Finance Committee on Oct. 29th, 2013

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you. I appreciate the comments that were made by Mr. Keddy and Mr. Hoback, those by Mr. Keddy in particular. This is a very serious matter. I'm of course approaching it with a lot of gravity.

I don't accept the premise that calling the minister to this committee to clear the air would necessarily interfere with the investigation. Indeed, we have procedures that would address issues such as that. We could go in camera if this was the wish of the committee. There are many examples in Canadian history where ministers responsible have appeared at the same time as ongoing investigations were being conducted. Indeed, this is a matter that has been investigated now for several years.

I think the Canadian public's interest in getting to the bottom of this or having the minister explain why people should continue to have confidence in their tax system is really of paramount concern right now. I know that we could do this as a committee. It has been done on many other occasions with the use of our rules of procedure. I would not want to deprive Canadians and the minister of the opportunity to clear the air. It's important for Canadians to really understand what is going on when a cheque for $400,000 is given to a person who owes $1.5 million and is the well-known head of the Mafia. Canadians have understandable concerns, and we as a committee need to address those.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

I have Mr. Jean and then Mr. Keddy.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I tend to disagree, Mr. Rankin, with respect. As a former lawyer, I think that the only thing we could do at this stage if we got involved would be to have in camera meetings. This means we can't share it with Canadians anyway, so there's no advantage in what you're suggesting. Finally, we would only prejudice the ongoing investigation.

I don't see any advantage in doing anything until such time as the investigation is over. Certainly, the RCMP are competent enough, and I would trust them to do the right thing and make sure the right people are charged. I think at this stage a parliamentary committee could only prejudice the outcome and might actually do more harm than good.

I would not vote to support your motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Mr. Keddy.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

I think all of the honourable members have brought up important points here.

I have a point on the cheque that Mr. Rankin mentioned. It should be noted, first of all, that the cheque was recovered. There's also a personal liability here if any of us says anything that interferes with an ongoing police investigation. The Canada Revenue Agency has done an extremely good job in dealing with this issue. I think we're attempting to put the horse behind the cart in this case, if you will. Let this investigation be seen through, and then we can bring this motion forth and look at the results of the investigation.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Hsu.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to add a little thing in response to Mr. Keddy's statement that the CRA has done a good job. That may be true for certain aspects of this case such as cooperating with the police investigation, but it may not be true for other aspects such as whether there are proper controls at CRA or whether there's proper management of the culture within CRA. These things are really somewhat distinct from the particular cases of corruption. They are distinct enough from the police investigation that they could be discussed.

As Mr. Rankin says, a couple of years have passed. Maybe it's time to talk about whether proper management controls are in place, or whether there's a culture in place at the CRA to help reduce the chance of corruption in the future.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Rankin, go ahead.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I won't belabour it. I will say three things in response to my friends who have spoken.

First, this police investigation could take years. We have no way of knowing how long it will take. I think that if years go by, the erosion of the trust Canadians have in their tax system could be a serious consequence.

Second, Mr. Keddy asserts that the CRA has done a good job. I have no way of evaluating that, and this committee is looking precisely for that, and to deal with the cultural issues that have been spoken of.

And third, I accept what Mr. Jean is saying from a criminal lawyer's perspective. However, I would have to say that even if matters were held in camera and treated with the respect and confidentiality they require, we could reassure Canadians, if we are satisfied that the work is done well, that the CRA has done a good job. We could give them that confidence that I think is desperately needed at a time when these allegations are swirling around. For that reason alone, I think it's important that we proceed.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

We'll go to the vote on this motion.

(Motion negatived)

Colleagues, we will return to the motion by Mr. Saxton.

We have a speakers list of four members—Ms. Nash, Monsieur Côté, Mr. Hoback, and Mr. Caron. I will start with Ms. Nash and work my way down the list.

Ms. Nash, please go ahead.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just to remind all of us, the motion we are dealing with would have the effect of denying the right of or the opportunity for independent members of the House of Commons—that is, members whose parties have fewer than a dozen seats in the House—to introduce amendments at the report stage of a bill and thus give all members of Parliament the opportunity to speak to, debate, and vote on those amendments, all with the goal of improving our legislative process.

I want to repeat again that we strongly oppose this motion. We believe that the Conservatives are taking a democratic shortcut here that is not necessary and impacts on the rights of members who are elected to this House. It would mean a significant change in the way the House operates, a change in a process that has been a long-standing one, and it would have definite impacts on the rights of members of Parliament.

I want to cite O'Brien and Bosc, which makes it clear that. “It is the House, and the House alone, that appoints the members and associate members of its committees, as well as the Members who will represent it on joint committees. The Speaker has ruled that this is a fundamental right of the House. The committees themselves have no powers at all in this regard.” That's on page 1,019.

Furthermore, in another passage, it is stated, “The Standing Orders specifically exclude a non-member from voting, moving motions or being counted for purposes of a quorum.” That's on page 1,018. In other words, the committee has no powers to make this sort of procedural change on its own. These powers lie within the House and its Speaker.

The Conservatives claim there would be no infringement on the rights of independent members, but these members would be required to submit motions and then would be excluded from voting on these motions.

In addition, during last spring's committee study of Bill C-60, committee members were given a choice in regard to including independent members. Independent members were prohibited from participating in the debate and study on the content of the bill unless an opposition member was willing to give them their seat on the committee. This scenario was bound to infringe on some members' rights, for it can surely be argued that independent members cannot be required to submit amendments to the committee when they are not permitted to participate in the committee study, while requiring opposition committee members to give up their seats and participation in order to accommodate independents certainly tramples on their rights as committee members.

When it came to moving motions, independents were allowed to move their motions for amendment and speak very briefly to them, but were excluded from voting on them. In the normal course of the committee stage, each party submits motions for amendment and then the parties' representatives on the committee vote on them. The proposed changes certainly put independent members at a democratic disadvantage.

In short, our experience with this process was not positive, and we believe it infringed on members' rights. It's particularly undemocratic that the Conservatives would bring this motion forward in committees, which have no power to make this sort of procedural change and where the very members in question in the motion are excluded both from debate and from voting. I do notice that a letter by three independent members has been circulated to us as members on the committee. It was addressed to the chair of the committee, and it attempts to insert their voice into this process because they have no voice in and no standing on this committee.

For these reasons we do not believe that this is an appropriate motion for this committee. We think it infringes on members' rights. It's not healthy for our democratic process.

Again, Mr. Chair, we'll be opposing it.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Ms. Nash.

Mr. Côté, please go ahead.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you kindly, Mr. Chair.

I'll be fairly brief.

I want to pick up on the circumstances that prompted my colleague Mr. Saxton to put forward this motion. It was done in a hurry, without even enough copies for the entire committee. I would remind you that a total of 12 members have the great privilege of sitting on this standing committee. Along with our responsibilities as members of Parliament come certain rights. In particular, we must be given all the resources necessary to perform our duties. Furthermore, every member must have the ability to contribute to the committee equally. And above all, we must fully represent the interests of our constituents and Canadians, in general.

Luckily, Mr. Chair, you gave us a short break, which gave us time to get our thoughts straight and make up our minds on the motion. It gave us the chance to deal with the matter of the eight missing copies. From the outset, however, this situation was unacceptable and should never again be allowed to happen in committee.

I won't add to the arguments already made by my colleague Ms. Nash, in light of the major, nay fundamental, amendments proposed, amendments that clearly fall outside this committee's jurisdiction. That's the reality.

Nevertheless, I would just like to point out that earlier this year, when we were studying Bill C-60, this past spring, we were similarly asked about including independent members. At that time, independent members were prohibited from participating in the study and discussions on the bill, unless a member of the opposition gave up his or her seat. The approach was truly a disrespectful one and was obviously rejected.

Let me say, Mr. Chair, that it's perfectly acceptable to rethink a committee's format or seat distribution. That's the sort of very healthy debate that could take place elsewhere, in other situations, especially outside the valuable time allocated to our work.

Indeed, we can ask ourselves whether it is inherently necessary or fair to have party representation in committees mirror that of the House of Commons. There are places in the world where the majority party or coalition doesn't necessarily enjoy the same majority in other structures, other parliamentary institutions or other settings in which parliamentarians carry out their work.

But, given the circumstances and the way things have been done, it is, unfortunately, impossible to explore that possibility now. There is absolutely no way we can support this, if only because of the circumstances. What's more, the actual proposal will clearly infringe upon the rights of some members in the House. It's totally unacceptable, because, beyond political affiliation, the 308 members in the House are equal.

That's all, Mr. Chair. Thank you for letting me speak.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Côté.

It's now over to Mr. Caron.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Although I don't want to repeat what's already been said, I do want to voice my opposition to the motion. I want to commend the independent members who submitted the letter calling on us to reject the motion. In my view, a lot of effort was put into the letter, which provides a history of the parliamentary procedures and rights of independent members and members of parties not recognized by the House. I won't repeat what the letter says, but I hope it will be published because it provides a good history.

I would like to point out that we first found ourselves in this exact situation when the last budget implementation bill was introduced. That was also the first time we saw the proposal set out in the motion being used. Just this past spring, then. To my knowledge, the question had never been raised prior to the spring.

Up to that point, it was clear that independent members and members of parties not recognized in the House could take part in a committee's proceedings and attend its meetings. It was also clear that the House recognized their fundamental rights when it came to proposing amendments to the budget implementation bill, specifically.

It was clear that this motion, which we voted against but which the committee adopted during its study of the last budget implementation bill, was specifically aimed at forcing independent members to give the committee notice of their amendments or changes without being able to debate them. They can, however, do that in the House. Consequently, they may be prohibited from moving those same amendments later in the House. So, as a result, they have much less power, not just all around, but also specifically, in terms of debating the amendments, because they aren't allowed to engage in meaningful debate on the amendments they wanted to propose. Conversely, they can do so in the House, generally speaking.

In that respect, then, independent members are being denied their rights, a situation we, on this side of the House, consider unacceptable. Once again, this is clearly a government tactic to prevent them from contributing. I find it appalling. I recall that the Speaker of the House of Commons had ruled on a matter of privilege, but I think the issue is serious enough for him to rethink the whole thing or, at the very least, consider the impact it will have on the rights of each and every one of us.

Independent members represent the people in their ridings, regardless of the fact they don't represent a party with enough members to enjoy the resources of the House. The fact remains, they represent constituents, just as those of us who belong to recognized parties do.

From that perspective, the motion will seriously undermine the rights of constituents in those members' ridings. In fact, those Canadians will be under-represented in the House and in committee, as opposed to our constituents and those of the government members.

With that in mind, I urge the government to reconsider the motion. And I hope it will do so in all the other committees, where the motion will be put forward if it hasn't already been. Government strategy, not the initiative of the individual who proposed the motion, clearly underlies this coordinated effort.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Merci, Monsieur Caron.

We'll now go to Mr. Saxton, please.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to respond to some of the issues brought up by my colleagues on the other side of the table.

First, I want to assure them, as they already know, that independent members will still have the right to submit their amendments to committee before the clause-by-clause, just as every other member has. Report stage is not meant to be a duplication of this committee's work. As was already mentioned, the Speaker ruled that this motion was in order when he ruled on Bill C-60 back in the spring. Furthermore, I also want to let my fellow committee members know that another committee, aboriginal affairs, has already voted on and approved this motion. It would only make sense that we also allow this committee to vote on this motion as it has been presented.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I have Mr. Caron again.

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

In response to that, I would say, first, the fact that the procedure has already been adopted by 1 of 24 committees is not, in and of itself, significant. Second, as far as I know, during Parliament's entire history, the procedure had never been used prior to the passing of Bill C-60. There is no parliamentary tradition, then, that says independent members or members of an unrecognized caucus can be forced to submit their amendments to the House. As Mr. Saxton mentioned, this prevents them from moving the amendments and even debating them in the House at report stage.

The two are related. Without this motion, independent members, who do not have a standing right to participate in committees, could propose amendments at report stage. What this motion does, however, is prevent them from doing so because they're being given the opportunity to discuss them at a very superficial level in committee.

With respect to Bill C-60—and correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Chair—independent members who were allowed to propose amendments had 30 seconds to do so.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

The committee allowed the member from the Bloc more time than Ms. May. They were allowed one to two minutes to present.

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

And that was it. They did not then participate in the discussion on the amendment. Only committee members could.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

The reason for the limitation was that, as you recall, there was a limitation on all members of, I think, five minutes. It was an attempt by the committee to be proportional.

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

I see. I'm not saying the decision was strictly tied to them. There were, in fact, time limits, but the effect of the limitation imposed on them was to give them much less of an opportunity than they had at report stage to debate the amendment they, themselves, had put forward. At report stage, the amendment is studied in the House of Commons, and not in a simple committee.

The two issues are indeed related. Allowing independent members to propose amendments by giving them little time to speak to the amendments prevents the members from proposing the amendments later, something they were entitled to do in the House of Commons before Bill C-60 was passed.

That is why I am urging the government to withdraw its motion or to defeat it. The fact that 1 committee out of 24 has already adopted the motion should have no bearing on our decision.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

I have Mr. Jean, and then Mr. Keddy.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I was just going to mention that the industry committee also passed it. We are masters of our own business and our own agenda, and I don't see why procedurally there would be any difficulty with this. If there is, we'll find out in due course. But I think it's good.

Obviously, there's a debate about what the effect of it is, but it sounds as if it makes it fair to everybody. As a member of a party that represents a portion of the country that is, I think, significant, I think I should have the same rights and privileges as every other member. This would certainly allow there to be more similar rights for every member, and I think that's reasonable in the circumstances.