Finance Committee on Feb. 4th, 2016

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay. All those in favour?

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

On my amendment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Yes, on your amendment.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

These are motions that are specific to this committee as compared to others. The first motion is “PBO and Private Members' Bill”:

That, consistent with the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) mandate to provide estimates of the financial cost of proposals before Parliament (as outlined in section 79.2 of the Parliament of Canada Act), the PBO automatically always provide the Committee, within 45 calendar days of a Private Members' Business item's appearance on the Private Members' Business Order of Precedence, a detailed and comprehensive costing analysis of all such items and that the costing analysis shall a) be restricted to the motion or legislation as written and b) include a detailed description of the methodology used.

Is there a mover for that motion?

It is moved by Mr. MacKinnon.

Is there any discussion?

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Next is “PBO and Economic and Fiscal Outlook”:

That, consistent with the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) mandate to provide independent analysis about the state of Canada’s finances and trends in the national economy (as outlined in section 79.2 of the Parliament of Canada Act), the PBO provide an economic and fiscal outlook to the Committee the fourth week of October and April of every calendar year, and be available to appear before the Committee to discuss its findings shortly thereafter.

Is there a mover?

It is moved by Ms. O'Connell.

Is there any discussion?

(Motion agreed to)

On the annual update on tax changes recommended by Finance Canada, we have that the Finance Department provide an annual—

Mr. Grewal.

[Raj Grewal, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Mr. Chair, we would like to move that this motion be deleted in its entirety.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

There's a motion to delete that motion.

Is there any discussion?

Mr. Caron.

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

I'd like to understand the rationale behind the member's request.

I probably would have been in favour of removing the last part, since we no longer have a Conservative government. The issue of technical changes to the tax system remains, however.

I've been on the committee, and we went through all the stages of a lengthy bill intended to correct numerous anomalies in the system and close several loopholes. Furthermore, at the end of it, we had to study the various recommendations of the Canada Revenue Agency and the agreements that had been reached. In light of that, such a report strikes me as being useful to the Standing Committee on Finance.

So I'd like to understand why the members on the other side want to get rid of that motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We're technically correct. I'll read the motion. Somebody needs to move the motion first. Then if you're still of the same position, Mr. Grewal, you'd move a motion to delete.

I'll read the motion, “Annual Update on Tax Changes Recommendations by Finance Canada”:

That the Finance Department provide an annual update to the Committee on the status of all outstanding technical tax changes in an effort to ensure regular and timely legislation as already committed by the Conservative government.

Is somebody moving that?

It is moved by Mr. Caron.

That's the motion on the record. We'll have to amend it.

You're moving to delete.

[Raj Grewal, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

I am, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay, that's open for discussion.

I think Mr. Caron asked if you could give an explanation as to why you're of the opinion that it should be deleted.

[Raj Grewal, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Basically in the previous government they had these massive omnibus bills and every time a tax change was announced, they would say, “Oh, this is the 130th tax change; this is the 131st tax change”. It's just an inefficient way of running this committee. We believe there is a better way of doing business and that's why the recommendation is that this motion be deleted.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. MacKinnon and then Ms. Raitt.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

We would be open to revisiting such a motion at a later time. We hope we have seen the last of mammoth bills. As for the arrangements of the committee, it is our view that we can live without it for now.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

While we're not going to be opposing the motion, I would note that I certainly hope this government won't abandon the notion of decreasing taxes and having technical tax changes going forward so that we can actually manage our economy better.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Caron.

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

I understand what the government is trying to do here, but the motion doesn't refer to creating an omnibus bill to make changes to the tax system. Instead, it allows the committee to receive, on an ad-hoc or annual basis, a report on the changes, so that we can prepare for any changes the government could make.

The last mammoth bill containing technical changes to the tax system was 967 pages long. Even though we currently have no mammoth bill, a number of elements dating back to 2001, 2002 and 2003 need to be dealt with. It would be helpful for the committee to know where those regulations stand, given that they often stem from agreements with the Canada Revenue Agency. It would also be helpful for the committee to know the government's intentions in that regard. Having such a report doesn't force the government to bring forward an omnibus bill in order to adopt the changes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

This is just a technical error on the part of the chair, probably the first one ever. We do not need the motion to delete. The procedure, I'm told by the clerk, would be that the motion is on the floor and those who are opposed to the motion would vote against the motion, or if there are further amendments related to the motion, I'm willing to accept those as well.

I see Mr. McColeman's hand coming forward.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

I tend to lean towards the position of my colleague from the NDP on this, but I think the obvious change in the motion has to be “the Liberal government” and not “the Conservative government”, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Or I would suggest as well, Mr. McColeman, that if you take out “as already committed by the Conservative government” that leaves it open to any government. You don't need to say a party.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

I would be okay then.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

The amendment would be to delete the words “as already committed by the Conservative government.”

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

I tend to agree that it doesn't hurt, from time to time, to review these things, and regardless of the contemplation of any tabled legislation, omnibus or otherwise, it's not a bad idea.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay, there is an amendment on the floor to delete “as already committed by the Conservative government.”

Is there any discussion on that?

We're voting on the amendment to delete that section.

(Amendment agreed to)

On the motion as amended, is there any discussion?

Mr. Ouellette.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I'm just a little bit concerned that we have here “outstanding technical tax changes” so I'd like to get further clarification about exactly what “outstanding” means. It just seems like a bit of jargon that perhaps many of us are not familiar with. Perhaps this is their way of tightening up the language or coming up with some way of actually explaining it. Is there a way the analyst could give an explanation of that, please?