Finance Committee on May 3rd, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Caron.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I understand Ms. Raitt's reluctance and the argument she is making.

What it boils down to is this: how long are we going to wait? Is the court going to make its ruling this month, in three months, in six months, in a year? Frankly, we have no idea at this point. In a year from now, we'll be in an altogether different boat.

Three meetings plus another are scheduled. We have always been open to the idea of holding further meetings on the issue, but if the court doesn't rule for another year or year and a half, it will be way too late then.

I understand what Ms. Raitt is saying about the word “compel”. Could we have two or three minutes to consider the matter before commenting on the motion?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Could we just set this aside for the moment? You think about it, whether you want to change that word. There might be unanimous consent to change it. While you're thinking about that, we will deal with some of these other issues.

We have two budget proposals before the committee. One is the study into the Canada Revenue Agency's efforts to combat tax avoidance and evasion. The amount requested is for $3,500.

Moved by Mr. MacKinnon.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The second one is the budget matter request for the 2016-17 main estimates, votes 1 and 5 under the Canada Revenue Agency. The amount requested is $500.

Moved by Mr. MacKinnon.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We do have some other motions to deal with, but before we get to that we need to deal with scheduling to assist the clerk.

We're dealing with the CRA in committee business on May 5. We're also dealing with CRA, the study into tax avoidance and evasion from 11 to 1. During the first hour, we're dealing with the commissioner and the chief executive officer of CRA and then following that, the officials are staying to deal with Bill C-15.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Don't we have Justice?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Somebody from Justice is in the mix.

There was a request by you, Guy, on the budget implementation act, that we needed to meet fairly heavily during the week of May 9 to 13. It seems that the bill may not be out of the House, but I would suggest we meet on the Monday from 3:30 to 5 with officials on the subject of the bill.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Suzie Cadieux]

They're coming Tuesday morning.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

They're coming Tuesday morning.

If we meet with officials on the Tuesday on the subject of the bill, we can meet Wednesday and Thursday if you like with witnesses. I know there are witnesses who have come forward from all parties. That would get us some way down the road to dealing with Bill C-15. We can't deal with the bill as a whole until it goes through the House, but we can deal with the subject matter prior to it coming out of the House.

Mr. Caron.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

When I proposed holding a meeting the week of May 9, I thought second reading of the bill would have already begun and even been completed by now, given that it was mid-April when we talked about it.

To be perfectly honest, I'm a bit reluctant to set a precedent where the committee studies bills before second reading has even begun. Most likely, it will have begun by the time we meet next week. But for me, the bottom line is I'm not comfortable with this practice. We did it before with the physician-assisted dying bill.

Technically speaking, bills are subject to second reading for a reason. All of the debate that goes on in the House informs the committee's subsequent discussion of the issue. If we start to hear from witnesses while the debate in the House is still under way, frankly, what purpose does the debate at second reading serve? That is why I'm reluctant to begin this study immediately.

There is another point I'd like to make. When we made the suggestion, we had no idea what the budget bill would entail, and now we know we are dealing with a 170-page document containing extremely complex elements. I think we would do well to push the scheduled discussion to later in the week.

I suggest that the subcommittee meet not just to study the implications of discussing the bill prior to the completion of second reading, but also to see how much time the committee wants to spend on the bill in order to do a thorough review.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is there anybody else?

Mr. MacKinnon.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

I think the rules allow for us to study the bill in terms of its general subject matter and basic elements. On the government's end, we would like study of the bill to begin as soon as possible. I don't see the need to wait until second reading is over to begin discussing the bill. We can start the discussion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Caron, Mr. McColeman, and we are going to run out of time.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

The rules allow it in exceptional cases. But there is absolutely no need to invoke such a measure. We have until mid-June to complete the study, after which, the Senate will examine the legislation. So, the week of May 9, we have no reason to start studying a bill that came to us at the end of April and is still being debated at second reading.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

The rules allow it because it's a practice that is used, Mr. Caron.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Sorry, Mr. MacKinnon, but it's still my turn.

The rules allow it in letter, but not in spirit. I repeat, the measure is to be used only in exceptional cases. Right now, we have two measures in a row–

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

You were there when the spirit was—

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

It's still my turn, Mr. MacKinnon.

Time and time again, bills have been referred to the committee even before second reading has run its full course. So I would like to convey to the government the importance of the House's role in legislative debate. I would also like to say to the committee that we have more than a month to study the bill.

Here is what I'm proposing. The subcommittee should examine and figure out the exact schedule now that the committee has seen what the bill entails, how long it is, and how complex it is. It's a matter of being transparent. It's also a matter of having respect for the House of Commons and Parliament.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Chair, point of order, please. I think we are over time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Hold on, Mr. MacKinnon, we are beyond our committee time frame. We will have to adjourn. We'll have to try to find some time for committee business at the meeting on Thursday. The clerk and others have to deal with lining up witnesses for the meetings on the 10th and 12th at least, so we will have to deal with that at the next meeting.

I know people have commitments around one o'clock, so we can't continue.

It will give you a day, Mr. Caron, to think about that motion. We will come back to it.

The meeting is adjourned.