Evidence of meeting #55 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was enhancement.
A video is available from Parliament.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
So we hope to have the draft report by the end of business on Friday, November 25.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just on another item—and we can defer this till later—as you may remember, I put forward a notice of motion about a potential comprehensive study of the economic growth council's first report. Since we've already buzzed through most of the agenda in 15 minutes, perhaps this might be an opportune time to discuss that. Especially given that we've had an opportunity to hear Mr. Barton once, it may behoove all of us to actually delve into it. It is quite an extensive set of recommendations. I think there would be a fair bit of interest in taking a further look at it.
If now is the right time, Mr. Chair, then I would just move the motion.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
That is the request for a project budget for Bill C-26. The paper is going around. The clerk did calculations of how much it will cost to do the subject matter of Bill C-26, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, and the Income Tax Act. It is estimated to cost $9,500, given the witnesses' expenses that are outlined in the report before you.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
It's moved by Steven.
Is there any discussion?
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Dan, do you want to move your motion?
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
As I said earlier, I would like to move the previous motion, basically that the committee conduct a comprehensive analysis on the first report of the economic growth council. We actually have it en français:
That the Standing Committee on Finance undertake a comprehensive study on the “First Report by the Advisory Council on Economic Growth” and that the Committee report its findings to the House.
Mr. Chair, if you find it in order, I'll speak to it and give my reasons.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Thank you.
Again, we had a great opportunity to have Mr. Barton in to talk about the report. There's a number of ideas in there that have received all sorts of interest across the country. I think this would be a great opportunity for us to take a look at it and to properly evaluate and make recommendations. Again, this is a timely, relevant topic, and I think we can do a very good report for the Minister of Finance and for the House of Commons.
Thank you.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Do we have any discussion here by anyone else?
Mr. Ouellette, then Mr. Sorbara.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Robert-Falcon Ouellette Liberal Winnipeg Centre, MB
It was interesting to have the conversation with Mr. Barton for an hour, but obviously there's a lot of other recommendations that came out. I think it could be very beneficial to gain a better understanding of who the individuals were, part of the economic council, what their recommendations are—not just from Mr. Barton, but other individuals—and to highlight that to Canadians. It's also the opportunity for us to delve into greater detail, that perhaps journalists won't have the opportunity to do, but also to look at it and gain a better understanding. I think I pretty well support this motion.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Could I ask when we're going to find the time to do this?
Ms. O'Connell, and then back to Mr. Albas.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My concerns with this motion, as it stands, are twofold. One is that we understand the report isn't finalized, it was only the release of the first three ideas. It might be premature, but we can figure that out.
The other issue I have, which is the bigger issue, is this that is an advisory council to the minister. Mr. Barton pointed out that they may make recommendations, but the government may have no intention of taking it on or moving forward. I wouldn't want to waste the committee's time on studying something that the government, for whatever reason, may not move forward with.
I don't disagree with it in terms of if there was a recommendation that the government move forward on, and we look at that, but as this motion stands right now, my concern would be that to look at everything might not be the best use of this committee's time. It is already quite limited, given the amount of work we have, so I would focus more on whatever the government wants to actually propose versus an advisory council, which may or may not have the government's support in terms of each specific plan.
November 14th, 2016 / 3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Whether I agree or disagree with the motion, I want to get some clarification.
There are a number of other motions that have been put forward, including a housing study and an issue about looking at tax simplification and tax efficiency within our system that we've put forward. I'm just trying to think of the timeline specifically on the Barton report or reports. With the fall economic statement, a number of items from those reports did come into our government policy, so I can understand the desire to look at that. I'm simply trying to think about how this fits within the whole framework in terms of the time to get it done. That's where I come from.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
François-Philippe Champagne Liberal Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
I respectfully wanted to provide feedback to the committee, and it goes a bit in the sense of Mr. Sorbara. Some of the recommendations have been included in the fall economic statement. It might be more relevant—I'm submitting this respectfully to the members—that those recommendations that we have decided to act upon as a government....
I can think about the global-scale strategy, I can think about the invest in Canada hub, I can think about the infrastructure bank. But in terms of time, it seems that this committee should be looking at what we have adopted from some of the recommendations, as opposed to those that we have decided not to pursue. If the committee wanted to spend time on some of the.... A number of them are already in the fall economic statement, so officials or others could come and present what the government's intention is, as opposed to what a committee proposes to the government. The government has decided to act on a number of them, and they're in the fall economic statement.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Do you want me to go to Mr. MacKinnon, or do you want to come in a little later?
Mr. MacKinnon, and then Mr. Caron.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Steven MacKinnon Liberal Gatineau, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have more of a practical comment. As Mr. Sorbara, said, we have a number of studies that have been approved and others we need to consider. That includes a motion from Mr. Albas, I believe, on the de minimis threshold. We still have two full studies of bills left to do, as well as another study after the holidays.
Between now and when we examine the recommendations in the minister's advisory council report, the committee will have a number of other reports and many other government policies to deal with. For that reason, not only do I think the effort would be premature, but I also think it would impede other work that has already been approved by the committee.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think the Advisory Council on Economic Growth plays a pivotal role in the policy directions the government is taking right now. You don't appoint 14 people of that calibre simply to have them engage in theoretical discussions that bear no fruit.
A three-part report has already come out. I think it would be worthwhile to spend at least one meeting, if not two, taking a meaningful look at the recommendations in the report, especially if the government is showing an interest in moving in that direction. The benefit would be in meeting with people to whom we could put those questions.
I wholly understand the idea of discussing specific issues, but who are we going to invite to discuss those issues with?
I'm not so sure we'll be able to find people with whom we can have those discussions, unless the minister is willing to spend two days with us answering our questions on the subject. Even then, we would be getting only the minister's viewpoint and not a broader perspective.
For those reasons, I think it would be beneficial for the committee to hear directly from the council on the logic behind its recommendations, which the government is currently considering and, according to the economic update, is going to implement.
I am wholly in favour of the motion and hope that it will be adopted. We could find time to deal with the matter after the holidays. We have a good bit on our plate, yes, but in January and February, leading up to the federal government's budget announcement, we have a bit of latitude.