Finance Committee on July 20th, 2021

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Certainly, we have to agree that only Parliament can decide whether to give that legal effect to a proposal by government for tax measures to apply retroactively. That's correct; I think you've already stated that.

[Philippe Dufresne]

Certainly, once the bill is in force, it applies until it's amended by Parliament.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Now that they've recused the statement from June 30 by yesterday's press release, let's say in a hypothetical situation they hadn't gone forward with yesterday's case, and they stuck to their original press release and unfairly delayed the implementation of Bill C-208 until January 1 coming up. What recourse could Parliament take against the department?

I mean, this is contempt of Parliament, similar to what the government has done by suing the Speaker. What if it were to happen again? What are Parliament's options here in regard to taking action against the department? The department put out the press release.

[Philippe Dufresne]

Parliament has the ability to do as it has done, which is to act as the grand inquest of the nation and inquire into matters by the work of committees such as this committee, ask questions, obtain clarifications and, if need be, obtain course corrections.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

What happens if the government provisionally collects a tax that ultimately never becomes law due to Parliament amending the bill or the bill never passing?

[Philippe Dufresne]

These are questions that ultimately can end up before the courts. If there is a dispute with respect to what was done, then the courts will look to the applicable law and precedents and will make their decision.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll go to Ms. O'Connell for five minutes. Then there will be a five-minute split between Mr. Ste-Marie and Ms. Mathyssen.

Go ahead, Jennifer.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's good to be back here on finance.

I'm going to start with a couple of comments before I turn to you, Mr. Dufresne, but it's nice to see you again in what is probably a less contentious committee than our last one was, at health.

Let me start where Mr. Maguire left off. He spoke in hypotheticals about any future legislation and the possibility of its being retroactive. His pessimism is interesting. He thinks we're heading into a majority government and that the government would have the ability to make whatever decision it wanted, so that's interesting. I share his optimism about our electoral success into the future.

Also, with regard to his comments about any recourse from Parliament, that's interesting, because the opposition can't seem to take yes for an answer. Finance Canada clarified just yesterday. Mr. Fragiskatos confirmed again that the issues of coming into force were clarified. It's interesting that the Conservatives once again can't take yes for an answer.

I'd also like to read into the record to correct some issues.

I'm sorry. I hear a lot of chatter. I seem to be getting under the skin of some of the Conservative members, but I would like to read into the record after Mr. Kelly's comments about his famed outrage at the government. I'm really glad he wasn't here prior to 2015. He could speak to his good friend Mr. Fast.

Let me read into the record about the previous government. Here it says:

The Harper [Conservative] government became the first in Canadian history to be found in contempt of Parliament....

Even though it lost a court case and was ordered to comply, the Harper government nevertheless refused to share 170 times reasons and impacts for cuts with Canada’s independent budget watchdog, mocking Parliament’s right to control the public purse.

Thank goodness Mr. Kelly was not in government during the Harper days, because I think he would be quite outraged at the actions of his party.

Let's get back to the matter at hand, now that we've seen the Conservatives and the complete hypocrisy throughout this process and the fact that once again they write terrible motions—the government has to try to comply with their incoherent ability to write motions—and then try to feign some sort of wrongdoing by the government. To get back to this issue at hand, when it comes to the coming-into-force date, as I've already stated, the government and Finance Canada have clarified that.

Mr. Dufresne, I will come back to you now that I've kind of clarified the hypocrisy from the Conservatives. On the substance of this, I tend to agree with you. I spent a number of years on finance, and I want to focus on the examples you gave in your opening statement, because I think they are quite right. Whenever I did a budget implementation act, a fall economic statement, a budget, or any tax provisions, the coming-into-force date was always the date those were tabled. That was my experience in terms of the publication of those things, because the government—and rightfully so—didn't want any tax planning measures or anything to happen between the time of the printing of the document—let's say a budget—and the time of coming into force, or whenever the regulations could be developed. Given your opening statement, can you maybe clarify why you feel that this coming-into-force date needed to be at the time it received royal assent, and how that's consistent with other tax policy around the publications etc., and the rationale behind that?

[Philippe Dufresne]

What I talked about is the practice that oftentimes when the government introduces proposed tax measures, it will start implementing them right away, and they are always subject to parliamentary approval. A government might announce that it will start to put it in place and implement something down the road, and then a bill is adopted with a date going back to the date of the announcement. That certainly can happen.

In this case the bill was adopted with no date, and therefore it comes into force on the date of royal assent as per the Interpretation Act.

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

Thank you.

Given yesterday's announcement, do you see Finance Canada as having corrected any possible confusion, and that the coming-into-force date is June 29, as established by royal assent?

[Philippe Dufresne]

The communiqué confirmed it yesterday. It does clarify that, certainly.

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

Thank you so much. It was nice to see you again.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you.

To finish this hour, we'll have two and a half minutes with Mr. Ste-Marie and two and a half minutes with Ms. Mathyssen. Mr. Fast, you will get the final five.

Gabriel.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will wait until Mr. Gerretsen is listening.

After what I just heard, let me remind you of the basic factors. We are here because something very serious happened. Parliament passed Bill C‑208, which is extremely important. When I first ran for office, it was the first issue people talked to me about. Farmers were saying that they had to choose between their retirement and their children, who wanted to take over the farm. The farmers would lose their pensions if they sold it to them, so they were wondering what to do.

Members from every political party brought this bill forward to the House. As I said earlier, after 527 days, it was passed and it came into force. The government issued a news release saying that it would come into force later. The Liberals are therefore saying that they will not honour the will of the House, which is very serious. That is why members from each party have asked for this emergency committee meeting today, to emphasize the seriousness of what is happening.

Much reference is being made to the news release issued yesterday afternoon, just prior to the committee meeting. I am sure that this correction made through the news release is directly related to the fact that the Standing Committee on Finance did its job and announced an emergency meeting. It is very important to remember that what is voted on in Parliament must be respected and that the government cannot act like a tinpot dictator by not implementing what it does not like. We live in a democracy, and that is not how it works.

Let me come back to you, Mr. Dufresne.

Yesterday, in the press release, the government announced its intention to make amendments in keeping with the spirit of the bill. The Liberals gave us their word. As they have said and as you have reiterated, this must be done through a whole new legislative process. In short, Parliament will have to pass a new piece of legislation.

Is that the case?

[Philippe Dufresne]

That's right.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Okay.

Could the government introduce a bill in the House to repeal Bill C‑208?

[Philippe Dufresne]

Bill C‑208, which was passed by Parliament after three readings in the House and royal assent, is in force. So we are discussing introducing amendments. The news release does not propose to amend the bill in its entirety.

A bill that would essentially undo what has been done and say exactly the opposite would certainly raise a procedural question of whether it is possible to ask the same question in the House when it has already been answered.

However, that is not what is being proposed at all. We are making amendments to uphold the spirit of the legislation to correct what the government perceives as certain shortcomings.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Actually—

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll have to end it there. I'm sorry, Gabriel, but you're out of time.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Ms. Mathyssen is next, for two and a half minutes.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Sitting in this committee as a non-regular member, I find it a bit disheartening that my colleagues across the way in the Liberal caucus have made representations, or provided past proof, that ultimately the Conservative Party of Canada has complete disrespect for Parliament. The Conservative Party, on the other side, has shown that Liberals now also have complete disrespect for Parliament.

As a New Democrat who values that power of people, I want to ask you this, Mr. Dufresne. You have said repeatedly that the power of Parliament is supreme and that this power is determined by the people for the people. Can you just clarify once again that this is about people and the power of people, not the power of the political parties and not the power of the Liberals or the Conservatives themselves, and that respect must be shown ultimately to the people and Parliament?

[Philippe Dufresne]

Parliament has a fundamental constitutional role to play. The three roles that the House plays are recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada: legislating, deliberating and holding the government to account. Those are fundamental roles that the House plays and that Parliament as a whole plays. I'm here to support that in the best way I can.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Many thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Ms. Mathyssen.

We have Mr. Fast for five minutes, and then we'll have to go to the next panel.