Evidence of meeting #19 for Finance in the 39th Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was let's.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
At this stage, I'm going to say let's look at the blues. You may be absolutely right. I'll look at the blues on Wednesday morning. It's not going to change anything. We'll make a ruling on it one way or another.
Fair enough?
You're talking about this matter? I've made a ruling on this matter.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
I just want to ask you a simple question.
If you read this motion--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
I know. Let's not get into that, because I tried to define the motion by the mover.
I've already ruled on what I'm going to do with this.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
It's a different question.
If you just read this, it sounds as though the Conservative members have voted clearly, without qualification, to recommend billions of dollars of additional spending to the House at the earliest opportunity.
Is that not correct?
Conservative
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
On a point of order, Mr. Chair. That's not the statement you made.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
That's not how I interpreted it. That's why I'm going to go back and make sure that was clear.
I realize what you said, but I realized what I had ruled on as far as the vote. That's the end of that one.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. I am the one who asked that we undertake a study--
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
I voted against the motion because nobody accepted my amendment, plain and simple. I think we voted for this already. I don't know why we have to go back. It's very clear.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
That's why I have ruled that I'm going to go back and look at the blues to make sure we get it right. Fair enough?
That's the end of that one.
Mr. Turner, do you have another motion?
Bloc
Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Will we be discussing it at the beginning of Wednesday's meeting?
Bloc
Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Yes, Wednesday afternoon. Will we be discussing it at the beginning of the meeting?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
Yes, we'll deal with this before the meeting.
Mr. Turner, do you have another motion?
Liberal
Garth Turner Liberal Halton, ON
Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do have a motion. It goes to the heart of our tax system, and that is the fair treatment of every taxpayer under the law.
It came to the attention of all of us late last year that certain taxpayers in one constituency of Canada, those represented by the Minister of Natural Resources, had actually been granted an exemption from capital gains tax on shares they had been granted by their employer. They were the only ones in Canada who were granted that exemption from actually having to pay a tax that is required under the tax code of Canada. The taxpayers in all other 307 constituencies in Canada are required to pay. It seems highly irregular and very annoying to taxpayers in my constituency--and I'm sure to everyone else around this table--that they may have to pay capital gains taxes on shares acquired from their employer under certain circumstances whereas Mr. Lunn's constituents do not have to pay that tax.
My motion is to have a look into how this issue arose and whether all Canadians should have the same treatment under the tax code of Canada and as stipulated by the Canadian taxpayers' bill of rights. It's very cut and dried. Our duty here is to make sure that all of us in fact are treated absolutely equally by our government.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
I understand you are moving this. I want to clarify for the committee, right off the bat, how many meetings you would like to dedicate to this if this were to proceed.
Liberal
Garth Turner Liberal Halton, ON
Mr. Chairman, I don't really know the depth of the issue. I'm assuming that we would probably want a couple of meetings anyway to look at this. I'm not proposing anything on a massive scale, but I think it is an issue of fairness, and we would require at least a couple of meetings to try to nail down and determine the fairness of this for all.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
Okay. We understand that the mover is suggesting that we have two meetings to accomplish this. The motion is on the floor.
We'll open the floor to debate.
Mr. Menzies.
Conservative
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
We should comment a little bit on this.
I think one should be cautious about bringing this sort of thing forward without recognizing that one of the people we will have to have talk to us is the member for Wascana, who was directed by the former Prime Minister to fix that problem. It is a long-standing problem. Unfortunately, it wasn't dealt with, either negatively or positively, at the time the then Prime Minister told the member for Wascana to fix it. It would be interesting to find out the thoughts of the former government when we discuss this.
Once again, we're looking at a very narrow focus. If we can reach forward to the next motion I hope we're going to talk about--and that's on tax competitiveness--I think that would provide us with an opportunity to, as I said before, talk about what is important to all of Canada right now, and that's tax competitiveness and the regimes we're in. If it's right or it's wrong, let's talk about it openly. Let's bring in more companies than just one individual.
If you can pardon me for talking while you're interrupting, Mr. Turner, I would like to continue by saying that to broaden this to having more than just one vendetta from one member of one party would be a far more effective use of this committee's time.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Again, Mr. Chair, perhaps not enough members of this committee travelled with the finance committee, but during the pre-budget consultations we did have a couple of groups.... One group in particular, again in Calgary--WestJet--had a problem with stock options being taxable, and there was a proposal put forward. I don't understand how you can say this issue is of a narrow scope. It's disappointing to hear it from the parliamentary secretary. In my riding there are some people who are paying taxes on their stock options. Maybe it's an anomaly just in my riding, but I know there are others in other ridings on the island of Montreal, because I prepare taxes; I'm an accountant by trade.
This is something that affects everybody. At a minimum, we should speak to somebody from CRA, and after hearing from CRA, we should hear from somebody from the Department of Finance to see whether other hearings are required. I don't understand how you can say this issue is of a narrow scope.