Finance Committee on April 12th, 2016

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

Mr. Chair, I know this process has gone a little differently than normal when you're in the chair, having been in the chair before. I know we were notified that you had made the decision to proceed with this particular set of hearings, but it was also narrowly defined in terms of the number of days. I think, knowing that the committee is the master of its own destiny, that not one individual—not even the chair, if I can say that respectfully to you....

One of our desires in looking at Bill C-2 is to have other witnesses attend, which the time allocated would not allow for, because it was arbitrary. That said, I'd like the committee to consider extending the time frame for the study of this and allow for other witnesses.

Who am I thinking about who should be consulted at this committee? There are many different people in Canadian society who should be brought before this committee and have their views vetted on this particular bill.

I'm asking that before we approve any of the costs associated with this, we step back for a moment and say that the committee was not able to consider the time frames for a study of this and that we should be afforded the opportunity to consider the time frames and not truncate them for any reason to withhold testimony from other Canadians who may want to weigh in on this. There are probably groups, including first nations individuals, who might like to come before this committee to speak to this bill.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

I don't know whether you have a mover for it; I would like to move the adoption of the budget, call for the question, and simply say that we will have a lot of work to do, including—not to prejudge the outcome of other motions—some examination of how the CRA has been run over the last 10 years.

I think we would be best advised to move expeditiously on this piece of legislation, knowing that an awful lot of other things are going to occupy this committee, including consideration of the main budget and its legislation and a number of other things that have been proposed to the committee.

I move that we go to the question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

There's been a mover.

I won't go to the question just yet. Mr. Caron wants in on this point.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't think we can have a debate and ask for a vote at the same time.

I would like to point out that we are supposed to hold a meeting to discuss the committee's work schedule. We have not done so yet. We were informed about what this would look like, but there has been no discussion on it. I think the members of the committee want to debate the issue. We will probably do so before the end of the meeting or at a subsequent meeting. I really want to discuss the length of time allocated to testimony and debate on Bill C-2. I agree with Mr. McColeman that we should discuss the first motions that were submitted and come back to this issue subsequently.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Mr. Caron.

I'll go to Mr. Liepert, but first, just to explain, of all the proposed witnesses that came from the various parties on this subject, there was only one we weren't able to put on the witness list. The way I would suggest we proceed, which was not the custom in the last Parliament, is that we ask the steering committee, once we deal with this motion, the other motions that are before us—I think you, too, Mr. Caron, one of the Conservatives went through when the minister was here on main estimates, and the one from the Liberals—that we find time for the steering committee to sit down and meet. We have a schedule out until the end of April, and we'll see what we can do in scheduling for the period from now until spring, and a potential schedule for the fall.

That's the way I'd say we'll proceed.

Mr. Liepert.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

I'm having some difficulty. First of all, on the projected budget, have we received the list of who the witnesses are? I do not know who they are and unless I wasn't given the list of witnesses...but it's difficult to make a decision. In support of my colleague, I don't know who's scheduled to come before us, and I think it's difficult to make a decision on either one of these requests until we have a better idea.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

On the witness list, we put out a request to all the parties for witnesses. Of the ones that came in, based on the proportion of witnesses allowed by each party, all the witnesses who were requested but one made the cut. The witnesses who came from the Conservatives, I would expect you have them. The witnesses from the others, maybe not, but we can distribute that witness list now.

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

I want to be exact. I'd like you to confirm with me that this committee did not decide on the length of time to be allowed for this particular study.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

No, the committee itself did not. The procedure was basically the same as in the last Parliament. I along with the parliamentary people looked at the time frame that was needed to put a request out to the parties for witnesses. Those witnesses came in and we made a determination on that. As I said, only one requested witness didn't make the cut.

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

If it was predetermined, the number of meetings we would need, by yourself, as you've just described, and your resources, the clerk and others, if that was prescribed, that decision was made by the chair, then.... What I'm asking is that we consider expanding the time frame because I know what it did for us. It limited us in terms of who we could suggest as witnesses, because it limited the number of witnesses to fit into the amount of time allotted.

I think it's fair to ask this committee to consider an expanded amount of time so that people who have views on this subject, both for and against, are able to come, Canadians are able to come to this committee and express their views. There are lots of members of our society who have views on this and would like to come.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I have a point of order from Mr. MacKinnon, and then I want to go to the motion. If it wants to be amended, we'll deal with it in that way.

Mr. MacKinnon.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

I think we're well outside the simple consideration of a relatively straightforward budget, so I'd like to move the question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is there a seconder for the motion? Seconded by Mr. Sorbara.

(Motion agreed to)

We'll move on to motions. Mr. Caron, on your first motion you had tabled.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I have in front of me a notice of motion that was tabled on March 1. It reads as follows:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study of the benefits and impacts of a guaranteed minimum income system and report its recommendations to the House.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is there any discussion?

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

The committee has already had an informal debate on this. This question is currently front and centre and is being widely debated by the population. I think it is the responsibility of the Standing Committee on Finance to take a good look at the whys and wherefores of such a proposal, which remains very complex. I hope that it can be the subject of a unanimous vote so that we can debate it and eventually submit recommendations on what it might mean.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Sorbara.

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

Thank you, Mr. Caron, for the motion. I personally think this motion and the proposed study of the guaranteed income in whatever shape or form is better handled in a different committee, in the ESDC committee. I think it's not for our committee to review.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Are there any other thoughts?

Phil.

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

It really surprises me to hear that from the government side. This is the purview of this committee. Having been around Parliament Hill for a long time, this is the exact purview for this committee, so I would strongly disagree.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Caron, you wanted to make one last point.

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

I am trying to understand the reasoning on this.

Whether we like it or not, we are talking about a measure that would directly affect the tax system. This measure would directly affect the country's finances. It would not only affect employment and human resources. It will directly affect finances. It is our responsibility to study it from a fiscal perspective and that is what is being proposed.

I hope that the government members will agree that our committee has the responsibility, as the steward of Canadian finances and of what is done with them, to study this matter in light of our expertise and of our past experience as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. MacKinnon.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

We also believe that this is a matter of public policy, of public finance that is worthy of attention. However, since this involves social programs, both provincially and federally, and since the measure has a very broad scope for all of Canada and for the social fabric of Canadians, we believe that, given the anticipated workload of our committee, this study could be done by a committee that considers social issues, as suggested by my colleague. That could be the committee that examines social issues and studies matters that fall under Mr. Duclos' new department. For that reason, we will oppose the motion.

This is not, however, because we feel that the topic should not be studied.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I'm going to take two more points on this.

Mr. McColeman.