Finance Committee on Sept. 22nd, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Okay.

Mr. Hallan.

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

Thank you for bringing that up, Monsieur Garon. That is the intention. It's so that the committee continues its business. Previously in this committee, we've had different studies going on simultaneously, at the same time, one after the other. It is my intention that the committee not come to a halt until the ministers appear here for Bill C-4. We can get started on the tax haven study.

I'll look to the clerk for confirmation on whether that needs to be added in there. How does that work when it comes to committee?

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Hallan.

Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I noticed that the language says, “immediately following the conclusion of this study, and once the bill has been reported back to the House, the committee undertake a subsequent study”. That definitely implies that the one has to be finished before the other begins.

To Mr. Garon's point, maybe we want to clarify the language there, so we know whether the intention is to do them concurrently or to have.... If the committee can't move forward on something related to Bill C-4, it can fill a portion of the time with some work on the tax haven study.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Turnbull.

Mr. Kelly, you're next on the speakers list.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

I don't know if we need to make.... I was going to speak to the main motion, but I would also like to try to solve the problem that we—

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

We would need to make an amendment.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

I don't know if this would be sufficient. In the room, there seems to be concurrence on that. Committees can do just about anything when there's unanimous consent.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Someone would still need to propose language.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

I'll amend this. I'm doing this on the fly.

How about, “e. notwithstanding d. if scheduling of witnesses....”? Let me think about this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Would we like to suspend for two minutes to come up with language and then come back?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

I would consent to that, yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Okay. Let's do that.

We are suspended for two minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

I call the meeting back to order. We're back to business.

Mr. Kelly, let's hear it.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Delete the words “immediately following the conclusion of this study, and once the bill has been reported back to the House” and substitute them with “concurrently with this study”.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

You have to delete “subsequent”.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Yes. That's correct. It also deletes the word “subsequent”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Hold on. What you're proposing is to delete from d. “immediately following the conclusion of the study, and once the bill has been reported back to the House”, and replace it with “concurrently with this study”, and then after the “committee undertake a”, delete “subsequent” study. Is that correct? Okay.

I have Monsieur Garon and then Mr. Turnbull.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

They're speaking to the subamendments. I was next on your list to speak to the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

That's correct. They're speaking on this. They both raised their hand on this suggested amendment.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

I also have the floor. I can speak to the subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Sure. If you want to, you can. I'm sorry. I thought you were done.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

I don't think I need to. This seems to be what we all agreed to.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Would you like to add anything further?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

No, it's just on.... Well, okay, it'll take me a minute, because the amendment is.... It's still germane to it. It's the importance of both of these studies. Yes, we have a responsibility. I wanted to be clear that, yes, we have a responsibility as a committee to undertake a clause-by-clause on this. We're not trying to rush anything through on Bill C-4. It has taken effect.

Yes, Monsieur Garon is correct that the CRA, as well as the Department of Finance, has a history of not implementing that which is votum. I could go to Larry Maguire's private member's bill, which the finance department wouldn't implement, and to the chaos we had around the capital gains tax that was proposed, but on the tax evasion issue, it's also extraordinarily important.

The Auditor General, in 2019, found that the CRA grants extensions for months and sometimes years to tax filers simply if they are filing in an offshore tax jurisdiction, whereas any normal person who does not concurrently file in a tax haven will automatically have their taxes assessed to them if they fail to comply with an instruction or request from the CRA within 30 days. The inequality of tax fairness for ordinary Canadian tax filers and those who do choose to file in offshore jurisdictions using complicated corporate schemes, and the unequal treatment by the CRA, were remarked on by the Auditor General.

That was six years ago. I don't think very many Canadians have seen evidence that there's been any improvement. With that amendment, we can do both of these at the same time. I hope we'll adopt both the amendment and the motion.