FINA Committee Meeting

    [Public proceedings resume]

     I call the meeting back to order.

    This is the Standing Committee on Finance, meeting number 4. We are now in public and we are now discussing the motion from Mr. Brison.

    Go ahead, Mr. Brison.

    Mr. Chair, I move that:

    Thank you, Mr. Brison.

    On the speaking list I have Ms. McLeod first, please.

    Thank you.

    I would like to speak to the motion, but I would really like to propose an amendment. It really is going to accomplish the same thing, but it is going to keep it perhaps a little bit more simple. The proposed amendment would be:

    That's the proposed amendment.

    I view that as a friendly amendment.

    It is a friendly amendment.

    He accepted it.

    This is actually replacing the motion.

    Mr. Brison indicated that he would accept it as a friendly amendment.

    (Motion withdrawn)

    What you're presenting would actually become the motion the committee would pass. Are you okay with that, Mr. Brison?

    Yes.

    Is everyone okay with this?

    (Motion agreed to)

    People won't believe that there is something happening in this committee.

    We have a motion on future business from Mr. Mai, and we'll distribute that.

     Would you read that into the record? Just give us 30 seconds to distribute it.

    It's a motion to receive evidence from a previous session. I move:

    We'll go to Mr. Jean and then Mr. Marston.

    My only question is in relation to the notice of this motion. Did we receive adequate notice that we would deal with this matter today?

    Yes, we did, because orders of the day are committee business, so any member can move any motion related to future business.

    I was just curious, because I didn't see it before and I wanted to make sure that I had a chance to look at it.

    Go ahead, Mr. Marston.

    I understand some good work was done on this issue in the last session. I know that on our subcommittee on human rights, we quite often got trapped mid-study on one thing or another. I think this type of work shouldn't become passé, so I certainly would support bringing this forward.

    While we're on this subject matter, are there any other aspects of the committee work from last time that we might consider bringing forward at another date? Maybe that's a separate discussion, Mr. Chair.

    Thank you.

    We'll go to Ms. Glover.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    The government side has no problem continuing this study, but the timing is where we might have an issue, simply because of all the members who are no longer here who sat through many of those meetings. It was a very interesting discussion and a very interesting study.

    I was going to propose that charities be studied, based on a motion made by Peter Braid that was unanimously agreed to by the House, which is also subject to a provision in the budget. I was going to suggest that it be studied first. I would agree to study this afterward.

    That also gives time for the analysts and the clerk to actually develop a plan to educate those members who weren't present during those last studies on how far we had come and on what was discovered.

    Those are my thoughts on it.

    On the charity issue, we dealt with a private member's bill in the last session. You're right that we have to deal with that from the budget.

    Is there a timeline? I don't recall the timeline on dealing with the charity motion.

    I don't believe there was a timeline in motion M-559, but I would say it's important that we deal with it as soon as possible, because of the implication of the budget measure on charities. I know they're eager for us to look at it.

    I'm sure members will be hearing about it from charities.

    Go ahead, Mr. Mai.

    I'd like some clarification. From my understanding, in the previous committee the studies were made, and then we were waiting for the report. Is that more or less...?

    We had gone through probably two-thirds of the witnesses. The analysts can comment if they want. They were looking towards drafting a report, but we still had a few witnesses to hear from.

    One option for the committee to consider is to have the analysts prepare a backgrounder. We could perhaps flesh that out with some of what the committee heard. There were one or two sessions in camera, so there's some challenge in how we relate this to members, but we could certainly have the analysts come in.

    If this motion is passed, probably the biggest challenge from the chair's point of view is the timing on where we would fit this material in. Certainly option number one is to have the members review the material from last time.

    I understand having the charity issue brought forward. Since the work has already been done, it would be good for us to know exactly what we have. Do we need additional witnesses in order to finalize the report? We could perhaps finalize that report now as it stands.

    A voice: We don't have to, no.

    Mr. Hoang Mai: No? I don't know; I wasn't there.

    That's the problem.

    That's the problem, eh?

    If this motion is adopted, my recommendation is to provide the schedule of which witnesses appeared. We then do a summary of the brief and the evidence and provide it to the members for review. Then they can decide if they want to hear from some of the witnesses who appeared before.

    There were some good sessions, especially the in camera session. There are many new members of this committee, and I assume they would want to hear from the witnesses directly. There would be at least, I would say, four meetings. That's my guess.

    Is that your idea, Mr. Chairman? It sounds like a great idea.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    I'm offering some helpful guidance.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Go ahead, Mr. Marston.

    We were talking earlier about the good work that's done by the committee, but do we actually have a sit-down session in which we order the things we're going to do? We're going to be coming back in the fall.

    My thinking is that we do that the first week we're back. The first week we're back, we'll finalize pre-budget.

    I understand the interest in that.

    I wanted to get the pre-budget done.

    From my view—and I haven't talked to my colleague on it—it might slide quite comfortably in behind something else. We have some time ahead of us now.

    Over the summer and into the fall, once we get pre-budget, the next thing is for the committee to consider tax evasion and charities. Is there another issue that others have? Let's get them all on the list, discuss them, and prioritize them.

    I would like some clarification. If there's been good work done on the tax evasion issue, I think we'd all agree that it would make sense for us to capture that somehow, finish the study, and come out with recommendations. To me, it's a timing issue of how long it takes to capture that information.

    If the government side believes it's urgent to move forward on the charity issue, then how long a study is that likely to be? Is it something that's fairly short and focused? Could we get it done and then do the tax evasion piece, or is the tax evasion piece at a point where we should finish it off? The charity study is long and involved. It'll require committee visits across the country.

    I'd like to get a sense of how those pieces can work together. Our side is not opposed to doing a study on charities, and I don't sense opposition to finishing the tax evasion studies. The question is how we fit them together.

    I'll let Ms. Glover respond on the charity issue.

    My sense is that we'd need four sessions of witnesses on the tax evasion matter, and then you'd probably need at least two to discuss a report. That's just my sense at this point.

    Ms. Glover, do you want to respond? You have your name next on the list.

    What I was going to say about the tax evasion study is that it is going to take a long time just for the other members who missed it to get up to speed. Those members are going to have to spend some time reading. Even just the preparation of it, because it was quite long, is going to take some time. There was an invitation to the RCMP, specifically waiting to be done in camera, that would also have to be added on, so it is not quite as close to being finished as Mr. Mai would like to think.

    However, as I say, we're happy to do that if the members are prepared to do the follow-up and the reading to get up to speed.

    With regard to the charities, a motion has already been put forward and unanimously agreed to by this committee, so I would suggest, as the chair has already stated, that perhaps we could bring these things back when we come back in the fall rather than vote on them today. We don't really have a sense of where we'll be at, other than knowing the pre-budget consultations will take priority. They do take priority.

    I would suggest that perhaps we could look at this further. I will look into how long we think the charities might take, but I would like input from this committee as to who they want to hear from on the charities, which is why I'm suggesting we talk about this aspect when we get back from summer break.

    Thank you.

    I have Mr. Brison, Mr. Hoback, and Mr. Marston.

    While we're on the topic of future business, there is something related to the tax issue, but I think it's more positive and maybe even more constructive as a topic within the area of taxation.

    I move that the committee conduct a study on tax reform in Canada. Most tax changes that occur in Canada--and this isn't part of my motion, but just a discussion--seem to be around politics and ideology. I don't think any of us understands as much as we ought to understand about some of the changes that could occur in terms of creating growth and opportunity.

    We haven't had real tax reform or a significant study of taxation in Canada since 1971 with the Carter commission. Changes have occurred in the Canadian economy between 1971 and today, and changes in the global economy, so I move that the committee conduct a study of Canada's tax system in order to propose reforms to the system. We can work on the wording, but that's broadly what I would propose.

    I have three speakers, but I'm going to make a suggestion as the chair, because we are past one o'clock.

    Even without adopting this motion, I'm going to suggest that we distribute to members the information on the tax evasion study that was done, regardless of whether the motion is passed, and I'm suggesting that at our first meeting on September 20 we could deal with this motion, a motion on charities, and a motion on tax reform. Then we'll deal with other motions. If members send them over the summer but before September 20, then I, as the chair, will list them all, and we can all discuss them. My sense is that committee members will be agreeable to all of them. Then it's just a matter of where we're slotting them in to study them. That's my suggestion.

    I have three more speakers: Mr. Hoback, Mr. Marston, and Mr. Mai.

    This is just a suggestion. That's actually where I was going to go with my comments, the idea that we should put some meat on the bones and come back and see where it goes. Should we have the steering committee put the meat on the bones, or do you want the entire committee to do it?

     Let me think about that one.

    Thank you, Mr. Hoback.

    I have a point of order. If I'm correct, technically you can't distribute something from a previous session of Parliament without a motion. I would recommend that this motion be passed today to allow that information to come forward.

    That's right.

     It's not as if I want to drive a particular point, but I certainly want to be in compliance with the rules, and that was the reason we brought it here today.

    The prioritization of what we do we can discuss in the fall. Nobody is trying to push for a particular time.

    I'm advised that you're correct.

    Thank you. It happens once in a while.

    Go ahead, Mr. Mai.

    We need to get up to speed on what happened on the previous committee, so we need to be able to work on the documents as soon as possible.

    Go ahead, Ms. Glover.

    I'm going to propose an amendment to the motion. Rather than say “that the committee resume its study“, I move to amend by requiring “that the committee provide evidence and documentation relevant to the study on tax evasion and offshore bank accounts during the third session of the 40th Parliament”.

    That is still kept in confidentiality, and with the members? Is that correct?

    Yes. The public hearings we had are on the website, so it's on the record.

    We will add the two issues of charities and tax reform for discussion on September 20, and we'll discuss whether we'll do it by subcommittee or full committee.

    That means we cannot go. I don't have the numbers. We don't vote on the motion for the pre-budget consultation.

    We had two motions to travel for the two weeks and we had specific amounts, but these specific amounts will change based on the travel, and logistics has not yet given us updated numbers. You're saying we have to have specific numbers for the board.

    Yes, the board wants specifics. We'll have to wait until September.

    Okay, we'll do it in September. That's what I asked yesterday, but my understanding is that it has to be specific and contain some background.

    Mr. Scheer and the board want details.

    We haven't completed the previous motion. We agreed verbally, but can we do a vote on it to complete it?

    After that, I have a suggestion on your problem.

    My understanding was that the motion passed unanimously.

    All in favour of the motion?

    (Motion as amended agreed to)

    To continue on the problem you have, could we, based on past experience, insert numbers—let's say 10% more than what we would anticipate—to get under way? Would it be possible to correct it later if it should prove to be incorrect? If we find when we start that it's going to be more costly, we would go back. At least that way we could have things started and some of it put into place. If we find we've reached that level of cost, then we would have to get a second motion.

    I don't know if that's appropriate. I've not done it before, but the idea is to get this under way. It would be good to get staff started on some of the work.

    My suggestion is that we work on getting the House to pass the motion that I read out, which is: “That during its consideration of matters pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), that the Standing Committee on Finance be authorized to adjourn from place to place within Canada and to permit the broadcasting of its proceedings thereon, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee”.

    The Clerk: Nunavik is the complicated one.

    The Chair: If the board is asking for specifics, we don't have those specifics.

    The Clerk: We don't right now, but we'll try our best.

     I was just going to suggest you have numbers for everything, so we could perhaps do everything and then in September get the final approval. This way at least we would not be stalling our options.

    Thank you. We will see you in the House.

    This meeting stands adjourned.