Evidence of meeting #31 for Finance in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was debt.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I officially call the 31st meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance to order. Pursuant to Standing Order 83.1, we are continuing with pre-budget consultations 2010.
I have a motion from Monsieur Paillé.
Monsieur Paillé, would you very briefly introduce your motion?
3:25 p.m.
Bloc
Daniel Paillé Bloc Hochelaga, QC
I introduced a motion last week. Following the usual consultations, I will now read the motion, which is self-explanatory:
That the Committee call witnesses, including the HSBC bank, Mr. Don Johnston, former Secretary-General of the OECD, the Canada Revenue Agency and the federal Department of Finance, to appear before the Committee on the subject of offshore bank accounts whose holders are Canadian, in order to learn what measures will be taken by the Canada Revenue Agency to recover unpaid income tax that may have been hidden in these accounts, find out whether criminal charges will be laid against account holders suspected of tax evasion, and ascertain Canada’s strategy for combating tax evasion.
Mr. Chair, I would like this motion to be studied fairly quickly. I am aware of the items on our agenda, but it would be better to strike while the iron is still hot.
3:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Merci, Monsieur Paillé.
I have Mr. Menzies on the floor. The motion is in order.
3:25 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
Thank you, Chair. I'm assuming it is.
My friend Monsieur Paillé has shared this with all of us. We share his concern and I thank him for bringing it forward. I would actually like to propose three additions to it, which I have shared with Monsieur Paillé. I feel they will actually make it stronger.
At “including...Secretary-General of the OECD”, I would like to include after that the OECD itself. I can give you the wording.
As well, after “have been hidden in these accounts”, I would like to include how the voluntary disclosures program has affected our efforts in this area. I think that's something we should look at. Maybe it has; maybe it hasn't. Let's bring witnesses forward to talk about what we've done and whether it works or not.
Then, after “suspected of tax evasion”, I would like to suggest that we include “discuss the work of and Canada's involvement in the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes”, and then end with the last clause.
I would propose those three additions. I can share those with you, Chair.
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
The amendment is in order as well.
Is there any discussion on the amendment?
Mr. Brison, and then Monsieur Mulcair.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
I have a couple of questions. One, why are we inviting the former secretary general, as opposed to the current one? But also, the wording of this is a little confusing. It says “former Secretary-General of the OECD, the Canada Revenue Agency...”. The wording is a little confusing, because Mr. Johnston is a former cabinet minister and it's not clear here. Perhaps we should say “representatives of the Canada Revenue Agency and of the federal Department of Finance”, because it may be confused that these were ministries he held at one point or another. I think it's a little ambiguous. Perhaps we should say “Mr. Johnston, former Secretary-General” and then say “as well as representatives of the Canada Revenue Agency”. I think that would clear up the confusion.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
It would be helpful.
But are we inviting anyone from the OECD currently?
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
My amendment, after “OECD”, says “the OECD”, so a representative from the OECD themselves--
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Plus, the list is not exclusive. If the committee wanted to invite other witnesses, it could choose to do so.
Monsieur Mulcair.
3:30 p.m.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
Mr. Chair, I have an amendment similar to the one proposed by my friend and colleague Ted Menzies. I suggest adding the name of the former Minister of Finance Michael Wilson to the list, given his previous experience with the issue, both in the private sector and as Canada's former Minister of Finance. We could add Michael Wilson's name right after Mr. Johnston's name. He is very familiar with the issue. So we would have a former Conservative minister and a former Liberal minister. As we saw, Mr. Wilson knows the subject well, and that could be very interesting for our work.
There is one other thing that worries me. It is more of a technicality. I don't understand what “the OECD” technically means. If we are to invite someone, we cannot invite the OECD because that implies dozens of countries. It is not clear to me.
But I think it is an excellent idea. Could we find another term that will do the trick? All the OECD board members will certainly not be here.
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
My understanding is that, with Mr. Brison's comment on the Canada Revenue Agency and the Department of Finance, we'd say “representatives of the CRA, the Department of Finance, and representatives of the OECD”.
3:30 p.m.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
My only suggestion is to add Michael Wilson's name. Right after Don Johnson's name, I would add Michael Wilson's name as former minister.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Mr. Chairman, in my experience, when you get too specific with regard to witnesses, not knowing whether they're available or in fact appropriate to the work done.... It's that this list should really be a little more generic and that people will be called as necessary, but it would appear that the objective of the motion is to ascertain Canada’s strategy for combatting tax evasion. That's a proactive--as opposed to historic--review.
I don't understand why the Honourable Don Johnston is here. I'm sure there are many people who have in the past had some matters...I think if the committee would accept to simply leave the OECD there.... It does say “witnesses, including”, but not limited to, and I think as we see the need.... Because I can see that this could take an awfully long time if we're going to stray too far from what I read to be the intent of the motion.
I would propose to simply leave it at “OECD” and drop the “former Secretary-General of the OECD”, which is sticking out there like a sore thumb as the only person specifically named here. The committee could find out the availability of the most appropriate officials from all of these agencies and then bring them back to the committee.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
The motion has been presented as such. The amendment has been presented as such. Mr. Mulcair has added a name in what is essentially a subamendment. Let's deal with it in that order.
Mr. Szabo, your point has been made, and we'll deal with it when we deal with the main motion.
Monsieur Paillé.
3:35 p.m.
Bloc
Daniel Paillé Bloc Hochelaga, QC
I would just like to make a clarification. Perhaps people did not see him pass by last week, but Mr. Johnston made very specific comments about the situation at hand, and that is why we want to call him. I also agree with my colleague from Outremont on his proposition to add Mike Wilson's name. Sometimes, being too vague does not get us anywhere.