Finance Committee on Feb. 3rd, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Order. Mr. Brison has the floor.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Sorry, Mr. Chair.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

I think we should contact Public Works. There seems to be a loose shingle on the roof or something, Mr. Chair.

On page 83 of that document, we have in fact a table with, quite clearly in that document, corporate profits before tax, which is the same figure we're seeking now. The previous government, before given our sabbatical, felt free to provide that information to the public. In fact it was the appropriate measure, and in fact there was not cabinet confidence.

So previous governments provided the exact information that this committee has sought in this case and that in fact has been requested by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. The government has had two and a half months to provide to the committee a reasonable response, and it has not done that. It's time that it go to the Speaker, to the House, for its determination.

We had a further response. We've had some dialogue with Finance Canada on this. On December 10 we had another response, and again the Department of Finance said that to the best of its knowledge, the Department of Finance had determined that projections of corporate tax rates before taxes have not been previously disclosed.

As I just demonstrated, in fact that's not the case. That has been done by previous governments, and I suspect under both Progressive Conservative governments in the distant past and Liberal governments. Both felt compelled to provide this information and did not use the foil of cabinet confidence as a means to deny parliamentarians the opportunity to do our work.

My motion, other than that, is self-explanatory.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you for that information. I didn't know a sabbatical could be five years, but I did learn that today.

I have Ms. Glover and then Monsieur Paillé.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

I want to comment briefly on a statement that was made by Mr. Brison, who said that there are a number of other precedents. First of all, I'd like him to share those precedents with us. Page 83 is perhaps the closest, but it is not at all the same request that's being made. That is the only one I could come across. As I'm new to this committee, perhaps he could enlighten me on others that have been provided. I'd be glad to look at them.

However, what Mr. Brison is suggesting is that he wants some information that could easily be provided by the officials. And in discussions with Mr. Brison's office, we have arranged that the officials could be available Tuesday morning to appear before the committee for half an hour. I think the most prudent way we could proceed—I would suggest this, and perhaps Mr. Brison could consider it and get back to us—would be to meet with the officials, ask them the questions that are relevant, and then proceed with the motion vote.

Frankly, I think much of this could be cleared up if we had the officials here. And that was what was discussed between Mr. Brison's office and mine. I would suggest that this is the more prudent way to go. I'm going to repeat that the page 83 that was referred to is not at all, in my view, what Mr. Brison was asked for, and it is the only example that he has provided. If he has others, I'm happy to hear them.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I'm going to go to Monsieur Paillé first, and then I'll come back to you.

Monsieur Paillé.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Ms. Glover, I must say I am glad you consulted Mr. Brison's office. However, your predecessor would also consult the Bloc Québécois and the NDP, and we were not consulted on this.

Next Tuesday, we will be up to our eyeballs in work. Witnesses will be appearing, and I do not think it is a good idea to disrupt our agenda simply because they think they know the truth. We have a schedule, and we will follow it.

Mr. Chair, I agree with you about the length of the sabbatical. Normally, a sabbatical happens once every seven days. I am afraid it will last seven years, in the case of this government. We will see.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chair, the Speaker of the House made a clear decision that when it involves documents related to Afghanistan, Parliament was more powerful than the government, which is how it should be in a democracy. It is easy to see what happens in other parts of the world when a government decides it is more powerful than Parliament.

Here, we believe that Parliament is always more powerful than the government, and so we have adopted this resolution to obtain this kind of information. With the communication technologies we have today, the issue has nothing to do with the ability to provide the information, but has to do with the government's desire not to. So the political will is not to provide the information.

We are opposed to that kind of an approach. And that will always be our position regardless of the party in power. I hope that Mr. Brison will also take that position when he is a member of the government, should he live long enough to see that day. We will see.

But, as for today, we support the motion put forward by Mr. Brison and believe it should be adopted immediately.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Merci.

I have Mr. Brison and then Mr. Wallace.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

I'm fine with hearing Mr. Wallace.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, we'll go to Mr. Wallace.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Do not confuse me with Mr. Brison. He's a nice guy, but don't confuse me with him. I'm not crossing any floor.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

That's a big distinction: I'm a nice guy. You'd never confuse—

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I know where I stand.

I'm prepared to vote against Mr. Brison's motion. We've made a commitment. The parliamentary secretary made a commitment to bring officials here.

We have an answer back that these are cabinet confidences. That was the response we got based on the motions that were passed. He doesn't like it, he doesn't approve of it. He was the minister at one time himself. I'm sure there were times when there were things discussed in his cabinet that were confidential. He would not have wanted those expressed at committee. We have offered to bring staff here to explain why they are cabinet confidences and what the ramifications would be. They're not interested in that. The story we hear is that they want Parliament to work and work together, but they don't want to hear arguments. If they don't like the answers, they don't want to know why those answers are there.

I think we should just vote on this. Our side will likely be voting this down, and not supporting his motion, and that will be the end of the day.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Wallace.

I have Ms. Hughes, and then I, as a chair, have one question.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

I think it is clear that the government does not seem interested in being transparent or ensuring Canadians know what is going on. I was not consulted regarding the government’s position or the suggestion that we invite government officials to appear, and I am certain Mr. Mulcair was not either. I find that odd, given that during a certain period, the government wanted only ministers to appear before the committee. At the end of the day, the government does what suits it best at the time. I understand why Mr. Brison crossed the floor. It has to do with the fact that this government is more reformist than conservative.

We have an obligation to support this motion. Clearly, Parliament should be sovereign, and I support this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Merci.

I just have a question for Mr. Brison with respect especially to the justice bills. What level of detail are you looking for? Obviously the cost would differ, depending upon how many people are actually prosecuted and convicted of these various offences.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

The range of estimates provided by the government, both to ourselves and to the PBO, has been so dramatic that we feel it has not been credible, and when a macro figure is provided, we want to be provided with details on the methodology--

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

The projection as to the number of convictions--

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

--that resulted in that figure, and we have not been provided with that, nor has the PBO.

In terms of the issue around consulting with the department, I find it curious, in a sense, that the department or officials who have been told that this is a cabinet confidence are going to now appear before committee to divulge what they've been told by the political end is a cabinet confidence.

I share the views of my other colleagues in the Bloc and the NDP that this has gone far enough and we can move forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, colleagues, we will have the question, then.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

This motion is carried, six to five.

I have no other future business, and we have set a subcommittee for February 10, so unless someone has any other pressing business, we can adjourn the meeting.

The meeting is adjourned.