Finance Committee on June 9th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

I would like to call the meeting to order.

I want to let the committee know that we're dealing with a private member's bill today. It's Bill C-219, an act to amend the Income Tax Act for deduction for volunteer emergency services.

We have with us the department, and we have a series of witnesses I'll introduce as I yield the floor to them. The department will be here to answer any questions.

Mr. Wallace.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate that we're getting started on this private member's bill, Bill C-219, I believe it was. It was Bill C-273 before. I've continued to do some research on this in between, and I'm going to move that we ask for an extension, which we did last time but failed to get. I have a couple of reasons for that.

As I've done even more research on the issue, I have come to the conclusion that we need a more detailed response, and not just from the people here today. There are other people I want here as witnesses. I think the mover of the bill should be here, and I'd like to see finance department staff at the actual table to discuss the issue. So a number of meetings will be required for this.

I looked at the report on Bill C-273, which my colleague from the Liberals, who spoke against the extension last time, signed. There are some issues there. The bill was gutted before. I don't think there have been many changes, and I want to be able to discuss those changes. I don't think we can do it in the timeframe that's available to us. I am moving for the extension so we can deal with this properly in the fall.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

We have a motion. We dealt with this. We need consent to carry on with this.

Monsieur Crête.

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

I am sorry that we have to make our witnesses wait, but there is still an important outstanding issue to resolve. We had decided that by the end of the session, the issue of commercial paper would be our primary subject. Last week, we were forced to have a vote to decide whether or not we would continue debate on the bill in question. Mr. Wallace suggested we defer the matter, but I did not understand how long the delay would be. Whatever the case may have been, it was a matter of extending the timeline.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

It was thirty sitting days.

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

My hope is that we will set aside some time to think about this and come up with a possible solution. However, I want commercial paper to remain our priority, as previously decided, because I believe that it is important to hold hearings on this subject as quickly as possible. The committee already made a decision. The decision expressed was rather clear.

I do not know the Liberals' position; the Bloc Québécois, however, insists that if we do not hold an additional discussion on a 30-day extension, we will be voting against this motion. If this is the case, it takes us back to the same point we were at last week, and the committee will not be satisfied.

Could we hold the meeting, delay the vote, and in the meantime allow for parties to come to some sort of compromise? If we are voting on the motion as it stands, we will be voting against it, because we believe that it is possible to hold hearings on commercial paper while having a debate on this bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

This was a dilemma I was in last week with the chair because today we were supposed to be on asset-backed commercial paper. But as the tradition of the committee is that the private member's bill had to be reported by Wednesday, it takes precedence if we're going to deal with it. I had indication from members that they needed to have witnesses brought forward, so that took precedence in this case.

I agree with you. If this were delayed 30 days, that would give us ample time, and we could deal then, for the remainder of the time we have, with asset-backed commercial paper, from now and for whatever time we have left. I am fully prepared to do that. That would take the pressure off, and it would give us ample time in the fall to deal with this piece of legislation.

That's the dilemma I was in last week. The only way we can go back to asset-backed commercial paper would be to have the extension, and that's the way I would see it.

Mr. Pacetti.

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

I think we already spoke about this last week. The only way you're going to get to vote back on the 30-day extension is if we have unanimous consent. I'm not willing to give that.

If people around the table feel they need to have witnesses, we'll have witnesses. But this is an easy bill, a slam dunk, and you'll see that everybody is in favour of it. If not, we vote it down. But there is no need for a 30-day extension. We had 30 days, and we didn't do anything with the 30 days.

Out of respect for the witnesses, they are here and we asked them to be here, and we're going to go to the asset-backed commercial paper on Monday. I think that's what we decided last week. So we should not go around in circles, as I think this is pretty straightforward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

I have just one clarification to make from my position, which is that we would likely go back to hearing witnesses on this on Monday, rather than dealing with asset-backed commercial paper, if we don't get an extension. Nonetheless, it would have to be reported by the end of Monday.

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

We have to report back by Monday.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Yes, that's right.

Mr. Menzies.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

I have just a few points on this. Three of the permanent members on this committee weren't here to discuss this very serious matter. While Mr. Pacetti suggests that all people are in favour of it, this is an identical bill to what we dealt with in the last Parliament, and it was voted against by members of this committee. So to assume that we're all in favour of it, to assume that anything's changed....

We still have some concerns about who all of this encompasses, and we need to hear from witnesses. We need to hear from the department. We need to hear, number one, from the author of the bill to explain to us what the difference is, if there is any difference. And the way I read it, there's a minimal difference.

I don't think we have time to do it justice, and I'd hate to see it move too quickly through, just because of a deadline that could be extended if these members saw fit to do this bill proper justice and to let us hear the proper witnesses, all of the witnesses we need to hear. There is no consensus around this table—and I have quotes to back that up from the last time.

This is the same bill. I don't know why people would have changed their minds. So I think it's only fair to the author of this bill, and to the legislation and to the firefighters, that we do give due diligence to this, and grant an extension so that we can listen to all of the witnesses and get on with what we promised Canadians we would do, to hear about asset-backed commercial paper.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Mr. McKay.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

I agree with Mr. Menzies and Mr. Wallace. This bill is substantially the same in form as a previous bill in a previous Parliament. There were some definitional problems of what constitutes a volunteer. There are some problems as to how you keep track of the time. There are some problems as to what constitutes volunteer hours--you know, does sitting around a fire station playing cards count as volunteer hours, and all of that kind of stuff.

So there were some problems with it in the last Parliament and we explored some of those problems. Those problems deserve a fair hearing. Possibly Mr. Easter has some answers to those problems, which we haven't heard, so I'd support an extension.

And I think Mr. Crête is right. We should be getting back to asset-backed commercial paper. I think that's a far more significant issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

This is my dilemma. I'd love to go back to asset-backed commercial paper. If we have the 30-day extension, that sounds reasonable to me, and then we would proceed with that in the light of whatever time we have left between now and when we rise at the end of next week.

Mr. Pacetti, go ahead.

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

We have to report the bill back by Monday.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

An extension of 30 days would allow that.

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

So we can deal with the asset-backed commercial paper on Monday. We only have tomorrow and Wednesday. You're not going to get anybody here for asset-backed commercial paper. So we should just deal with this bill and get it over with. That's it. We vote it up, or we vote it down.

We do have the report from the last parliamentary session. Some of the members across this table were in favour and some were not. There are these points we can address. We could call the mover of the motion and he could address them and then we could decide.

I don't know why we have to give 30 days, as we're not going to get to it in 30 days anyway.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Just for the committee's information, we will not have a meeting on Wednesday because of what's going on in the House.

Mr. Wallace.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I agree, obviously, with Mr. McKay that we need the delay. There were ten points put in a report issued to the House of Commons on the previous bill, Bill C-273, on things that needed to be fixed before we could move forward—ten items. And I'd like to hear not only from the mover, but also from those who are affected by this, and from the Department of Finance.

In looking at the two bills, I don't see how any of those things were addressed—none of the ten. And to say that we can quickly pass this through or turn it down doesn't give me, as a parliamentarian, the right to question the witnesses.

Now, I'm willing to deal with the witnesses who are here today or to proceed with talking with them today about this item, but with the understanding that we will have an extension and will go back to the asset-backed commercial paper, get that report done or get on with it, and then get back to this early in the fall.

Mr. Pacetti was a part of that committee. He voted against it the last time, based on the minutes from the meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Mr. Pacetti.

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

I want to answer that.

I was the one who signed the report. I was the one who was chairing, so I didn't vote for or against it. We had the nine or ten points, and I have those here in front of me. If the mover of the bill chose not to address those points, that's his prerogative.

I think we should get to it. I don't know why you want it delayed for 30 days. Last week you said you hadn't had a chance to even look at it. You have the summary of the points that were made. We have the mover of the bill come forward. We have the department officials. We ask them whether there have been any changes to their position, and we deal with the bill. I don't know why we need an extra 30 days.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

From my perspective, there was a motion indicating that the committee wanted to do asset-backed commercial paper, and it's a way to get to that in an accelerated way.

Mr. Wallace.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I understand that procedurally to move a motion that is exactly the same as before, I need unanimous consent. I'll make my motion 29 days, so it's not exactly as it was before. It can be 31 days or whatever it takes. Give me a number that's different. We need more time on this, period.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Let me do it this way. The clerk needs some time to check the rules. I'll allow him that time. In the meantime, we'll go on with some of our witnesses and deal with this later in the meeting.

Are the movers okay with that?