Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 21st, 2011

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

--one of the most important statements that Mr. Menzies made. It's so important, and it's something that, really, a lot of governments, a lot of politicians, have never understood, that you can lower business taxes and produce more revenue.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Hear, hear.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

It's something I don't think Mr. Brison understands, which is why he wants it out of the report.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Mr. Lukiwski on the same topic, and then Monsieur Godin.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

I think we have to have it in there. The whole purpose of the discussion was the cost of corporate tax reductions. That's what the opposition wanted to know. That's what Mr. Brison wanted to know. That was one of the elements that caused the point of privilege to begin with.

Now, that statement is absolutely germane to the question Mr. Brison brought forward. The Minister of State responded that the revenue has increased despite the reduction of the tax rate. He asked, what impact would corporate tax rates have? That's the impact; tax revenue has actually gone up, despite the reduction of taxes. Of course, you have to have it in there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Monsieur Godin.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Chair, it's not the end of the world if that's included or not because it has already been made public. But, in his testimony, Mr. Menzies did not say how much it was going to cost. Four months ago, the committee wanted to know how much it was going to cost. He did not say anything about that. He just made a general comment, saying that more taxes would be collected, and so on. That had nothing to do with what the Speaker was asked. We wanted to know how much it was going to cost. That's what we wanted to know. Mr. Lukiwski's comment has nothing to do with the issue.

It's like when we were talking about the crime bills. We were told how great they were. The question was not whether the bills were good or not, but how much they would cost. In this case, we are not being told anything about that. So it's irrelevant.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I was just going to suggest, Chair, or encourage you to call the vote on this so that we can move on to the next paragraph and get this done by noon.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I'm trying to get to everyone on my speakers list. I'm asking each to be as brief as they can.

Mr. Albrecht, and then Mr. Lukiwski.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Chair, if Mr. Godin would read paragraph 32, it's clearly stated there that the Minister of State for Finance indicated that the information that was requested was already provided in the Department of Finance's “estimated cost of the 2007 legislative tax reduction, along with the five-year projections of total corporate profits before taxes”, and on and on it goes.

It's there, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Mr. Lukiwski.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thanks, Chair.

I'm just reading from the tenth report of the Standing Committee on Finance, which states as follows:

Whereas the committee passed a motion on November 17th, 2010 which stated in part:

Five-year projections of total corporate profits before taxes and effective corporate tax rates (2010-11 to 2014-15);

It speaks to exactly what Mr. Menzies put in the report. This is what the Standing Committee on Finance had asked for. Mr. Menzies talked about it, and produced a chart showing that the revenues had gone up despite the reduction of tax rates, based on what the Standing Committee on Finance, of which Mr. Brison is a member, had asked for.

That's why it's in there and that's why it should remain in.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Okay.

I have Mr. Blaney, Mr. Young, and then Madame DeBellefeuille.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

A point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Certainly.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Actually, just from listening to the committee, I have no difficulty with leaving it in there, if that means a lot to the....

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Great.

Does that take people off the speakers list?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you very much.

Those in favour of paragraph 32 as written?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Great. I like it when we come to an agreement. That's good.

We're on paragraph 33.

Mr. Lukiwski

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

I have a couple of things. Hopefully we can get through them quickly.

On the second-to-last line, where the sentence begins, “Indeed, the parliamentary secretary noted that”, it should be “Minister of State” rather than “parliamentary secretary”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Yes, sorry, that is correct; he is a Minister of State.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

As well, I'm trying to get my head around the sentence before that:

In this respect, he noted that from documents deemed cabinet confidences, the government had extracted what was not necessary to maintain cabinet confidence, and provided FINA with the answers it was looking for.

I think it's kind of ironic that the word “not” again is....

I think the “not” has to be removed rather than inserted this time.