Finance Committee on May 5th, 2016

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

I am in support of the amendment because I, too, share the concern over the names of clients. I think there is almost an assumption of guilt here of individuals who may be proven not guilty if this were a legal case in front of a court, which it appears it may be, and if we compel names of individuals and wrongly suggest in the court of public opinion, as Mr. Caron has said... I think it's totally out of line to do that to any individual and their privacy rights.

Therefore I agree to remove the names of the individuals, and I support changing it to “request” although it's not a big issue for me one way or the other. It's more the protection of the individuals who may be involved here and may be proven to have done nothing wrong at the end of the day and yet we put their names out there.

I'll say this, too, that as we politicize this issue in the House of Commons, as was done yesterday during question period, it begins to imply or, perhaps, even accuse people of guilt where there may be no guilt. That happened yesterday in the House of Commons and I was not pleased about that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Do we have any more discussion or can I go to the question on the amendment?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Is there any discussion on the motion as amended?

Mr. Caron.

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

I'm not sure whether the government members will agree with how this is worded, but there's a serious problem with the motion: it doesn't set out a deadline. There is no time frame within which the documents are to be provided, no deadline to indicate whether KPMG will comply. For that reason, I'd like to include—

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

You didn't have a date in the original motion either, did you?

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

Yes, but it was compelled. It was very different. I will actually propose an amendment to say that we want these documents by Wednesday, May 18, 2016.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is there general agreement on that, that we request the documents by May 18?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay, then that's assumed to be in the motion and there is general agreement.

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

I know we have a number of other issues and we have only about two minutes. One of them relates to our work next week. In order to get a start on the budget bill, can we deal with the motion to deal with the subject matter of the bill on Monday? I'm simply asking if there is agreement or not.

Mr. Caron.

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

I have a question for the clerk.

Was the motion introduced with the requisite 48 hours' notice?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

No, it has not, but we are in committee business so we can discuss any motion that's related to the business of the committee. At a committee meeting there has to be 48 hours' notice, but not for committee business. Committee business is wide open and any business you want to deal with that relates to the committee.

Could we have agreement to go this far, because I know we're going to have too long a discussion to go to the subject matter of the bill. Is there any way we could get agreement at Tuesday's meeting, regular slot, and go from there to have finance officials on the subject matter of the bill? Could we go that far and agree to that, so we have at least a start on the subject matter of the budget bill? Is there agreement?

Mr. Caron.

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

I don't object to doing it on Tuesday, but I nevertheless want to, once again, express my dismay at the government's haste in dealing with this bill. We know the Senate has already studied it, and debate at second reading only began today.

So I sincerely hope this isn't the beginning of a government habit to deal with bills before any meaningful debate has taken place at second reading. Debate at second reading serves a purpose: to inform committee study. Therefore, I would like the record to reflect my unease with the government's chosen approach. There is no reason to rush.

I'd also like to ask the government members how long the study is going to last. How many meetings are planned? Will it be possible to hear from other witnesses as part of our study of Bill C-15?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

This is one of the difficulties without having a parliamentary secretary on the committee. Could I recommend that I'll talk to the parliamentary secretary, and we'll see what they feel the time frame will be, Mr. Caron? We can at least start with a regular meeting on Tuesday with officials of the department on the subject matter of the bill—that may even be helpful for us in the debate in the House of Commons—and then we'll plan our schedule from there. We only have the two meetings planned for next week. One would be Tuesday, on the subject matter of the bill, and we have the Minister of National Revenue on—

[The Clerk]

That's the following week.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Oh, that's the following week, is it?

Okay, we'll have to deal with it at Tuesday's meeting where we go from there on Thursday or those days thereafter.

Last point, Mr. McColeman.

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

As I look at the committee calendar, we have the month of June available to us. I ask the question, why the hurry when we have all this time we can do this in regular committee meetings?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

You made your point. On Tuesday, we will hear from officials on the subject matter of the bill, and we'll plan our agenda from there accordingly.

The meeting is adjourned.