Finance Committee on Feb. 8th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Then I can proceed with Mr. St-Cyr's motion.

All right. We're not discussing Mr. Pacetti's suggestion here. We're discussing this motion, and we are going to deal with that.

Next in order is Mr. McCallum.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

I definitely support this in principle; it's only logistically.... If the Bloc is saying that we should knock off the dates here, if they want to amend the motion to that effect to allow the dates to be discussed at the steering committee, that's certainly fine with me. But in principle we support this. I support this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Okay, this is just for clarification, Thierry, on that. If you are agreeing to a friendly amendment, all that would be required is to take out the piece that says, “2 sessions before February 23”. If you agree to that, we can proceed to vote on your motion now, and then deal with this as a scheduling issue in the context of the steering committee discussion, which was suggested earlier by Mr. Pacetti, and which I would agree to do. Are you okay with that?

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Then there'd be one meeting left before March 2 to study and prepare the recommendations.

The process has to have a timetable. I agree that we should set the detailed agenda in the steering committee. I don't want the 12 of us to discuss it, but I'd like us to agree on the fact that we have to have finished before the budget, before the budget debate starts again.

If all we have to do is delete "two sessions before February 23", I agree.

So we will be removing “2 sessions before February 23”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Taking out that reference to the two sessions before February 23 would allow the steering committee to deal with the issue more effectively than this prescriptive approach and it may result in the passage of your motion.

The only other thing I'm troubled by, Thierry, is this word “analyze”. I'm not sure what you mean by “analyze”. If you were to say “consider”, “that the members of the committee consider by March 2....” Because analysis...what is that?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I just want to mention that the date isn't the same in English and French.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

I'm sorry, Pierre, what was your point?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

It's March 2 in French and March 1 in English.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

No it's March 2 in English.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

This shows the two solitudes. There's nothing new in that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Yes, yes.

So we want them both to say "March 2"? All right.

All right. So we have Mr. St-Cyr's agreement that the references to two sessions before February 23 be removed from this, and now we are dealing with the notice of motion by Mr. St-Cyr in respect of this.

Mr. McCallum, I believe you had a chance to make your comments, so I'll move to Mr. Del Mastro now.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I don't see the point in this whatsoever. We've gone through this. We visited Fort McMurray. We listened to several people bring forward evidence to this effect. We've all had an opportunity in pre-budget consultations.

This may well be something worthwhile doing, but not while we have to get to the Bank Act. We have to get some of the work done that's before this committee, so that we can actually achieve that which we've been charged with achieving. This is not part of our agenda. You have had an opportunity to present a minority report to the Minister of Finance, which I assume he will be duly considering.

I don't see the urgency in this, and I really encourage Liberal members across to be responsible and let us get to the Bank Act, as we are supposed to. This is only going to take us away from getting the work done that we have to get done, and I really object to it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you, Mr. Del Mastro.

Now. I have several other people. Monsieur St-Cyr, I'll let you round up the discussion after other members have a chance to venture in.

No, monsieur, I have five other people who wish to speak first. Thierry, you'll have the chance to wind up discussion. I will not entertain other discussion now.

Madam Ablonczy.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out to the committee, with respect to the Bank Act, that we do not have until April to do this work. April is when royal assent has to be given to changes that we recommend to the Bank Act, which the House votes on. So we have to report back to the House with our recommendations on Bill C-37 well before that. In fact, we have to do it by February 22.

With all of the extra time that has been spent on the happy game of Conservative-bashing on income trusts, we have lost a great deal of time. So we have to get that Bank Act review out. A lot of financial institutions have been waiting quite a while for this, and we simply can't hold it up again. It was already held up six months. I think it would be extremely irresponsible. So whatever we do, let's do our job for the country, and then we can play some political games after that, if we have time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Mr. Wallace, to conclude.

Sorry, Judy, you're next, after Mr. Wallace.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I'll be very quick, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I agree with my colleagues on the Bank Act. I've had lots of people come to see me about our moving on that and getting on with that. But my other point is—whether my Bloc friends would ever take it or not—that there is a special committee of Parliament looking at the Clean Air Act and environmental issues. The financing of some of those items will be dealt with, I'm assuming, at that committee. So my suggestion is that if you're really interested in this topic, it be referred to that committee so they can get Finance people to come and talk about incentives there, and not here, and that we get on with Bank Act.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

We'll have Madam Wasylycia-Leis to conclude, and then we'll give Mr. St-Cyr a chance to round up discussion.

Order, please.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

I'd like to make three points, if you'll permit me.

The first is that, unlike the Conservatives, I do think this is a very urgent issue that needs our attention, and I think it needs as many committees as possible dealing with it.

The second point I would make is that we do, however, have a standing order for the House of Commons that says very clearly that legislation from the House of Commons takes precedence over any other matter. We've already seen that principle violated. The practice of the House has been turned upside down with the move by both the Liberals and the Bloc on income trusts. We're now going to see another day taken away from the time we need to be dealing with bills, so I hope that is clearly stated when we deal with this at a steering committee meeting and that we as a committee come to some agreement about commitment to the Standing Orders.

My third point is that while I might be able to support this to some extent, I also want to point out the hypocrisy of the Bloc in bringing this forward along with the support of the Liberals, and I point these members to the fact that motions were presented during the pre-budget consultation hearings. Three of them that I moved received no support from anyone. Those three motions--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Chairman, I got no support on three motions. They were that the government should eliminate the current accelerated capital cost allowance for oil sands. That's one. The second one called for the removal--

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Let me finish, please. It was for the removal of subsidies for non-renewable and nuclear energy industries. Finally, Mr. Chair, and most interestingly, there was no support from the Bloc or the Liberals or the Conservatives for just a simple recommendation that we call for a study on the effectiveness of tax incentives and subsidies for non-renewable and nuclear industries.

I find it passing strange. Just to keep on top of the moving target of the Bloc and the Liberals--I don't oppose this, but I find it very strange to see the kind of politics they are playing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Next is Monsieur St. Cyr, to conclude.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

To conclude, I'm going to say this: what was said in the last speech was totally false. Not only do we support these measures, we've also made motions. I've moved that we withdraw the tax incentives from the oil companies. The Liberals felt we should conduct studies. I move that we conduct studies, but that still wouldn't be accepted. So I've come back to the subject.

I agree with Mr. Del Mastro when he says that the question was addressed during the prebudget consultations. However, the circumstances have changed. That's the opinion of your own Prime Minister: he said that the environment was not one of his priorities. He's even replaced the Minister of the Environment. There's also been the election of the Liberal Party Leader. So there's a desire on the part of Canadians—

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

And Quebeckers.