Finance Committee on June 2nd, 2009

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

No, no; for the Department of Finance, they sit every day.

[An hon. member]

Sixty days?

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

Well, pick your number.

It's not as if this is a new issue to any one of them. They know this.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. McCallum.

We have a speakers list. We have Mr. Wallace, Mr. Pacetti, and Mr. Menzies.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I have two points.

Instead of having it--I shouldn't use the word “buried”--just referred to the finance department, why don't you have the finance department...? You say to report to the House; why not say report back to our committee when we do the study on this?

I don't think the study needs to be long. I think we can do this in two meetings. We can hear what the proponents have to say about their issue, and the finance staff can come back after they've looked at it and tell us the pluses and minuses and what they can do.

So instead of saying report back to the House, my suggestion to the mover of the motion would be, coming back to the committee of finance, to have the finance department do the study but come back to this committee. Then we can make a report to the House, as a regular committee.

As for a timeframe, sixty days means that it's the middle of summer. We're not going to be here. So why not do the study in the fall, first thing when we get back? It will still be done in this calendar year, for tax purposes. If there are any changes for the 2009 tax year, those changes still could be made, unless you send us to an election.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

I'm all for that.

That's very good.

I'm not opposed to the actual ninety-day reference. We will have it in hand before the--

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Mulcair, I do have to go by the speaking list.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Sorry.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I appreciate the sentiment, but we have Mr. Pacetti, Mr. Menzies, and then Mr. Mulcair.

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

This is not to repeat what anybody says, because I think I'm in favour of what's being said here, but I would recommend that we put a date. I would recommend that the date be August 31. That way we have a couple of weeks to decide if we want to have the finance officials here when we do come back. We should recommend that they report back to the finance committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

By August 31, 2009.

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

That would be my recommendation.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay.

We have Mr. Menzies, Mr. Mulcair, and Mr. Laforest.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I agree with where my colleague Mr. Wallace is trying to take this. Could we suggest that the Department of Finance--in this addition of Mr. McCallum's--provide information to the committee on the effectiveness of the following amendments, so they're reporting to us. I don't want this committee to wash its hands of listening. I think a big part of it is listening to those people who are affected by this. I think we should bring them to committee, but the Department of Finance should be basically witnesses to tell us what the effectiveness is of the suggested following amendments.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

The amendment will be, then, that the finance committee requests that the Department of Finance immediately study the effectiveness of the following amendments to the Income Tax Act and report those findings back to the House.

So Mr. Wallace is suggesting “back to the finance committee”, and Mr. Pacetti is saying “by August 31, 2009”. There seems to be agreement on that.

Mr. Menzies, is that okay, or do you want to change it further?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Well, it's whichever way we do it; I'm just looking at different wording. But they report to us rather than reporting to the House.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I think there will be agreement that they report back to the finance committee by August 31, 2009.

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

Mr. Chair, what you just read out is entirely consistent with how I would like to amend my amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

All right.

I have Monsieur Mulcair and Monsieur Laforest.

Mr. Mulcair.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

We have agreement.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay.

Monsieur Laforest.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I would like to understand, Mr. Chairman. We were in agreement on Mr. Mulcair's motion in any case. It is somewhat modified, but by setting the date at August 31, that clearly means that the witnesses that we must hear will be heard in June. It has to be here.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

No, my understanding with the amendment--and Mr. McCallum can correct me--would be that the committee would ask the Department of Finance to conclude their findings by August 31, 2009, and report back to the finance committee.

I have Mr. McKay and Mr. Pacetti.

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

I'm not so familiar with the issue as to know whether one and two are the exhaustive possibilities. If I were reading this in a narrow fashion and I were a member of the Department of Finance, I would say that all I have to do is comment on these two. That's the limitation. I don't know whether there is a third possibility, or a fourth. I just don't know. It seems to me that we would like to hear the opinion of the Department of Finance on all possibilities.

Again, I'm seeking some...or other options. Is that reasonable? I don't know.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Just to clarify, Mr. McKay, do you want to add that in the amendment from Mr. McCallum?