Evidence of meeting #149 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was witnesses.
A video is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
On a point of order again, Mr. Chair.
The witnesses were supposed to be here until noon and it's now 12:05. They've already been watching our exchanges for 10 or 15 minutes.
I again request the consent of the committee members to release the witnesses.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Yes, Mr. Ste‑Marie.
What was asked was whether, if we did get through this quickly, we would still be able to get another question or two from these great witnesses. That's the reason we're still in this kind of holding pattern.
I'm not sure, witnesses, whether or not we will get to you quickly in the next little while.
I have MP Lawrence.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Thank you very much.
I will bring a new subamendment to the end of the amended motion, which would read as follows:
“That the finance minister be invited to testify for two hours during the prestudy.”
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you, MP Lawrence.
Does anybody wish to speak to this?
PS Turnbull, go ahead.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I think that as long as it's understood that the minister's appearance might be in the fall and not within the next week.... I think that would be unmanageable, given her schedule.
Perhaps we can consider that.
Conservative
Jasraj Singh Hallan Conservative Calgary Forest Lawn, AB
Thanks, Chair.
I agree. I think the Minister of Finance definitely needs to come to try to defend this job-killing hike in the capital gains tax. The problem is that there are some claims on her end about this not affecting plumbers and others, which I think she needs to come here and defend.
I also want to talk just briefly about the clause-by-clause, because technically we don't even have the legislation in front of us, so it's jumping the gun to put clause-by-clause in there now. I think we should see if Mr. Turnbull would be willing to pull that out until we actually get the legislation. That's something we can always introduce a motion on later on. That's just something to consider.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I can't support that. I certainly support having the minister come, but I don't think two hours is the standard. I think it's an hour, or not specifying the amount of time is perfectly reasonable, and we would probably be able to agree to that, but with the two hours in it, I would have to vote against that.
If you guys want to consider that and just put in a call for the minister to come as part of the prestudy, I think we could definitely agree to that.
Conservative
Jasraj Singh Hallan Conservative Calgary Forest Lawn, AB
I don't want to belabour this point, but I think it's important and prudent, especially given the claims that were made yesterday about the different trades, small businesses and other Canadians who are going to be affected by this tax hike, that we get as much testimony from those people that these claims that are being made by the Liberals don't affect those entrepreneurs, the small businesses, the grandmas and grandpas who just want to leave something for their kids and their grandkids.
The more testimony we can get.... I think it is reasonable for this kind of legislation, which is a pretty big change, and the effect that it's going to have on Canadians. I think it's reasonable for her to come for two hours, especially after we have witnesses who are plumbers and carpenters, to answer some of their questions while she's here.
I suggest that putting a two-hour limit would be good. A lot of people have a lot of questions. There might be home builders who want to come in and talk about how badly this will impact them as well.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
This is dragging out. Can I ask my colleagues if we could postpone this debate until the next panel, perhaps the last half hour of the meeting, when we have only department officials? We have witnesses from the parties here right now. We could at least have our four minutes of questions with these witnesses, and then we could carry on the debate on this motion.
Again, I think we're going to come to an agreement on it, but it makes more sense to me to have it in the next part of the meeting, when we have department officials, who can always come back much more easily. Also, I think there are far fewer questions for them than for these witnesses.
Can I ask that we adopt that strategy here?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
I'm looking at the members with regard to what they heard from MP Davies.
I see people nodding in favour.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
We're going to give each party up to about four minutes, and we're going to go for the next 20 minutes or so.
NDP
Conservative
Adam Chambers Conservative Simcoe North, ON
Before we agree, can I ask how long we have resources for today?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
We have until 1:00 for sure, because that's when we were set up for.
If we took 20 minutes, members, we'd still have another half an hour.
Conservative
Adam Chambers Conservative Simcoe North, ON
In the interest of being collaborative with our NDP colleague, Mr. Davies, who I know wants to hear from these witnesses, we would agree to move this towards the end, so that we can hear from the witnesses.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
I'm glad the witnesses stayed and have been with us this whole time. We're going to get back to our witnesses.
MP Chambers, you are the first to go with these witnesses for four minutes.
Conservative
Adam Chambers Conservative Simcoe North, ON
I'll yield my time back to the floor so that my colleagues can ask the questions they want to.