Finance Committee on July 20th, 2021

[Philippe Dufresne]

That's the government expressing its concerns. I was paraphrasing the government's concerns with the bill as it stands in law, and its intention to introduce future amendments on that point. That is consistent with the practice we have seen. It clarifies perhaps the ambiguity in the June 30 statement, which mentioned the lack of a coming-into-force date and indicated that amendments would deal with a coming-into-force date. That's now been clarified and replaced with the statement from yesterday.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I hear you. In other words, the government's saying that it will move forward to ensure that possible unintended consequences of the bill will be addressed does not circumvent the will of Parliament and does not ignore the will of Parliament on the matter. Governments can do that and still be in line with Parliament's view.

[Philippe Dufresne]

Governments can express their intention to introduce subsequent legislation, and that is subject to parliamentary approval.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Okay. I have only about a minute and a half left. I wonder if you could just one more time go through the difference between...or not “difference”, per se. You pointed to a distinction between royal assent and the coming into force of a particular bill and what the Interpretation Act says. Please elaborate, but based on the testimony you gave, it sounds like the date of royal assent is usually the default position. Is that an accurate understanding?

[Philippe Dufresne]

That is accurate. The provision reads, “If no date of commencement is provided for in an Act, the date of commencement of that Act is the date of assent to the Act.” That is the default provision in the sense that if there's no other specified coming into force, then it comes into force on the date of royal assent. There is the possibility to provide a specific date in the act itself, which wasn't done here. There's also the possibility to give the government the ability to set the date by order in council, usually in a situation where the government needs to be satisfied that it has put in place necessary mechanisms to do so.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

As a final point, Mr. Chair, I voted for Bill C-208. I think it's a necessary measure. A number of Liberals voted for Bill C-208 as well.

Mr. Dufresne, you are Parliament's lawyer, if I can put it that way. Once again, are you satisfied that yesterday's press release makes it clear that Bill C-208 is recognized by the government as a bill that will be put in place?

[Philippe Dufresne]

I'm satisfied that in the release yesterday, the government has recognized that Bill C-208 is in force and has expressed its intention to introduce future amendments.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Mr. Fragiskatos.

Next up is Mr. Ste-Marie, followed by Ms. Mathyssen.

Gabriel, I pretty near need binoculars to see you down there, but I see you. Go ahead. The floor is yours.

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

Good morning, Mr. Chair.

My regards to Mr. Bédard and Mr. Dufresne.

My regards also go to my colleagues and all the members of the team that makes it possible for the committee to run. It's really nice to see them in person, although it's during the first week of the construction holidays.

That said, a committee's gotta do what a committee's gotta do.

Let me start with a brief comment. Yesterday, I was delighted to see the news release from the Department of Finance, which reversed its position and its decision. I think the announcement of the emergency meeting of this committee may have prompted the department to say that the law is the law, as was reported in The Globe and Mail this morning. So I take my hat off to all the members of the committee, and in particular to the chair. I think we have succeeded in changing things here.

Mr. Dufresne, we are talking about the rights, powers and authority of the House. In the first news release, how were those not respected? How do you think that was corrected in the second news release?

[Philippe Dufresne]

The problem with the first news release was that it pointed out that Bill C‑208 did not provide for an implementation date. It stated so in the beginning, in the first paragraph. It ended by stating that the government intended to include new legislation to clarify that those amendments would apply at the beginning of the next fiscal year.

That's what was more surprising or potentially confusing, because it gave the impression that the absence of a date in the legislation indicated a failure or an area that needed clarification, when this was not the case. The Interpretation Act makes it very clear that a bill comes into force when it receives royal assent. This could have suggested that the entire bill would not come into force until later, retroactively.

The updated news release replaces the first one and indicates that the legislation is in force and that the legislative amendments being considered by the government will address specific issues, not the coming into force date.

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

Thank you. That is very clear.

At the beginning of your opening remarks, you reminded us that you advise Parliament, the House, its committees and elected officials, and you said that this is more or less what the Department of Justice does for the government.

Let me add an editorial comment. I would be very surprised if the Department of Justice officials thought that not including a date in the bill meant that the government could put it into effect whenever it wanted.

I think the government, the Prime Minister and his team, thought that this bill was not quite working for them and that they would try something. I am sure that the Department of Justice would never have misled the government in that way, which is why the emergency meeting of the committee today was so important and why I think an updated news release was issued.

Larry Maguire, who is here with us, can correct me if I am wrong. In a CBC article yesterday, we are reminded that the first reading of Bill C‑208 took place on February 19, 2020. It's now 2021. Yesterday, the journalist reminded us that 527 days passed between the first reading of the bill and its implementation following royal assent.

Mr. Dufresne, can you remind the members of the committee and those listening of the normal stages that a bill must go through? Also, at each of these stages and during those 527 days, when could the government officials have suggested amendments or proposals to make the bill consistent with what they wanted to do, as they said they wanted to do through a future bill?

[Philippe Dufresne]

To be passed, the bill must go through three readings in the House. The first reading, which is the general presentation of the bill, takes place without debate. At second reading, the members debate the principle of the bill. Then it is sent to committee, where there is debate and opportunity for amendment. The bill then returns to the House for a vote at report stage and then goes to third reading, when members debate and vote on it. It then goes to the Senate, where it must go through three readings as well, and it finally receives royal assent.

During the stages in the House, the government and other members of Parliament have the opportunity to propose amendments.

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

Thank you, that is very clear.

So there are several stages in the House and in the Senate where the government officials could have said that the bill was not perfect and that they would have preferred to make amendments to it. That was the reason the government gave us in the first news release for choosing not to implement it now.

But there was a 527‑day delay, and at each stage, the government could have made amendments. We have a minority government. We can work together, and we saw that was really the case at the Standing Committee on Finance. That is the beauty of a minority government where all members of Parliament work together. But as far as I know, the government officials did not submit any amendments. I would say that they “were asleep at the wheel” because they had 527 days to bring forward the amendments they wanted.

I would also point out that similar legislation exists in Quebec and that safeguards have been put in place with respect to our concerns about the whole issue of tax evasion. The Quebec Minister of Finance actually reminded me that it was working well. The federal government officials have therefore had all the time they need to draw inspiration from it, to propose that such guidelines be put in place, to ask what others think of them, to discuss them and to invite experts and other witnesses to the committee.

As far as I know, the Liberals did not call any witnesses or submit any amendments to the committee. So they were really “asleep at the wheel” and missed an opportunity. I'm very pleased that there was an about‑face in the news release yesterday.

That's the end of my questions to Mr. Dufresne and Mr. Bédard. Their answers shed light on the situation. My thanks to them for being here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Mr. Ste-Marie.

We'll go to Ms. Mathyssen for six minutes, and that will be followed by Mr. Berthold and Mr. Maguire, who will split their time.

Go ahead, Ms. Mathyssen.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the members of the committee for allowing me to sub in. I will try to live up to the reputation of Mr. Julian.

I appreciate hearing from you, Mr. Dufresne. You are very precise in your wording, as we've seen often. Given your precision when you give that advice to parliamentarians, one would hope that the government would also respond with that same precision, but unfortunately all of this confusion of course has come forward because they seem to have lacked the precision between the first press release and the clarification of the second.

I wanted to build off what my colleague, Mr. Ste-Marie, was talking about in terms of those different stages of a bill and specifically how they go through. As he mentioned, there were no amendments proposed at the committee stage of the bill. Everything was passed. It was passed through the Senate as well, with no changes.

If the government were to bring forward this legislation, or the amendments that it wishes to see in a different piece of legislation, and if the government stands as it is and Parliament stands as it is, it will go through those same processes. Is that correct?

[Philippe Dufresne]

Yes.

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

One would assume that, because of the standing of the House of Commons currently, in a minority Parliament, all things remaining the same, we would have the same result and it would be the will of Parliament to pass the same legislation. One would assume that.

[Philippe Dufresne]

That's more for you to assess than for me.

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

Okay. I know we're sort of getting into the nitty-gritty, but is it common, when the government says it plans to introduce amendments that would honour the spirit of Bill C-208? Is there a precedent explaining that? Is that language that's commonly used by government? Is there something more precise to that, legally?

[Philippe Dufresne]

The formulation of the spirit versus the letter is one that we hear from time to time. It seems, again, that the government would be better placed than me to explain what it meant in the communiqué, but as I read it, it's a statement recognizing that the bill is now in force and the government intends to bring some amendments to deal with certain aspects of it while keeping within the overall spirit. It's addressing what the government sees as our concerns in terms of the bill as it stands.

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

Again, that's the will of the government versus the will of Parliament; they're almost in conflict in these attempts to change legislation, which the government has the absolute right to do within those amendments and by introducing different parts of legislation. Ultimately, though, that still could potentially be in conflict with the overall will of Parliament, which you have said is supreme.

[Philippe Dufresne]

In the sense of indicating the government's intention to propose legislation, I would not necessarily see that as a conflict with the will of Parliament, in the sense that Parliament has not expressed its will on that proposed legislation. I think what is being stated is that there's an intention to bring forward a bill, and then that bill would be subject to debate and approval by Parliament.

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

Mr. Ste-Marie talked about the length of time this piece of legislation took to come through. I know all pieces of legislation are different, and schedules are different. Was that sort of an average, that 500-some days? Was that average for a private member's bill to pass through?

[Philippe Dufresne]

I don't have statistics of that nature. Bills vary in their scope and in their complexity. The parliamentary calendar.... Of course, we've been in the pandemic situation with a virtual Parliament, so it's been unusual times all around.