Finance Committee on May 27th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call this meeting to order.

This is meeting 37 of the Standing Committee on Finance. The orders of the day, pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, April 8, 2014, are dealing with clause-by-clause study of Bill C-31, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014, and other measures.

Colleagues, as you know, we have both today and Thursday for clause by clause. My hope as chair is that we get through parts 1 to 4 today. We'll see if we can. Obviously, it will depend on members' input.

We do have a notice of motion in the name of Mr. Cullen, and he's indicated he would prefer to move that at the outset of the meeting.

Mr. Cullen, if you're ready, I'll go to you to move your motion, please.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

This motion is connected obviously with the study that we're doing and the clause-by-clause study we're working on now with respect to the budget implementation bill. It came up through testimony, Chair, and my friends across the way will have heard this as well, that certain provisions around the temporary foreign worker program and what changes were going to be enacted within this bill....

We wanted to make this motion available. I assume there would be some interest from all sides. I'm not sure about my Liberal colleague, or Madam May who is joining us here today, but certainly there would be interest from the Conservatives to allow the minister to speak to both the changes that he has proposed through this budget implementation bill, which are new, and also some of the revisions that he has spoken about in press conferences and in question period, but more succinctly to the finance committee on what the impacts of those changes might be, to some of the concerns that have been raised by, I think it's safe to say, all sides of the House around the way the program has been conducting itself and its impact on the economy.

I don't want to take a great deal of time. This is a gauging of interest from my friends across the way. I don't know if they will have checked in with the minister's schedule yet, but that's a typical and appropriate process that we use. We wanted to give Minister Kenney the opportunity to come before the committee at a time that's appropriate, obviously once we're done this work. That would make some sense for us. Certainly it would give him the opportunity to walk us through what changes are going to be implemented through this bill, and other changes that he's made through regulations and beyond.

That would be an opportunity for the minister to provide us with new information and tell us about how the program could be improved. I feel that the program is flawed, and that has serious consequences for our economy and the workers there.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Cullen.

We'll go to Mr. Saxton, please.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thanks, Chair.

It's my understanding that Minister Kenney has already been before committee on this very subject, that he was there for two hours, and that both opposition parties had ample time to ask lots of questions of the minister at that time. Why would we simply duplicate and replicate what's already been done at another committee?

Chair, we cannot support this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Saxton.

I'll go back to Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

There are a couple of things that are not replicated. One is that there are new changes that have been made in the budget implementation bill that we're dealing with right now. We assume that this week with the schedule we've adopted, Chair, there will be changes made.

Two, from our understanding, the testimony of the minister prior to this at the other committee had less to do with some of the concepts and issues that we'd be dealing with as the finance committee, particularly around the effects on wages, the effects on labour market impact, that the finance committee has particularly adhered to. While my friend across the way may feel that one session on a different part of the temporary foreign worker program has exhausted.... I would have thought that the government would have been open and encouraging of such an opportunity. I know Minister Kenney is a capable minister and can certainly handle a few questions from the opposition.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Brison.

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

We support this motion. These provisions are part of the budget omnibus bill, the budget implementation act. Again there's an opportunity, I think, for the minister to be accountable to this committee which is responsible for the passage of these changes. As Mr. Cullen said, there's no doubt that Mr. Kenney will not be in any way, shape, or form intimidated by this committee. Certainly if the invitation were extended, he would accept it, gleefully in fact.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Further to this, Mr. Keddy.

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

Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Saxton has said it correctly. The minister has already spoken at length on this subject. The members had a chance to attend the committee he was at, if they wished to, or they could have subbed in. This is simply a matter of trying to go over something where the opposition think they have a bit of traction, and really there's no traction there. The minister has been very accountable for the changes made to the program. He has been accountable in question period.

This subject is closed, quite frankly.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

We'll move to a vote on Mr. Cullen's motion.

(Motion negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Colleagues, we will now start with clause-by-clause study.

For part 1, we'll welcome back our officials from the Department of Finance, Mr. Ted Cook and Mr. Miodrag Jovanovic.

I'll just highlight that for part 1, we have five amendments in total. We'll be dealing with clauses 2 to 31.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), the consideration of clause 1, the short title, is postponed. Therefore, I shall move to clause 2.

Colleagues, as you know, the chair is supposed to do a five-minute time limit. As I've spoken to members, I prefer to be somewhat flexible on that. If we can group some clauses together in which perhaps there's agreement to go to a vote, then I'll allow members perhaps a longer time to speak to their amendments.

I do not have any amendments for clauses 2 to 26. Does anybody want to speak to any of those clauses?

Mr. Rankin.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

While the New Democrats support the intent of clause 2, for example, and the provisions—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Do you want to speak to clause 2?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I just want to speak to clause 2. It's actually the short version of it, the tax informant program, the notion of it being an offshore tax informant program.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

This is discussion on clause 2, then.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

That's correct.

(On clause 2)

I simply want to say that while we support it in principle and will vote for it, really, as has been said about this budget and provisions in past budgets as well, I think the appearance is much greater than the reality of doing something to address tax revenue losses. This year the amount of money in offshore tax havens has hit $170 billion and is steadily growing. The amount of money we're losing is between $5 billion and $7.8 billion a year.

The notion of this being a tax informant program overstates its impact. Nevertheless, we'll support it.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much, Mr. Rankin.

Mr. Caron, did you want to discuss the same matter?

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

No, I want to talk about another provision.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay.

(Clause 2 agreed to)

Which clause would you like to speak to, Monsieur Caron?

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

It will be clauses 24 and 25. I don't know if we can go straight to them. We have some more as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Can I call clauses 3 to 23, or is that too many?

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

No, we have others as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, just indicate which one you want to speak to.

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

I think Mr. Cullen wanted to speak to a different one, if you can wait.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Sure.