Finance Committee on Sept. 19th, 2017

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

That is correct.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

So there are two meetings to hear from witnesses on the biggest reform in our tax system in 40 years. We're going to have two meetings.

We have had dozens of organizations sign an open letter iterating grave concerns about tax increases as high as 73% on the retirement savings and maternity leave benefits of our entrepreneurs. That's two meetings, to hear from 60 or 70 organizations that represent literally millions of employees on the biggest tax question that may be put before the House, certainly in my career, but maybe in a full generation.

Mr. Chair, this committee is the one that is responsible for the Income Tax Act. That is directly in our jurisdiction. The member and the governing side—the majority here—want to ram this thing through in two meetings.

As you know, Mr. Chair, much smaller issues have been discussed for much longer time periods in committees across this parliamentary precinct. To have the government show up here with a motion seeking to ram this tax increase into effect while hearing from witnesses over a total of just four or five hours is unprecedented. In a single meeting, we will be lucky to hear from four or five witnesses. We have dozens of witnesses who need to testify on this issue.

I'm sure that the government would be willing to extend the discussion and amend this motion to read, “That beginning the week of September 25, and continuing until there are no further witnesses interested in testifying, the committee will undertake a study of the finance minister's proposed changes to the Income Tax Act.”

I would ask the honourable member if he would consider that as a friendly amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Fergus.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Well, Mr. Chair, I'm perplexed by the honourable member's modification, given that the motion he had proposed himself indicates that we should have these consultations. He recognizes that, due to the closing of the consultation on October 2, we should have an appearance by the minister, and I'm assuming also witnesses, before October 2. That, of course, is not next week but the following week.

Given that that is the motion proposed by Mr. Deltell, a motion supported by the honourable member from Carleton, I am perplexed at how substantively our motions are any different. From a realistic perspective, if we were to open up the number of sessions until all Canadians who want to appear have been heard, certainly we wouldn't be doing the work we need to get done on the pre-budget consultations. They are already scheduled to take place the following week. I think it's important, given members' time, that we be very judicious in our suggestion of witnesses and making sure that we bring the most representative groups possible before us to have an initial look at this.

If the minister and the government were to proceed on these initiatives, they would certainly be bringing them back in the form of legislation, which this committee would have an opportunity to go through at a much greater depth. I think it's important, in this period before the consultation period ends, that this committee have an opportunity to take a look at this. It is reasonable for us to say that we'll have three sessions on this issue, all during next week, in addition to the work that we've already scheduled for the pre-budget consultations.

To answer his question, I would not consider that a friendly modification.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay, you have your answer.

Mr. Poilievre, you still have the floor.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, I want to clarify that the motion that Mr. Deltell put forward was for the committee to return early and dedicate a complete 40-hour workweek to hearing witnesses. That was a proposal that failed to garner the support of the Liberal majority, which therefore rendered the motion incapable of passage.

Here we are today, a week and a half later, with the House of Commons in session, interrupting our ability to do all-day hearings, and drastically reduced time periods for consultation. We're told that our small business people, who are worried about a 73% tax rate on their passive investment income, our farmers, who are worried about tax treatment that will force them, in many cases, to sell to foreign investors, will have to ram all of that feedback into a two-day session of, correct me if I'm wrong Mr. Chair, three-hour sessions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

That's to be determined.

Quite often, we'll have three-hour sessions with two panels of six—every hour and a half.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

So we'll have two three-hour sessions to hear from Canadians in this committee, the Finance Committee of the Parliament of Canada, to discuss the biggest change to the Income Tax Act in my lifetime.

Is that really the government's position on consulting Parliament with respect to these changes?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Dusseault.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't want to prolong the discussion for too long because we have witnesses waiting, but I simply want to repeat one thing that was reported to me in my riding.

As was the case with all my colleagues, the lack of consultation was raised by my fellow citizens. A consultation will end on October 2, but this is clearly insufficient given the importance of the changes being considered.

Having said that, the fact that the government wants to hear witnesses on this draft bill is a step in the right direction. My colleague has not quite understood what will happen next. As was said earlier, we are a long way from having a bill before us, which of course will require a detailed study, as this committee is accustomed to doing.

It is still a good initiative. When a final bill is before us, and the Minister of Finance has finished his discussions or consultations, it will be worth a much more thorough study than this one being presented today, which simply covers the Department of Finance consultation period.

I want to support this consultation, although it is insufficient. I repeat that the NDP wants the Minister of Finance to extend his consultation period beyond October 2. This may solve the problem of time and urgency facing this committee.

I would like to reiterate our request to extend the consultation period for the Minister of Finance currently in place so that this committee can make recommendations and give its opinion to the Minister of Finance on his draft bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay, Ms. O'Connell and then Mr. Albas.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I guess this is going to be a session filled with fact-checking, because the reason Mr. Deltell's motion did not move forward actually was that it failed to get four signatures in order to do so, not at the decision of the government members.

In regard to Mr. Deltell's motion, it didn't even specify how many hours. Thankfully, Mr. Fergus put forward a motion that dealt with the details to bring something forward. Mr. Dusseault rightfully pointed out the fact that this is fitting in with the consultation period to hear about the white paper that was released by the Minister of Finance. If legislation should come forward, this committee, at such time, would have the opportunity, like we would for any other piece of legislation that is finance-related, to properly study it, write a report, draft recommendations, and make amendments.

I prefer not to waste the committee's time in dealing with hypotheticals but rather to get to the business of this House. I'm wondering if the Conservative members are actually suggesting that hearing from Canadians on their priorities for the 2018 budget is not important and that we should not be hearing from them, because Conservative members only want to talk about one thing. I think Canadians want to have the consultation process move forward and then have the minister take that information and determine how he wants to move forward in the form of legislation. At that time, it is for this committee to study it.

I think that having two hearings, plus one for the minister to appear, will allow for formal consultation from this committee to be sent to the minister for him to consider, and at such time as legislation comes forward, we'll move along in the normal process. I think hearing from Canadians on their priorities for the budget is quite significant and important. I would be shocked if Conservative members were no longer interested in that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Albas.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome back, everyone.

I'm obviously respectful of our guests here, who work very hard for Canadians. I do apologize that we've taken this turn, and that instead of focusing on our pre-budget consultation process the Liberals have decided to go this way, but that's democracy, and I'm glad we can have this discussion.

First of all, when someone says “reasonable”, usually it's reasonable to them. It's the same when someone says “fair”. As Raj will know, being a lawyer, the first person to say “fair” in Canada usually gets what they want, because everyone wants to be fair and reasonable.

The problem we have with this is that, first of all, there is limited time and, in this proposal, the majority of the witnesses who would be coming forward would be the Liberal government's suggested witnesses—the majority of them. That's how the system works: we are going to hear from people who, conveniently, side with the government.

If members on this side are concerned that it's not going to be a complete picture, that I think is a legitimate concern. So far, despite using the language of “reasonable” and “fair”, members have not been able to convince this side nor, I would imagine, many people across the country. I would suggest that if members are really serious, and if it is a privilege to be on the finance committee, which I do agree with, then perhaps we should just say, let's have a few more meetings, or let's make sure those meetings are meaningful and that we have as many people come in...and perhaps they shouldn't all from the side of the government. Perhaps the government might say that they'll take 50% of the witnesses, or even 40%, and then allow those voices that are begging to be heard, and believe me—all of you get the same emails and phone calls that I do—people want to be heard on this.

The desire for members on this side to have a good discussion and to do our jobs should not be dismissed, and it should not be simply cast aside by saying that we're not taking things seriously. We are.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Just so we're clear as to where we're at here, I understand, Greg, that if we hold these two hearings plus we have the minister here, this motion is not saying there should be a report. This committee would send that evidence from the discussions to the minister and to the department as part of their departmental consultations.

To break it down, there would be roughly 14 witnesses from the government side, seven or eight from the Conservatives, and two or three from the NDP. That's if we go with how it's traditionally done, and at this committee we don't always do that. We try to go to the best witnesses, no matter where they come from.

Mr. Sorbara.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd just like to make sure we fully understand the very reasonable motion that Mr. Fergus has put forward. There is a consultation period that has been ongoing since July 18. It's an approximately 75-day consultation period to which Canadians, as individuals or organizations, can submit their views on the consultative paper that was put forward. We don't have a bill in front of us right now that we're examining with regard to the consultative paper and its content.

I think having the minister here to answer some questions from you and from us will be an opportunity for everyone to put their thoughts on the record. That's something I would welcome, and I think that's something the business community and residents I represent would welcome, and I don't see why we wouldn't want to do that. Having three meetings at the outset on this would be something that should be welcomed by all participants.

I hope my Conservative colleagues would welcome that. I think we would welcome that. I'm prepared to sit for an extra nine hours in the mornings next week and then to do the pre-budget consultations in the afternoon. I think that's a moderate suggestion that's reasonable on whichever side of the aisle you're on. I look forward to that and hope we end up doing that with our friends from the ministries here. I hope we can move forward to their testimony and get down to the work we need to do for the pre-budget consultation we are mandated or legislated to do, whichever term you would like to use.

Those are my humble thoughts, and I hope we can move forward with the meetings next week.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is there no further discussion?

Just so we're clear, we are talking about two meetings of three hours with witnesses. The deadline for witnesses is Thursday night. If that's the case, I'd suggest we have a little conference call with the subcommittee on Friday morning to determine those witnesses. Then we'd have the minister and...all next week. That's what I'm hearing.

Dan.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Is there any willingness to see where we have a different split as far as witnesses go? Again, this is slanted towards the government's perspective. This is their motion. It's your call as far as the amount of time goes. I'd like to see more, but can we at least make sure there's a broad representation of the concerns and not just people who are going to cheerlead?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Ms. O'Connell.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Chair, usually that's been done at the subcommittee, and it's usually done quite well in the sense that we get out of the way those everyone agrees to and they don't take up a Conservative or NDP spot. As the chair said, that's usually done in such a way to get the best witness. We tend not to go by the breakdown, so whoever comes to the subcommittee can then work that out, depending on whose name is submitted. However, I'm not prepared to get into a debate on numbers here until we know how many witnesses are submitted and where there are duplicates.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Albas.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

In response to that, you might not be prepared, but obviously Mr. Fergus was prepared to debate this today, because we gave unanimous consent to have this. The question is there: are you willing to allow more people who are not just simply going to be chosen by the Liberal side? Further than that, we should let the subcommittee do its work. It's in camera, it conveniently won't be today, and again it sounds as though Liberal members are trying to deflect away from the suggestion.

You know, the same as I know, that people are either worried or very upset. Can we make sure we have a proper allocation? Can we at least say fifty-fifty? I think that's fair. That's reasonable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We will have to discuss that at the subcommittee, if we can. You are right. There are people who are worried and concerned. We need to have witnesses who can outline, from a fairly expert opinion, the scope of what the issues are that would add to the minister's consultation process. There will be some in favour and some opposed. I don't even expect that all the witnesses from the government side would be entirely in favour of the consultation.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

To be fair, since we're having this debate, Liberals have asked for this debate. I put forward a motion asking that the witnesses be split fifty-fifty, and I ask for a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We have a motion on the table at the moment.