Finance Committee on May 29th, 2017

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

It's on page 37.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay.

Mr. Albas, go ahead.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

We are opposed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

You are opposed. Is that your total discussion? For previous reasons outlined, I'm sure....

Is there any other discussion on clause 64?

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

I would like a recorded vote, please.

(Clause 64 agreed to: yeas, 5; nays, 4)

(On clause 65)

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Deltell.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We oppose this clause, for the same principles mentioned earlier.

On the contrary, if we want to help our businesses grow, a lower tax rate would allow for these investments. In the legislation, the government promises to increase the excise tax, which is an escalating tax. Unfortunately, this tax could slow the momentum of our entrepreneurs. That's why we'll vote against this clause.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is there any further discussion?

I expect it's a recorded vote.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Yes, a recorded vote.

(Clause 65 agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We probably can go through to clause 103. It's the next one that there's an amendment on, I believe. I'll give people a moment to think about this. Can we go from clause 66 to clause 102 inclusive?

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

We're good.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Does anybody have anything they want to raise in any of that section?

Mr. Dusseault.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

I want to ask the witnesses here a question.

Clause 66 of Bill C-44 seeks to repeal subsections 69(3) and 69(5) of the Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1.

I didn't fully understand the interpretation. Can you shed light on the subject?

[Mathieu Bourgeois]

I don't have the information on hand. However, I think I remember that the Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1 contained a definition of “taxed cigarettes”, which included a date. Since we're changing the cigarette tax rate as of September 2017, we must slightly modify the definition to make sure things will run smoothly.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

That answers my question. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay, it's not so much on this section, but Mr. Bourgeois, can you tell me if there was any analysis done on this trade challenge business?

[Mathieu Bourgeois]

Trade challenges, in particular potential issues, aren't my area of expertise. Obviously, a team from the Department of Finance has looked into the matter. Remember that, when the special measure for Canadian wine was established, the Government of Canada at the time reduced or eliminated certain tariffs, which somewhat solved the issue.

However, I can't predict the future, unfortunately.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

That's fine, Mr. Bourgeois.

Are you up to answering this question, Ms. Govier?

[Michèle Govier, Chief, Trade Rules, International Trade Policy Division, International Trade and Finance Branch, Department of Finance]

No. I thought it was related to the next section.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

That's fine. It was just going through my mind.

(Clauses 66 to 102 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 103)

We will turn to division 2.

We have amendment PV-3 on page 68 of the bill.

Ms. May, go ahead.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll try to be succinct. I just want to give a bit of background. This amendment relates to the fundamental principle that Parliament controls the public purse. It's a principle, but increasingly it's one held in theory but not in reality. In the Harper years, the then prime minister developed the practice of having the borrowing authority for the federal government passed by order in council, in other words, by cabinet alone.

It was one of the promises made in the election platform of the Liberals to require the government to receive Parliament's approval on borrowing plans. Now, I approve of the effort, but basically burying this provision for the Borrowing Authority Act in the middle of a 400-page omnibus bill is not much accountability or as much focus on the section as we would have liked.

There's a section relating to the borrowing authority, proposed section 8 on page 68, that relates in general to the question of how we report back to Parliament about borrowing. As an effort to increase accountability when we have the three-year report to Parliament, my amendment says that the government should consult with the leaders of all parties in the House, and note, I have not used the word “recognized”. There is no reason not to consult with leaders of parties whether it be the Green Party, the Bloc, or any other party, every three years. The amendment I am proposing, which I hope people will consider, is an effort to have greater accountability. It's only a consultation. It's not a veto. It says:

the results of consultations held with representatives of every party in the House of Commons on the adequacy of borrowing authority Acts as a means of ensuring accountability to Parliament in respect of the Minister's borrowing authority.

In other words, it's an attempt to ask leaders of all parties in the House if this method we have just chosen is working well to ensure accountability, to bring back the fundamental notion that Parliament controls the public purse.

I would be grateful if members would seriously consider this. I can't see any reason for opposing a consultation with leaders of parties in the House about how this mechanism is working. I generally support the mechanism.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

The amendment is on the floor.

Mr. Albas.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Just to get my thinking straight, you're asking for a read and review where the minister will report back in a certain amount of time.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

We do have in the act now that the minister shall cause to be tabled in Parliament within three years of when this section comes into force.... The minister is already going to do that. What we're saying is that when the minister reports to the House on how these new reviews of borrowing authorities are working, one of the things the minister will report on is the consultations with other parties in the House.

There's no downside here, honestly. As I said, it doesn't give any party in the House a veto, but it does create more of a role for the leaders of parties in the House to speak to the question of whether we think this is working well. There's nothing more fundamental for Parliament to review than how much in debt we're getting as a government. It's an attempt to make sure that this section that we're passing today—I assume we'll pass it in Bill C-44—is responsive to how parliamentarians feel this is working.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Could I ask a question, Elizabeth?