Evidence of meeting #4 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was evasion.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:55 p.m.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
I'd like some clarification. From my understanding, in the previous committee the studies were made, and then we were waiting for the report. Is that more or less...?
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
We had gone through probably two-thirds of the witnesses. The analysts can comment if they want. They were looking towards drafting a report, but we still had a few witnesses to hear from.
One option for the committee to consider is to have the analysts prepare a backgrounder. We could perhaps flesh that out with some of what the committee heard. There were one or two sessions in camera, so there's some challenge in how we relate this to members, but we could certainly have the analysts come in.
If this motion is passed, probably the biggest challenge from the chair's point of view is the timing on where we would fit this material in. Certainly option number one is to have the members review the material from last time.
12:55 p.m.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
I understand having the charity issue brought forward. Since the work has already been done, it would be good for us to know exactly what we have. Do we need additional witnesses in order to finalize the report? We could perhaps finalize that report now as it stands.
12:55 p.m.
A voice
We don't have to, no.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
If this motion is adopted, my recommendation is to provide the schedule of which witnesses appeared. We then do a summary of the brief and the evidence and provide it to the members for review. Then they can decide if they want to hear from some of the witnesses who appeared before.
There were some good sessions, especially the in camera session. There are many new members of this committee, and I assume they would want to hear from the witnesses directly. There would be at least, I would say, four meetings. That's my guess.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Is that your idea, Mr. Chairman? It sounds like a great idea.
12:55 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
12:55 p.m.
NDP
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
We were talking earlier about the good work that's done by the committee, but do we actually have a sit-down session in which we order the things we're going to do? We're going to be coming back in the fall.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
My thinking is that we do that the first week we're back. The first week we're back, we'll finalize pre-budget.
12:55 p.m.
NDP
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
From my view—and I haven't talked to my colleague on it—it might slide quite comfortably in behind something else. We have some time ahead of us now.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Over the summer and into the fall, once we get pre-budget, the next thing is for the committee to consider tax evasion and charities. Is there another issue that others have? Let's get them all on the list, discuss them, and prioritize them.
12:55 p.m.
NDP
Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON
I would like some clarification. If there's been good work done on the tax evasion issue, I think we'd all agree that it would make sense for us to capture that somehow, finish the study, and come out with recommendations. To me, it's a timing issue of how long it takes to capture that information.
If the government side believes it's urgent to move forward on the charity issue, then how long a study is that likely to be? Is it something that's fairly short and focused? Could we get it done and then do the tax evasion piece, or is the tax evasion piece at a point where we should finish it off? The charity study is long and involved. It'll require committee visits across the country.
I'd like to get a sense of how those pieces can work together. Our side is not opposed to doing a study on charities, and I don't sense opposition to finishing the tax evasion studies. The question is how we fit them together.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I'll let Ms. Glover respond on the charity issue.
My sense is that we'd need four sessions of witnesses on the tax evasion matter, and then you'd probably need at least two to discuss a report. That's just my sense at this point.
Ms. Glover, do you want to respond? You have your name next on the list.
1 p.m.
Conservative
Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB
What I was going to say about the tax evasion study is that it is going to take a long time just for the other members who missed it to get up to speed. Those members are going to have to spend some time reading. Even just the preparation of it, because it was quite long, is going to take some time. There was an invitation to the RCMP, specifically waiting to be done in camera, that would also have to be added on, so it is not quite as close to being finished as Mr. Mai would like to think.
However, as I say, we're happy to do that if the members are prepared to do the follow-up and the reading to get up to speed.
With regard to the charities, a motion has already been put forward and unanimously agreed to by this committee, so I would suggest, as the chair has already stated, that perhaps we could bring these things back when we come back in the fall rather than vote on them today. We don't really have a sense of where we'll be at, other than knowing the pre-budget consultations will take priority. They do take priority.
I would suggest that perhaps we could look at this further. I will look into how long we think the charities might take, but I would like input from this committee as to who they want to hear from on the charities, which is why I'm suggesting we talk about this aspect when we get back from summer break.
1 p.m.
Conservative
1 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
While we're on the topic of future business, there is something related to the tax issue, but I think it's more positive and maybe even more constructive as a topic within the area of taxation.
I move that the committee conduct a study on tax reform in Canada. Most tax changes that occur in Canada--and this isn't part of my motion, but just a discussion--seem to be around politics and ideology. I don't think any of us understands as much as we ought to understand about some of the changes that could occur in terms of creating growth and opportunity.
We haven't had real tax reform or a significant study of taxation in Canada since 1971 with the Carter commission. Changes have occurred in the Canadian economy between 1971 and today, and changes in the global economy, so I move that the committee conduct a study of Canada's tax system in order to propose reforms to the system. We can work on the wording, but that's broadly what I would propose.
1 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I have three speakers, but I'm going to make a suggestion as the chair, because we are past one o'clock.
Even without adopting this motion, I'm going to suggest that we distribute to members the information on the tax evasion study that was done, regardless of whether the motion is passed, and I'm suggesting that at our first meeting on September 20 we could deal with this motion, a motion on charities, and a motion on tax reform. Then we'll deal with other motions. If members send them over the summer but before September 20, then I, as the chair, will list them all, and we can all discuss them. My sense is that committee members will be agreeable to all of them. Then it's just a matter of where we're slotting them in to study them. That's my suggestion.
I have three more speakers: Mr. Hoback, Mr. Marston, and Mr. Mai.