservatives have combined their $500-million cut to the SR and ED tax credit on research and development with another provision for a tiny reduction in fossil fuel subsidies and a minor expansion in tax credits for certain clean electricity generation equipment. We're forced to vote on these all together, which really makes no sense.
For example, one of our amendments, NDP-4, would clean up this clause by deleting the cuts to the SR and ED tax credit while preserving the measures on fossil fuel subsidies and clean energy generation equipment, because we support those measures. We've also proposed amendments that would delay the coming into force of the cuts to contract payments, to capital eligibility, and to the general SR and ED tax rate. I outlined earlier under clause 9 our overall concerns about the cuts. They will destroy innovation, destroy investment, destroy jobs.
Our amendment NDP-8 would delay a single clause that would cut hundreds of millions from support to business research and development in Canada. Now, the Department of Finance has valued this cut to support for business research and development at $295 million a year. Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters says the real impact will be much greater, probably about $350 million in impact on research and development. It's a major cut. We've heard from all sorts of businesses that it will drive them to scale back their planned R and D activities and we've even heard of planned new R and D centres that are now on the chopping block.
We know that when the Conservatives came into government in 2008, Canada was ninth in terms of its support for large firms' R and D expenditures, but if this bill passes as is, even taking into account their cuts to corporate income taxes, Canada will fall to seventeenth in terms of its support for major business R and D. This means that some companies will likely move their planned R and D activities to other countries, countries that do support business R and D, like Norway, Taiwan, India. These are the countries that we're in competition with and Canadians will be the losers. We're the ones who will lose out on investments and jobs.
These cuts will also open up a gulf between the 35% refundable tax credit for small business with the 15% that companies with more than $50 million in sales will get, and it might serve as a reverse incentive for companies not to expand and move over that $50 million in sales measure.
We are going to be losing in terms of research and development. We've heard from companies concretely that this is going to cost them and cost us as a country in terms of research and development and in terms of jobs.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, since I am probably going to be the last person speaking to this for a while—I know we'll get into some votes—I will start by commending you for the incredible work you're doing as chair here.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Hon. Mike Lake: I'm proud to be your neighbour in terms of ridings and proud to be your colleague. This is the first time I have served on a committee with you as chair, and let me say that you've lived up to the legend that is James Rajotte as a chair.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Hon. Mike Lake: Mr. Chair, I'm astonished to hear the NDP even pretend—pretend—to stand up for business. It's funny, because I think back to the debates over EI that we had, the 45-day work year, where they would propose that someone should work for 45 days and then be able to collect EI for the rest of the year. I think about the last campaign when they ran on a platform based on $21 billion in carbon taxes. Page 4 in their costing document shows very clearly, in black and white, a whole laundry list of promises that would be paid for by a $21-billion increase in taxes. Not only that, but of course they ran on an increase in taxes on job creators, the very businesses they're talking about.
Mr. Chair, I see that my time is up.
Thank you.
Colleagues, as you all know, I will now move to votes. There's no debate from now on in.
I will start with NDP-4.
Again, if people want a recorded vote, they have to indicate they want a recorded vote.
Yes.
Just before, if we could, Mr. Chair, on a point of order, because we're getting into the beginning of what could potentially be a lengthy process, you and I did get a chance to talk about procedures and how one could be voting in committee.
I took your advice, which was good advice, to talk to the clerks. They are incredible individuals. They provided me with a document that I think we should all at least be aware of. This way, Mr. Chair, there's no confusion as time goes by.
I would like to read it. It's a very short rule—
Mr. Lamoureux, there's no further debate. It's been very clear in the motion, so I have to put all the amendments and the clauses right now with no further debate. I have to follow the motion that was adopted by this committee.
I'm going to follow the motion as adopted by the committee, and I will call the vote on NDP-4.
On division?
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: No, no, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Do you want a recorded vote?
I'm hesitant to do points of order, because the committee has instructed me how they want to proceed here.
Again, I encourage colleagues—
Mr. Brian Jean: I understand.
The Chair: I'm instructed to deal with the amendments and put the votes successively. So if we get into a series of points of order, I will not be doing that.
This is a serious point or order.
Mr. Chair, to the clerk through you, is it necessary to have unanimous consent for a grouping? If it's the NDP's motion, I think it's up to them whether they want to group them or not. I don't think it's up to unanimous consent.
So the NDP can group their motions, if they would like to, same as we could if we wanted to group ours. It's not up to unanimous consent.
Yes, on the same point of order, to the very best of my knowledge, when you're dealing with any form of amendments or subamendments at the committee stage in which any sort of a grouping is made, any member of the committee can object to the grouping. The originator doesn't matter, any member of the committee can request that they not be grouped. The reason they do that is that ultimately they want to ensure the rights of each person to participate by ensuring an actual recorded vote.
If you don't allow that, if you allow the grouping without having unanimous consent, you're forcing some members of the committee not to be able to voice their vote on what could be a very important amendment.
So, Mr. Chair, I think it's probably best if we continue on.
I am advised by the clerks that this is something I cannot do, that I would need unanimous consent to do so.
Thank you.
I want to ask one more question, then, on that point. Mr. Lamoureux is asking if we can have a recorded vote on a group of votes, is that correct? If that's the roadblock to this, surely we can have a recorded vote on a block and we can get beyond this, if that is Mr. Lamoureux’s thinking.
As your chair, I will make every effort to move this along, as I have done tonight. I will ask for consent to group amendments throughout the evening.
I'm told that if we vote on every single amendment or clause, we'll be here for just under 30 hours. I would hope that we not be here for 30 hours, but we'll see what happens.
NDP-4 was defeated.
Next is amendment LIB-61.
Mr. Chair, I would request a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
I would request a recorded vote, please, Mr. Chairman.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, I would request a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, I would request a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, I would request a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, I would request a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, I would request a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Again, Mr. Chair, I would request a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, I would request a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, I would request a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, I would request a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, I would request a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, I would request a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, I would request a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, I would request a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, I would request a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, I would request a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chairperson, I request a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chairperson, I request a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chairperson, I would request a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chairperson, I would request a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chairperson, again I would request a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chairperson, I would request a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chairperson, I would request again a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chairperson, I would request another recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chairperson, I would again request a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now I understand the meaning of Yogi Berra's phrase, “It's déjà vu all over again”.
We are on amendment LIB-86.
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairperson. I would request a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We'd request a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, I would again request a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
No surprise, Mr. Chair: I would request a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, I would request a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chairperson, I would request a recorded vote, please.
(Clause 27 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings)
Mr. Chairperson, again I would request a recorded vote, please.
(Clause 28 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings)
Mr. Chairperson, I would request a recorded vote, please.
(Clause 29 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings)
(On clause 30)
Mr. Chairperson, I would again request a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chairperson, again I would request a recorded vote, please.
(Clause 30 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Colleagues, I don't have another amendment until clause 40. I am therefore going to seek unanimous consent to deal with clauses 31 to 39 together.
Do I have unanimous consent to do that?
Mr. Chairperson, again I request a recorded vote, please.
(Clause 31 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chairperson, I request a recorded vote, please.
(Clause 32 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chairperson, again I request a recorded vote, please.
(Clause 33 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chairperson, again I request a recorded vote, please.
(Clause 34 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chairperson, again I request that we have a recorded vote, please.
(Clause 35 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chairperson, I request a recorded vote again, please.
(Clause 36 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chairperson, I request that we have another recorded vote, please.
(Clause 37 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chairperson, again I would request a recorded vote, please.
(Clause 38 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, again I would request that we have a recorded vote, please.
(Clause 39 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 40)
Mr. Chairperson, I would ask if we could have a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chairperson, again I would request a recorded vote, please.
(Clause 40 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chairperson, I'd like to request a recorded vote, please.
(Clause 41 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 42)
Mr. Chair, I would request a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, I would request a recorded vote, please.
(Clause 42 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, again I would request a recorded vote, please.
(Clause 43 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 44)
Mr. Chairperson, I would request a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chairperson, again I would request a recorded vote, please.
(Clause 44 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 45)
Mr. Chair, I would request a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, I would request that we have a recorded vote, please.
(Clause 45 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 46)
Mr. Chair, I would again request that we have a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chairperson, again I would request a recorded vote, please.
(Clause 47 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chairperson, I would request that we have a recorded vote, please.
(Clause 48 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 49)
For clause 49, I have Liberal amendments 96 to 109.
I will ask really nicely this time whether the chair can group together Liberal amendments 96 to 109.
Does it sound like a good idea?
Mr. Chairperson, I would request a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, could I request a recorded vote, please?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, could I request a recorded vote, please?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, I would request a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, I would request a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, again I would request a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, I would again request that we have a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, I would request that we have a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, I would request that we have a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, I would request a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, I would request that we have a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, I request that we have a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, I request that we have a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We'll have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 49 carry on division?
Okay, it will be a recorded vote for clause 49.
(Clause 49 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 50)
The Chair: I will move to clause 50, and there are four amendments, LIB-110, LIB-111, LIB-112, and LIB-113.
I will deal with LIB-110.
Mr. Chair, I would request that we have a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, I would request that we have a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, I would request that we have a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, I would request that we have a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, I would request that we have a recorded vote, please.
(Clause 50 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 51)
Mr. Chair, I would request that we have a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, I would request that we have a recorded vote, please.
(Clause 51 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, I would request that we have a recorded vote, please.
(Clause 52 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, I would request that we have a recorded vote, please.
(Clause 53 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 54)
Mr. Chair, I would request that we have a recorded vote.
(Clause 54 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Maybe I'm tilting against windmills, but I don't have another amendment until clause 62. May I group clauses 55 to 61?
Mr. Chair, I would request a recorded vote, please.
(Clause 55 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, I would again ask that we have a recorded vote, please.
(Clause 56 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, could I request a recorded vote, please.
(Clause 58 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, could I request a recorded vote again, please.
(Clause 59 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, I would request that we have a recorded vote, please.
(Clause 60 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, I would request that we have a recorded vote, please.
(Clause 61 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Colleagues, we last dealt with clause 61 and we'll now move to clause 62.
(On clause 62)
I have amendments LIB-116, LIB-117, LIB-118, LIB-119, LIB-120, and LIB-121, as well as NDP-10.
On LIB-116.
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, if I may, I will refer to this book you are very familiar with. It clearly stipulates that, pursuant to the orders of reference to committees, the House Standing Orders apply. In the House, whenever he is asked to do so, the Speaker reads the provisions committees are asked to dispose of.
I don't know what right would allow us to not follow the House Standing Orders. To my knowledge, no rule or proposal has been adopted regarding this. So we have to follow the rules, Mr. Chair. I would like you to read the amendment before us, especially for the benefit of new members, such as myself and others, who are arriving....
[English]
[Translation]
Certainly, Mr. Chair. I can even read it, if you like.
I am talking about page 1045, under the title “Orders of Reference, Instructions and the Standing Orders of the House of Commons”:
Orders of reference and instructions issued by the House to parliamentary committees are a vital source of procedural rules for committees. They provide a framework for committee proceedings. Orders of reference can be adopted for a specific purpose [...]
To my knowledge, this has not been done. I will continue:
[...]—in which case they are recorded in the Journals—or consolidated in the Standing Orders.
This implies that the House Standing Orders apply to committees.
Mr. Chair, I could go on like this for a long time—there are pages and pages. However, I don't want to slow down the committee's work needlessly.
I request that you read the provisions and amendments we are being asked to dispose of.
[English]
I understand the member's concern, but of course he wasn't here when we passed the motion to deal with this matter. As a result of the passage of that motion, we have conducted our business in a certain way. That business sets a precedent based on the failure of the Liberal member who was here before to object to the way we were doing it.
I would suggest that it is the understanding of all committee members that motions or amendments would not be read. The motion that the committee agreed upon does not specify whether or not motions will be read.
Up to this point, they have not been read. Our motion does not ask for motions or amendments to be read. It says that the question shall be put on each and every amendment. If you look at O'Brien and Bosc on page 1044 or 1045, it says that the committee can agree to change certain things and that's what we did. We voted on it and it was passed.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I agree with the majority of Mr. Jean's comments. A committee can amend the Standing Orders and can adopt a resolution to that effect. However, if you reread the resolution that was proposed and adopted, you will see that it makes no reference to whether or not the provisions and amendments before us should be read out.
If the committee does want to ignore the obligation to read amendments or provisions, all it has to do is propose a resolution to that effects. We can then debate it, if the members wish. And that could take some time. Otherwise, unanimous consent is needed, and you currently do not have it.
My colleague who spoke before me may have consented to this. That's his right, which I recognize. However, I also have the right to not consent to this repeal of rules.
So, I invite you, Mr. Chair, to read the amendments and provisions we have to dispose of.
[English]
I think what the member is referring to is the section in chapter 20 in O'Brien and Bosc that deals with House of Commons procedure and practice. It says a committee cannot make a decision or vote unless there is quorum when debate on a motion ends or when a non-debatable motion is moved. The chair reads the motion and asks the committee members if they agree.
However, there is a footnote that the clerks have pointed out to me. It says that the atmosphere in which committee meetings are conducted is less formal than in the House and motions are sometimes carried without being read by the chair. The clerks are advising me that it is not incumbent upon the chair to read the motions.
The way I have been proceeding for the last five hours is an appropriate way for the chair to read it. That's my decision on your point of order.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, one moment, please. This wouldn't be a problem if no one had made the request, but otherwise, you have to read them. You can check the Standing Orders regarding that, and I would also ask the clerk to confirm. I think that, if the clerks were aware of the facts, they would advise you otherwise, Mr. Chair. Can you ask your clerks whether you have to comply with a request when someone submits it?
[English]
I actually asked the clerk. You may want to ask the clerks, if the clerks do want to comment, but the clerks did advise me as to what I should say in response to your point of order.
Thank you.
I asked the clerks how I should respond to your point of order, and this is how they advised me to respond. Therefore, I've made a ruling on your point of order. If you want to challenge the chair, you can challenge the chair, but I've made my ruling based on advice from the clerk.
Yes, but I've asked the clerk to consider what I've just said, and you can see there's a little perplexity among the clerks around the table, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Okay.
Hon. Mauril Bélanger: If a member asks for the motion that's before us to be read, does that apply? That's the question.
Basically, the general test that we try to follow, and the practice that's followed in committees, is that the question is clear and that the members have all of the necessary information in order to come to a decision.
We're provided a package of amendments submitted by all the members. The chair reads the motion, shall Liberal, NDP or government motion whichever carry? That's the question he's putting. If there's any ambiguity or clarification required, the chair can point to the package and say that it's NDP-39, LIB-10, or whatever.
Aside from that, this is the practice in committees. I've been a legislative clerk for seven years. I've never seen that.
It's just that I've never seen a request to have a motion read denied. I'm learning, and we'll have to check the rules out at some other point, and reinforce them for the betterment of the procedures of committees.
Thank you.
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
It will be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is LIB-117.
[Translation]
[English]
It will be a recorded note.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is NDP-10.
[Translation]
[English]
It will be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is LIB-118.
[Translation]
[English]
It will be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is LIB-119.
[Translation]
[English]
It will be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is LIB-120.
[Translation]
[English]
It will be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is LIB-121.
[Translation]
[English]
It will be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 62 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
It will be a recorded vote.
(Clause 62 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 63)
The Chair: I have LIB-122, LIB-123, and LIB-124.
We are on LIB-122.
[Translation]
[English]
It will be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is LIB-123.
[Translation]
[English]
It will be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is LIB-124.
[Translation]
[English]
It's a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 63 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
It will be a recorded vote.
(Clause 63 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 64)
The Chair: I have one amendment, LIB-125.
[Translation]
[English]
Okay, it's a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Shall clause 64 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
We will have a recorded vote.
(Clause 66 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 67 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
We will have a recorded vote.
(Clause 67 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 68)
The Chair: I have one amendment, LIB-126.
[Translation]
[English]
We will have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 68 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
We'll have a recorded vote.
(Clause 68 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 69 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
We will have a recorded vote.
(Clause 69 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 70 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
We will have a recorded vote.
(Clause 70 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 71 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
We'll have a recorded vote.
(Clause 71 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: It's a good thing we voted.
Shall clause 72 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
We will have a recorded vote.
(Clause 72 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: It's unanimous again.
Colleagues, in the interest of time, as your chair, I do not have an amendment until clause 164. Therefore, I will seek your consent to deal with clauses 73 to 163 inclusively. Do I have your consent?
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
We will have a recorded vote.
(Clause 73 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 74 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
We will have a recorded vote.
(Clause 74 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 75 carry?
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, we will once again see if there is unanimous consent. I call for a recorded vote, please.
[English]
We will have a recorded vote.
(Clause 75 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 76 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
We will have a recorded vote.
(Clause 77 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 78 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
We will have a recorded vote.
(Clause 78 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 79 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
We will have a recorded vote.
(Clause 79 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 80 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
We will have a recorded vote.
(Clause 80 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 81 carry?
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I am asking for a recorded vote again.
As I said, I will do this for each vote. If I have to do it, I will.
[English]
We will have a recorded vote.
(Clause 81 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 82 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
We will have a recorded vote.
(Clause 83 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 84 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
We will have a recorded vote.
(Clause 84 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 85 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
We will have a recorded vote.
(Clause 85 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 86 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
We will have a recorded vote.
(Clause 86 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 87 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
I'll show my colleagues that I can speak English.
[English]
I'd like to ask for a recorded division on this and every other one after, of course.
It will be a recorded vote.
(Clause 88 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 89 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
It will be a recorded vote.
(Clause 89 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 90 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
It will be a recorded vote.
(Clause 90 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 91 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
It will be a recorded vote.
(Clause 91 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 92 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
It will be a recorded vote.
(Clause 93 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair: Shall clause 94 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
It will be a recorded vote.
(Clause 98 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 99 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
It will be a recorded vote.
(Clause 99 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 100 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
It will be a recorded vote.
(Clause 100 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 101 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
It will be a recorded vote.
(Clause 102 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 103 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
It will be a recorded vote.
(Clause 104 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 105 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
It will be a recorded vote.
(Clause 106 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 107 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
It will be a recorded vote.
(Clause 107 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 108 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
It will be a recorded vote.
(Clause 108 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 109 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
It will be a recorded vote.
(Clause 109 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 110 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
It will be a recorded vote.
(Clause 110 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 111 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
It will be a recorded vote.
(Clause 112 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 113 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
We will have a recorded vote.
(Clause 113 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Mr. Bélanger, wasn't your answer a “no”?
[Translation]
[English]
Good. It was another unanimous one. This is a very popular bill lately.
We will go to clause 114.
Shall clause 114 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
It will be a recorded vote.
(Clause 114 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 115 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
We'll have a recorded vote.
(Clause 115 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We need to make sure the clerk understands clearly whether we're voting in favour or against. Thank you.
Shall clause 116 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
It will be a recorded vote.
(Clause 116 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 117 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
It will be a recorded vote.
(Clause 117 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 118 carry?
It will be a recorded vote.
(Clause 118 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 119 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
It will be a recorded vote.
(Clause 119 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 120 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
It will be a recorded vote.
(Clause 120 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 121 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
It will be a recorded vote.
(Clause 121 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 122 carry?
Yes, it will be a recorded vote.
(Clause 122 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 123 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
It will be a recorded vote.
(Clause 123 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 124 carry?
It will be a recorded vote.
(Clause 124 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 125 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
We'll have a recorded vote.
(Clause 125 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 126 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
We'll have a recorded vote.
(Clause 126 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 127 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
We'll have a recorded vote.
(Clause 127 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 128 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
We'll have a recorded vote.
(Clause 128 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 129 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
We will have a recorded vote.
(Clause 129 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 130 carry?
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, if the provision had been read, things would have gone faster for the previous vote. In this case as well, I will call for a recorded vote.
[English]
We will have a recorded vote.
(Clause 130 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: It's nice to see everyone agreeing on so many items.
Shall clause 131 carry?
We'll have a recorded vote.
(Clause 131 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 132 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
We'll have a recorded vote.
(Clause 132 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 133 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
We will have a recorded vote.
(Clause 133 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 134 carry? On division?
[Translation]
[English]
Okay, it will be a recorded vote.
(Clause 134 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 135 carry unanimously?
[Translation]
[English]
Sure.
(Clause 135 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: That's very shocking. Clause 135 carries. We shall see whether clause 136 will be carried.
We will have a recorded vote.
(Clause 136 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 137 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
It will be a recorded vote.
(Clause 137 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 138 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
It will be a recorded vote.
(Clause 138 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 139 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
It will be a recorded vote.
(Clause 139 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 140 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
It will be a recorded vote.
(Clause 140 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 141 carry?
Will there be a recorded vote?
Take your time.
(Clause 141 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 142 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
It will be a recorded vote.
(Clause 142 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 143 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
We will have a recorded vote.
(Clauses 143 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 144 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
We will have a recorded vote.
(Clause 144 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 145 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
We will have recorded vote.
(Clause 145 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 146 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
We will have a recorded vote.
(Clause 146 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 147 carry?
We will have a recorded vote.
(Clause 147 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 148 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
We will have a recorded vote.
(Clause 148 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 149 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
We will have a recorded vote.
(Clause 149 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 150 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
We will have a recorded vote.
(Clause 150 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 151 carry?
You certainly can.
(Clause 151 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 152 carry?
It will be a recorded vote.
(Clause 152 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We seem to have a pattern of unanimous decisions. Would the committee permit your very hard-working chair to combine clauses 153 to 164, if I ask very nicely?
Yes. Would it be possible for the government side to indicate a vote of “yes” to every clause and “no” to every amendment? Could we apply the vote?
What I am going to do is have the clerks consider that. I will continue on as we are, and they will consult together and come back with a recommendation to me as the chair.
Is that okay?
Let's have a recorded vote on that, Mr. Chairman.
(Clause 153 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Let's check that with a recorded vote, Mr. Chair.
[English]
(Clause 154 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chairman, let's determine that by recorded vote.
(Clause 155 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The clerks have advised me that, as is usual practice in the chamber, it does require unanimous consent. In O'Brien and Bosc, there is nothing in the chapter on committees that differentiates that, as far as our clerks know. That is a practice we have to follow here.
I would need unanimous consent as the chair to use that practice. Do I have unanimous consent to use the practice?
Perhaps, but let's determine that by recorded vote.
(Clause 156 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I request a recorded vote.
[English]
(Clause 157 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Let's see that by recorded vote, Mr. Chair.
(Clause 158 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I ask for a recorded vote. What a surprise!
[English]
(Clause 159 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings] )
[Translation]
I call for a recorded vote, please, Mr. Chair.
[English]
(Clause 160 agreed to: yeas 6, nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
We will be sitting until after 10 o'clock, tomorrow morning.
[English]
(Clause 161 agreed to: yeas 6, nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, let's check that with a recorded vote.
[English]
(Clause 162 agreed to: yeas 6, nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I ask for a recorded vote.
[English]
(Clause 163 agreed to: yeas 6, nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Let's check that with a recorded vote, Mr. Chairman.
(Clause 164 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 165—July 1, 2007)
Colleagues, you have amendments Liberal-165-1 to Liberal-165-364. This deals with when the act comes into force, so obviously what these amendments are doing is proposing every other day in the calendar.
Now, I don't have authority to say these are inadmissible, but I would try to use every force of reason to convince my colleague from the Liberal Party to perhaps pick one day or to say that the vote for one applies to all, because there is the same intent. If the member insists, we will have a vote on each one, but that's what I'm asking.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I understand what you are asking, but I remember having to vote in the House for about 72 hours because there were 4,000 amendments proposed at the time by the Reform Party. One of those sets of amendments was about the implementation of provisions every day of the year.
Since the House has already set the precedent of voting on such issues, I feel obligated to respect that precedent. Therefore, you do not have our consent. So we will have to vote on each of those amendments. I will ask for a recorded vote for each amendment. Do expect that.
[English]
If the members wants, the member will have a vote on each one. But I would say that there have been changes made since those voting days, including by the illustrious Don Boudria, former House leader from your party, who I think would probably side with me on this issue. But that's up to—
[Translation]
I ask for a recorded vote, please, Mr. Chair.
[English]
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
I call for a recorded vote, please, Mr. Chair.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
I request a recorded vote, please, Mr. Chair.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
I call for a recorded vote, please, Mr. Chair.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Let's have a recorded vote, Mr. Chairman, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Once again, Mr. Chair, I request a recorded vote.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I ask for a recorded vote, please.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
We could maybe try to vote by week later, but, once again, Mr. Chair, I will tell you that you don't have unanimous consent.
[English]
[Translation]
[Translation]
I ask for a recorded vote, please, Mr. Chair.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, once again, I am requesting a recorded vote.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I ask for a recorded vote, please.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
May we have a recorded vote, Mr. Chairman, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Colleagues, I have a request from the clerks to suspend for a few minutes so they can catch up on membership sheets and voting sheets.
I'm going to suspend for about five minutes.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the employees who are investing efforts this evening to make our democracy work.
[English]
I will thank our clerks who are here, pulling double duty, the translators, and the people who organize the committee, and the logistics people as well. Thank you very much, on behalf of the entire committee.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
The Chair: Okay, colleagues, we last dealt with Liberal amendment 165-14 and that was defeated. We are now proceeding with Liberal-165-15.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I think I will call for a recorded vote.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chairman, would you mind having a recorded vote, please?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, believe or not, I am requesting a recorded vote.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I wouldn't want to break good habits. I call for a recorded vote.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I am asking for a recorded vote.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
[Translation]
[Translation]
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
It's an important date. I think it requires a recorded vote, Mr. Chairman.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
[Translation]
At the risk of repeating myself, Mr. Chair, I request a recorded vote.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
We are having so much fun, so let's go ahead with another recorded vote.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
[Translation]
We have gotten through one month.
However, another recorded vote is needed.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I ask, once again, for a recorded vote.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
[Translation]
And so it goes, Mr. Chair. I would like another recorded vote, please.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
For this one, as well, Mr. Chair, I would ask for a recorded vote.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, a recorded vote please. Thank you.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I would ask for a recorded vote.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, no surprise, I would like another recorded vote.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chairman, I would request another recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
Your patience is appreciated, Mr. Chair. I would like another recorded vote.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Same thing, Mr. Chair. A recorded vote please.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, believe it or not, I would like a recorded vote.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Same thing, Mr. Chair. A recorded vote please.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, once again may I have a recorded vote, on this Liberal amendment?
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I would also like a recorded vote on that amendment.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, let's see if it goes the same way, by means of a recorded vote.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
Proceed.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Now we go to amendment LIB-165-55.
[Translation]
[English]
Okay.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We now go to amendment LIB-165-56.
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
Okay.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is amendment LIB-165-59.
Did you want a recorded vote?
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
All right.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We now have Liberal-165-64.
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, a recorded vote would be appreciated.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, let's see what happens in a recorded vote. Who will say yea and who will say nay on this fascinating number?
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Once again, I would say a recorded vote is in order.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
I'm very disappointed in that decision.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We have Liberal-165-74.
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
It's the Air Canada age, Mr. Chair. That calls for a recorded vote.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, may I have another recorded vote?
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
A great number, Mr. Chair. It, too, is worthy of a recorded vote.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We’ll move to LIB-165-78.
On division?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: No, no, no.
The Chair: It's Mr. Mai's good idea.
[Translation]
Yes, he has the right to ask, but I have the right to refuse.
So, I call for a recorded vote, please.
[English]
[Translation]
[Translation]
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I think you're reading my mind. Once again, I would like a recorded vote please.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
Okay.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We’ll move to LIB-165-84.
On division?
No. On a recorded division perhaps—a recorded vote, sorry.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
[English]
Okay.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We are in the morning. I just want to point that out.
We’ll move to LIB-165-86.
Is this not night? It sure is the dead of night, Mr. Chair, and that's why we need a recorded vote on this, in the dead of night.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[Translation]
No, no, I still think it is worthy of a recorded vote, Mr. Chair.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
On that one too, Mr. Chair, a recorded vote would be appreciated.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
This seems like a good time to request a recorded vote, Mr. Chair.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I would be pleased to request a recorded vote.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
You can't possibly know how much I enjoy asking for a recorded vote.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
[English]
In honour of the Great One, Mr. Chairman, I think we need a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
That is yet another fascinating number. Let's see who supports and who opposes it, Mr. Chair. I would ask for a recorded vote.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, on Liberal amendment 165-106, which pertains to clause 165 of Bill C-45, I would like a recorded vote.
[English]
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, on Liberal amendment 165-107, which pertains to clause 165 of Bill C-45, I would like a recorded vote.
[English]
Okay.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: The next one is Liberal-165-108.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, on Liberal amendment 165-108, which pertains to clause 165 of Bill C-45, I would like a recorded vote.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, once again, I'd like a recorded vote.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I will once again ask for a recorded vote.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Are we at Liberal amendment 165-111, Mr. Chair? In that case, I am going to request a recorded vote. Big surprise, wouldn't you say?
[English]
It's a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We're on Liberal-165-112.
[Translation]
We'll keep trying, Mr. Chair.
So on Liberal amendment 165-112, which pertains to clause 165 of Bill C-45, I would like a recorded vote.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
We carry on, Mr. Chair.
I would like a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 165-113.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chairman, I would like to have a recorded vote on this amendment to clause 165.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, on Liberal amendment 165-115, which pertains to clause 165 of Bill C-45, I would like a recorded vote.
[English]
That's a great idea. It's a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We are on Liberal-165-116.
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
If you don't mind, Mr. Chair, I would like a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 165-117 to clause 165 of Bill C-45.
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
This is a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We're on Liberal-165-119.
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I request a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 165-120 to clause 165 of Bill C-45.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Mr. Chairman, I would like to have a recorded vote on this amendment 165-122 to clause 165 of Bill C-45.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
I don't give up that easily, Mr. Chair.
Therefore, I ask for a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 165-123.
[English]
We'll have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We are on Liberal-165-124.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to request a recorded vote on amendment 165-124.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
[English]
We'll have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We are on Liberal 165-126.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask for a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 165-126.
(Amendment negatived [SeeMinutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chairman, this requires a recorded vote as well.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
[English]
Mr. Chairman, guess what? I'm going to be asking for a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chairman, I would humbly ask for a recorded vote on this.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
I have been asked to have a brief health break, so we are going to take a health break and come back in 10 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I'm so sorry to have caused undue expectations. I think I'm going to have to revert to requesting a recorded vote on amendment 132 to clause 165 of Bill C-45.
You're dashing my hopes, but I'm still hopeful about our future ones.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
I'm looking for clarification on some of the rules, Mr. Chair.
It's getting late, and in the interests of your health, I'm just curious to know if you needed to leave the chair, sir, whether there are options available to the committee so that we could continue. Are we allowed to elect a temporary chair? I know Ms. Nash has been here the same amount of time. I'm just wondering about the options for that.
Yes, I appreciate that, and I appreciate the concern for my health as well.
The clerks have identified for me the section in O'Brien and Bosc that deals with that. Obviously, if I'm not here, then it goes to the first vice-chair, who has a choice of taking over the chair, and then the second vice-chair, if the second vice-chair were to be here.
If neither the first vice-chair nor the second vice-chair were to take the chair in my absence, “then an Acting Chair must be chosen to preside over a committee meeting”. It further reads:
With the committee's consent, the Chair of a standing or special committee may designate a member to act as Chair at a given meeting if it is known in advance that the Chair and the Vice-Chairs will not be attending. Where no Acting Chair has been designated, the committee clerk must preside over the election of an Acting Chair before the committee can begin its work.
My understanding, and the clerks may want to add to this, is that if I were to leave the chair and Ms. Nash or Mr. Brison were not here or did not want to take the chair, then the committee would have to elect a chair until I returned.
Maybe I'll ask the clerk to comment as well.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Yes, with the consent of the committee, the chair can designate somebody, or in the absence of consent, the clerk must then proceed to the election of an acting chair. So there are two ways you can go.
So I would need unanimous consent to designate someone. If there's not unanimous consent, then we would have to proceed to an election.
Is that clear, Ms. Glover? Okay.
Mr. Bélanger.
In the absence of unanimous consent, which is likely the case, you say the clerk's advice is that you'd have to proceed to the clerk chairing for someone to nominate, so a motion to nominate a replacement.
But that would be contrary to the motion that's been adopted by this committee in terms of proceeding forthwith, without any further amendments or motions, with disposing of every single section and the amendments. That would be contrary to what the committee has already decided.
Would the clerk comment on that, please?
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.
The book as it's written says “consent”; it doesn't say “unanimous consent” for the appointment. So with the consent of the committee, the chair can—
Well, Mr. Bélanger, we have clerks for a reason. They're to provide procedural advice.
The option is, obviously, that if Ms. Nash is here and wants to take the chair, she can, in my absence, or Mr. Brison would be the second choice.
I would certainly follow this procedure. I don't know if the clerk wants to comment on your question on how the election would occur.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It would proceed much in the same way that the elections for chairs occur at the beginning of a session: I would receive motions to the effect, for chair, and that's all I would be entitled to receive. I wouldn't be able to entertain points of order, that kind of thing, and it would proceed much in the same fashion as it would at the beginning of a session.
That was not my question. My question was, how does that jibe with the motion the committee has approved—of how we're to proceed past 11:59 p.m. yesterday?
There's nothing in the motion, that I see, that would preclude the election of a chair, but members can review that.
I'm going to go to Ms. Glover.
Just a further clarification, Mr. Chair.
If one were to nominate someone to take the chair, that's not allowed because it's then debatable. But if you were to decide that you need a break and we didn't have a vice-chair to take the chair, as you decided to want to switch, that's when you would ask for consent, as the chair. If you didn't have consent, do you then just leave the chair and have the clerk take the chair, and now elect another temporary chair? Is that how the process would work?
Let's get some clarification here, but let's proceed.
I'm going to get the clerks to consult together and come back to the committee, because Mr. Bélanger has a question and you have a question. I'd rather get that all straightened out and then come back to the committee. Okay?
Mr. Chairman, may I make one last comment, for clarification?
The Chair: Yes.
Hon. Mauril Bélanger: If, indeed, you wanted to suspend the work for health reasons, I've indicated to you, and I'll do so publicly, that we would not be opposed to that. I would like that to be on the record.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I request a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 165-133 to clause 165 of Bill C-45.
[English]
We’ll have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We'll go next to LIB-165-134.
[Translation]
[English]
We’ll have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We'll go to LIB-165-135.
Mr. Chairman, I would request a recorded vote on this amendment 135.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I would like a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 165-137.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, could I please have a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 165-138?
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chairman, I would request a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 165-139.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Once again, Mr. Chair, a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 165-140 is requested.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, in keeping with tradition, I would ask for a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 165-141.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask for a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 165-142.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 165-143 is requested.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 165-144 is requested.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, could I please have a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 165-145?
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, may I have a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 165-146?
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chairman, I would request a recorded vote on amendment LIB-165-147.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
I would, Mr. Chairman, ask for a recorded vote on amendment LIB-165-148.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
Go ahead.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Now we're on amendment LIB-165-151.
[Translation]
[English]
Go ahead.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We're on amendment LIB-165-152.
Mr. Chairman, I would request a recorded vote on amendment LIB-165-152.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
[English]
Go ahead.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We're on amendment LIB-165-154.
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, if you would be so kind as to hold a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 165-155 to Bill C-45.
[English]
Go ahead.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We're on amendment LIB-165-156.
[Translation]
[English]
Okay.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We're now on amendment LIB-165-157.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a recorded vote on amendment LIB-165-158.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Again, Mr. Chairman, I'd ask for a recorded division on amendment LIB-165-159.
The Chair: A recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
A point of order, Chair.
I was just wondering if there's any answer to the clarification we asked for.
[Translation]
[English]
Okay.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We move to amendment LIB-165-161.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I request a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 165-161 to Bill C-45.
[English]
Go ahead.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Okay. I'm going to explain the process.
If I'm not here as the chair, if I choose to take a health break, and if Ms. Nash is here as the first vice-chair, she would have to take the chair. She does not have an option; she would have to take the chair. If I were not here and Ms. Nash were not here and Mr. Brison were here, then he would have to take the chair as the second vice-chair. If the three of us are not here, as happened in one meeting—I nominated someone and Mr. Van Kesteren filled in as the chair. That can certainly happen, but that happens with the consent of the committee, and as the clerk explained, there is a difference between consent and unanimous consent.
If the three of us, the chair and the two vice-chairs, are not in the room, there is a process to nominate an acting chair. There is a motion to nominate, which is non-debatable. It's proposed by a member, and to the question Mr. Bélanger asked—can this motion be proposed given the motion we adopted—yes. The clerk is going to explain that further, but the motion the committee adopted that dealt with Bill C-45 does not preclude the introduction of a motion for an acting chair.
If there is only one nomination that's proposed, members vote on that nomination. If there's more than one person, the proposition for a nomination is a secret vote, as per Standing Order 106(3).
Does that answer everyone's questions?
Mr. Bélanger.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the references given to me by you or the clerks, but preferably by you, in terms of defining consent. We're not talking about consensus here. Consensus is a different beast from consent. Consensus, for instance, is how the Board of Internal Economy functions, where the Speaker calls for a consensus.
Wherever I've heard the matter of consent being called for, it implicitly called for unanimous consent, because if a member of an assembly, whether it be a committee or the House, does not give consent when consent is being sought, it usually means that you cannot proceed.
With unanimous consent we can do anything. We know that. The history of this Parliament for well over 100 years has been built along the definition that consent means that everyone needs to consent.
So I'd like to have the references given to me where consent does not mean that every member has the right to consent or not to consent.
With respect to the overall issue of the role of acting chairs, just for the benefit of all members, it is page 1033 of O'Brien and Bosc.
Ms. Glover, do you have a question as well?
Yes, Chair, and thank you for the clarification. I appreciate that.
What would happen if a temporary chair were put into your position and then the vice-chair arrived?
That's a very good question. If the committee elects an acting chair and, for instance, Ms. Nash or Mr. Brison return, they automatically assume the chair position.
We will come back to that. We will not proceed with that, obviously, until we have a full answer on the distinction between consent and unanimous consent.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I request a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 165-162 to Bill C-45.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chairman I would ask for a recorded vote on amendment 165-163.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Here as well, Mr. Chair, a recorded vote on whether to accept or reject Liberal amendment 165-164 is requested.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a recorded vote on amendment 165-165.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, would you kindly oblige with a recorded vote on this amendment to Bill C-45?
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 165-167 would be appreciated.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, with your permission, I would ask for a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 165-168.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chairman, I would request a recorded vote on this amendment to Bill C-45, amendment 165-169.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chairman, I would request a recorded vote on this amendment 165-170 to Bill C-45.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, out of respect for this fine tradition, I request a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 165-171 to Bill C-45.
[English]
We'll just let the clerks catch up to the substitutions.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We'll now go to Liberal amendment 165-172.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I will take a moment to give my colleagues across the way a chance to get settled and the clerk a moment to catch their breath. Mr. Chair, I would ask for a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 165-172 to Bill C-45.
[English]
Order, please. Let's sort out who is voting on the Conservative side.
We are now voting on Liberal amendment 165-172.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Now we go to Liberal amendment 165-173.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, may I please have a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 165-173 to Bill C-45?
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I request a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 165-174.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I request a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 165-175.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a recorded vote on amendment 165-176.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Again, Mr. Chairman, I would request a recorded vote on this amendment 165-177.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chairman, I would request a recorded vote on this amendment 165-178 to Bill C-45.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Just for you.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Liberal amendment 165-180.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, may I have a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 165-180?
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I request a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 165-181 to Bill C-45.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I request a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 165-182.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Again, Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a recorded vote on amendment 165-183.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 165-184 please.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chairman, I would hope that you would ask for a recorded vote on amendment 165-185.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask for a recorded vote on amendment 165-186 to Bill C-45.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Again, Mr. Chairman, I would request a recorded vote on amendment 165-187.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I request a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 165-188 to Bill C-45.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, could I have a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 165-189, please?
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I request a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 165-190 to Bill C-45.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, I would ask for a recorded vote on amendment 165-191.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, may I please have a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 165-192 to Bill C-45?
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I request a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 165-193 to Bill C-45.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a recorded vote on amendment 165-194.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I request a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 165-195 to Bill C-45.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
In the same vein, Mr. Chair, I request a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 165-196 to Bill C-45.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, if I may, I would like to request another recorded vote, on Liberal amendment 165-197.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Along the same lines, Mr. Chair, I request a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 165-198.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Again, Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a recorded vote on amendment 165-199 to Bill C-45.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Moving along.
Mr. Chair, I request a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 165-200.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a recorded vote on amendment 165-201.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chairman, I would ask that we proceed with a recorded vote on amendment 165-202.
And perhaps at one point we could take a minute break so the clerk can explain something to me.
Sure.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Did you want to take a minute now, Mr. Bélanger?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: It's up to you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: We'll suspend for two minutes now.
Welcome back.
We are at Liberal amendment 165-203.
A recorded vote on this, Mr. Bélanger?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Yes, please, Mr. Chair.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Liberal amendment 165-204.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I request a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 165-204 to Bill C-45.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, once again, I request a recorded vote, on Liberal amendment 165-205.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chairman, I would request a recorded vote on amendment 165-206 to Bill C-45.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I request a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 165-207.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a recorded vote for amendment 165-208 to Bill C-45.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I request a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 165-209.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 165-210 please.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chairman, I would ask that there be a recorded vote on amendment 165-211.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Again, Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a recorded vote on amendment 165-212.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I request a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 165-213 to Bill C-45.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, may I have a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 165-214?
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Sure, and I will ask, Mr. Chairman, for a recorded vote on 165-215.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, please can we have a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 165-216?
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, if you don't mind, I would request a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 165-217.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, I would ask for a recorded vote on amendment 165-218.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a recorded vote on amendment 165-219.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I again call for a recorded vote, this time on Liberal amendment 165-220.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Colleagues, as your chair I'm going to suspend, and I'm going to suspend until noon today. I do need a break myself, but I think a couple of others do as well.
So I will suspend and we will resume the committee at noon today.
I hope it will be this room, but if not, we will send a notice to all members.
Thank you. The meeting is suspended.
I call this meeting back to order. This is the continuation of meeting number 94 of the Standing Committee on Finance. I want to welcome colleagues back to the meeting.
I'll just read the orders of the day: pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday October 30, 2012, Bill C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures.
As you know, colleagues, we are following the motion that was adopted by this committee.
The last clause and amendment that we voted on was Liberal 165-220.
I will now call the question on Liberal amendment 165-221.
A recorded vote?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We'll now have Liberal amendment 165-222.
A recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We have Liberal amendment 165-223.
Mr. Scott Brison: A recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We will now have Liberal amendment 165-224.
Mr. Scott Brison: A recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Liberal amendment 165-225.
Mr. Scott Brison: A recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Liberal amendment 165-226.
On division?
Mr. Chair, we'd like to have a recorded vote, if that's fine with you.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal amendment 165-227.
Mr. Scott Brison: A recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Liberal amendment 165-228.
Mr. Chair, I'd like to have a recorded vote on this one.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, could we have a recorded vote on that?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chairman, could we have a recorded vote on that, please?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chairman, could we please have a recorded vote on this?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, could we have a recorded vote on this, please?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, could we have a recorded vote on this?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, could we have a recorded vote, please?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal amendment 165-241.
Mr. Scott Brison: Could we have a recorded vote?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Liberal amendment 165-242.
Could we have a recorded vote on that, Mr. Chair.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, could we have a recorded vote on this one?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, could we have a recorded vote, please?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Let's do that.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Liberal amendment 165-258.
Shall we do this one on division, or would you like a recorded vote on this one?
Mr. Scott Brison: A recorded vote, please, yes.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Liberal amendment 165-259.
Mr. Chair, could we have a recorded vote on this, please?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, could we have a recorded vote on 165-261?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, could we have a recorded vote on 165-262?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, could we have a recorded vote on 165-263?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, could we have a recorded vote on this one?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal amendment 165-265.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Liberal amendment 165-266.
Could we have a recorded vote on that, Mr. Chair?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, could we have a recorded vote, please, on this one?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal amendment 165-271.
A recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Liberal amendment 165-272.
Mr. Chair, could we have a recorded vote on 165-273?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Sure, let's do that.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Liberal amendment 165-275.
Sir, could we have a recorded vote on this one, please?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, I'd like to have a recorded vote on this.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, could we have a recorded vote on 165-282, please?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Sure, let's do that.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Liberal amendment 165-284.
Mr. Chair, could we have a recorded vote on 165-284?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, I'd like to have a recorded vote on 165-285.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
There's no coffee here? I will certainly endeavour to get some coffee.
Is there anything else members would like?
We're on Liberal amendment 165-286.
On division?
A recorded vote just for this one.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Liberal amendment 165-287.
Mr. Chair, I'd like to have a recorded vote on 165-287.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, I'd like to have a recorded vote on this.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Brison, with unanimous consent we can apply the last vote to the next 50. Would that be agreeable to everyone?
Thank you.
Liberal amendment 165-292.
Mr. Scott Brison: Could we have a recorded vote on this one?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Liberal amendment 165-293.
On division?
Mr. Chair, could we have a recorded vote on 165-296?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, could we have a recorded vote on that?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, I would like to have a recorded vote on that.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Could we have a recorded vote on that, Mr. Chair?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, could we have a recorded vote on 165-301?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, could we have a recorded vote on 165-302?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, I would like to have a recorded vote on 165-303.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Do we have any information from any of the whips' offices as to why the bells are ringing?
They are 30-minute bells.
As you know, I need unanimous consent to continue the committee. Do I have unanimous consent?
I do not have unanimous consent. Therefore, I will suspend the meeting.
I call this meeting back to order. This is the 94th meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance and we are continuing our consideration of Bill C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures.
I will call the committee back to order.
I will just have the clerk read the names into the record as to who will be voting.
Mr. Adler, Mr. Hawn, Mr. Del Mastro, Mr. Carmichael, Ms. McLeod, Mr. Van Kesteren, Monsieur Caron, Monsieur Mai, Mr. Marston—
I call this meeting back to order.
Colleagues, we last voted on Liberal amendment 165-304. That was defeated.
I will therefore call the vote on Liberal amendment 165-305.
Mr. Chair, could we have a recorded vote on 165-305?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, I would like a recorded vote on that, if that's fine with you.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, I would like to have a recorded vote on 165-308.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, I respectfully request a recorded vote on 165-309.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, I'd like to have a recorded vote on 165-311.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, could we have a recorded vote on 165-312?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, could we please have a recorded vote on 165-313?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Let's do a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Liberal amendment 165-315.
We could, yes.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Liberal amendment 165-317.
On division?
Mr. Chair, could we please have a recorded vote on this?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Let's do a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Liberal amendment 165-319.
Okay. Let's mix it up.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Liberal amendment 165-320.
You can have a recorded vote, yes.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Liberal amendment 165-323.
Mr. Chair, could we have a recorded vote on this one, please?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Okay, let's do that.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Liberal amendment 165-326.
Mr. Chair, I'd like to have a recorded vote on 165-326.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
You want a recorded vote on this.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: If we can do one more before question period, we will do Liberal amendment 165-328.
Mr. Chair, I'd like to have a recorded vote—
The Chair: Do you really want it for this one?
Hon Scott Brison: —if it's not too late.
Okay, let's do it.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Colleagues, I will suspend until after question period. I will resume as soon as I have a quorum following question period, but I will suspend at this time.
Thank you.
I call the 94th meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance back to order.
Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 30, 2012, we're continuing our discussion of Bill C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures.
Colleagues, when we were last here we defeated Liberal amendment 165-328. I will therefore move to Liberal amendment 165-329.
Mr. Brison.
Yes, you can.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: The bells are ringing. As your chair, I need unanimous consent to keep the meeting going. Do I have that unanimous consent?
I do not have unanimous consent. I am sorry, but I will suspend the meeting. We will return after the vote.
Thank you
I call this meeting back to order.
This is meeting number 94 of the Standing Committee on Finance. Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 30, 2012, we're studying Bill C-45.
Colleagues, when we were last here we defeated Liberal amendment 165-329. Therefore, I will call the vote on Liberal 165-330.
On division?
Yes, Mr. Brison.
Thank you, Mr. Brison.
(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We will now go to Liberal amendment 165-331.
Mr. Brison.
Just when you get my hopes up, you dash them.
Hon. Scott Brison: You told me to mix it up.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is Liberal amendment 165-332.
Mr. Chair, could we have a recorded vote on this one?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We'll go to Liberal amendment 165-333.
On division?
(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We'll go to Liberal amendment 165-334.
Mr. Brison.
Some of our people here are too loud in the microphones, and it's really a serious problem for the hearing of our translators. I know it's not a typical point of order, but it's a point of concern for them. If perhaps the members could deliver, but without the force....
Since Mr. Marston didn't name any names, I'm assuming he's talking about everybody else but me.
I haven't heard any complaints from the interpreters. For the sake of clarity, we need to be clear.
If there is a problem, the interpreters can let me know. The problem typically with the clerks is not hearing them loud enough. I'll ask people to be forceful but not too forceful.
We'll go to Liberal amendment 165-336.
Mr. Chair, can we have a recorded vote on 165-336, please?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, could we do a recorded vote on this one?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We will go to 165-338.
(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We'll go to Liberal amendment 165-339.
Mr. Brison.
We'll have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We will have LIB-165-340.
(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We will go to LIB-165-341.
Mr. Brison.
Excuse me, Mr. Chair, could we have a recorded vote on LIB-165-343.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
I'd like to have a recorded vote on this one, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, could we have a recorded vote on this.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Could we have a recorded vote, please, Mr. Chair.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The date is of significance to you.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We now have LIB-165-350.
Mr. Chair, could we have a recorded vote on this.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
On division would be fine, I believe.
(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, could we have a recorded vote on that, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Chair, I'd like to have a recorded vote on that, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, I'd like to have a recorded vote on this.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Could we have a recorded vote on this one, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, I think a recorded vote on this would be appropriate.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Shall clause 165 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: I would like a recorded vote.
(Clause 165 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings] )
The Chair: Shall clause 166 carry?
I would like a recorded vote please.
(Clauses 166 to 170 inclusive agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings)
The Chair: Shall clause 167 carry?
Hon. Scott Brison: I would like a recorded vote.
(Clause 167 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 168 carry?
Hon. Scott Brison: I would like a recorded vote.
(Clause 168 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 169 carry?
Hon. Scott Brison: I would like a recorded vote.
(Clause 169 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 170 carry?
Hon. Scott Brison: I would like a recorded vote.
(Clause 170 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 171 carry?
Hon. Scott Brison: I would like a recorded vote.
(Clause 171 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, could we have a recorded vote on this.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Could we have a recorded vote on that, please, Mr. Chair.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Could we have a recorded vote on this, Mr. Chair.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, I'd like to have a recorded vote on this one.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Could we have a recorded vote on amendment LIB-132, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Could we have a recorded vote on LIB-136, please, Mr. Chair.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, I'd like to have a recorded vote on this.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, I would like a recorded vote on LIB-140.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
I'd like to have a recorded vote on this, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We're on LIB-145.
(Amendment negatived on division See [Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Now we're on LIB-146.
Mr. Chair, I'd like to have a recorded vote on LIB-146.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, I would like to have a recorded vote on LIB-147.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, I'd like a recorded vote on LIB-148, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, I would to have a recorded vote on LIB-150.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Chair, could we have a recorded vote on LIB-152.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Colleagues, I hear the bells ringing which indicates that votes are upcoming.
I assume I don't have unanimous consent to continue, but could we finish with clause 173?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 173 carry?
Hon. Scott Brison: I would like a recorded vote, please.
(Clause 173 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Colleagues, I will suspend and we will resume after the vote.
Thank you.
I call this meeting back to order. This is the 94th meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance.
Colleagues, when we left off, Clause 173 was carried.
(On clause 174)
The Chair: We are now on clause 174. We have one amendment to clause 174. We have LIB-156. I have a ruling as the chair on this amendment. Bill C-45 amends the Fisheries Act to direct that fines be credited to the Environmental Damages Fund, an account in the accounts of Canada. This amendment proposes to create a board chaired by the minister to administer the fund. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states at pages 767-8:
Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in a royal recommendation.
Therefore, in the opinion of the chair, the amendment would place responsibility for funds within the consolidated revenue fund and a board chaired by the minister, the effect of which would alter the terms and conditions of the royal recommendation. Therefore, I rule this amendment inadmissible.
I shall therefore ask, shall clause 174 carry?
Could we have a recorded vote on that please, Mr. Chair.
(Clause 174 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 175)
We will move to clause 175. I have three amendments to clause 175: LIB-157, NDP-11 and LIB-158.
We'll therefore move to the vote on LIB-157.
Mr. Chair, could we have a recorded vote on that please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We're on NDP-11.
(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is LIB-158.
Mr. Chair, I'd like to have a recorded vote on this.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Shall Clause 176 carry?
An hon. member: I would like a recorded vote.
(Clause 176 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 177)
The Chair: On clause 177, we have two amendments: LIB-159 and NDP-12.
I'll move to the vote on LIB-159.
Mr. Chair, could we have a recorded vote on this, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
I think we should have a recorded vote on this, Mr. Chair.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Okay, we'll move to clause 178.
You could leave, Mr. McCallum, and we could proceed on division.
Colleagues, the clerks have asked for about five minutes to prepare some voting sheets, so we'll suspend for five minutes.
I call the committee back to order.
I will have the clerk run through the names just to make sure we know who is voting.
I have Mr. Adler, Ms. Glover, Mr. Hoback, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Shipley, Mr. Calandra, Mr. Aubin, Madame Freeman, Mr. Marston, Mr. Gravelle, Mr. McCallum.
(On clause 178)
Colleagues, we are now embarking on another set. We have LIB 178-1 to LIB 178-364. These are successive dates. I will appeal to my good friend the member for Markham—Unionville, his wisdom, his generosity, his spiritedness, to pick one date, or to perhaps let one vote apply to all 364 votes.
Would the member for Markham—Unionville be open to that?
Mr. Chair, I think at least for the opening we should go one by one and then we'll see how it progresses.
Mr. Brison, if you're sitting at the table you take precedence. I hesitate to say that you're more important than Mr. McCallum, but according to the clerk, you are.
Hon. Scott Brison: I'm just eye candy.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is LIB-178-2.
I think this might be a good one for a recorded vote, Mr. Chair.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Division. Thank you.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is LIB-178-7.
Well, I think just to vary the pace, we could do this one on division.
(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
That's wonderful.
(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is LIB-178-18.
Fantastic.
(Amendment defeated on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is LIB-178-19. Three times lucky?
No, I think two is enough. I would like a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We almost had you on that one.
(Amendment negatived: [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is LIB-178-21.
You're feeling lucky.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is LIB-178-24.
Next is LIB-178-25.
Hon. John McCallum: I would like a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is LIB-178-26.
That's fantastic. Thank you so much.
(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is LIB-178-46.
As opposed to the last 46.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Mr. McCallum, is that enough of a pattern for you, or do you want to continue?
Hon. John McCallum: I think we'll just continue on our merry way.
The Chair: Next is LIB-178-50.
Okay, let's do that.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is LIB-178-58.
You want this in the history books.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is LIB-178-66.
Colleagues, I'm going to suspend for about five minutes. We are going to have a bit of a changing of the guard here.
Good evening, colleagues. We are resuming meeting 94 of the finance committee and its study on Bill C-45.
We will begin with Liberal amendment 178-74.
Yes, this is my last one before the return of Scott Brison, so we can do it on division, and you can compare his generosity with mine.
(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Next is LIB-178-76.
Hon. Scott Brison: I would like a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Next is LIB-178-77.
Madam Chair, could we have a recorded vote on this one, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, I'd like this to be a recorded vote as well, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Okay, the amendment is defeated on division.
(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
On division.
(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Next is LIB-178-82.
Mr. Brison.
Madam Chair, could we have this as a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. McCallum has counselled me that this should be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, I'd like to have this as a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, I'd like this to be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, I see the House leader of the Conservatives has joined us, and as such, in a gesture of goodwill, I think this should be a recorded vote.
Oh, you'd like a recorded vote. Okay.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Next is LIB-178-91.
Madam Chair, I would like a recorded vote for this one.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, we'd like a recorded vote on LIB-178-94.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, we'd like this to be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, this one ought to be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, we'd like to have a recorded vote on this one.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, could we have a recorded vote on this.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, we'd like a recorded vote on LIB-178-100.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, we would like this to be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, we would like this to be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, amendment 178-103 should be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, this definitely ought to be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, I'd like a recorded vote on amendment 178-107, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, this definitely ought to be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, this should be a recorded vote. Thank you.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, we'd like a recorded vote on this. Thank you.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, on 178-113, we'd like that to be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, we'd like 178-114 to be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, we'd like a recorded vote on 178-115.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, we'd like 178-117 to be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, we'd like a recorded vote on 178-118.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, we request a recorded vote on 178-119, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, we'd request a recorded vote on 178-120.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-178-121.
An hon. member: On division.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): On division?
Mr. Brison.
Madam Chair, we'd ask for a recorded vote on this.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-178-122.
An hon. member: On division.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy-Nash): On division?
Mr. Brison.
Madam Chair, we'd have a recorded vote on 178-122. Thank you.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, this definitely ought to be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair—
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Recorded vote?
Hon. Scott Brison: —we'd like this to be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair—
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Recorded vote?
Hon. Scott Brison: —we'd like a recorded vote on this one.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Yes, Madam Chair, this should be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair—
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Recorded vote?
Hon. Scott Brison: —I'd like a recorded on this. Thank you.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair—
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Recorded vote?
Hon. Scott Brison: —we'd like to have a recorded vote. Thank you.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, we'd request a recorded vote on this.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, we'd like a recorded vote on 178-135.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, my colleague Mr. McCallum has asked me to convey that this ought to be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, we'd request a recorded vote on 178-140.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, I'd like a recorded vote on this one.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, I'd like a recorded vote on this.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Oh, okay: something different.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, I'd like a recorded vote on this one.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, I'd like a recorded vote on 178-147.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, I'd like to request a recorded vote on 178-148.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-178-149.
An hon. member: On division.
(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Amendment LIB-178-150.
An hon. member: On division.
(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Amendment LIB-178-151.
Mr. Brison.
Madam Chair, could we have a recorded vote on this?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, we would like 178-153 to be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair—
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): On division?
Hon. Scott Brison: —we would like to have a recorded vote. Thank you.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, we would like this to be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, I'd like a recorded vote on this one.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, I would like to have a recorded vote. Thank you.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, I would like 178-159 to be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Yes, on a point of order, with regard to the sheets we're following, we notice that there is Liberal motion 160, and another one listed as 160, but the joining number is different. I am wondering if we missed one of the amendments.
I just want to clarify that we haven't forgotten something.
The clerk tells me that this is a typo, that 160 had already been voted on.
What we were voting on right now, and what I did say, was 178-160.
Just to clarify, then, amendment 178-160 was defeated.
Now we are at amendment LIB-178-161.
Mr. Brison.
Madam Chair, 178-166 ought to be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-178-167.
An hon. member: On division.
(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Amendment LIB-178-168.
An hon. member: On division.
(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Amendment LIB-178-169.
Mr. Brison.
We'd like a recorded vote.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Oh, a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-178-171.
An hon. member: On division.
(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash):Amendment LIB-178-172.
Mr. Brison.
Madam Chair, we'd like a recorded vote on 178-172.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, could we have a recorded vote on this?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Oh, Madam Chair, I think the House leader has left the room. Mr. Van Loan has....
Yes, we'd let that go on division.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): On division?
Hon. Scott Brison: Yes.
(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We'd let that go on division too.
They must have run out of chips over there or something.
(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We're on a roll here. I sense a change in the tide.
Hon. Scott Brison: It's funny: you detoxify a room and stuff starts to happen.
(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Amendment LIB-178-178.
On division?
Amendment LIB-178-182.
An hon. member: On division.
(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Amendment LIB-178-183.
An hon. member: On division.
(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Amendment LIB-178-184.
Chair, I'd like a recorded vote on 178-185. Thank you.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, we'd like a recorded vote. Thank you, Madam Chair.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-178-188.
An hon. member: On division.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): On division?
Mr. Brison.
Amendment LIB-178-190.
An hon. member: On division.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): On division?
Mr. Brison.
Amendment LIB-178-191.
An hon. member: On division.
(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Amendment LIB-178-192.
On division?
A recorded vote, please.
An hon. member: Welcome back, John.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
This one, in view of its importance, should be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Oh, a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Amendment LIB-178-251.
Amendment LIB-178-261.
An hon. member: On division.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): On division?
Defeated on—
An hon. member: No, no.
Hang on: who is representing the Liberal Party?
Hon. John McCallum: Kevin Lamoureux.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Mr. McCallum, I don't have any paperwork. I have you as the representative.
(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Next is amendment LIB-178-262.
An hon. member: On division.
I can't recognize you. I don't have the paperwork to recognize....
Oh, sorry. We do now. I'm sorry.
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
Amendment LIB-178-263.
An hon. member: On division.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): On division?
Mr. Lamoureux.
Madam Chair, I would request that we have a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, I would request again that we have recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, on that vote, I believe one member said “never”. I don't know if that's one of the ways in which we can actually vote.
I think it either has to be “yes” or “no”. I'm not sure; I'm just....
Madam Chair, I would request a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, if I could request another recorded vote, I would appreciate it. Thank you.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Yes. Madam Chair, I'd like to again request a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, if I could, I would request that we have a recorded vote. Thank you.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, I'd like to request another recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chairperson, I would request again that we have a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Again, Madam Chair, if we could have a recorded vote, I would appreciate it. Thank you.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Yes, Madam Chair. I'd request a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, again I would request a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, I would request that we have a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
You guys are really quick.
Madam Chair, I would request that we have a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-178-276.
An. hon. member: On division.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): On division?
Mr. Lamoureux.
Okay: something different.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Amendment LIB-178-277.
Yes.
Madam Chairperson, again I would request that we have a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, I would request that we have recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, I would again request that we have a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, I would request that we have a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, I would ask that we have a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, I would request that we have a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Well, I wouldn't want you to take me for granted—
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): That would never happen.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: —but yes, Madam Chairperson, I would like to request that we have a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, I would request that we have a recorded vote on this, please. Thank you.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Yes, Madam Chair, I would request that we have another recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, I would request that we have another recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-178-287.
An hon. member: On division.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): On division?
Mr. Lamoureux.
Madam Chair, I would request that we have another recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, I would request that we have another recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, I believe the records will show that Mr. Miller might have appeared to have voted when in fact he didn't vote.
What was the actual vote total on that one?
An hon. member: You lost.
The actual vote total shows Mr. Miller absent, and the amendment is defeated 9 to 1.
Thank you for your point of order.
The next amendment is Liberal 178-289.
Mr. Lamoureux.
Madam Chair, I would request that we have a recorded vote. Thank you.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Sure. Let's try that.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash):Amendment LIB-178-291.
Mr. Lamoureux.
Madam Chair, I would request that we have a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, I would request that we have another recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, I would request that we have a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, I would request that we have a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-178-295.
An hon. member: On division.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): On division?
Mr. Lamoureux.
No, Madam Chair, I would request that we have another recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, I would request that we have another recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, I would request that we have a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, I would request that we have a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, I would request, again, that we have a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
A recorded vote: there's an idea.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Can I suggest...?
Mr. Glenn Thibeault: Can I make a point of order?
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Mr. Thibeault.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I am wondering if we could maybe group five of the amendments, and then immediately after that take a five-minute health break.
I just want to seek the consent of the committee to group perhaps 178-301, -302, -303, -304, and -305, and then take five minutes for a quick health break, if the committee would agree.
I know, Madam Chair, last night, when the chair felt it was necessary to take...I think he called them “health breaks”, which I've never heard of before.
I'm okay with us taking a health break, but I think it's important that we have votes on each one separately, because they do have a different impact on the budget.
My preference would be that we continue to vote, but if there is a need for a health break, I am all in favour of us having a health break.
So there is no consent, Mr. Thibeault, to....
We'll take a break. I was actually going to suggest that we take a break now.
So why don't we take just a few minutes so that people can stretch. We'll come back together shortly.
Committee, we'll resume this 94th meeting of the finance committee and our clause-by-clause review of Bill C-45.
We are at amendment LIB-178-301.
Mr. Lamoureux, did you want to speak to this?
Madam Chair, it was great to have the break, but I would request that we have a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, again I would request that we have a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, yes, I would request that we have another recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, I would request that we have a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, I would request that we have a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, again I would request that we have a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, again, I would request that we have a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chairperson, I would again request that we have a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
I have that skill.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Amendment LIB-178-310.
An hon. member: On division.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): On division?
No, Madam Chairperson, I would request that we have a recorded vote.
An hon. member: At least we tried.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chairperson, again I would request that we have a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chairperson, again I would request that we have a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chairperson, again I would request that we have a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chairperson, I would request that we have a recorded vote on this motion, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chairperson, I would request that we do have a recorded vote, please.
An hon. member: That's a good idea.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
No, Madam Chairperson, I would request that we would have a recorded vote on this.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, I would request that we have another recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chairperson, I would request that we have yet another recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chairperson, I would request that we have a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chairperson, I would request that we have another recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, I would request that we have a recorded vote, please.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Recorded vote: good idea.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chairperson, I would again request that we have a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, I would request that we have a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, I would request that we have another recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chairperson, I would request that we have a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chairperson, I would request that we would have a recorded vote on this amendment.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-178-327.
An hon. member: On division.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): On division?
Mr. Lamoureux.
No, Madam Chair, I would request that we do have a recorded vote on this one, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, I would request again that we have a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, again I would request that we have a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, again I would request that we have a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, I would request again that we have a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, again I would request that we have a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
A recorded vote: excellent idea.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Next is amendment LIB-178-334.
On division?
No, Madam Chairperson, I would request that we do have a recorded vote on this.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The vote will be recorded.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): The amendment is defeated.
Next is Liberal amendment LIB-178-336.
An hon. member: On division.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Is it on division? Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
We'll have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): The amendment is defeated.
Next is Liberal amendment LIB-178-337.
Is it on division?
An hon. member: No.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
A recorded vote is requested.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10, yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash):The amendment is defeated.
Liberal amendment LIB-178-338 is next.
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It's a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash):The amendment is defeated.
On Liberal amendment LIB-178-339, go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It's a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): The amendment is defeated.
Next is Liberal amendment LIB-178-340.
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It's a recorded vote.
An hon. member: That's a surprise.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10: yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): The amendment is defeated.
Next is Liberal amendment LIB-178-341.
Is that on division, Mr. Lamoureux?
We'll try something different: a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash):The amendment is defeated.
Next is amendment LIB-178-342.
An hon. member: On division.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash):It is on division, Mr. Lamoureux?
It's a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash):The amendment is defeated.
Next is Liberal amendment LIB-178-343.
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It's a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash):The amendment is defeated.
Next is Liberal amendment LIB-178-344.
Is that on division?
No, Madam Chairperson, it is important that again we have a recorded vote on this particular motion, please.
Okay, we'll try that.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash):The amendment is negatived.
Next is Liberal amendment LIB-178-345.
An hon. member: On division.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Is that on division, Mr. Lamoureux?
Okay, it will be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): The amendment is defeated.
Next is Liberal amendment LIB-178-346.
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
Madam Chairperson, I would ask that in fact we would have a recorded vote on this amendment, please.
We'll have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Next is Liberal amendment 178-347.
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
We'll have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Next is Liberal amendment 178-348.
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
We'll have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Next is Liberal amendment 178-349.
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
We'll have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Next is Liberal amendment 178-350.
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
Sure, we'll have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Next is Liberal amendment 178-351.
Is it on division?
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
No. It's important, Madam Chairperson, that we have a recorded vote, so I will request a recorded vote, please.
I have a point of order, Madam Vice-Chair.
I'd just like to make sure that my vote was recorded as a “no”, Mr. Clerk.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: She did say “yes”.
Thank you for that correction. The amendment is defeated.
Our next amendment is Liberal amendment 178-352.
Is it on division?
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
No, Madam Chairperson, we came closer on that last vote, so we'll try it again and request a recorded vote this time.
We'll have a recorded vote this time.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Next is Liberal amendment 178-353.
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
We will have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Next is Liberal amendment 178-354.
Do you want a recorded vote?
Okay, we'll have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Now we have Liberal amendment 178-355.
Is it on division? Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
We'll have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): We will pause for just a moment. There is some changing of representation on the Conservative side.
Do we have the paperwork here?
Committee, Liberal amendment 178-355 was defeated.
Next is Liberal amendment 178-356.
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It's a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Next is Liberal amendment 178-357.
Is it on division? No?
It's a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Next is Liberal amendment 178-358.
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It's a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Next is Liberal amendment 178-359.
Is it a recorded vote?
It's a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Next is Liberal amendment 178-360.
Is it on division?
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It's a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Next is Liberal amendment 178-361.
Is it a recorded vote? Is it on division?
Okay, it's a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Next is Liberal amendment 178-362.
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It's a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1)
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Next is Liberal amendment 178-363.
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It's a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Next is Liberal amendment 178-364.
It's a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Shall clause 178 carry?
Is it a recorded vote?
Okay, it's a recorded vote.
(Clause 178 agreed to: yeas 8; nays 3)
(On clause 179—Enactment)
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Now we'll move to clause 179. We have Liberal amendment 161.
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It's a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Next is amendment LIB-162.
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It's a recorded vote for LIB-162.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): The amendment is defeated.
Next is Liberal amendment 163.
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It's a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): The amendment is defeated.
Next is Liberal amendment 164.
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
We'll have a recorded vote, certainly.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): The amendment is defeated.
Next is Liberal amendment 165.
Is it on division?
It's a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): The amendment is defeated.
Next is Liberal amendment 166.
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It will be a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 166.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): The amendment is defeated.
Next is Liberal amendment 167.
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It's a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): The amendment is defeated.
Next is Liberal amendment 168.
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It's a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): The amendment is defeated.
The next amendment is LIB-169.
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
Certainly.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): The amendment is defeated.
Next is Liberal amendment 170.
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
You'd like a recorded vote. Okay, certainly.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Next is Liberal amendment 171.
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It's a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Next is Liberal amendment 172.
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
A recorded vote: good idea.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Next is Liberal amendment 173.
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It's a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Next is Liberal amendment 174.
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It's a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Next is Liberal amendment 175.
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It's a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Next is Liberal amendment 176.
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It's a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Next is Liberal amendment 177.
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
Sure, let's try that.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Next is Liberal amendment 178.
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It's a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): The amendment is defeated. Next is Liberal amendment 179.
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It's a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Next is Liberal amendment 180.
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It's another recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): It's defeated.
Next is LIB-181. Is it on division?
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It's a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): The amendment is defeated.
Next is LIB-182. Is it on division?
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It's a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): That's defeated.
Next is LIB-183.
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It's another recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): The amendment is defeated.
Next is LIB-184.
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It's a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): The amendment is defeated.
Next is LIB-185.
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It's a recorded vote, certainly.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): LIB-185 is defeated.
Next is LIB-186. Is it on division?
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It's a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): The amendment is defeated.
Next is Liberal amendment 187.
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It's a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): The amendment is defeated.
Next is LIB-188. Is it on division?
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It's a recorded vote. Certainly.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): LIB-188 is defeated.
Next is LIB-189.
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It is another recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): LIB-189 is defeated.
Next is LIB-190.
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It is another recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): The amendment is defeated.
Next is LIB-191.
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It's a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Next is LIB-192.
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It's a recorded vote. A change is always good.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Next is LIB-193.
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It's a recorded vote, certainly.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Shall clause 179 carry? Would you like a recorded vote?
You are predicting me again, Madam Chairperson. Yes, I would request that we do have another recorded vote.
It is a recorded vote.
(Clause 180 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Next is clause 181. Shall clause 181 carry? Do we want a recorded vote?
It's a recorded vote.
(Clause 181 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Shall clause 182 carry? On division? No? A recorded vote?
It's a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Shall clause 183 carry?
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It's a recorded vote.
(Clause 183 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
(On clause 184)
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Next we have clause 184 and amendment LIB-195. Is it on division?
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It's a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Next is LIB-196.
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
We'll have a recorded vote, please.
(Clause 184 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Shall clause 185 carry?
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It's a recorded vote.
(Clause 185 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Shall clause 186 carry?
It's a recorded vote.
(Clause 186 agreed to: yeas 11;)
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Shall clause 187 carry?
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It's a recorded vote.
(Clause 187 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Shall clause 188 carry?
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It's a recorded vote.
(Clause 188 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Shall clause 189 carry?
Would you like a recorded vote?
It's a recorded vote.
(Clause 189 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Shall clause 190 carry?
Mr. Lamoureux, did you want a recorded vote?
It's a recorded vote.
(Clause 190 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Shall clause 191 carry?
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It's a recorded vote.
(Clause 191 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Shall clause 192 carry?
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It's a recorded vote.
(Clause 192 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Clause 192 is carried.
Shall clause 193 carry?
Mr. Lamoureux, you'd like a recorded vote, I take it?
I catch on quickly. It's a recorded vote.
(Clause 194 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Clause 193 is carried.
Shall clause 194 carry?
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It's a recorded vote.
(Clause 194 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Clause 194 is carried.
Shall clause 195 carry?
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It's a recorded vote.
(Clause 195 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Clause 195 is carried.
Shall clause 196 carry?
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It's a recorded vote.
(Clause 197 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Clause 196 is carried.
Shall clause 197 carry?
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It's a recorded vote for clause 197.
(Clause 197 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Clause 197 is carried.
Shall clause 198 carry?
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It's a recorded vote.
(Clause 198 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Clause 198 is carried.
Shall clause 199 carry?
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It's a recorded vote.
(Clause 199 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Clause 199 is carried.
Shall clause 200 carry?
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It's a recorded vote.
(Clause 200 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Clause 200 is carried.
Shall clause 201 carry?
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
I would request that we do have a recorded vote on this Liberal amendment.
It's a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): The amendment is defeated.
Shall clause 203 carry?
Oh, it will be a recorded vote. Okay.
(Clause 203 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Shall clause 204 carry?
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
Yes, thank you. Madam Chairperson, again, I think it would be good to have a recorded vote, so I would request one. Thank you.
It's a recorded vote.
(Clause 204 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Shall clause 205 carry?
Mr. Lamoureux, I'm guessing you might want a recorded vote.
I'm very predictable, I guess, Madam Chairperson, but I simply would propose the question.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Yes, there were some indications.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Yes.
I would ask that we do have a recorded vote on it. Thank you.
We will record the vote.
(Clause 205 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
Clause 205 carries.
Next is clause 206.
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It's a recorded vote.
(Clause 206 agreed to: yeas 8; nays 3)
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Clause 206 carries.
Shall clause 207 carry?
For clause 208, we have amendment NDP-13.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Hear, hear! Now you guys are filibustering.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Is it on division?
No, no, no.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Oh, sorry. Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Yes, Madam Chairperson, I would request that we do have a recorded vote on this NDP amendment.
It's a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): The next amendment is NDP-14.
Mr. Lamoureux, I see your hand.
Yes. Thank you, Madam Chairperson. Again, I would request that we do have yet another recorded vote, please.
Thank you.
It is a recorded vote on NDP-14.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Next is NDP-15.
Is it on division? No.
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It's a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Shall clause 208 carry?
It is a recorded vote for clause 208.
(Clause 208 agreed to: yeas 8; nays 3)
(On clause 209—Order in council)
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): For clause 209, we have amendment LIB-198.
Is it on division?
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: No. This is a good one.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It's a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Shall Clause 209 carry?
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It's a recorded vote.
(Clause 209 agreed to: yeas 8; nays 3)
(On clause 210)
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): On clause 210, we have Liberal amendment 199.
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It will be a recorded vote on LIB-199.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Next we have Liberal....
Excuse me just a minute; I'm just getting clarification from the clerk.
Committee members, I am ruling that the next batch of amendments, from LIB-200 to LIB-215, are not admissible. They are all dealing with salary increases that would increase the budget, so they are not admissible as amendments. We'll not be voting on those.
Go ahead, Madame Moore.
[Translation]
[English]
Just before we take a break, Madam Chairperson, I'm not perfectly clear on that. You're saying clauses.... I didn't quite catch what you were saying. Was it clauses 200 to...?
Mr. Lamoureux, it's amendments LIB-200 to LIB-215. I'm ruling that they're not admissible because I'm advised by the clerk that every one of them deals with an increase in salary for judges, which would be an increase in the budget, and as you well know, these amendments are not in order if they increase the budget.
Again, I'm somewhat new to the finance committee. I thought that given that it is a budget bill.... I don't have the context because what happened, Madam Chairperson, is that when we went right into the clause by clause, I put my....
Excuse me. Just a minute. Excuse me.
I'm going read the ruling, and then it is not debatable.
Bill C-45amends the Judges Act to establish the yearly salaries of judges of various judiciaries. These amendments propose to increase these amounts proposed. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on pages 767 and 768:
Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.
Therefore, in the opinion of the chair the amendment increasing the salary amounts proposed in the bill would alter the terms and conditions of the royal recommendation. Therefore I rule the amendments inadmissible.
This ruling is not debatable.
Madam Chair, I just wanted to express that with all due respect—trust me, all due respect—I would have to challenge the ruling of the chair.
You'd like a recorded vote—
An hon. member: It's too late.
An hon. member: We have already voted.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Yes, we've already voted.
On a point of order, Madam Chairperson, I would request that we do have another recorded vote on this particular clause, please.
With all due respect, Mr. Lamoureux, we voted. You were the only person who voted against, so we can record that, if you like, but we've now moved on to clause 210.
You'd like a recorded vote on clause 210. Okay, we're on the same page now.
(Clause 210 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash):Clause 210 is carried.
I've had a request for a break. Is that the wish of the committee?
Do you want to wait a little longer? Can we wait half an hour?
An hon. member: We can.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Okay, we'll move on to clause 211.
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
Thank you, Madam Chairperson. Again what I would do is request that we have a recorded vote on this, please.
You'd like a recorded vote. Okay.
(Clause 211 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash):Clause 211 is carried.
(On clause 212)
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): On clause 212, we have Liberal amendment LIB-216.
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
Thank you.
Madam Chairperson, again what I would do is request that we have a recorded vote, please.
It will be a recorded vote, certainly.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash):The amendment is defeated.
Next we have amendment NDP-16.
Is this on division?
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It will be a recorded vote; certainly.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash):The amendment is defeated.
Shall clause 212 carry?
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It's a recorded vote.
(Clause 212 agreed to: yeas 8; nays 3)
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Clause 212 is carried.
Shall clause 213 carry?
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It's a recorded vote.
(Clause 213 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Next is clause 214.
Shall clause 214 carry?
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: I would request that we have a recorded vote on clause 214, please.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): It's a recorded vote.
(Clause 214 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Next is clause 215.
Shall clause 215 carry?
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: I would request that we have a recorded vote, please.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): It's a recorded vote.
(Clause 215 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
It's a recorded vote.
(Clause 216 agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0)
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Clause 216 is carried. Shall clause 217 carry?
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
Madam Chairperson, just on a point of order and for clarification purposes, on the last vote Mr. Miller was in the room, but not by much. He was in the room, but the clerk didn't really get to see Mr. Miller.
It will be a recorded vote for clause 217.
(Clause 217 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
Next is clause 218.
Shall clause 218 carry?
Sure, let's try that.
(Clause 218 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Clause 218 is carried.
Shall clause 219 carry?
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
We'll have a recorded vote on clause 219.
(Clause 219 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Clause 219 is carried.
Shall clause 220 carry?
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
(Clause 220 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Clause 220 is carried.
Shall clause 221 carry?
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
Again, I would request that we have a recorded vote on this one, please.
We'll have a recorded vote on clause 221.
(Clause 221 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Clause 221 is carried.
Shall clause 222 carry? Is it on division?
It's a recorded vote.
(Clause 222 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
Clause 222 is carried.
(On clause 223)
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): For clause 223, we have Liberal amendment 217.
Is it defeated on division?
It will be a recorded vote for LIB-217.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): The amendment is defeated.
Shall clause 223 carry?
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
We will have a recorded vote.
(Clause 224 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
Clause 224 is carried.
(On clause 225)
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): On clause 225, we have amendment LIB-218.
It's a recorded vote on the amendment.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): The amendment is defeated.
Shall clause 225 carry?
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It's a recorded vote.
(Clause 225 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Shall clause 226 carry? Is it on division?
It's a recorded vote.
(Clause 226 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Shall clause 227 carry?
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It's a recorded vote.
(Clause 227 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Shall clause 228 carry?
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It's a recorded vote.
(Clause 228 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Shall clause 229 carry?
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
We'll have a recorded vote on clause 229.
(Clause 229 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Shall clause 230 carry?
Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.
It's a recorded vote.
(Clause 230 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Shall clause 231 carry?
Mr. Lamoureux, did you want a recorded vote?
Let me just see here. Hang on.
Under clause 232, colleagues, we have a number of Liberal amendments. Can I suggest this might be an appropriate time to take a break for just a few minutes? People can have a stretch. We will come back shortly.
We're resuming meeting 94 of the finance committee and our clause-by-clause review of Bill C-45.
We're at clause 232, and we're dealing, first of all, with Liberal amendment 232-1.
(On clause 232—Order in council)
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Do we want to examine this on division?
Madam Chair, just for the record, I want to thank you for allowing me to sub in.
I'm going to give you a heads up that I will be asking for a recorded vote on all the clauses. If you wish, I can either yell or just put my hand up before every vote—whatever you prefer.
All right.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Liberal amendment 232-2.
Are you willing to apply the vote?
No. I would like to call for a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Madam Chair, I would like a recorded vote please.
[English]
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
I would like one, Madam Chair.
[English]
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Madam Chair, I would like a recorded vote please.
[English]
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Another recorded vote would be appreciated, Madam Chair.
[English]
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Yes, a recorded vote, please Madam Chair.
[English]
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Madam Chair, once again, may I have a recorded vote please?
[English]
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Yes, I would like a recorded vote.
[English]
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Madam Chair, may I have a recorded vote please?
[English]
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
A recorded vote again, Ms. Chairperson.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[English]
Ms. Chair, yes, I'd like to call for a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Ms. Chair, one quick question.
What is the procedure of the committee in terms of voting? I know there were some people standing. I have no problem with that. I was here when Mr. Lamoureux questioned when there were people leaving and coming, but has it been customary that people can vote when they're out of their chair?
I'd just like to know ahead of time.
Yes, but I'm just seeing a lot of movement, so I just want to know. I don't want to be bringing up points of order for no reason.
Has it been tolerated?
Yes, if we can call for a recorded vote, please, Ms. Chairperson.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
I am asking for a recorded vote please, Madam Chair.
[English]
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Pacetti, maybe I could just raise this with you, since you're asking for recorded votes on all of these. Would you be willing to have some of these grouped together so that we could record the vote, but vote with them all together?
Based on the traditions of the Liberal Party in this committee, I would have to say that because of the importance of our amendments, we would like to have these votes recorded separately. But I want to thank you for your thoughts on that.
A recorded vote, yes, Ms. Chair.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
A recorded vote, please, Ms. Chairperson.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Madam Chair, may I have a recorded vote please?
[English]
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Madam Chair, I would like a recorded vote.
[English]
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
A recorded vote, please, Ms. Chairman.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
A recorded vote, please, Ms. Chair.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10, yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Yes, Ms. Chairperson, I would call for a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10, yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Yes, a recorded vote on that one as well.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10, yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Yes, if I can call for a recorded vote once again, Ms. Chair.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10, yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Yes, if I can call for a recorded vote once again.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10, yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Yes, Ms. Chairperson, another recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10, yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Yes, if we can have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10, yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Yes, fine.
[English]
(Amendment negatived: nays 10, yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Next we'll deal with Liberal amendment 232-41.
Very well.
[English]
(Amendment negatived: nays 10, yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): We'll deal now with Liberal amendment 232-42.
A recorded vote for that one, please.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Yes, if I can have a recorded vote on this one.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
That's another good one where we can have a recorded vote, Ms. Chairperson.
(Amendment is negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
[Translation]
Madam Chair, I feel the wind may be blowing in a different direction, so I'd like another recorded vote please.
Very well.
[English]
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Next is Liberal amendment 232-48.
Mr. Massimo Pacetti: A recorded vote, please, Ms. Chairperson.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
I'd like to call for a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
I'd like to call for a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
A recorded vote for a change. Certainly.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Next is Liberal amendment 232-52.
I'd like to call for a recorded vote on this one as well.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Oh, a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10: yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Next is Liberal amendment 232-54.
A recorded vote has been called for.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Next is Liberal amendment 232-55.
On division?
No. I would like to have a recorded vote on this one, please.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Yes, Ms. Chairperson, another recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
A recorded vote, s'il vous plaît.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Very well.
[English]
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): We'll deal now with Liberal amendment 232-62.
We'll need a recorded vote on that one.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Sure, we could try that.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): We'll deal now with Liberal amendment 232-68.
Mr. Pacetti.
Yes, that's one for which we'd like to have a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Yes, Ms. Chairperson, I'd like to request a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Yes, if we can have a recorded vote on that one.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Again, if we can have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Yes, Ms. Chairperson, a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Next is Liberal amendment 232-76.
An hon. member: On division.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): On division?
No, Madam Chair, because I feel there's going to be a change very soon. I feel we need to record these, so we can record this one, please.
You want a recorded vote, Mr. Pacetti? Okay.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): We'll go now to Liberal amendment 232-77.
Correct, Ms. Chairperson. Again I would like to call for a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Colleagues, we'll just take a brief pause for a couple of minutes. I understand there are going to be some changes at the table.
Just a second. We need to sort out who we have at the table.
We'll continue.
What's your point of order?
Okay. We'll sort this out. We're trying to get the names correct because there were some changes. We're in the middle of a vote.
Would you like to take that vote again to make sure we have all the right names?
Okay. Let's do that one more time.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Next is Liberal amendment 232-79.
Ms. Chairperson, I'd like to call for a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Madam Chair, I would kindly ask for a recorded vote.
[English]
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, we'd like a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Okay. We'll try that.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair: We'll go now to Liberal amendment 232-84.
Yes, Ms. Chairperson, a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Madam Chair, may I have a recorded vote please?
[English]
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Yes, Ms. Chairperson, I call for a recorded vote again.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Yes, Ms. Chairperson, I would like to call for a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
No. I would like to have a recorded vote on that one as well. Thank you for asking.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Yes, if we could have a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Yes, if we could have a recorded vote on that one, please.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Yes, that's another one we'd like to have a recorded vote on. Thank you, Ms. Chairperson.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
I would like to have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
A recorded vote on that one, please.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Yes, Ms. Chairperson, we'd like to have a recorded vote on this one.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Yes, Ms. Chairperson a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Madam Chair, when you hit a hundred, it calls for a recorded vote.
[English]
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Oh, we have a recorded vote with that one.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): We'll move now to Liberal amendment 232-103.
Yes, Ms. Chair. Another recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Ms. Chairperson, another recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Ms. Chair, a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
No. I think we need a recorded vote on this one. Thank you for asking, Ms. Chair.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Can we have a recorded vote, please?
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Can we have a recorded vote on that one as well?
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
Not right now. This is one of those really important ones. I think we should have the vote on the record. It's about coming into force. We're changing the dates.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, I would like another recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
I would like a recorded vote, please, Madam Chair.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now, we're going to have to pay that much more attention. I'm going to require a recorded vote once again so I can make up for that error.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Okay, we're trying something different, a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Next we'll move to LIB-232-127.
I would like a recorded vote, please, Madam Chair.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, I would like another recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, I would like a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
I would like to have a recorded vote on this one.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, I would like a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, I would like a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, I would like a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, I would like a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, I would like a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Yes, Madam Chair, if we could have a recorded vote on this one, I would appreciate it.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Next is LIB-232-139. On division?
An hon. member: Agreed.
(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
No, we would like to go back and request a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
[English]
The amendment is defeated.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Now we'll deal with LIB-232-147.
On division?
[Translation]
[English]
The amendment is defeated.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): LIB-232-148.
Yes, Madam Chair, if we could have a recorded vote on this one, I would appreciate it, thank you.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
On this one, okay.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Next is LIB-232-152.
Madam Chair, I would like a recorded vote on this one.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, I'd like to have a recorded vote on this one as well.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Very good.
[English]
The amendment is defeated.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): We're on LIB-232-157.
Madam Chair, could we have a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, with Mr. Toone and Mr. Moore, the vote is only counted one time. Correct?
An hon. member: No, we counted eight.
Why are you guys filibustering? It's a simple question. I just want to make sure that there's only one vote.
I think the member knows the answer to that. Only one—
Mr. Massimo Pacetti: It's only one, right?
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): —person voted.
Madam Chair, I would ask for a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, I would like a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, I would like a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, could we have a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, I would like to call for a recorded vote on LIB-232-167.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, I'd like to call for a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
I would like a recorded vote, please, Madam Chair.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, I would like to call for a recorded vote on this one.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
I would like a recorded vote, please, Madam Chair.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Defeated on division?
(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Massimo Pacetti: I would like a recorded vote, please.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): I think you were a bit slow on that one.
Madam Chair, could we have a recorded vote on this one.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Madam Chair, if we're at LIB-232-182, I would like to call for a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
I would like a recorded vote please, Madam Chair.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
It's just a very quick point of order. When we're trying to listen, it's very difficult. The clerk's microphone is not going on. It's staying off quite a bit. Just to let you know, so if we have our earpieces in we don't hear because they're plugged.
Also I would ask if the clerk is having trouble hearing us maybe he should wear an earpiece as well so that he can actually hear our responses.
Yes, I already called for a recorded vote, but people are talking. I didn't know we were having a party.
Yes, I already called for a recorded vote, but we're asking people to wear an earpiece when it's not necessary.
An hon. member: Are you getting miserable?
What are you guys calling points of order for to tell the guy that he's got to put his earpiece on? Come on. You've got to be kidding me.
I would just like to remind members to wait until their name is called, because we mix up the responses when people call out before their name is called.
We're on LIB-232-184.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): We're on LIB-232-185.
Yes, Madam Chair, could we have a recorded vote on this one.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Yes, I'd like to have a recorded vote on this one.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
[English]
Okay, merci.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Peggy Nash): Next is LIB-232-189.
I would like a recorded vote, please, Madam Chair.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Yes, Madam Chair, I would like to have a recorded vote on this one.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
I call this meeting back to order. This is still the 94th meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance. Yes, it's a very long meeting. I hope you all didn't miss me too much. I want to thank Ms. Nash very much for chairing in my stead. I hear she did a wonderful job.
Colleagues, we are now on LIB-232-193. Perhaps before our first vote, I'll make sure the clerks have the correct people on their voting list.
On the government side, we have Mr. Adler, Madam Glover, Mrs. Leitch, Mr. Wilks, Mrs. Findlay, and Mrs. Ambler.
For the NDP, we have Monsieur Brahmi, Monsieur Toone, Mrs. Sitsabaiesan, Monsieur Thibeault, and for the Liberal Party, Monsieur Pacetti.
Yes, the fact that you helped me out so much and allowed me time, I will allow the first one to go by on division.
Thank you very much. You're a prince of a man.
(Amendment defeated on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is LIB-232-194.
As quickly as he gives it, he takes it away, Mr. Chair.
I would like to have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
For you, absolutely. We'll do it.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is LIB-232-203.
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
I didn't say either way but I will be voting yes. I didn't hear myself say "yes" that's why. It's fine.
No, I would like a recorded vote. Sorry, Mr. Chair.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
You would like a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is LIB-232-222.
Next is LIB-232-223. On division?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is LIB-232-224.
It will be a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 232-224.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Record the vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is Liberal amendment 232-226.
Record the vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Mr. Pacetti, do you want me to suspend for a minute?
Let's record this. It's Liberal amendment 232-227. Record this vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall we keep going, Mr. Pacetti?
I call this meeting back to order, colleagues.
We are now on Liberal amendment 232-229. Shall we say it's defeated on division?
It's on division. Yes.
(Amendment negatived on division)
The Chair: We'll now move to amendment 232-230.
[Translation]
Very good.
[English]
Record the vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is Liberal amendment 232-231.
It will be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is Liberal amendment 232-232.
It will be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is Liberal amendment 232-235.
Record the vote.
(Amendment negatived on division: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is amendment 232-236.
Record the vote, please.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is Liberal amendment 232-237.
We will have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is amendment 232-238.
It will be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is amendment 232-240.
Is it on division?
[Translation]
[English]
We will record the vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is amendment 232-243.
[Translation]
[English]
We will record the vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment 232-244 is next.
[Translation]
[English]
Okay.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment 232-245 is next.
Is it defeated on division?
It will be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is amendment 232-246.
Is it defeated on division?
It will be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is amendment 232-246.
We will record the vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment 232-246 is done.
On amendment 232-247, it will be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment 232-248 is next.
We will record the vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is amendment 232-249.
We will record the vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is amendment 232-250.
It is defeated on division.
(Amendment negatived on division)
The Chair: Thank you.
Next is amendment 232-251.
We will record the vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is amendment 232-252.
We will record the vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is amendment 232-253.
We will record the vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10: yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is amendment 232-254.
Is it a recorded vote?
We will record the vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: The amendment is defeated.
On amendment LIB-232-255, is it defeated on division?
We will record the vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: That is defeated.
We are on amendment LIB-232-256.
[Translation]
Okay.
[English]
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: The amendment is defeated.
We are on amendment LIB-232-257.
[Translation]
[English]
Okay.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: The amendment is defeated.
On amendment LIB-232-258, is it on division?
We will record the vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: The amendment is defeated.
Next is amendment LIB-232-259.
We will record the vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: It is defeated.
Amendment LIB-232-260 is next.
We will record the vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: It is defeated.
On amendment LIB-232-262—is it on division?
(Amendment negatived on division)
The Chair: Next is amendment LIB-232-263.
We will record the vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: It is defeated.
Next is amendment LIB-232-264.
We will record the vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: That is defeated.
Next is amendment LIB-232-265.
We will record the vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10: yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: It is defeated.
Next is amendment LIB-232-266.
We will record the vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Mr. Pacetti, did you—
We will record the vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: That is defeated.
Next is amendment LIB-232-268.
We will record the vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: It is defeated.
Next is amendment LIB-232-269.
[Translation]
[English]
We will record the vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10, yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Now we have Liberal amendment 232-273. Is it on division?
(Amendment negatived on division)
The Chair: Next is Liberal amendment 232-274. Is it defeated on division?
(Amendment negatived on division)
The Chair: Next is Liberal amendment 232-275.
We will record the vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10, yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is Liberal amendment 232-276.
[Translation]
[English]
Okay, we will record the vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10, yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is Liberal amendment 232-277.
[Translation]
[English]
Okay.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10, yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is Liberal amendment 232-278.
We will record the vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10, yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: On Liberal amendment 232-279.
It will be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10, yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We are on Liberal amendment 232-280.
It will be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10, yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: You say his name very nicely. It has a ring to it.
That's why you want all these recorded votes, isn't it?
It's a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10, yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is Liberal amendment 232-282.
It's a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10, yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is Liberal amendment 232-283.
[Translation]
[English]
Okay.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10, yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is Liberal amendment 232-284.
It will be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is amendment LIB-232-285.
Is it on division?
(Amendment negatived on division)
The Chair: Next is LIB-232-286.
It will be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is LIB-232-287.
It will be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is LIB-232-288.
[Translation]
[English]
Okay.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is LIB-232-289.
It will be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is LIB-232-290.
It will be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is LIB-232-291.
Is it on division?
It will be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is LIB-242-292.
It will be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is LIB-232-293.
We will have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: LIB-232-294 is next.
We will have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is LIB-232-295.
We will have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is LIB-232-296.
We will have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is LIB-232-297.
We will have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: That is defeated.
Next is Liberal amendment 232-298.
The amendment will be defeated on division.
(Amendment negatived on division)
The Chair: Next is LIB-232-299.
We will have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: It is defeated.
Next is LIB-232-300.
We will have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: It is defeated.
Next is LIB-232-301.
We will have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: It is defeated.
Next is LIB-232-302.
We will have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: It is defeated.
Next we have LIB-232-303.
We will have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: It is defeated.
Next is LIB-232-304.
We will have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: It is defeated.
Next we have LIB-232-305.
We will have a recorded vote, then.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: It is defeated.
Next is amendment LIB-232-306.
The vote will be recorded.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: It is defeated.
Next is LIB-232-307.
We will have the vote recorded.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: It is defeated.
Next is LIB-232-308.
We will have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: It is defeated.
Next is LIB-232-309.
Is it on division?
(Amendment negatived on division)
The Chair: Next is LIB-232-310.
We will have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is LIB-232-311.
The vote will be recorded.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is LIB-232-312.
We will have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is LIB-232-313.
We will have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is LIB-232-314.
We will have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is LIB-232-315.
We will have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is LIB-232-316.
(Amendment negatived on division)
The Chair: The next amendment is LIB-232-317.
(Amendment negatived on division)
The Chair: The next amendment is LIB-232-318.
We will have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: The next amendment is LIB-232-319.
We will have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: The next amendment is LIB-232-320.
We will record the vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: The next amendment is LIB-232-321.
We will have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: The next amendment is LIB-232-322.
We will record the vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: The next amendment is LIB-232-323.
We will record the vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: The next amendment is LIB-232-324.
We will have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We will now deal with LIB-232-325.
We'll have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: The next amendment is LIB-232-326. Is it on division?
(Amendment negatived on division)
The Chair: The next amendment is LIB-232-327. Is it on division?
(Amendment negatived on division)
The Chair: The next amendment is LIB-232-328.
We'll have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: The next amendment is LIB-232-329.
We'll have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next we have LIB-232-330. Is it defeated on division?
(Amendment negatived on division)
The Chair: Next we have LIB-232-331.
We'll have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next we have LIB-232-332.
We'll have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next we have LIB-232-333. Is it defeated on division?
(Amendment negatived on division)
The Chair: Next we have LIB-232-334.
We'll have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next we have LIB-232-335.
We will record the vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: It is defeated.
Next we have LIB-232-336. Is it on division?
We will record the vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: It is defeated.
Next we have LIB-232-337.
[Translation]
[English]
Okay.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: It is defeated.
Next we have LIB-232-338.
[Translation]
[English]
Okay.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: It is defeated.
Next we have LIB-232-339. Is it on division?
(Amendment defeated on division)
The Chair: Next we have LIB-232-340. Is it on division?
(Amendment defeated on division)
The Chair: Next we have LIB-232-341.
We will record the vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: It is defeated.
Next we have LIB-232-342.
We will record the vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair:It is defeated.
Next we have LIB-232-343.
We will record the vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: That's defeated.
Next we have LIB-232-344.
We will record the vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: That's defeated.
Next we have LIB-232-345. Is it on division?
We will record the vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: It is defeated.
Next we have LIB-232-346.
We will record the vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: That's defeated.
We will move to—
I want to thank you for allowing me to sit at this committee, but I have to go. It was a real pleasure working with you.
It's always wonderful to have you back at the finance committee, Mr. Pacetti. Come any time.
Thank you.
We'll welcome back Mr. Bélanger.
We are at amendment 232-347.
[Translation]
[English]
We will record the vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is amendment 232-348.
[Translation]
[English]
We will have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is amendment 232-349.
[Translation]
[English]
Okay.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is amendment 232-350.
We will record the vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is amendment 232-351.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I request a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 232-351 to Bill C-45.
[English]
We will record the vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is amendment 232-352.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, you won't be shocked to hear that I once again request a recorded vote, this time on Liberal amendment 232-352.
[English]
Okay.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is amendment 232-353.
Is it on division?
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
No. I am duty-bound, Mr. Chair, to respectfully ask for a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 232-353 to Bill C-45.
[English]
Okay.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is amendment 232-354.
Would you like a recorded vote?
[Translation]
[English]
Okay.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is amendment 232-355
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask for a recorded vote on amendment 232-355 to Bill C-45.
Okay.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We are now on Liberal amendment 232-356.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, things are going so well that I think I'll keep the ball rolling. I call for a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 232-356 to Bill C-45.
[English]
Okay.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We are on Liberal amendment 232-357.
Is it a recorded vote?
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
Yes, I will ask for it. I believe it's my right.
So, if you don't mind, Mr. Chair, I would like a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 232-357.
[English]
That's wonderful.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is Liberal amendment 232-358.
[Translation]
Again, Mr. Chair, I request a recorded vote, on Liberal amendment 232-358 to Bill C-45.
[English]
Okay.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: On Liberal amendment 232-359.
[Translation]
[English]
It's a a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is Liberal amendment 232-360.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, may I have a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 232-360 to Bill C-45?
[English]
It's a a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is Liberal amendment 232-361.
[Translation]
[English]
We will record the vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We are now on Liberal amendment 232-362.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I would ask for a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 232-362 to Bill C-45.
[English]
It's a a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: It is defeated.
Next is Liberal amendment 232-363.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I call for a recorded vote on the second last amendment to that clause, Liberal amendment 232-363.
[English]
We will record the vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next we have Liberal amendment 232-364.
We've come to another end of a year.
[Translation]
[English]
Of course, absolutely. Let's do it.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: That is defeated, like the other 363 days we voted on.
Shall clause 232 carry? Is it on division?
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
It's a recorded vote.
(Clause 232 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 233 carry?
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, we've got a good thing going. With your permission, Mr. Chair, I request a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 233 to Bill C-45.
[English]
[Translation]
Don't be surprised, Mr. Chair. I'm here for a very special reason. I would like to request a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 234 to Bill C-45.
[English]
This is clause 234.
(Clause 234 agreed to: yeas 8; nays 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 235 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
It is a recorded vote.
(Clause 235 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 236 carry?
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I think the best to way to find out is through a recorded vote on Liberal amendment 236 to Bill C-45, please.
[English]
It is a recorded vote.
(Clause 236 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 237 carry?
Mr. Chairman, why don't we determine that by having a recorded vote on amendment 237 to Bill C-45?
It will be a recorded vote.
(Clause 237 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 238 carry?
Thank you.
(Clause 238 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 239 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
It will be a recorded vote.
(Clause 239 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 240 carry?
[Translation]
I don't want to shock you, Mr. Chair, but I am going to ask for a recorded vote in this case as well.
[English]
I am actually very surprised. I thought this would go on division.
(Clause 240 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 241 carry?
[Translation]
Perhaps, Mr. Chair, but I would prefer to determine that by means of a recorded vote, as in the previous cases.
[English]
It will be a recorded vote.
(Clause 241 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 242 carry?
[Translation]
I don't want this to come as a surprise, Mr. Chair, but I would ask that you kindly hold a recorded vote.
[English]
It will be a recorded vote.
(Clause 242 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 243 carry?
It will be a recorded vote.
(Clause 243 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 244 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
It was already called before. Let's do a recorded vote.
(Clause 244 agreed to: yeas 7 ; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 245 carry?
It will be a recorded vote.
(Clause 245 agreed to: yeas 7 ; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 246 carry?
You want this recorded? Let's record this one.
(Clause 246 agreed to: yeas 7 ; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Shall clause 247 carry?
[Translation]
With all due respect, Mr. Chair, I wish to point out that I had asked for the floor when the vote happened.
[English]
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I would like the floor on the next amendment.
I would also like a recorded vote. Actually, I have to wait until you ask, don't I?
[English]
That's correct. You have to wait until I call the clause.
(Clause 247 agreed to: yeas 7 ; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
[English]
We will record the vote.
(Clauses 248 to 252 inclusive agreed to: yeas 7 ; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Point of order, Mr. Chair,
Is it customary for the chair to always look to the right when granting speaking time?
[English]
No. In fact, I look to the first person who catches my eye. If you go through the clauses and the amendments, you'll see that probably 80% of the time I've, in fact, recognized a member of the opposition—
[Translation]
[English]
—but if someone calls for a recorded vote, we go to a recorded vote. If anyone on the committee calls for a recorded vote, then we go to a recorded vote.
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, my question is this: If we want a recorded vote, do we first have to ask you for permission to speak?
[English]
It doesn't matter who requests it. It's not noted in the record who requests it. If a member of the committee calls for a recorded vote, I go to a recorded vote.
[Translation]
[English]
I don't need a speech every time someone calls for a recorded vote. A member of this committee can request a recorded vote, and we will have a recorded vote. I respect that member's wishes.
Shall clause 253 carry?
Yes, we'll have a recorded vote.
(Clause 253 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Shall clause 254 carry?
[Translation]
Absolutely.
[English]
(Clause 254 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 255 carry?
We'll have a recorded vote.
(Clause 255 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 256 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
Okay.
(Clause 256 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 257 carry? Is it on division?
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
Okay.
(Clause 257 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 258 carry?
We'll have a recorded vote.
(Clause 258 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 259 carry?
We will have a recorded vote.
(Clauses 259 to 262 inclusive agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 263 carry? Will it be on division?
[Translation]
No, Mr. Chair. I would like a recorded vote, please.
[English]
A recorded vote, please.
(Clause 263 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
No, Mr. Chair. I would like a recorded vote, please.
[English]
Okay.
(Clause 264 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 265)
Colleagues, we are at clause 265. I have three amendments here: Liberal amendment 219, NDP amendment 17, and Liberal amendment 220.
I will deal first with amendment LIB-219.
[Translation]
[Translation]
No, Mr. Chair. Out of respect for my colleagues, I would like a recorded vote, please.
[English]
A recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
That is defeated.
We have amendment LIB-220.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 265 carry?
On division?
[Translation]
[English]
Okay.
(Clause 265 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 266)
For clause 266, I have one amendment, amendment NDP-18.
[Translation]
No, Mr. Chair. I would like a recorded vote, please.
[English]
A recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Mr. Chair. I would like a recorded vote, please.
[English]
Okay.
(Clause 266 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 267)
We will go to clause 267. I have one amendment, amendment NDP-19. We'll have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 267 carry?
Hon. Mauril Bélanger: No.
The Chair: On division?
[Translation]
A recorded vote, please Mr. Chair.
[English]
A recorded vote, please.
(Clause 267 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 268)
On clause 268 I have one amendment. I have amendment NDP-20.
Mr. Hoang Mai: A recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 268 carry?
[Translation]
I would like a recorded vote, please.
[English]
A recorded vote, please.
(Clause 268 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
A voice: Was that clause 268?
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
A recorded vote, please Mr. Chair.
[English]
Okay.
(Clause 269 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
A recorded vote, please Mr. Chair.
[English]
A recorded vote, please.
(Clause 270 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Shall clause 271 carry? Recorded...?
Ms. Kellie Leitch: Yes, recorded.
(Clause 271 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 272 carry?
Ms. Kellie Leitch: I would like it recorded.
(Clause 272 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 273 carry?
Ms. Kellie Leitch: Record it.
[Translation]
Yes.
[English]
That's carried.
(Clause 273 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 274 carry?
Ms. Kellie Leitch: Record it.
(Clause 274 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 275 carry?
Ms. Kellie Leitch: Record it.
(Clause 275 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 276)
The Chair: Colleagues, on clause 276 we have three amendments: Liberal amendments 221, 222, and 223.
The vote will therefore be on amendment LIB-221.
[Translation]
May I please have a recorded vote, Mr. Chair?
[English]
Okay.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
On amendment LIB-222—
Ms. Kellie Leitch: Record it.
The Chair:—we have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Liberal amendment 223: is that on division?
[Translation]
A recorded vote, please Mr. Chair.
[English]
Okay.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Can I have a recorded vote?
[English]
A recorded vote, please.
(Clause 276 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
I call for a recorded vote.
[English]
A recorded vote, please.
(Clause 277 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
I ask for a recorded vote.
[English]
A recorded vote, please.
(Clause 278 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, could I have a recorded vote?
[English]
Okay.
(Clause 279 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
A recorded vote, please.
[English]
Okay.
(Clause 280 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 281)
[Translation]
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I would like a recorded vote.
[English]
A recorded vote, please.
(Clause 281 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I request a recorded vote.
[English]
A recorded vote, please.
(Clause 282 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, may I have a recorded vote, please?
[English]
A recorded vote, please.
(Clause 283 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
A recorded vote please.
[English]
A recorded vote, please.
(Clause 284 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
A recorded vote please.
[English]
A recorded vote, please.
(Clause 285 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
I would like a recorded vote, Mr. Chair.
[English]
A recorded vote, please.
(Clause 286 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Shocking, but I'm asking for a recorded vote.
[English]
A recorded vote, please.
(Clause 287 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
No, it's not unanimous. I would like a recorded vote please.
[English]
A recorded vote, please.
(Clause 288 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
No, it's not unanimous, Mr. Chair. I would like a recorded vote please.
[English]
A recorded vote, please.
(Clause 289 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
I call this 94th meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance back to order.
Colleagues, we last dealt with clause 289. We shall therefore start with clause 290.
Shall clause 290 carry?
An hon. member: On division.
The Chair: On division?
[Translation]
[English]
We'll have a recorded vote.
(Clause 290 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 291 carry? On division?
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
We'll have a recorded vote.
(Clause 292 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 293 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
Recorded?
(Clause 293 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 294 carry? On division?
[Translation]
[English]
Record it.
(Clause 294 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 295 carry? On division?
[Translation]
[English]
No?
A recorded vote, please.
(Clause 295 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 296 carry?
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Clause 296 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 297 carry?
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Clause 297 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 298—Order in council)
The Chair: We will move to clause 298. Clause 298 has 364 amendments.
I've been asked to apply.... I think the NDP would vote for the last one if the Liberals would consent to that, and we could go to that one if the committee agrees. That would be a very nice thing to do, in your chair's opinion.
Is there consent to do that?
[Translation]
[English]
No, there is no consent to do that.
Okay. We will do clause 298. Let's start with amendment LIB-298-1. On division?
An hon. member: Record it.
[Translation]
[English]
We will have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-2.
An hon. member: Record it.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-3.
An hon. member: Record it.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-4.
An hon. member: Record it.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-5.
An hon. member: Record it.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-6.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-7.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB 298-8.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-9. On division?
[Translation]
[English]
No? Recorded?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-10.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-11.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-12.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-13.
We're seeing another pattern emerge here.
Amendment LIB-298-19.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: That's defeated.
Order. I have to call it first.
Voices: Oh, oh!
An hon. member: Record it.
The Chair:Amendment LIB-298-20: recorded.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-21.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-23.
Hon. Mauril Bélanger: No—
The Chair: No? Sorry—we're on amendment LIB-298-22.
On division?
[Translation]
[English]
Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings)
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-24: on division?
[Translation]
[English]
Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-25. On division?
Ms. Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay: Recorded vote, please.
[Translation]
Record it.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-26.
Mr. Dave Van Kesteren: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-27.
Mr. Dave Van Kesteren: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-28.
Amendment LIB-298-33.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-35.
Mr. Blake Richards: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-37.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-38.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-39.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-40.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-41.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-42.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-43.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment 298-44.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-45.
Mr. Blake Richards: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-46.
Mr. Blake Richards: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-47.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-48.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-49.
Mr. Blake Richards: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-50.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-51.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-52.
Mr. Blake Richards: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-53.
Mr. Blake Richards: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-54.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-55.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-56.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-57.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-58.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-59.
Mr. Blake Richards: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-60.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-61.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
It might be best to give people time to answer before moving on to the next vote. My answer was yea.
[English]
I think as long as it's clear—each person's vote—for the clerk. If there are any errors made, I'm sure members will inform the clerk. Thank you.
Amendment LIB-298-61 was defeated.
We have amendment LIB-298-62.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-63.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
[English]
Amendment LIB-298-65.
Mr. Blake Richards: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-66.
Mr. Blake Richards: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-67.
Mr. Blake Richards: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-68.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-69.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-70.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-71.
Mr. Blake Richards: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-72.
Mr. Blake Richards: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-73.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
The Chair: On division or recorded...? Was there...?
Amendment LIB-298-74.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
[English]
Amendment LIB-298-76.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-77.
Mr. Blake Richards: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-78.
Mr. Blake Richards: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-79.
Mr. Blake Richards: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-80.
Mr. Blake Richards: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-81.
Mr. Blake Richards: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-82.
Mr. Blake Richards: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-83.
Mr. Blake Richards: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-84.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-85.
Mr. Blake Richards: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
[English]
We could group the rest.
I'm at amendment LIB-298-87. There's a desire to group the rest of these in this section.
[Translation]
[English]
I'm sensing a strong desire, but not a unanimous desire.
Voices: Oh, oh!
We have amendment LIB-298-87.
Mr. Blake Richards: We'd like a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-88.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-89.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-90.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-91.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-92.
Mr. Blake Richards: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-93.
Mr. Blake Richards: We would like a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-94.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-95.
Mr. Blake Richards: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-96.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-97.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-98.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-99.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
Thank you.
[Applause]
The Chair: It makes you very popular when you do that.
(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
It may even be a question of privilege. I don't know if my colleagues would care for a coffee as much as I would, but it would certainly be nice to have one.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[English]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
So you let one go on division and the coffee arrived.... If you let another one go on division, something else might appear in the room.
Voices: Oh, oh!
The Chair: Okay. It's amendment 298-101 and a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-102.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-103.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
Amendment LIB-298-106.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-107.
Mr. Blake Richards: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-108.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-109.
Mr. Dave Van Kesteren: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-110.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-111.
Mr. Dave Van Kesteren: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-112.
Mr. Dave Van Kesteren: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-113.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Mr. Bélanger?
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I want to thank the clerk and staff members for going to get the coffee. That is very kind of them and much appreciated.
Thank you.
[English]
Okay. Thank you very much for that.
I think we should thank all the staff here for their hard work over the last hours and days.
[Applause]
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-113 was defeated.
We will go to amendment LIB-298-114.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-115.
Mr. Dave Van Kesteren: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-116: on division?
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
An hon. member: On division.
Amendment LIB-298-118.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-119.
Mr. Blake Richards: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-120.
Mr. Blake Richards: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-121.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment 298-122: on division?
Mr. Blake Richards: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-123.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-124.
Mr. Blake Richards: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-125.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-126.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-127.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-128.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-129.
Mr. Blake Richards: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-130.
Mr. Blake Richards: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-131.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-132.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-133.
Mr. Blake Richards: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-134.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-135.
Mr. Blake Richards: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-136.
Mr. Blake Richards: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We are at amendment LIB-298-137.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-138.
Mr. Blake Richards: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-139.
Mr. Blake Richards: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-140.
Mr. Blake Richards: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
AmendmentLIB-298-141.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-142.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-143.
Mr. Blake Richards: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-144.
Mr. Blake Richards: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-145.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-146.
Mr. Blake Richards: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-147.
Mr. Blake Richards: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Okay? It was defeated.
Amendment LIB-298-148.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-149.
Mr. Blake Richards: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-150.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-150.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-151.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-152.
Mr. Blake Richards: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-153.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-154.
Mr. Blake Richards: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-155.
Mr. Blake Richards: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-156.
Mr. Blake Richards: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-157.
Mr. Blake Richards: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-158.
Mr. Blake Richards: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: That amendment was defeated.
Amendment LIB-298-159.
Mr. Blake Richards: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-160.
Mr. Blake Richards: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-161.
Mr. Blake Richards: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-162.
Mr. Blake Richards: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-163.
Mr. Blake Richards: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-164.
Mr. Blake Richards: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-165.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-166.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-167.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We are on amendment LIB-298-168.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-169.
Mr. Blake Richards: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-170.
Mr. Blake Richards: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-171.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-172.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-173.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-174.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-175.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-176.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-177.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-178.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-179.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-180.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-181.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-182.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-183.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-184.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-185.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-186.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-187.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-188.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-189.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-190.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-191.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Yes, Mr. Bélanger.
Okay. Liberal amendment 298-191 was defeated.
We'll now go to amendment LIB-298-192.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-193.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-194.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-195.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-196.
Mr. Blake Richards: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-197.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-198.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-199.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Colleagues, we passed amendment 298-100 on division. How about amendment 298-200?
[Translation]
Not now, Mr. Chair.
[English]
In a little while, I'll indicate that there might be one on division if colleagues are interested...in a little while.
Amendment LIB-298-200. On division? Recorded vote?
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
The Chair: Okay.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-201.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-202.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-203.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-204.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-205.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-206.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-207.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-208.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-209.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We are on amendment 298-210. The last one we did was 298-209.
We are now doing amendment LIB-298-210.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-211.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-212.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-213.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-214.
On division...[Inaudible—Editor]...and I may tell you why if you insist, Mr. Chairman. I believe, by our account, that this may be the halfway point.
The glass is always half full for me. Should we have a little toast in celebration?
Voices: Oh, oh!
The Chair: All right. We only have about 16 and a half hours left.
A voice: Is 298-214 on division?
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-214 is defeated on division.
(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-215.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-216.
An hon. member: On division.
A voice: On division?
The Chair: On division?
On division—defeated on division.
(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
The fact of the matter is I was in the middle of drinking my coffee, but if you wish to go ahead, by all means. We will make up for it later, with a point of order if need be. Do as you see fit.
[English]
Amendment LIB-298-217.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
The Chair: Recorded?
Recorded.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-218.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-219.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-220.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-221.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-222.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-223.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-224.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-225.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-226.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-227.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-228.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-229.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-230.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We will now have amendment LIB-298-231.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-232.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-233.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-234.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-298-235.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-236.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-237.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment 298-238.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We will go to amendment LIB-298-239.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-240.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-241.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-242.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-243.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-244.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-245.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-246.
An hon. member: A recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-247.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-248.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: There is a change of two members, I believe. I'll suspend for a couple of minutes.
I'll call this meeting back to order. This is the 94th meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance—still—a meeting that began on Wednesday, November 21, at 3:30 p.m.
I'll have the clerk run through the names just to make sure we have everyone here.
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
Thank you.
Colleagues, the last amendment we dealt with was Liberal amendment 298-248. That was defeated.
We will start with amendment LIB-298-249.
An hon. member: A recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-250.
An hon. member: A recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-251.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-252.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-253.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-254.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-255.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-256.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-257.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-258.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-259.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-260.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-261.
An hon. member: A recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-262.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-263.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-264.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-265.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-266.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-267.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-268.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-269.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-270.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-271.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-272.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-273.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-274.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment LIB-298-275.
An hon. member: Recorded vote, please.
The Chair: Okay.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We're on amendment LIB-298-276.
Hon. Mauril Bélanger: Could we have a recorded vote?
The Chair: Okay.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We're on amendment LIB-298-277.
Hon. Mauril Bélanger: Could we have a recorded vote?
The Chair: Okay.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We're on amendment LIB-298-278.
Hon. Mauril Bélanger: Could we have a recorded vote?
The Chair: Okay.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We're on amendment LIB-298-279.
Hon. Mauril Bélanger: Could we have a recorded vote?
The Chair: Okay.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We're on amendment LIB-298-280.
Hon. Mauril Bélanger: Could we have a recorded vote?
The Chair: Okay.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We're on amendment LIB-298-281. We just finished amendment LIB-298-280.
Hon. Mauril Bélanger: Could we have a recorded vote?
The Chair: Okay.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We're on amendment LIB-298-282.
Hon. Mauril Bélanger: Could we have a recorded vote?
The Chair: Okay.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We're on amendment LIB-298-283.
Hon. Mauril Bélanger: Could we have a recorded vote?
The Chair: Okay.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We're on amendment LIB-298-284.
Hon. Mauril Bélanger: Could we have a recorded vote?
The Chair: Okay.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We're on amendment LIB-298-285.
Hon. Mauril Bélanger: Could we have a recorded vote?
The Chair: Okay.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We're on amendment LIB-298-286.
Hon. Mauril Bélanger: Could we have a recorded vote?
The Chair: Okay.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We're on amendment LIB-298-287.
Hon. Mauril Bélanger: Could we have a recorded vote?
The Chair: Okay.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We're on amendment LIB-298-288.
Hon. Mauril Bélanger: Could we have a recorded vote?
The Chair: Okay.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We're on amendment LIB-298-289.
Hon. Mauril Bélanger: Could we have a recorded vote?
The Chair: It will be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is LIB-298-290.
Hon. Mauril Bélanger: Could we have a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is amendment LIB-298-291.
Hon. Mauril Bélanger: Could we have a recorded vote, please.
The Chair: It will be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is amendment LIB-298-292.
Hon. Mauril Bélanger: Could we have a recorded vote, please.
The Chair: It will be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is amendment LIB-298-293.
Hon. Mauril Bélanger:Could we have a recorded vote, please.
The Chair: It will be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is amendment LIB-298-294.
Hon. Mauril Bélanger: Could we have a recorded vote, please.
The Chair: It will be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is amendment LIB-298-295—
Hon. Mauril Bélanger: Could we have a recorded vote, please.
The Chair: It will be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is amendment LIB-298-296.
Hon. Mauril Bélanger: Could we have a recorded vote, please.
The Chair: It will be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is amendment LIB-298-297.
Hon. Mauril Bélanger: Could we have a recorded vote, please.
The Chair: It will be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: This one has a ring to it. Next is amendment LIB-298-298—
Hon. Mauril Bélanger: Could we have a recorded vote, please.
The Chair: It will be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is amendment LIB-298-299.
Hon. Mauril Bélanger: Could we have a recorded vote, please.
The Chair: It will be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is amendment LIB-298-300.
Hon. Mauril Bélanger: On division.
The Chair: Is that on division?
[English]
We'll have a recorded vote for LIB-298-300.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is LIB-298-301.
An hon. member: I request a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is LIB-298-302.
An hon. member: I request a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: On LIB-298-303.
An hon. member: I request a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is LIB-298-304.
An hon. member: I request a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is LIB-298-305.
An hon. member: I request a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is LIB-298-306.
An hon. member: I request a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We are at LIB-298-307.
An hon. member: I request a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is LIB-298-308.
An hon. member: I request a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is LIB-298-309.
An hon. member: I request a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is LIB-298-310.
An hon. member: I request a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is LIB-298-311.
An hon. member: I request a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is LIB-298-312.
An hon. member: I request a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We will now go to LIB-298-313.
An hon. member: I request a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We are on LIB-298-314.
An hon. member: I request a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We're on LIB-298-315.
An hon. member: I request a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We're on LIB-298-316.
An hon. member: I request a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We're on LIB-298-317.
An hon. member: I request a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We're on LIB-298-318.
An hon. member: I request a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We're on LIB-298-319.
An hon. member: I request a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We're on LIB-298-320.
An hon. member: I request a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We're on LIB-298-321.
An hon. member: I request a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We're on LIB-298-322.
An hon. member: I request a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We're on LIB-298-323.
An hon. member: I request a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We're on LIB-298-324.