Evidence of meeting #13 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was rate.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
I move that the Standing Committee on Finance call for officials from the Canada Revenue Agency, CRA, including Ms. Stéphanie Henderson, manager of offshore compliance, to appear before the committee on April 12, 2016, to provide the committee with an explanation as to the process and procedures related to the provision to KPMG high-net-worth clients, an amnesty provision freeing those clients from any civil or criminal prosecution, including fines and penalties related to the use of certain offshore tax provisions, which have been described as grossly negligent and indeed intended to deceive; that the committee also call for officials of KPMG involved in this practice to attend the committee to provide clarification and an explanation; that the committee call for the production of the May 1, 2015 nine-page letter signed by Stéphanie Henderson, forwarded to officers of KPMG related to this matter, and that the letter be provided to the committee no later than April 11, 2016.
There's obviously a mistake.
12:55 p.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
As you can see, the two motions are different. We are asking that the Minister of National Revenue appear before the committee to discuss both topics, and there are two main reasons for that.
The first is that this is a matter of ministerial accountability. The second is that she went quite far in her statements in the House of Commons. Last March 10, to a direct question about the situation, she replied that this file was ongoing, that it had not been closed, and that she would be clear in saying that there was no amnesty and that there were not two set of rules. This is contrary to what was revealed in the Radio-Canada program Enquête. In it they said clearly that there had been an amnesty proposal.
For this reason, we indeed would like to see Ms. Henderson appear before the committee. It is essential that she give us explanations on the facts we have before us concerning what she answered to questions about this situation. To not do so would run counter to the principles of diligence we must apply here at the Standing Committee on Finance.
It would be important for the minister to attend the meeting and explain why, in reply to a direct question, she told the House of Commons that there had been no amnesty. I would like to have a much longer answer than that provided in 30 seconds in the House of Commons.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Steven MacKinnon Liberal Gatineau, QC
I would like to move an amendment to the motion my colleague Mr. Sorbara introduced.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We do not exactly have a motion on the floor yet. We're trying to find ways of combining these.
Mr. Caron.
12:55 p.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
I insist that my motion be the first one we vote on, because it was also the first one to be tabled.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay, that's fair. Do you want to bounce around the discussion before we vote motion by motion?
Did you have something to say, Mr. MacKinnon?
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Steven MacKinnon Liberal Gatineau, QC
Well, I'm going to suggest we vote on Mr. Caron's motion and move on to Mr. Sorbara.
12:55 p.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Before we vote, I set out the reasons why it is essential that the minister appear before the committee. This is a matter of obligation, accountability and ministerial responsibility; she needs to explain the public comments she made before parliamentarians in the House of Commons. If the government members vote against the motion, I would like to hear the reason why.
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
The question is on Mr. Caron's motion. All those in favour? Opposed?
(Motion negatived)
Mr. Sorbara's motion.
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
No, you don't. Just give us an explanation of what you want to do. As I said earlier, I think that if this motion carries, the steering committee is going to have to meet to look at a witness list, even beyond what is on the paper here.
Go ahead.
1 p.m.
Liberal
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
I think this motion is important for many reasons. We need to ensure that Canadians have confidence in the CRA and our tax system, and that all Canadians are paying their fair share. That's the intent of this motion.
1 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Liepert Conservative Calgary Signal Hill, AB
I would like to move an amendment to the motion. The amendment would be very simple:
that the standing committee on finance call for officials from Canada Revenue Agency and the Honourable Diane Lebouthillier, Minister of National Revenue
and then carry on.
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Is that at the beginning of the motion, “officials from Canada Revenue Agency and the Honourable Diane Lebouthillier”?
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We have an amendment on the floor. Is there any discussion on that amendment?
Is there a reason why government members don't want to call the minister?
Mr. Caron.
1 p.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
That is exactly the question I want to ask.
We are part of a committee. The members opposite are not government members, they are the members of the Standing Committee on Finance. In such a crucial situation, especially after the publication of the Panama Papers, which refer to tax havens, and when the minister has made direct comments to the House she must explain, I want to understand why we would refuse to have her appear so that she can justify the comments she made.
I want to understand, to hear from each member why members on the government side would refuse to have the minister appear before us.