Finance Committee on March 3rd, 2008

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

I'd like to ask the member why he feels it's an appropriate motion for the finance committee.

[Garth Turner, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Obviously, the Department of Finance let the $122,000 contract, and also because of the number of contracts the Department of Finance has awarded that are just under that limit. So why would the Department of Finance not be appropriate?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

I don't think we're going to get an answer to that one. That's a subjective thing.

There is a motion before us, and we will deal with it.

(Motion negatived)

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

We have another notice of motion that has been put forward, by Mr. Crête.

Mr. Crête, we'll yield you the floor to introduce the motion, if you so wish.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In view of the budget tabled last week, it seems clear to me that our work must continue. In my view, the budget did not contain all the measures required. I think that it is important for us to conduct a more in-depth study.

The motion states:

That the committee, in view of the serious challenges faced by the forestry and manufacturing sectors, engage in a study on direct assistance measures and tax environment consisting of no more than four consecutive meetings commencing on March 5, 2008, hearing testimony from 24 witnesses on the matter (six from each party).

We could say “[...] during which a maximum of 24 witnesses would be heard on the matter.”

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

We'll open the floor to debate on that motion.

Mr. Pacetti.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

It's not necessarily debate, it's more of a question, and it's more directed toward you. I was wondering if this really relates to the workings of the finance committee. Should it not be referred to the industry committee, because we're talking about a specific sector? It's more of a question than anything else.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

I'll ask the mover to explain, but I've got my take on it, as well.

Mr. Crête.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

I would remind my colleague that, just before the budget was tabled, we passed a motion stating that we supported the tax measures in the report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. This motion is on direct assistance measures and the tax environment. The tax environment does indeed concern the Standing Committee on Finance.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

If the question is whether we see it as something that would pertain to this committee, when it states “direct assistance measures”, you're right. That's to a specific area. But in terms of “and fiscal environment consisting”, I would suggest that's finance. That's why I would call it in order.

Go ahead, Mr. Pacetti.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

The issue is not really whether the motion is in order or not. Mr. Crête has just said that we are talking about tax measures, but there is no word or reference to tax measures. We are talking about direct assistance measures and the tax environment, but not tax measures as such. Perhaps the wording of the motion should be clarified. I don't see any mention of tax measures as such.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Monsieur Crête.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

I think it's a question of wording. The tax environment obviously includes all measures affecting corporate taxation, and is not a reference to some kind of environmental impact. It is an expression that refers to the taxation system in which we operate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

All right. We have the motion before us.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

I talked to the mover about the subject in case this passed, because it talks about a specific number of meetings, a maximum. We'll have some flexibility. We may be able to cut this down into a couple of meetings, or maybe three at the very most. I think the mover is okay with that. We're hoping to get that accomplished by the break so we can move on to our study that is part of our committee business.

We have one further thing I would like to....

Mr. Wallace, go ahead.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I did some checking since our last meeting, and I would like to put on the floor again, and make sure it's on the floor, the 30-day extension for private member's bill C-305.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Yes. You're getting in right under the wire. I mentioned the last time we dealt with this, at the other meeting, that it had to be done before tomorrow, I believe.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Well, I think we should give the person 30 more days.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

It's not tomorrow. I think it's Wednesday, March 5.

So you are wanting to reintroduce an extension of 30 sitting days as consideration for Bill C-305.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Right.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

It's a private member's bill.

We open the floor.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I'll be speaking to it. Thank you. I'm ready to go.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Yes, Mr. Pacetti.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

I thought we voted against extending the 30-day sitting and were just going to vote on whether we would be in favour of the bill or not, as is.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

It was deferred to this meeting. That's why he's reintroduced the--