Evidence of meeting #23 for Finance in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was motions.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
I'll call the meeting to order, seeing that we have enough members at the table.
We have some motions to deal with, and then we'll move in camera and talk about future business. We want, first of all, to start with the notice of motions before us.
We have Mr. Massimo—no, it's Mr. Pacetti!
I'll get that right in about three or four years, don't worry.
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
Yes, he's been called worse, and he'll be called worse at this table.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
We can do this in either of two ways. We can either entertain all of these at once, if the mover would like, or we can take them one at a time.
The floor is yours, and you can introduce them as you wish.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Let me just explain to you why these are here.
The purpose of having these motions here, basically, is that they should have been brought up at the steering committee. We didn't have a steering committee meeting last week and there are some open holes. These are some of the issues I think this committee is responsible for, including having some of these corporations or arm's-length organizations, which are the responsibility of the finance committee, to appear before us.
When I was chairing the committee, some of them refused to appear or avoided appearing here, so I think it's important they appear. I'm not asking that they appear for two or three hours. We could even bunch two at the same time. If the members across the table are willing to entertain this, we could do them in a batch.
Motions two and three are basically the same. I would suggest that perhaps we have them at the same time, because as my friend John McKay says, some of these subject matters are probably worse than watching paint dry.
I think they're all numbered. The first motion, regarding the independent parliamentary office, is probably more urgent, because we'd like to see some experts testify as to what they think the forecast is going to be. There is nothing political or partisan in this, because these are potentially the same experts as the Department of Finance uses—and perhaps the Department of Finance could even come and help us out.
I see a typo in motion one.
Mr. Chairman, if you would like, I could speak to them one at a time. I leave it to you, but I'm prepared to speak to them one at a time.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Having reviewed the motions by the member, I'd be happy to entertain a motion to adopt them all at once, if the member wanted to make such a motion.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
Okay, we're going to make that decision very quickly.
Is the mover all right with doing them all at once?
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
No, if we could hear what everybody says, then we'll decide.
Have Mr. Crête—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
Well, I'm not going to allow a discussion to go on too long and for us to go back and forth on how we're going to do this.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
No, no, just get a feeling for this from the Bloc, because I didn't get a chance to speak to them.
Conservative
Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
As for me, I am not opposed to the motions as such. The first seems the most interesting to us. However, before we adopt it, I would like to know what is going to happen to private members Bouchard and Watson's two bills, which the Committee has to study before March 5, 2008, or they will be returned to the House of Commons and deemed adopted as is. We know, however, that they will both probably need to be amended.
I would like to know if, by adopting this, we are making it a priority. I feel it is important that we decide how we are going to dispose of these two bills and that we put the motions to a vote. We can also vote on the motions, knowing that we can determine afterwards which witnesses we will meet with first and what we will tackle to start with.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
Well, the private members' motions are issues the committee will have to deal with. We have till March 7, and then we can ask for a 30-day extension. So we will get it done in that time period.
But we're going to deal with these motions. I suggest we go through them one at a time, as it looks like we're going to get bogged down if we don't. So let's just do that.
So speak to the first one.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
No, I think everybody is fine with adopting the motions. This is in lieu of a steering committee; this could have been done in a steering committee, and we could then have given direction to the main committee. So the problem is in terms of priorities. I think Mr. Crête's point is very valid in terms of setting what the priorities of the committees are.
What I would propose, if it's easier for the committee, is that I just put forward motion number one, and we table the other ones until we're ready. But this is meant for planning our work schedule, because we also have other motions. There's Mr. Turner's motion and there's Mr. Dykstra's motion.
But I think motion number one is a priority. I'm not sure if we can get people here for Wednesday. If we can't get the experts for Wednesday, then we can get witnesses for motions two and three, because I think OSFI and the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation will be ready by Wednesday.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
My suggestion to the committee--and your points are well taken--is that we should just decide whether we're going to do these and have them here. Then we can discern what is the best and quickest way to deal with this in order to get this all done. If we need to do this in a steering committee, then I'm open to that. But I don't think that's the issue. I think the issue is to get them here and to get the motions done in the quickest possible time. We'll accommodate that, if you like. We can discuss that in future business when we get into that part of the in camera session.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
With all due respect, we're here and we have two hours, so we have time to discuss this and not go back to a steering committee. We determine the priority.
For me, the priority is already--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
That's why I suggested that we do that in the second part of the agenda, during the in camera session.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
That's why, in the priorities, I listed them. For me, the priorities are motions number one, two, three, four, and five, in that order. That is the priority. If we can adopt them all, those are the priorities.
There is a logic to my madness. Yes, it's remarkable. But if we can go ahead this way, I would appreciate it. I think there's a consensus to adopt them, and then we can go ahead with committee business.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
I hear that there is a consensus to adopt all five. I don't hear any complaints about any of the five.
You should have five. They're all numbered.
The motion is on the floor, and we'll recognize it as adopting all five at once, and then at the in camera session we'll discern what the priorities are.
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Just for the record, it was unanimous, all five motions. It's a world record.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
It's a world record. There we go.
With that, it's his call as to whether he would like to bring it forward.
Mr. Turner, you had put forward a notice of motion, but whether you want to bring it forward is totally up to you.
Liberal
Garth Turner Liberal Halton, ON
Mr. Chair, the last time we talked about this motion, I think I was mandated to go back and get a little bit of information for the members of the committee in terms of background. I now have that information. Perhaps the clerk can pass it around. I can briefly summarize this situation.
This issue goes back to 1998 when these employees were granted stock options to buy shares through a company benefit package. That's when JDS Uniphase bought this company, located on Vancouver Island. The value of the stocks soared to $300, and these employees had a very substantial capital gain that they would have had to pay tax on. As you guys remember, the dot-com bubble burst, and the $300 stock collapsed. However, the tax liability remained. This is a situation that certainly was experienced by many Canadians in the dot-com and technology stock bubble of 2000 and 2001.
These particular employees approached their member of Parliament, who is now the Minister of Natural Resources. They asked if he would fight on their behalf. He did, and ultimately the minister was able to secure a remission order from his colleagues at the cabinet table. This remission order set aside the tax liability on the part of these taxpayers. They are the only ones in Canada who received such a favourable tax ruling under this remission order.
This particular motion relates to whether this was astute or proper or a legitimate move on the part of the cabinet and whether this sends a signal to other taxpayers that they should receive similar treatment under the law.
We have a Taxpayer Bill of Rights that says that all Canadians should be treated equally under the law. Given the fact that this has now been unequal treatment, I think it behooves this committee to look at whether that was fair or not.
There's also an issue under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which says that all Canadians should have the benefit of equal treatment under the law. It's a pretty fundamental tenet, Mr. Chairman, and although this case only affects a few dozen people, and particularly in one political constituency in the country, the principle is a fairly important one. That is why I thought we should a look at it. Should we be granting remission orders? Should there be any kind of mechanism that allows certain taxpayers to become favoured over other taxpayers, or is that a principle that none of us can really afford to see abrogated?
That's the point of this motion.
Conservative