Evidence of meeting #29 for Public Accounts in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Okay.
I am told that there is a small error in the French version. What is it?
Joëlle Malo Committee Researcher
I just wanted to point out that the word “reportages” should be singular.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Okay. That's okay, but thank you.
Ms. Tesser Derksen, you have the floor.
Liberal
Kristina Tesser Derksen Liberal Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON
Thank you very much.
Amendment number one that I recommend—and in my version it's about four lines in—is to strike out the following words: “the Minister of National Revenue”. I'll speak to the rationale.
I fully understand the need for transparency and for questions and answers to be exchanged in this committee. As someone with a legal background, though, I understand that there is an ongoing legal matter. I'm sensitive to the fact that the minister may not be able to answer as fulsomely as he would like, given that there are sensitivities around the legal proceedings. I think it would be frustrating for all of us to ask questions that he simply cannot answer because there are legal proceedings going on.
That's the first amendment I would suggest.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC
Mr. Chair, can we have the amendment in writing? I just want to make sure we all understand it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Yes. It will take a few minutes. I think it's just removing the reference to the Minister of National Revenue.
I'm going to suspend until it's sent out.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
We are back in session.
The email has been sent. Ms. Tesser Derksen is revealing her other amendments. None of them are a surprise. We'll deal with them one at a time, though.
The first amendment is to remove “the Minister of National Revenue”.
Mr. Deltell, you have the floor.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC
Regarding the first proposed amendment, I want to thank our colleagues and commend them for using verbatim, not to say letter for letter, our motion, including the misprinted s in “reportages”. I invite them to verify the spelling of “reportage”.
On a more serious note, we completely disagree with the government MPs' suggestion not to invite the responsible minister.
Let's go over the sequence of events. The Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, which falls under the federal Minister of Finance and National Revenue's responsibility, required the City of Laval to issue a payment of approximately $1 million. That's story isn't just out of the blue. The CRA made a request to a city. There's a political debate, and especially a fiscally related debate that weighs quite heavily on the City of Laval. That's why the mayor is refusing to make the requested payment and is looking to reach an agreement with the CRA. Let's not forget that in 2016, Revenu Québec agreed to set aside such a request that makes no sense to those who've already paid and might have to pay again.
The government has two options. Either it comes to an agreement with the city or it drops the case as did the Quebec government about 10 years ago. I want to remind you that the person who led the file for the Government of Quebec was Carlos Leitão, the current MP for Laval and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. In short, if the Minister of National Revenue wants relevant information on this file, he just has to turn in his chair in the House of Commons and talk to the MP for Marc‑Aurèle‑Fortin. Mr. Leitão can explain to him in detail why he made the right decision and why the current government isn't making the right one.
I also want to remind everyone, as I did earlier, that it's our duty and responsibility to ask questions, and it's the minister's duty and responsibility to answer them. Someone said earlier that the minister probably can't divulge all the information. We can't presume what the questions or answers will be, but I've seen people at this table before refuse to answer. They were at peace with themselves, with their decision. However, a decision was made, and this is not a confidential file. The players are very clearly identified. On one side, there's a convicted felon. On the other side, there's a city grappling with this problem. Nothing's confidential.
We won't put the minister on the spot to give us details on the file of someone who didn't pay his taxes 22 years ago or however long ago it was. No, we're talking about a national story, millions of dollars, and the CRA's decision that makes no sense, when you consider Revenu Québec adopted the right approach. If the minister doesn't want to answer, that's his prerogative and his right. Actually, let's talk about the law. We have parliamentary immunity as parliamentarians. Here, I can say a lot of nonsense, and I won't be sued for it, but it's a matter of honour and dignity. The same applies in this case, a real story with real consequences for the citizens of Laval. The person who made the decision, in this case the minister responsible for the Canada Revenue Agency, needs to explain themselves. I'm sure the minister has some interesting arguments to offer.
We know the man well. Mr. Champagne is not exactly the most discreet person. I jokingly say all the time that when he walks into a room, he starts talking to the surveillance cameras. I'm joking, of course. Mr. Champagne is someone I respect and admire a lot. We know that he has a lot of ambitions, and not just for the country, but for himself. That's great. In politics, if you don't have ambition, you might not be in the right place.
I'm sure Mr. Champagne has things to say and clarifications to give the citizens of Laval. When I questioned him in the House of Commons three weeks ago, he publicly admitted he'd had discussions with the mayor of Laval. We won't ask for a transcript of the conversation, but I'm sure there are some interesting bits of information that deserve to be made public. Moreover, committee members are protected by parliamentary privilege, but it comes with responsibilities. A minister's main responsibility is to answer for the management of public funds, especially since, in this case, it has a direct impact on a municipality and involves millions of dollars. Therefore, on this side of the House, we will not support the amendment as presented by the government MPs.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Thank you very much, Mr. Deltell.
Mr. Lemire, you have the floor.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
We're meeting in public, but I'll still take the opportunity to intervene.
Mr. Deltell, when you're speaking nonsense, we have to correct you. Parliamentary Secretary Leitão is the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Industry, not the Minister of Finance. That's just a friendly correction.
Regarding the minister's accountability, we support inviting the minister responsible.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Thank you very much.
Are there any other comments?
I'm hearing none.
Madam Clerk, could you call the vote, please?
It's four and four. I will vote no.
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Ms. Tesser Derksen, you have the floor again for your next amendment to the motion.
Liberal
Kristina Tesser Derksen Liberal Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The next amendment would be to the sentence after the one we were dealing with, where it says “Canada Revenue Agency”. We would delete the word “and”.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Is it the one right before “the mayor of Laval”? Why don't you combine that with your next one? We'll deal with it in one.
Liberal
Kristina Tesser Derksen Liberal Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON
We would delete “and”, keep “the”, add “current” and proceed with “mayor”. It would read, “Canada Revenue Agency, the current mayor of Laval”. Do you see that?
Do you want me to keep going?
Liberal
Kristina Tesser Derksen Liberal Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON
There would be a comma, and then “and Mr. Vaillancourt”.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
That really gets to the meat of it.
I don't think we need “current”, because there is one mayor.
Liberal
Kristina Tesser Derksen Liberal Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON
We're also talking about a previous mayor.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
We can do it, but I don't think it's actually necessary.
We're going to clean up the “and” and we're going to add “current”, but it's really to add “Mr. Vaillancourt”. All right.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC
Mr. Chair, can we pause for a moment? I'd like to consult my colleagues.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
I really don't like doing that.
Do you have any comments, Mr. Lemire?
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
I call this meeting back into session.
Mr. Deltell, you have the floor.