Evidence of meeting #14 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was system.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
You're withdrawing the original motion and moving this one as proposed, as you stated?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
You're withdrawing the original motion. What has been passed around, the proposed amendment, would be the new motion. Is that correct?
Liberal
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Chair, I will only do that in that manner if they consent to bringing the motion to the floor immediately to be voted on.
Conservative
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I think there may be some misunderstanding here. I believe what Mr. Sorbara was saying is that he is willing to withdraw the original motion this amendment proposed to amend, and bring in this amendment as a new motion if it can be dealt with now.
Conservative
Phil McColeman Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
As a point of order, if I'm interpreting that correctly, it removes our ability to debate his new motion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay. You are withdrawing your motion.
(Motion withdrawn)
You have proposed.... Do you want to read your new motion again, and we'll debate it?
Liberal
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
That the Standing Committee on Finance call for the Hon. Diane Lebouthillier, Minister of National Revenue, officials from the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), including Ms. Stephanie Henderson, manager of offshore compliance, and officials from the Department of Justice to appear before the committee to provide the steps being taken by the Agency to combat tax evasion and tax avoidance and provide an explanation as to the current status of the KPMG/Isle of Man file. That the committee also call for officials of KPMG to appear before the committee to explain their role in this file.
Conservative
Lisa Raitt Conservative Milton, ON
I'd like to know from the mover in the amendment why he's removing the call for a call for documentation. There's reference in the original motion to a call for production of a document, and I'm wondering why. To me, Chair, this would mean this is a substantial change in terms of an amendment to a motion. I'd like to understand why it was removed.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Mr. Caron is first, and then Mr. Grewal.
Do you want to answer that, Mr. Sorbara, first?
Liberal
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
I agree with Ms. Raitt. A substantial element was removed from the original motion and is not part of the new one. We need to discuss it.
I think there are two elements that are important and that are not part of the motion put forward. The first is a date. It's fine to know that the minister is willing to appear with Ms. Henderson, but when?
The original motions, the Liberal one and ours, mentioned a date. It would be relevant to insert a more specific date in the motion. The Liberal motion initially mentioned April 12, which has already passed. We know that we are sitting next week and that we will be in our ridings the week after. So I would like us to have Madam Minister Lebouthillier, Ms. Henderson and other officials from the Canada Revenue Agency ideally next Thursday, given that we are welcoming the Governor of the Bank of Canada and the Parliamentary Budget Officer on Tuesday.
The second thing missing from this motion is the fact of holding a meeting to discuss a report about what will have been discussed. Currently, the Liberal motion focuses on a meeting with the minister, Ms. Henderson and other officials, but without follow-up, without another discussion. I don't understand why. Unless we get an appropriate response, I would like to propose amendments on this.
Thank you.