Evidence of meeting #205 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was agreed.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
I'm not sure of the answer, Chair. The opening remarks were made. This would be simply appending the Evidence to the website.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
[Inaudible—Editor]...the committee. You should at least know what your motion is before you make it.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I think, if we go back and look, they weren't made because of what was happening at committee at the time. They were here, but they didn't get the opportunity to make the remarks, and that's the problem. The remarks are thus not on the record.
3:50 p.m.
An hon. member
Exactly.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
For clarification, the documents were submitted, but the remarks were never made. I apologize for my part in any sort of confusion.
April 30th, 2019 / 3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Is there any further discussion?
Then all those in favour of the motion, which means appending the opening remarks to the Evidence, please signify.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Dusseault.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
We're in committee business now? I would like to move a motion, Mr. Chair. It was put on notice two weeks ago under the name of Mr. Julian. The clerk probably has a copy.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Hold on one second. There's a technicality before we get to your point of order.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Since Mr. Julian's not a full member of this committee at this point, I wonder if we can even move forward.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
That is the point the clerk was making to me. Technically the motion couldn't be moved in Mr. Julian's name, but it is on the record, and it could be moved in Mr. Dusseault's name.
The motion we have in our packages somewhere is in Mr. Julian's name, but Mr. Dusseault is pulling that motion off the table and moving it in his name, so that is in order.
Do you want to read the motion?
We don't have copies of the motion here unless the clerk has one. Could you read it fairly slowly again, Mr. Dusseault, so members can think about it. Then we will go to discussion.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Yes. Of course. It reads:
That the Standing Committee on Finance invite the Honourable Diane Lebouthillier, Minister of National Revenue, to appear before him to shed light on the information she has provided regarding the hiring of auditors at the Canada Revenue Agency in its effort to tackle international tax evasion.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay. It's on the floor. Do you want to give your reasons why? Then we will go to further discussion.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Mr. Chair, I think everyone is aware of the information reported by Le Journal de Montréal, namely that, according to the Minister of National Revenue, 1,300 new auditors were hired, whereas, according to Le Journal de Montréal's analysis, there are actually 193 new auditors. Needless to say, this has created confusion. In fact, this is not the first time the statements made by the Minister of National Revenue have created confusion.
She also mentioned the number of convictions for tax evasion. We thought they were international, but it turns out that none were international.
She also said that she would magically recover $25 billion from tax havens. However, we are still a long way from that amount.
In this case, for several months, she had been spreading information that the agency hired 1,300 auditors, a figure that proved to be inaccurate. Once again, the minister seems to be playing with words, whether intentionally or because of incompetence. We should ask her that question. We could do so if she appeared before our committee. In the House, a Conservative colleague raised a question of privilege claiming that the House may have been intentionally misled. The Speaker did not find that the situation met the House of Commons' strict criteria for determining that it had been misled.
I think it would be worthwhile to invite the minister to appear before this committee and follow up. In my opinion, one meeting would be enough to clarify things with her. Ideally, she would be accompanied by some officials who are aware of the situation. We want parliamentarians and the public to be well informed, to find out what the actual situation is at Revenue Canada, and to know the exact number of new auditors hired. The minister talked about new auditors, not just auditors.
That is the purpose of this motion. I move the motion because we are discussing committee business. I hope it will be supported by all members of the committee, so that we can shed light on this very important issue.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
All right, it's wide open for debate. Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Kmiec.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
I fully agree with my NDP colleague. The minister must appear and explain why the figures she provided are different from those published by Le Journal de Montréal.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
All right.
(Motion negatived)
The meeting is adjourned, and we will see you tomorrow.
