Evidence of meeting #66 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was taiwan.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
I will reserve my right to speak on that. Before forming an opinion, I would like to apprise myself of Mr. McColeman's motion and find out what the committee already adopted to study this issue.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
That's the second one down on the second page, in the English version anyway, Pierre, and it says “that the Study focus on the impact of the housing market”.
Mr. Liepert.
You can take your time, if people want to glance through this first.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Steven MacKinnon Liberal Gatineau, QC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, are we going to go in camera to discuss committee business?
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Well, this motion was moved in public, so we have to deal with it in public.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Mr. Chair, I want to mention that the end of February 2017 will arrive very quickly. It will arrive too quickly for what we want to do. We are going to be gone for a month and so we are going to lose a month of committee work here. We have to give enough time to our analysts so that they can work but this only gives us three or four weeks to hear witnesses who might want to appear before the committee.
As far as I'm concerned, it's a little bit too tight for February 2017. This is why I think my motion is more open to that. We don't have a timetable, but we can do it as well as we can.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Liepert Conservative Calgary Signal Hill, AB
I want to make a comment relative to Mr. MacKinnon's comments. Obviously, the announcement by the finance minister that my colleague is referencing was after this committee agreed to the motion that we've already adopted, which does not make any reference to the finance minister's announcement. If we do the study that we are required to do, I would concur with my colleague that we haven't left ourselves very much time here.
I don't want to be in a position where the members of the finance committee from the government side can use the excuse that it wasn't part of the original motion and therefore we can't talk about the finance minister's announcement. I would like to get a little clarification from a member of the government side, such that if in fact they defeat this motion, there's going to be a commitment that the finance minister's announcement, which happened after the approval of the original motion, can be discussed as part of the one we have to study.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Steven MacKinnon Liberal Gatineau, QC
Mr. Chair, the motion from Mr. McColeman and his party asks that we: “[...] undertake a comprehensive study of issues surrounding the Canadian real estate market”.
Since the committee is master of its proceedings, in my opinion this in no way limits the scope of the study. We will decide on the scope of the study in question.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Mr. Chair, as Mr. Liepert said quite rightly, this was mentioned before the October 3 announcement, which had a major impact on the motion. Through this announcement the minister indeed made a very important change.
Could we find some ground for agreement between that motion and the one we are submitting today? We could focus more on the October 3 announcement and set aside the February 2017 deadline.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I tried to absorb all of that and form an opinion on the issue.
My colleague's motion very specifically focuses on the new rules proposed by the Minister of Finance, whereas the June 14, 2016, motion is broader and would allow for a much more detailed, uncircumscribed discussion on the mortgage regulations surrounding the Canadian real estate market. I would have liked to look at both to some degree and so I am ambivalent.
To help me, perhaps the clerk could give me some explanations about the February 2017 date. If the committee wishes to continue its work beyond that date, it will not really be bound by it, correct?
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
The simple answer, Pierre, is that the committee is master of its own destiny. If it wants to drop the study, it can. If it wants to extend the deadline, it can. If it wants to add to it, it can.
Mr. MacKinnon.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Are we ready for the question?
(Motion negatived)
Can we suspend and move in camera to deal with all the business on the agenda here?
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Mr. Chair, in French we refer to a directive. My purpose is not to find out how this is said in English, but simply to point out that we are talking about a directive.
What will we do with Mr. McColeman's motion, which asks that “the committee report on its findings and recommendations before the end of February 2017?”
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We have quite a number of proposals outlined on the grid. We need to decide how we want to start. I think we're starting on January 30. Do we want to start with that housing study or whatever? That's what we want to figure out.
We'll suspend to go in camera to deal with these, and try to lay out our schedule for the first couple of months.
[Proceedings continue in camera]