Evidence of meeting #37 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Is there further discussion?
We'll go to the vote on amendment NDP-2.
4:45 p.m.
An hon. member
I ask for a recorded vote.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now we have Green Party amendment 0.1. I'm not sure why it's “0.1”—
4:45 p.m.
A voice
Because we have—
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Okay. I get it.
Colleagues, it has been our practice at this committee that while we have the five-minute time limit for other parties, we allow Ms. May one minute to present her amendment. Is that agreeable?
4:45 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
May 27th, 2014 / 4:50 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm here pursuant to something that should be agreeable to members, since it was a resolution and motion passed by the committee that summons me here, as opposed to having the rights I used to have at report stage to provide substantive amendments. I'm in your hands and I have my minute.
In this case, I'm presenting an amendment that is somewhat similar, certainly similar in intent if not in wording, to what you just defeated in amendment NDP-2. Let me try to put forward the reasons.
Very clearly, the committee had evidence before it, particularly from tax law expert Stéphane Eljarrat, who pointed out that it's very important to have this requirement for a judge's permission before the CRA staff reaches out to police. There is a real risk here, both for the CRA as an authority.... As he pointed out, their role as an authority is both to “ensure that taxes are paid in a civil manner and that they can also result in criminal prosecutions in the case of tax evasion”. It's critical, in other words, that we involve the judiciary.
To those who are worried about not getting evidence of tax fraud into the hands of police, I would say that I think it's really important to get evidence of tax fraud to the police. I don't want to go over my time, Mr. Chair; I just want to remind everybody that Al Capone, who was a multiple murderer and famous crook, was caught for tax evasion. The way to get at that is to have forensic accounting staff on the police forces of Canada, as they do in other nations.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you very much, Ms. May.
Is there further discussion on this amendment?
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 28 agreed to)
(Clauses 29 and 30 agreed to on division)
(On clause 31)
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Colleagues, we have two amendments here, NDP-3 and LIB-1. My understanding is that we received NDP-3 first and that if NDP-3 is moved, LIB-1 cannot be proceeded with, as they are identical.
As we received amendment NDP-3 first, we will deal with NDP-3 first.
Mr. Cullen.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
We've had some conversation about this, and this might be a rare moment when we maybe get to see something done.
This is something that comes from that radical group the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada; you know that bunch.
4:50 p.m.
An hon. member
I am one.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Uh, oh; there's one amongst us, Chair, there's one amongst us.
I know that Mr. Allen has an alternative strategy that we find some similarity with and that we'll seek to support, but this is taken directly from those who deal with this type of frustration of so many outstanding tax changes that don't get listed. I know the chair is familiar with this issue as well. It causes a huge impediment to Canadian business. It's very frustrating, cumbersome, and extraordinarily expensive, the process that we have right now. Massive omnibus bills come forward every decade that are hundreds and hundreds of pages long, overly complex, and the changes that are implemented by government are not kept current. Those who do the taxes for Canadians, both personal and business, find it incredibly cumbersome.
What we've suggested is something that we see as very reasonable, coming from such a reasonable and wise group as the CGA, and something that would find support from others. I don't know if Mr. Allen wants to speak to the concerns he has with our particular version of the amendment, but we think this is something that would certainly help out small and medium-sized businesses quite a bit. It would lower the tax costs for Canadians in terms of filing their taxes and what that means to businesses, because that's often direct revenue lost off the bottom line.
I'll leave it at that. I'm not sure if Mr. Brison wants to add to that as well.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Allen Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
Mr. Chair, I thank Mr. Cullen. I've had discussions with him and with Mr. Brison as well.
There are a number of concerns with regard to unlegislated tax measures. As was correctly pointed out, there was a 983-page bill just two years ago that was a catch-up of over 10 years. As originally proposed in the budget bill, the wording was talked about for the tabling of these unlegislated tax measures. What was talked about was this: “that the Government publicly announced after the last general election and before April 1 of the fiscal year preceding the particular fiscal year”.
As the CGA association correctly pointed out in regard to what that wording did, the government of the day, even though it could be the same party between sessions of Parliament, basically would only be responsible for the unlegislated measures of their particular term, as opposed to the maybe hundreds of them that are out there now and are actually being administered by the CRA in spite of not being legislated.
The amendment that was proposed by CGA Canada, which would have struck out six words—“after the last general election and”—making it so that the government would publicly announce before April 1 of the preceding fiscal year, would allow for all those unlegislated measures to be picked up. I'm definitely in support of that measure in there. The other side of this, too, is that when the government turns over, I think it's also important for us to recognize one other concept, which is that it may take time to get up to speed on what some of those unlegislated measures were before. My concern was that maybe we should also have a provision in there that would allow the government to get up to speed, and they could have at least one year to table their first report of a new government.
What that would mean, Mr. Chair, is that we would be facing, under amendment, if approved, a full list of unlegislated measures this fall and during the election year we wouldn't, but then one year immediately after we'd have a full report again. If the opposition parties are open to this idea and proceed to withdraw their proposed amendments, I would propose to table an amendment, which I'm prepared to circulate in both official languages, that would capture both those aspects.
One is the spirit of intent and the actual wording of the NDP and Liberal motions. It would also add, “The obligation to table does not apply in respect of a particular fiscal year if...there are no specific legislative proposals to be included in the list referred to in subsection (2); or...the fifth day on which the House of Commons is sitting after October 31 of the particular fiscal year is less than 12 months after the last general election.”
If the opposition parties were open to withdrawing their amendments, and I thank them for their efforts in their amendments, it's in that spirit that I would add this section. I would table this for discussion.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you, Mr. Allen.
I have Mr. Brison on the list.
Do the other members of the committee have that prospective amendment?
Mr. Allen, if we can get this passed around.... We won't consider that amendment and we'll have the legislative clerks look at it as well.
4:55 p.m.
Voices
Agreed.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
On this, our amendment proposes to do the same as the NDP amendment. There's no reason that we can't vote on the NDP amendment and then carry on from there.
We recognize, in consultation with stakeholders, that we could live with the Conservative amendment as well, and we appreciate the consideration for the next government as well.
It's very generous, in fact, in understanding the challenges of coming into government and dealing with those issues early on. We'll remember that very fondly and respectfully as well. The transition team will certainly recognize Mr. Allen and his colleagues.
4:55 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
4:55 p.m.
An hon. member
Do you think there's an appointment for them?
4:55 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Chair, I think we might have insufficient copies for all members. It puts certain members at a disservice if they don't have the actual amendment that we may be voting on. Why don't we just stand this for a minute and move on to the next clause, if that works for you? That's just because typically in committees—I don't know if the chair has seen it himself—there's a discomfort if people have to vote on something they haven't seen yet.