Finance Committee on May 10th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll call the meeting to order, members.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are studying the subject matter of Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016, and other measures.

I thank the witnesses for coming.

Before we start, I'm going to table the subcommittee on agenda. It is before you. The subcommittee on agenda met on Monday to consider the business of the committee and agreed to make recommendations. Do I need to read this or are we okay?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Dispense.

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

Moved.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Moved by Ms. O'Connell.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. I believe there is a motion not dealt with in the subcommittee report.

The notice of motion was submitted on April 22. It has to do with the right of participation of independent MPs. I would like the motion to be studied now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is everybody clear on the motion? Do you want it read?

Mr. Aboultaif wants it read. Go ahead.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

The motion reads as follows:

That, in relation to Orders of Reference from the House respecting Bills, (a) the Clerk of the Committee shall, upon the Committee receiving such an Order of Reference, write to each Member who is not a member of a caucus represented on the Committee to invite those Members to file with the Clerk of the Committee, in both official languages, any amendments to the Bill, which is the subject of the said Order, which they would suggest that the Committee consider; (b) suggested amendments filed, pursuant to paragraph (a), at least 48 hours prior to the start of clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill to which the amendments relate shall be deemed to be proposed during the said consideration, provided that the Committee may, by motion, vary this deadline in respect of a given Bill; and (c) during the clause-by-clause consideration of a Bill, the Chair shall allow a Member who filed suggested amendments, pursuant to paragraph (a), an opportunity to make brief representations in support of them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

It's been moved. Is there any discussion?

Mr. Caron.

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

I will oppose the motion for two main reasons.

The first is that we expected the government to act differently than the previous legislature in procedural matters. But we are seeing that things are the same. This motion perfectly mimics what the previous government was doing. Already this is problematic.

It's also because what the government is putting forward does not really give an adequate voice to the proposed amendments. If independent members present amendments, they come here and explain them in a minute or less. A debate takes place without them, as does the vote. This completely diverts the intent of Parliament and the role of members of the House of Commons simply so the government can speed things along.

Allowing independent MPs to present amendments in the House also encourages the government not to table large, omnibus-type bills, a little like what we have now. Obviously, if a lot of amendments are proposed, as was the case at one point during the previous legislature, it is because many clauses were proposed in one bill.

The number of clauses is being reduced and controlled, and the number of amendments being presented in the House are being reduced and controlled. I think this is a way for the government to indirectly try to take away the voice of independent members for one of the rare opportunities they have to use it in this Parliament. Therefore, I cannot support this way of working, which is why I will vote against the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

It there any further discussion?

(Motion agreed to)

Let's go on to the agenda for today. Just for committee members, we will go in camera following the witnesses to deal with the witnesses before committee. We talked about it a little bit yesterday at the subcommittee.

I would say to the witnesses, and I think Mr. Caron is going to bring this point up as well, because the House has not officially passed the bill to committee, the department has been unable to give us the briefing binder they normally do, so we don't have the advantage of that information. We will reserve the right to call departmental officials before the committee again, if members so wish, when we get that briefing binder.

Mr. Caron.

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

Before speaking to this matter, I would like to ask a question about the motion presented by Mr. Dusseault at the last meeting.

As I understand it, the motion was not part of the subcommittee report because there was a possibility of a Liberal subamendment. Will there be time at the end of the meeting to discuss committee business?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Yes, there will be an in-camera portion.

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

There won't be an in-camera portion.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

I'm sorry, you're right. It will be public.

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

Let's talk about what you mentioned, Mr. MacKinnon.

I have been on this committee for three years. In the past, we never met with officials at the start of the study of a bill without having an information paper, which is an absolutely essential document because it contains details that aren't in the bill or in the subsequent analysis which, quite often, is completed in the technical briefing that is held initially.

So I am a bit distraught by this. It's difficult for members to do their work, to ask good questions and to make sure the technical aspects are explored in depth if they don't have the briefing document. If I understand correctly, the department does not want to provide it before the bill is passed in second reading. Do I have that right?

It is not our fault if the committee does the study before it is passed in second reading. That was what the majority of committee members decided. This choice led to efficiency problems. It isn't easy to make progress on this study with the officials, even if we reserve the right to invite them to appear. It's a procedural problem that is the responsibility of the government members.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Champagne.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Chair, just for the record and for my colleague, I would like to point something out. We have to remember that we had a meeting that went from 7:00 p.m. to midnight. All the officials who had expertise on the clauses of the bill attended a briefing. Representatives from all parties were there. The meeting ran for over five hours. So I would like to thank all the officials who were available from 7:00 p.m. to midnight to answer all the questions that parliamentarians wanted to ask. In fact, it wasn't just parliamentarians who were there, but their staff as well.

I know that some members of the New Democratic Party stayed from start to finish. They were able to ask technical questions on all the measures in the bill that we are currently studying.

I understand what my colleague Mr. Caron is saying, but we still need to keep in mind that a briefing on all the technical amendments lasted over five hours. I say “technical” because it focused not only on the substance of the bill, but on all of the amendments, too. You have to put things in perspective. The documents have been made available to members, and the answers have already been provided during a meeting of over five hours to anyone who wanted to be there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Caron.

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

Mr. Chair, there are two reasons to disagree with these statements. I'll explain why they aren't relevant.

First, the technical briefing in question was held in camera while our meeting here is public. These are two entirely different things.

Second, the technical briefing was held in the evening of the day the bill was tabled. The bill was 179 pages long and contained 238 clauses. After a few days of study, we have a very different perspective of this bill than what we had after only a few hours of study during the technical briefing.

The briefing was useful and welcome. I know that the officials were very professional, but we cannot compare the two. What we have here is a public, recorded meeting with a transcript of our discussions. A number of problematic aspects of this bill that might have been discussed during the technical briefing can now also be made public.

So these are two entirely different things.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Members, I don't want to get into a long discussion here, if we can help it. We need to get to the questions, if we can.

Mr. Ouellette.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I would like to respond to my colleague. I find his comments surprising because for all the people who were there—

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Order, Mr. Champagne.

Mr. Ouellette.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Having attended the technical briefing, I thought it was a wonderful moment because we could actually have a lot more freedom in order to ask many questions about various subjects that we're not experts on and to really get into the depth of what's in it in order to gain that greater understanding.

This actually might be more constraining than actually the technical briefing itself, but I thank the officials for coming.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We will move on.

There was just one point that I neglected to mention. In our subcommittee report, when we discussed it yesterday, we weren't sure if the minister was going to be doing the committee of the whole the same day as he was appearing before committee. I understand he is going to be doing the committee of the whole on May 30. Therefore, that meeting will only go until 5:30 p.m. on that night.

Starting with officials, there were a number of points raised by members that they wanted a briefing on. We'll start with part 1, amendments to the Income Tax Act and to related legislation.

Mr. McGowan.

[Trevor McGowan, Senior Legislative Chief, Tax Legislation Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance]

Would you like a short overview of part 1?