Finance Committee on June 13th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you.

Members, we're going to get back to the subamendment. We're going to take just one minute. I'm going to suspend for a minute or two, and then we'll be right on to that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call the meeting back to order.

I have MP Chambers.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

I just want to recap, because I don't believe we've seen the amendment. I don't believe the amendment's been circulated.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Do you mean the subamendment?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Well, certainly, the amendment hasn't been circulated—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Yes.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

—and I don't believe my colleague has received the amendment in both official languages.

As I understand it, we're now on a subamendment to invite the minister. I think we can tie this up pretty quickly.

We have an invitation to the minister. As it relates to clause-by-clause, we would agree to a reasonable clause-by-clause start date once we see legislation. If that's going to be a hang-up and if you're going to try to pick the clause-by-clause start date now, that's obviously going to be a challenge. We would agree to a reasonable clause-by-clause start date once we see legislation.

If the government would like to bring in a clause-by-clause motion on September 21 or whenever we come back, once we have legislation, that's no problem, but we have at least one meeting left before June 25. It sounds like there's some general agreement to devote Tuesday's meeting to this issue.

The only sticking point is this clause-by-clause, which we actually don't need to resolve today. Conservatives would agree to a reasonable clause-by-clause start date once legislation is tabled. If that's acceptable to the parliamentary secretary and the government, I think we can continue on. I believe that is the consensus. We'd have to test the room on that, but I think that's where we are. That's how I understand it.

We have the motion and the amendment from the government. We agree to everything the government has, but for clause-by-clause, I've just made a recommendation to the government on how to fix the clause-by-clause language and that we add an invitation to the minister, which we know is not a summons; it's just an invitation.

I think that's a pretty reasonable position to land on for today. It means we can have the rest of this meeting—we still have some time left—and meet on Monday. I'll just leave that for the government to consider. If they want to suspend for a bit, that's no problem. We're here to find out.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Okay. Thank you, MP Chambers.

I have a speaking list here. I have MP Davies, then MP Ste-Marie and PS Turnbull.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm wondering if we could come to an agreement on sawing it off by saying “two weeks”. We're talking about when the committee would start clause-by-clause after the bill comes to the committee.

We just went through a budget bill where we crammed in a lot of witnesses and started clause-by-clause in less than two weeks. That was a 650-page bill. We're talking about a single issue.

We could have a number of meetings. I think the motion calls for at least four. That should be a lot of meetings to get the basic points out. We can always have more if the committee decides that.

I think that giving us two weeks to begin clause-by-clause from when the bill comes to committee allows for at least a full four meetings, because if we start on Tuesday.... I'm happy to agree to Tuesday.

I will point out again that we continue to come to agreement on the agenda of this committee, and the ink is barely dry on that agreement when we have motions to change that. I'm finding that a bit frustrating, but I'm happy to do that. I would point out that the capital gains tax was announced in the budget on April 16. We've had about two months that we've known this is coming.

Given all that, I'm happy to work with my Conservative colleagues. I agree that it's an important issue. We have different perspectives on it, but I think that airing those different perspectives and doing a dive into this issue is important.

However, let's not hold up an agreement to pass this motion, to get started on Tuesday—examining capital gains and having four meetings, at least, on this—over an issue of when we start clause-by-clause. I think that saying that we will not start it for two weeks after the bill comes should satisfy everybody's concerns. Obviously, the government will want to move this bill on and needs some comfort that it will, and I think this is a reasonable compromise. I would just hope that we can start clause-by-clause two weeks after the bill comes to the committee, and then we can pass this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Davies.

I have MP Ste-Marie, PS Turnbull and MP Lawrence.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I tend to agree with the consensus that seems to be emerging.

I'd just like to remind you that, when we present an untranslated motion, the interpreters translate it as well as they can, but there may still be some vagueness. So it's always best to present a motion and written amendments so that we're all on the same page.

I'd like to propose a favourable amendment that would gain consensus.

As proposed by Mr. Davies, I would prefer that clause-by-clause consideration of the capital gains bill begin no later than two weeks after its formal referral to committee by the House of Commons. However, I would add the adjective “parliamentary”, which would be my friendly amendment, to clarify that these are indeed parliamentary weeks, to avoid the bill being introduced for a week followed by a parliamentary recess.

I therefore propose simply adding the word “parliamentary”, and would prefer that we opt for “two weeks” rather than just one.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Ste-Marie.

I have PS Turnbull and then MP Lawrence.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I think we're coming very close to consensus here. If the Conservatives are willing to just have an invite to the minister without a specification of time, we can agree to that.

What Mr. Ste-Marie and my colleague Mr. Davies have put forward in terms of a two-week period, with the comment that Mr. Ste-Marie made—which is a good one—that those are sitting weeks, is more than fair. I can see consensus building around that.

I'm grateful for the Conservatives having put forward a prestudy on such an important piece of government legislation. We don't often see that, so I really do appreciate the willingness to collaborate and work together on this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you.

MP Lawrence.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Thank you very much.

Would it be too much to ask if the clerk could perhaps read the amended clause-by-clause portion of the motion, what that line says there? What does it say now?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Alexandre Roger]

If you don't mind, I can read the entire motion with the amendment and subamendment.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

That would be great.

Thank you.

[The Clerk]

It is as follows:

That the committee hold no fewer than four meetings devoted to a prestudy of the ways and means motion introduced in the House of Commons on June 10, 2024, that at least one meeting be held prior to June 25, 2024, that witnesses may be submitted by each party prior to Friday at 5:00 p.m., that this study take priority over any other study in the fall, that all evidence gained in this study be taken into consideration during the study of the capital gains legislation once referred by the House of Commons, that clause-by-clause of the capital gains bill start two sitting weeks after the bill is officially referred to the finance committee by the House of Commons, and that the Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister be invited to appear during this prestudy.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

My subamendment was for two hours for the Minister of Finance.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Within the discussion, we're not sure if it was two hours, one hour, or just to remove the hours from....

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

That's fine.

I would like to see this all done by UC so that we don't go through the subamendment-amendment type of thing, but Conservatives would still like to see two hours for the minister. We believe that this is a substantial and pressing issue.

There are actually a number of technical errors with respect to the legislation, and that in itself could consume some time. You don't normally see that level of errors in financial bills. In my discussions with prominent economists, lawyers and accountants, they see some significant issues. What would perhaps separate this from different invitations, where they have been of a lesser amount in terms of time, is the number of technical questions I would like to ask the Minister of Finance.

That being said, we do have a precedent of actually asking the minister to appear for two hours, but we have no ability to compel her to stay for two hours. In fact, if you look back, this committee has asked a number of times for the minister to appear for two hours, and she has appeared for one hour. We're realists, and we realize that if in fact the minister chooses to come for only an hour, regardless of what it says in our motion, that is her prerogative and her right.

With respect to the clause-by-clause, you give an inch, you take a mile, right? That's what comes to mind there. Conservatives came in good faith, not to help the Liberal government but because we believe Canadians need this information to sort their own affairs, as the deadline of June 25 looms. We did propose a prestudy, which might be unprecedented, so to now ask for a clause-by-clause date prior to our even seeing the legislation, I think, is a bridge too far, to be candid.

My colleague Mr. Chambers was even agreeable—and I might even disagree with him on that—to put in a reasonable clause-by-clause date. Mr. Chambers is much more diplomatic than I am. Conservatives are significantly challenged by putting in a clause-by-clause date before we have legislation. That, I believe, would also be unprecedented.

I would counsel, to the extent that you would accept any of my advice, to quit while you're ahead. Take your victory. Conservatives have no plan, no intention, to obstruct the capital gains legislation going through committee. That is evidenced by our willingness to prestudy it.

Like I said, I would counsel the good folks on the other side to quit while they're ahead.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Chambers.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

I once had socks with pigs on them that used to get us through these log jams, Mr. Chair—bring back the socks—but I think it is unprecedented for a committee to agree to a clause-by-clause start date without seeing legislation. I wouldn't ask our analysts to dig through previous motions, but I would think you would struggle to find one.

In that vein, I can speak only for myself, but I will work on persuading my colleagues, in order to be very generous here, that if the government has an objective to ensure that the bill is not held up at committee, we would agree to starting clause-by-clause no later than three weeks from when we get the bill, which means we could start it earlier, but that you absolutely know that it will start in the fall, when we get it.

That seems eminently reasonable for a party, any party at the table or any member of Parliament to agree to moving to clause-by-clause without even seeing the bill. I respect Mr. Davies' observation that what we did with the budget was quite abridged, but we had had that bill for a while in text form. We don't have this bill in text form. All we have is a ways and means motion and, as I said, the rumours are flying ferociously—to continue to use alliteration—that there will be carve-outs, and the carve-outs are very complicated to write. That's why I think they didn't end up in the ways and means motion.

If we're to have a bill with carve-outs, that's going to be very complicated, but by giving the government the comfort of three weeks, no later than three weeks—well, three weeks generally, but we'll leave that up to interpretation—it will mean that the bill will leave the committee and be reported back to the House in the fall.

That's a guarantee, depending on when you guys decide. I suppose it depends on when you decide to table legislation in the House, but we would agree to starting clause-by-clause three weeks after the bill comes to the committee. That gives you the comfort that you're going to get a clause-by-clause start date, and if things are going very well, maybe we'll agree to start it sooner. However, I think we're actually starting a very dangerous precedent here by agreeing to establish clause-by-clause start dates before we even see legislation.

I will remind folks that Parliament will always look different after the next election. It doesn't matter who's in power and who's not, but you should be very comfortable with the idea that any precedents you're setting now will be used by a future government. I will tell you that if you guys die on this hill, then if I have anything to do with it, every single bill that comes to the finance committee will have clause-by-clause prestudy in it from here until I go, because we're going to go down a really bad road here.

I think we're being pretty reasonable. We'll agree to go to clause-by-clause at three weeks. You know you will get your bill out. That will create an impetus for the government to table its legislation early so it can come to the committee early and you will have it in the fall. If the three weeks is a no-go, then we might as well suspend until the end of the meeting, but that's kind of a fallback position and a reasonable agreement.

Of course, that is unless the government is nervous about having the study next Tuesday, which is what I suspect is really happening. The government doesn't want to have the witnesses we just had come in and say how bad the legislation is going to be, which is the only reason for which they must be putting in a drop-dead clause-by-clause start date, which has never happened before.

It is what it is, but let's see what they think.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Chambers.

Is there anybody else to speak to this?

Yes, PS Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I'm not sure where we're at, but it seems that, with what the clerk read out and what Mr. Chambers just mentioned.... I thought we were moving towards consensus in terms of having an invite to the DPM, which is fine. One hour for the DPM and one hour for officials would perhaps be fine. I think it's quite reasonable to say “two weeks”. I think Mr. Ste-Marie rightly said “two sitting weeks”. I'm agreeable to that. I think those are very reasonable friendly amendments. I think, effectively, Mr. Ste-Marie, that that is three weeks, is it not? I don't know. I'd have to look at the sitting calendar to see whether there's an actual break week that early after we come back.

Anyway, it seemed as if we were achieving consensus on that. I think Mr. Chambers is now suggesting three weeks and the Conservatives would agree to three weeks to start clause-by-clause after the bill is reported to the committee. If that's the new debate we're having, we can talk about it, but I prefer the two-week period. I think that's reasonable—“two sitting weeks”.