Evidence of meeting #58 for Finance in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister
Thank you.
Mr. Wallace's amendment is that we have the hearings begin within the first 30 sitting days.
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
11:05 a.m.
Bloc
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
No. This amendment is out of order, because we already discussed the matter at the beginning of the hearings. I've already amended the main motion and asked that meetings begin before February 2. Consequently, if my honourable colleague had wanted to discuss this matter, he should have put forward a subamendment to my amendment at the time. We cannot amend something that has already been amended.
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
11:05 a.m.
An hon. member
Question.
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
We're opposed to the amendment. I would like to make the point that the government side keeps contradicting itself. On the one hand, they talk about prolonging uncertainty as being something bad. On the other hand, they say there is no rush.
Since I agree with you, Mr. Chair, that we're not going to repeat witnesses or have two sets of hearings, the sooner we get on with this, the sooner we'll resolve the uncertainty. Let's get on with the witnesses now, not in 30 days. There's no point in waiting that time. The sooner we get on with it, the sooner this uncertainty will be resolved, and that's good for Canada.
So I oppose that.
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister
Thank you.
Look, we have a very straightforward amendment before us. It does not require further elaborative discussion or lengthy speeches. I will call for the vote.
(Amendment negatived)
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
Jim Peterson Liberal Willowdale, ON
I'd like to focus on the importance of getting the facts, and here's where I take exception to what the NDP is saying. I have to agree with the Bloc in terms of the terrible impact we've seen on the 2.5 million unit holders. Did the government do a study on what the impact on the savings would be? I would like to hear what their study revealed on that issue.
Maybe they didn't do a study. If they didn't, then I want to know why. With an aging population, and with so many of our--
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister
Mr. Peterson, the debate is not about whether we're going to have the debate. It's not a debate we're going to have here today. I will state again, for clarity, that we are debating not whether there will be a debate. There will be a debate. We're debating when that should be.
If you'd like to speak directly to the urgency argument, go ahead.
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
Jim Peterson Liberal Willowdale, ON
Yes, and the urgency argument is that so many pensioners were impacted with the Hallowe'en debacle. Secondly, this bill, it has now come to light, is going to vastly increase the taxes that pensioners who are members of pension plans are going to pay on their savings, at a time when we have an aging population and so many of the pension funds are underfunded.
11:05 a.m.
An hon. member
Question.
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
Jim Peterson Liberal Willowdale, ON
This is why it's such an urgent issue to bring forward. This Parliament could be dissolved based on, say, a vote on the budget. New studies that have come out show that the implications of these measures could have really important unintended consequences. This is why it's urgent that we immediately undertake the studies, so that we know exactly what we're dealing with.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister
Thank you, Mr. Peterson.
I think we have had assurance from the parliamentary secretary that we will have that opportunity.
I'll let Mr. McCallum speak now. Perhaps, Mr. McCallum, you could also address the urgency issue and explain in your comments why it is urgent now but was not urgent over the previous number of weeks.
Please proceed.
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
I believe it is sufficiently urgent that we would not want to wait until what the parliamentary secretary described as at the time of the budget, which according to media reports is March 20. If it's simultaneous with the budget, it could actually lead to hearings post-budget, at which point we may be in an election and there wouldn't be hearings at all.
I would reiterate my earlier point. I think there is a blatant contradiction on the government side. On the one hand they speak of the harm to the economy of prolonging uncertainty, and on the other hand they say there's no rush. Both of those things cannot be correct.
The implication of proceeding quickly, which is what we are proposing, is that we will reduce that period of uncertainty. We would not want to have two repetitive rounds of witnesses. To the extent we have the witnesses sooner, we will have fewer witnesses later. Therefore, we will be coming to a conclusion on this matter sooner rather than later if we adopt this motion, and according to the spirit of Madam Ablonczy's comments, that would be a good thing, because if anything, we would be reducing the period of uncertainty.
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There are a few members around the table who are not regular committee members. I'm not sure where the rest have been, but we have been pretty busy in the last couple of months, if I'm not mistaken. So if anybody thinks we've had time to look at the trust issue...I don't know where the rest of you have been.
I think this motion is the only way we can prioritize what the committee work should be in the upcoming months. You just said yourself, Mr. Chairman, that we have a full schedule coming. This is an important issue. We have put it ahead. I have no problem even saying that it be held before February 2 so that we get this issue ahead of time, get ahead of the curve for once; as parliamentarians, we can get ahead of the curve. We can actually dictate to the minister, to the finance officials, what Canadians are saying, and that's the purpose of this motion.
If anybody sees something other than that, I think they're mistaken. As I said, we've had a heavy schedule. The finance officials yesterday posted the proposed legislation, the proposed guidelines, but we have no way of knowing who has submitted what or what people are actually saying to the finance officials. This is a way, if you like, to monitor that or to get our opinion across.
If anything, I am going to propose an amendment—I'm not sure if I can, Mr. Chairman—that at the end of the first sentence.... I will read it first:
That the finance committee invite expert witnesses to appear, including officials from the Department of Finance, to testify in regard to the decision to tax income trusts, with a view to preparing a report for the Minister of Finance regarding its findings.
At least we're going to prepare a report on which the finance minister has to reply to the committee. For once this committee can get ahead of the curve. The only way we can do that is by holding a meeting like this, so that we can have the meetings as soon as we get back in the last week of January. If we don't, what's going to happen, as everybody around this table knows, is we will come back here at the end of January and wait another week; then we're going to discuss in a steering committee meeting what we're going to be doing, and we will lose two weeks of work.
If anybody around this table is trying to tell Canadians that we're wasting our time, in actual fact, we're wasting our time debating about debating.... In actual fact, we should be debating how many hours, who we're going to have testifying before the committee, and when this report should be done, because that is what I think our job is, to prepare a report.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister
Thank you, Mr. Pacetti.
Mr. Pacetti's amendment would give greater clarity to the motion by specifically referencing the intent to present a report to the Minister of Finance on its findings. That's a pretty straightforward amendment.
Madam Wasylycia-Leis.
11:10 a.m.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
If you don't want me to speak, I'll go on a point of order.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister
No. I recognize you to speak. I'd like you to speak now, though.
11:10 a.m.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
I would like to speak against it, because, Mr. Chairperson, the work that Mr. Pacetti is recommending be done was done under the Liberal government when it was in power. I would like to table the report of September 2005, Tax and Other Issues Related to Publicly Listed Flow-Through Entities, and refer him and all committee members, especially Mr. Peterson, who asked the same question, to this report for details on the impact on tax revenues as a result of income trusts, to table 5 on page 28, which gives a very clear breakdown of the impact and what to expect.
Mr. Chairperson, if we're talking about getting ahead of the game, as Mr. Pacetti has suggested, we had a chance to do that in September 2005 when this report was made public and when his government agreed to try to finalize a set of amendments to deal with this very serious issue, recognized at that time.
I would suggest, to finish my remarks, Mr. Chairperson, that this is.... Talk about games being played. Here we have a situation where Liberals did the work--
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister
Remarks are now concluded, and we will move to a vote on the amendment, which is that with a view to preparing a report to the Minister of Finance on its findings....
Madam Ablonczy, you wished to speak to this amendment?