Finance Committee on Sept. 22nd, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Kelly.

Mr. MacDonald, can you tie it into the motion at hand?

[Kent MacDonald, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Actually, I'll take the advice of the committee if they feel that it's not part of the motion.

I do want to reiterate that if we want to get down to work, then I don't have to represent the submissions. We can start hearing them here at committee. That's what I would encourage us all to do. Let's pick a date for the finance minister that's reasonable, and let's get down to work.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. MacDonald.

Mr. Sawatzky.

[Jake Sawatzky, Liberal, New Westminster—Burnaby—Maillardville, BC]

I'll also agree. It would be great if we could move forward and find a common date, so I'll cede my time, and hopefully we can move forward with something.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Sawatzky.

Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I think we could pass this extremely common-sensical amendment, have the minister appear shortly and then move on to other committee business.

It would be great if we could talk about Bill C-4, which was unanimously passed in the House of Commons in the spring. It contains an income tax cut, a GST cut on housing and the famous repeal of the consumer carbon tax, which I know some members opposite had long advocated. We could get right into that business, which would be great.

Maybe that's what we should do. It would be great to see a sign from committee members that we agree to move on to discussing other committee business after we agree to a very reasonable amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Okay. Thank you, colleagues. That was a fascinating debate on the amendment.

I don't see anyone else on the speakers list, so I'm going to confirm that the amendment is to delete “no later than Wednesday, September 24”. There was also a suggestion to change “request” to “invite”.

Is that correct? Is everyone okay with that?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

No. The amendment we're going to vote on is to delete the words “no later than Wednesday, September 24”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

That's what we shared with....

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Okay, but then I heard you say something about substituting another word.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

There was a brief mention of that.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

That could be moved as a subamendment—

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I didn't move that. You're right.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Okay. Is that clear? Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

All right. We can begin the vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

The amendment is defeated.

We'll return to Mr. Hallan.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Thanks, Chair.

It is our intention to have this motion wrapped up. As I said at the last committee meeting, it's a good motion. We should have the minister appear and give us some more clarity on the budget cycles.

I'd like to put forward an amendment as well. I'd like to change the date from September 24, so that it reads, “no later than October 6”. That gives the minister a lot of time, even though he's had close to 10 days since this motion came out. I'd like to put that forward. Hopefully, we can get this to a vote and close this.

I also want to add that after this is done, I would like to propose for committee business something that would incorporate Bill C-4, to get that moved relatively quickly, and another piece of business, so I'm hoping we can wrap this up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Hallan.

Is there anyone who would like to debate this? Seeing no one, we will go to a vote on this new amendment.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0)

Congratulations.

Now we're going back to the main motion as amended. Mr. Hallan, you were on the list. Are you good now? Okay. Is there anyone who would like to enter debate on the main motion?

The vote is on the main motion as amended.

(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0)

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Mr. Hallan, the floor is yours.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Thank you, Chair. In dealing with the committee business that we have put forward, we have a few items. We know that Bill C-4 is still continuing on. It is a reminder that the ways and means has been passed, so there's nothing holding back the tax cut from happening. It's already happened, because the ways and means motion was passed for housing and the consumer carbon tax, thanks to the Conservatives, and the pressure has been taken off Canadians.

While we're collaborating here, and in the spirit of collaboration, I'd like to bring forward a motion that incorporates both Bill C-4, so that we can get that passed out of this committee, and another really pressing issue that's taken a lot of resources out of Canada but is also very concerning due to the alarming rate at which it's increasing. I'll read the motion—it's long—and we'll email it to the clerk:

That the committee immediately undertake a study of Bill C-4, an act to make life more affordable for Canadians, and that for the purposes of this study:

a. the committee invite the following witnesses to appear for one hour each on separate panels:

1. the Minister of Finance and National Revenue, as the sponsor of the bill;

2. the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure, in relation to part 2; and

3. the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, in relation to part 3;

and that each minister appear for one hour on separate panels and be permitted to be accompanied by departmental staff;

b. the chair be permitted to schedule a meeting for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill only after all of the ministers listed above have appeared as requested;

c. the committee invite additional stakeholders it deems appropriate and hold a minimum of two meetings to receive their testimony; and

d. immediately following the conclusion of the study, and once the bill has been reported back to the House, the committee undertake a subsequent study on the use of offshore tax havens, given that Canada's weak rules on offshore subsidiaries, tax treaties and limited enforcement by the Canada Revenue Agency have made our country both a conduit and a destination for tax avoidance, costing taxpayers billions of dollars in lost revenue each year and inviting white-collar crime into Canada, and that, for the purposes of this study, the committee hold no fewer than six meetings and invite the following witnesses:

1. officials from the Department of Finance;

2. officials from the Canada Revenue Agency;

3. the Parliamentary Budget Officer;

4. representatives from law enforcement agencies with expertise in financial crimes;

5. tax policy experts; and

6. any other witnesses the committee deems relevant.

That's the motion that I'd like to put forward.

The reason this is important is that the Conference Board of Canada estimates that tax evasion and avoidance costs the federal government $8.9 billion to $47.8 billion each year. Tax fairness advocates and even CRA whistle-blowers have raised concerns that Canada's weak rules on offshore subsidiaries and tax treaties and limited enforcement by CRA have made our country both a conduit and a destination for tax avoidance.

We've seen the Liberal crime wave and weak enforcement of anti-money laundering rules that also don't help. We've had officials testify at this committee that even though they catch the people either laundering money or committing these crimes, the enforcement is not there. Not only that, but this ties into the fact that the Liberals have dragged their feet for two years on the review of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act as well, even though two years ago, then finance minister Chrystia Freeland wrote to this committee to have that review done, as well as a review of the Bank Act, which needs to be updated.

Crime is getting more and more sophisticated, and with the Liberals dragging their feet on this important review, Canada cannot keep up with that sophistication of crime. The officials do not have the tools and are not able to keep up with what we need. More importantly, the enforcement of it—the rules, the fines and the update to the Criminal Code—needs to be done so that those who are committing these crimes get punished for them. These are big numbers, costing $8.9 billion to $47.8 billion each year. Canada also still hasn't prosecuted anyone for their involvement in the Panama papers or the Paradise papers.

That ties into the Liberals' soft-on-crime policies that won't punish those who are avoiding tax, evading tax or committing these crimes.

The CRA “has identified more than $76 million in taxes owed by Canadians named in the Panama and Paradise Papers”. How can Canadians...and how are the government workers who are supposed to enforce tax rules supposed to take their job seriously when the Prime Minister has been involved in tax havens himself? When he was chair of Brookfield, he used offshore tax havens in Bermuda to stash his company's profits beyond the reach of the CRA.

For the Liberals, there's a two-tier tax code. One is for the rich, like the Prime Minister and his friends, and one is for the rest of us. While we double-check our tax returns to make sure we don't make a mistake and end up getting audited, the Prime Minister's friends dodge taxes while his government taxes us more to make up the difference. While the CRA and the government let this go on, the CRA writes off over $5 billion in corporate taxes and then goes after small businesses and charities instead.

We Conservatives included in our platform a commitment to closing tax loopholes for the wealthy and well connected, like this Prime Minister. We committed to redirecting CRA resources away from harassing small businesses and charities, instead focusing on cracking down on offshore tax havens. We committed to creating a name-and-shame list for wealthy multinational corporations that are dodging taxes and refusing to pay their fair share. Just last week, our colleague, Conservative MP Adam Chambers, introduced a PMB in the House that would create a sunshine list exposing corporations who get CRA tax write-offs.

These are good policies, but we need to hear from more experts on how to address the gaps in enforcement and legislation. Canadians are struggling now more than ever with the cost of living, the debt burden and the rising crime under the last 10 years of the Liberals. Closing the tax loopholes that allow for avoidance and the use of tax havens will save Canadian taxpayers from higher taxes and could prevent even larger deficits.

This study gives an opportunity for this committee to show Canadians that we believe in fairly enforcing tax rules and not letting wealthy, connected people and Liberal insiders get favourable tax treatment. This is a way for Canada to get serious. Canada has become a playground for criminals. It's become more and more known around the world, under soft-on-crime Liberal policies, that Canada is the place to be if you're a criminal. There are more rights for criminals, and we've seen that under the soft-on-crime policies.

I hope we can get this passed. As I said, it incorporates Bill C-4, and we want to get through Bill C-4. As I said before, there's nothing holding back those tax credits, because they were already passed in the House through the ways and means motion, but if we need to hear from witnesses and from officials and ministers, then this gives us an opportunity to do that quickly to get it out of this House. Then we can move on to the tax evasion and tax haven study.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Hallan.

I'm going to suspend the meeting for five minutes, just so that the clerk can send it around and so that everyone has a chance to read the motion. We'll come back in five minutes.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

We're resuming the meeting.

Monsieur Garon, you were next on the speaking list. I apologize.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for your patience. I'll make sure not to call on it too often so that your patience doesn't become legendary.

We are debating a motion that I think is very substantive. Obviously, as far as Bill C‑4 is concerned, we prefer to study it clause by clause. We understand that the ways and means motion means that the policy is already applied.

We're not making any assumptions about what might happen. However, the government has occasionally managed its ways and means motions somewhat inadequately in the past. As a result, the Canada Revenue Agency has difficulty managing tax policies implemented under certain ways and means measures. We know that the Canada Revenue Agency is already sufficiently confused these days when it comes to its internal affairs.

Obviously, it's good to carry out a clause-by-clause study. It's good to hear from ministers. I think we passed this bill on division in the House, and a number of things will be consensual.

As far as tax havens are concerned, I will briefly say that the Bloc Québécois's work on this subject has been recognized internationally since 2015. It's undeniable that Canada has fallen behind, and that the Canada Revenue Agency is doing work that, at the very least, should be questioned on this aspect.

Take, for example, KPMG's aggressive tax avoidance schemes. That firm was criminally charged in the United States, and in Canada it was the subject of a secret deal with the Canada Revenue Agency under the previous government.

Right now, we have a minister responsible for national revenue, and that's good. In the previous government, Ms. Lebouthillier basically told us that the agency was independent and that it was like a virus, that it fed itself. She said she didn't want to touch it. Then there was Ms. Bibeau, who was punished as a result of her appointment as minister responsible for the agency. Today, we have a real minister who, for the first time in my time in Parliament, is taking action. For example, he is asking the agency for a 100-day action plan.

At the time, we told Ms. Lebouthillier that she had the right to launch an investigation under the act. She told us to join the police force if we weren't happy. That's what she told us here in committee.

On top of that, we have the Prime Minister's own words. During the election campaign, he said that the fact that these companies are in tax havens was not a problem, that it was just because of withholding taxes. According to him, when money intended for pension funds is managed and remitted to pension funds, taxes are paid by pensioners. That's absolutely correct. However, the Prime Minister forgot to say that there are more than just pension funds in tax havens.

In addition, the institutions that manage money also coexist with family trusts. Those are immense riches that often stay there forever and are never returned to the beneficiaries. That wealth is used to guarantee loans, borrow money and ensure that institutions never pay taxes. That kind of a situation requires us to ask questions about the mechanisms involved and about those institutions. I think these issues are of interest to the taxpayer. What's more, the agency's tax recovery rate is low and the agency does not perform well by international standards. That remains the case when we compare these results to those of Revenu Québec. That is why, obviously, Quebec should have a single tax return. That's a very good thing.

I just want to make sure of one thing, and I'm appealing to my Conservative colleagues on this. It's good to hear from ministers first and then do the clause-by-clause study. We've heard today that ministers have very complicated schedules. I understand that it could take some time for them to appear before the committee.

In terms of drafting the motion, I just want to make sure that we can start the study on tax havens while we wait for ministers to appear. That would prevent us from getting stuck and not being able to hear from ministers or start the other study.

I would like my colleague to confirm that this is the intent of his motion. My understanding is that we would begin this study concurrently. I just want to make sure that we will be able to begin the study on tax havens while waiting for ministers to appear.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Does anyone object to Mr. Hallan answering that question?

[An hon. member]

I don't object.