Finance Committee on March 7th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

How many would it involve?

[Michael Vineberg]

It would be very difficult to say. With all the non-resident trusts, I'm sure this is something that would be looked at. You'll never have perfect tax legislation, and I think the time has come for it to be passed.

Maybe, Mr. Chairman, the best indicia of this is that people in the tax community love to write articles, and commentaries, and tax notes ad nauseam. On Bill C-48, although it's 1,000 pages, I don't think there's been a single lengthy article that's been written on it. Normally, there'd be tens of articles written. I think that all these measures have been analyzed in the past, and obviously remedial measures can be brought to the attention of Parliament in the future.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, I appreciate that very much.

Colleagues, the bells are ringing, and I'm not sure what the vote is on. Orders of the day?

I have two colleagues who are on the list still, but I need unanimous consent to continue while the bells are ringing. Do I have that consent to allow those two members to finish?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, thank you.

I have Monsieur Caron and then Mr. Hoback.

Mr. Caron, please.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I will start with you, Mr. Hickey, because I didn't have the chance to speak with you, or to hear your presentation.

In its technical aspects, it is understood by all that the bill is not controversial. There is however another issue to take into account. Questions were asked about the process.

I'll say it in English. Before you came in there was a notice of motion presented to us by the Conservative side that the finance department provide an annual update to the finance committee on the status of all outstanding technical tax changes in an effort to ensure regular and timely legislation, as already committed to by the Conservative government.

You might not know about process in government, but this actually is only applied until prorogation. It won't survive the next prorogation. Basically, what we have here is something that's only good until we have a new Parliament.

This being said, we have a problem with the process right now, and things being as they are with the finance committee, this is likely the only opportunity we have to discuss the process surrounding the presentation of those technical tax bills. The last one was over 10 years ago. We don't know when the next one will be coming. I understand there are about 200 changes left to implement or to present in the bill.

Mr. Hickey, do you think we would be remiss in our role as parliamentarians to miss this opportunity to address this sensitive question of process, and how the changes are represented in a timely fashion?

[Paul Hickey]

That's a very good question. Process is extremely important. Most of this bill has been through all kinds of process in the past. In fact, a large portion of the bill, probably half of it, had actually been passed by the House of Commons, through the Senate, and then died on the order paper when the election was called.

I'm sure there is a backlog of amendments by the Department of Finance, but on December 20, 2012, I think, there was a 2012 technical fix-up bill presented and put forward to the committee. It affected quite a few sections. It's on top of this. The government and the Department of Finance are already doing this. The Auditor General in 2009, in response to the delay, was looking at the legislative process and made some recommendations on where the CRA and Finance could improve.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I understand that.

It's clear to me that back in the 1980s, the 1990s, there was a commitment from government to have annual, or at least every two years, presentations of these bills. Nothing has been done in a consistent fashion. Right now is our time to do something about it. The government side wants us to deal with this as quickly as possible. Let's forget about the whole process; these little changes are important.

We have an opportunity right now. If we pass this bill that quickly, believe me, we won't go back to the changes that are necessary in the process.

Ms. Presseault told us that the suggestion would be to have regular bills every 24 months. And so, if such a specific matter had to be dealt with, the government would have an obligation to introduce it. To summarize, if we do nothing, are we not in breach of our obligation, as parliamentarians, to deal appropriately with the issue?

[Paul Hickey]

I'm sorry, you're saying to require Parliament to introduce a bill every 12 months or 24 months?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

That's one suggestion by Madame Presseault. It might be something else, but we need to do something to ensure a timely and regular process.

[Paul Hickey]

I guess that's part of my plea. I think the government has everything. As I said, there are technical fix-ups for 2010, 2011, and 2012. The process from the bureaucracy is there. I guess a technical bill doesn't carry a lot of votes and voting power and excitement in the ridings, but it's an important part of maintaining a stable, world-class tax system. I think we should come up with something that puts us on track for these issues to be passed. They are technical—it shouldn't be a big deal.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

We'll have a final round with Mr. Hoback, and then, colleagues, please take a look at what the clerk has distributed to you, the subcommittee report. I'd like to adopt it after Mr. Hoback's round.

Mr. Hoback.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for being here this morning.

Chair, I find it very interesting when we start bringing in different witnesses. We ask the same questions, we get the same answers, and it's starting to get very repetitive in what we're hearing around the table here.

I know our colleague from the NDP is concerned about the process, but this study here is actually to look at the tax bill and ensure that we get that put forward. If the NDP member has concerns with the process, he may remember that our colleague here this morning put forward an idea on the process to ensure that this type of review happens in a more orderly fashion.

So, Chair, I really don't have any more questions for these witnesses. As I said, these questions have been asked two, three, four times before. The answers, depending on who the witness is, are all the same. As far as I'm concerned, Chair, the process should be getting on to voting on this and moving it forward and letting these fine people go back to work and do their jobs properly.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

All right. Thank you, Mr. Hoback.

On behalf of the committee, I want to thank all of our witnesses here today for their excellent presentations responding to our questions. We appreciate your input into this process very much.

Colleagues, you do have before you the draft report of the Sixth Report from the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure.

Can I get someone to move this?

[McLeod]

So moved.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

(Motion agreed to)

That's unanimous. Thank you very much.

If there's nothing further, I will see you at the vote.

The meeting is adjourned.