[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Monday, March 11, 1996
.1733 
[English]
The Clerk of the Committee: Hon. members, I see a quorum.
[Translation]
Pursuant to Standing Order 106(1) and 106(2), election of a Chairman is the first item on the agenda. I am ready to receive motions to that effect.
[English]
Mr. Fewchuk (Selkirk - Red River): I would like to nominate Mr. Jim Peterson to the chair, please.
[Translation]
The Clerk: You all agree? It's unanimous.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: Thank you, Madam Clerk.
[English]
To paraphrase Groucho Marx, I am not sure I want to be the head of an organization that would have me, but I am delighted. Thank you very much.
Mr. Benoit (Vegreville): I would like to congratulate you, Mr. Chairman, on your being chosen as chair of this committee again. I would like to nominate Herb Grubel to the position of opposition vice-chair.
The Chair: Seconders?
Mr. Duncan (North Island - Powell River): I'll second that.
An hon. member: A recorded vote, please.
The Chair: All those in favour of having a recorded vote?
Mr. Benoit: We don't need to get permission.
An hon. member: I don't think we need a vote on a recorded vote, do we?
An hon. member: I'm sorry; we do.
Mr. Duncan: May we ask for clarification from the clerk?
The Chair: Madam Clerk.
.1735
The Clerk: Yes, we can have a recorded vote. I don't remember exactly the number of the article. It's going to take ten seconds.
The Chair: Is there any more discussion on whether we have a recorded vote or not?
Mr. Duhamel (St. Boniface): Let's just do it.
[Translation]
Motion negatived: nays 11; yeas 3
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Campbell.
Mr. Campbell (St. Paul's): I'd like to nominate as vice-chair of this committee Susan Whelan, the hon. member for Essex - Windsor.
[Translation]
The Chairman: We will vote on that motion.
[English]
Motion agreed to
The Chair: Congratulations, Ms Whelan.
[Translation]
Mr. Belisle (Laprairie): I would like to nominate Mr. Yvan Loubier as Vice-Chair.
[English]
Mr. Benoit: I would like a recorded vote.
The Chair: We've already voted.
Mrs. Brushett (Cumberland - Colchester): Mr. Loubier as second vice-chairman: is that what we're voting on now?
The Chair: Yes.
Motion agreed to: yeas 9; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chair: I declare Mr. Loubier elected. Félicitations.
Clerk, about the next issue, do you want to take us through these? This is the subcommittee on agenda and procedure, the steering committee.
The Clerk: Those are the routine motions. This is the motion the committee needs to function.
Mr. Duncan: May I ask for a clarification from the chair? Mr. Loubier is not here. Does he not have to be here to accept the nomination?
The Clerk: No, he can be elected in absentia.
Mr. Duncan: Is that the ruling from the chair, that he doesn't have to be here?
The Chair: Based on what I've been informed by the clerk, I so rule.
Mr. Grubel (Capilano - Howe Sound): Can the clerk tell us where we could find an earlier ruling on this?
The Chair: It's in the rules of procedure, Mr. Grubel.
Mr. Grubel: What if he doesn't want the job?
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Bélisle, did Mr. Loubier tell you that he would accept the nomination?
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre): Mr. Loubier asked me to substitute for him.
The Chairman: Oh, I see!
[English]
Mr. Grubel: All kinds of things might have happened between the last time he talked to her and now to make him change his mind. I don't think it's right. Do you think it's right?
The Clerk: Very right.
The Chair: The subcommittee on agenda and procedure: last time we had the chair, the two vice-chairs, the finance critic for the third party, and the parliamentary secretary. That's three Liberals, Mr. Grubel, and Mr. Loubier. Also, people can substitute on the steering committee. The steering committee is to try to set agenda for the committee in a very informal way,
.1740
[Translation]
very informally.
[English]
Would you like to change that, or do we have a motion so to proceed?
Mrs. Brushett: I so move.
The Chair: Other people can attend should they wish.
Motion agreed to
The Chair: The printing of copies of Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence:
[Translation]
that the Committee publish its Minutes of Proceedings as established by the Board of Internal Economy.
[English]
Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
[Translation]
The Chairman: You should do it, because it is for you, is it not?
[English]
The Clerk: Hearing evidence and printing: sometimes we do hear witnesses without a quorum. It has been accepted in previous committees. I just need your consent to pass that motion...as it was done previously.
Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
[Translation]
The Clerk: We will have to ask the Library of Parliament to provide the researchers services.
[English]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: I'd like to introduce to you at this time, for those who are new to the committee, Richard Domingue and Marion Wrobel. They have been a wonderful service to members from all parties in the past.
Mr. Pillitteri (Niagara Falls): So we're not short-staffed.
Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chair: Transcripts of in camera meetings: that one transcript of all in camera meetings be produced and kept in the clerk's office, and that these transcripts be destroyed at the end of the session.
Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chair: Distribution of papers: that the clerk be authorized to distribute documents received from the public and addressed to the committee in the language received; the committee clerk to ensure that such documents are translated and circulated as promptly as possible.
Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
[Translation]
The Chairman: It is a question of having the documents available in both official languages. Sometimes we cannot get the translation immediately, but we will do our best.
[English]
Witness expenses: that we reimburse reasonable witness expenses, but that we limit the witness expenses for any one organization appearing before us to one individual.
Motion agreed to
The Chair: Working lunches: that the committee authorize the chair from time to time, as the need arises, in conjunction with the clerk, to provide lunches for the committee or committees when they are working.
Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chair: We also need a motion on how many people we need here to hear witnesses. To pass any motion, we require a quorum of eight out of fifteen members. But simply to hear witnesses and not pass motions....
The rule last time was that we had three members from any parties. We then said, so the official opposition could not be thwarted, we had to have a member of the official opposition; but if one did not come within fifteen minutes, then we could start anyway, provided we had three. So we gave the official opposition the opportunity to hold up a meeting by fifteen minutes. That was the way we proceeded last time.
.1745
[Translation]
There were problems when we had to hear many witnesses. Sometimes we had to wait 15 minutes and I had to make the announcement that we could not start hearing evidence without the presence of a member from the Official Opposition. It was somewhat embarrassing.
It think the Official Opposition is entitled to some protection. I don't know exactly what kind, but we can discuss that when Mr. Loubier is here. If everyone agrees, that is what we will do. You might to discuss with him some sort of compromise that would allow us...
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: To make it easier and fairer to everyone.
The Chairman: ...make it easier and fairer for everyone, including the Official Opposition. Perhaps you will want to discuss it with your whip immediately.
[English]
Mr. Duncan: Mr. Chair, may I add some comment to this debate?
The Chair: Sure.
Mr. Duncan: That is what some of the committees have done, at least the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs which I sit on - I believe the way it reads is ``an opposition member''. In other words, that is a bit of a compromise in terms of making more people available to fill the potential quorum.
The Chair: I like that. I also wouldn't mind if the third party had the same rights, such as five minutes.
Mr. Duncan: My suggestion would put the generic ``opposition'' as...it does give equal rights to the -
The Chair: So it would be the same thing. I have no problem with that, and if you want to discuss it.... But perhaps we should wait for Mr. Loubier.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: That could wait. I don't think there is any problems.
The Chairman: Why don't we do that for now and if Mr. Loubier wants to make some changes, we could discuss them later?
[English]
Mr. Campbell: I think it's fair to point out, Mr. Chairman, that we were waiting for the official opposition fairly often. We're all very busy; we understand that. I just pointed out that it was a little awkward, as you say, when we had more than one witness waiting and a tight timeframe.
The Chair: And it was on television.
Mr. Campbell: Yes.
The Chair: Your suggestion sounds like a good one that we could -
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: That means we are adding somebody to make a quorum.
The Chair: I am not sure exactly what the suggestion was. Perhaps you could go through that again.
Mr. Duncan: We're on motion 5 and you have an optional addition there. The way it reads is: ``if no Member of the Official Opposition is present 20 minutes after the designated start of the meeting''. All I'm suggesting is that it be changed to read ``no member of the Opposition'', which allows more flexibility.
The Chair: Okay.
The Clerk: So that will mean we could start if we have either one Reform member or one Bloc member?
Mr. Duncan: Yes, correct.
The Chair: I want to get around the problem of waiting 20 minutes. A lot of our proceedings are televised. They are all sitting here looking into the cameras and you have to wait 20 minutes. People say, ``What a bloody waste''. It reflects unfairly on the opposition.
Mr. Duncan: So what's your suggestion? Five minutes? Ten minutes?
The Chair: I would ideally like five minutes.
An hon. member: Five is reasonable.
The Chair: Why don't you think about it?
Mr. Grubel: Mr. Chair, why don't we just see how these people here feel about five minutes, seven and a half minutes, ten minutes, something like that; and then if Mr. Loubier objects, we can open it again.
The Chair: Okay.
Mr. Grubel: We have a very interested group here. I think it would be a shame to let the opportunity go for people to have their say.
The Chair: Thank you.
Okay, then why don't we pass a motion now for five minutes, and we'll open it up at the next meeting, if necessary.
Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chair: Thank you all very much.
.1750
Now, is there anything else people want to discuss? Are there other issues?
Mr. Grubel: I wondered what the latest ruling on the publication of our minutes was. Has the clerk ruled on that?
The Clerk: The clerk doesn't rule on such issues. It's the Board of Internal Economy.
Mr. Grubel: Yes. What has been happening on that recently?
The Clerk: From what I understood, everything is being put on PubNet. Members of Parliament have direct access to PubNet. It sometimes takes two or three days. We still have some transcripts that are being sent to my office. When everything is in fine order and printed and so on, I get five copies. But usually they are not for you. They are usually for the witnesses and for people who don't have access to PubNet. So you are pretty much on your own now. You have to use your computer and PubNet. It's going to be put on Internet pretty soon, so your office in your riding could also have access to it.
Mr. Grubel: I have a question about the number of copies printed of submissions made by witnesses. This is a very great expense. I'm wondering if it has ever been considered that we ask people who make a submission to come up with a certain number of copies themselves.
The Clerk: Mr. Grubel, we have been doing that for the last two years, actually. Usually I don't make photocopies of submissions because I don't get them in time. So I ask witnesses to bring their own copies. They usually bring fifteen or twenty in English and ten in French, something like that. They are then distributed to the members here and to the interpreters.
Mr. Grubel: What does the relevant motion, which we have passed, read on that subject? What does it say here? Can you help me?
The Clerk: Distribution of papers.
Mr. Grubel: Distribution of papers, yes.
The Clerk: Those are mostly letters or things like that which people ask me to pass to the committee members. It's very rarely big documents.
Mr. Grubel: I'm just wondering, for the sake of economy, if we couldn't simply require people who send us thirty-page papers, if they want them distributed, to supply them in sufficient numbers when they're running them off, rather than incurring the expense of running those extra copies ourselves.
The Clerk: Yes, but they may end up having to send me a package like that, and it's going to cost them.... It all depends. Do you want to cut out access to the Hill completely? We can also ask them to send them in both official languages.
The Chair: Herb, could we do a bit of a compromise and give the clerk flexibility so in every case where she can possibly do it in good conscience she will force the witnesses to supply us with all the paper, including the translations? There might be some cases where she can't do it, because of the nature of the witness or the group.
The Clerk: Yes, usually with large organizations I ask them to send me their copies in both official languages, because they can.
The Chair: At least the clerk should request in every case that the witnesses supply us with sufficient copies for all members. In some cases where they can't be reasonably expected to, she could assume the cost. Would that be a compromise you can live with?
Mr. Grubel: Yes. I think next time when we pass on this, I would like to have that wording in the motion we pass.
The Chair: Why don't we just amend the wording in the agenda right now, to add to it that the clerk request of witnesses sufficient copies for members?
Mr. Grubel: Yes, that the presumption is that the witnesses supply the copies for each member, but that under unusual circumstances, whatever those may be, a matter of time...or it may be a poverty group that does not have the money, or a private individual. I would go along with those kinds of exemptions, but the presumption is that they supply it.
.1755
The Chair: Discussion?
Mr. Dhaliwal (Vancouver South): I don't think we need a motion or an adjustment. I think we should give the clerk the flexibility and have an understanding. I don't know why we necessarily need an amendment to the motion, which has already been passed.
Mr. Grubel: That's why I said I would like to have in the record that the next time we shall make this explicit, rather than having as an appendix that we agreed upon it. That is now available in the minutes.
Mr. Dhaliwal: Very well. I think I would accept that. That's fine - that in the future we can do that - but we don't need to amend something we've already passed.
The Chair: Herb, are you happy with that?
Mr. Grubel: Yes. In fact, that's what I propose. If it's not there the next time, sir....
The Chair: I'll do my best.
I thought I might ask the parliamentary secretary to give us a list of some of the bills we might be seeing in the not-too-distant future. Would you be good enough to do that, Mr. Campbell?
Mr. Campbell: Yes, I'll be happy to do that.
Just to give members an indication, we will see shortly a borrowing authority bill, and we will then start into budget implementation. There'll be a budget implementation bill and of course later on - much later on, as is usually the case - the technical bill. I think I'm correct in saying that we still have not dealt with the technical bill from last year's budget. That has to come along. That's usually what we refer to as ``the telephone book''.
The Chair: That's awful, Barry. Get your act together.
Mr. St. Denis (Algoma): You call it a technical bill. Is it about housekeeping things?
Mr. Campbell: All the detailed changes to give effect to the budget. After the budget we have a general budget implementation bill, which is the broad direction of the budget, and then there's a technical bill, which effects the technical changes, principally to the Income Tax Act but other technical changes as well.
Looking farther down the road, there will be other technical bills dealing with other financial legislation, amendments to fiscal provincial arrangements to implement changes with respect to the CHST, and then, looking much farther down the road, implementing legislation to give effect to any changes that follow on the white paper with respect to financial institutions.
So it's a quite full load, leaving out anything else that might come along that we'll have to look at as a committee. Of course it's open to us as a committee to take on any additional work that we want to do as a committee.
Mr. Grubel: What about the CPP?
Mr. Campbell: I neglected to mention that being down the road. It is on the list, because in time there will be legislation to implement any changes to the plan as that consultation is completed and legislation is drafted.
Mr. Grubel: Are the primary hearings in human resources development or in finance, or are they going in parallel?
Mr. Campbell: What we have is a federal-provincial consultation on the CPP pursuant to the joint paper that has been done. Ultimately, legislation will come before one committee or another. I don't believe that has been resolved as yet, but as far as I understand, the consultations themselves will not be under the auspices of this committee, the process that has begun.
Mr. Grubel: So Parliament has no input.
Mr. Campbell: I don't think that's right, Herb, but the input comes when the legislation is introduced.
I'm not clear on how the consultation that is following on the joint paper will progress, because it's a joint federal-provincial consultation.
Mr. Grubel: I would like to go on the record as suggesting that this committee should be involved in this consultation process in some way. I think we have traditionally been considered. People have approached us about the subjects. Many witnesses issue concern, and they know that we're here and that they will get a good hearing. Maybe we can introduce this.
.1800
Could I ask another question, Mr. Chairman? This is just ignorance on my part, but what is the Bank Act - the Bank Act versus the financial institutions? Is that the same thing?
Mr. Campbell: The Bank Act has built into it a regular ten-year review.
Mr. Grubel: And that's coming up?
Mr. Campbell: However, when the financial institutions reform took effect in 1992, sunset provisions were built into the legislation at that time calling for a review of those changes five years later, that being 1997. So it was a break with the normal ten-year review.
Mr. Grubel: So what you announced as hearings further down the line on the financial institutions act.... What did you call it?
Mr. Campbell: On financial institutions reform. A white paper will be issued shortly that will reflect discussions, consultations, the department has held with various stakeholders to give some general direction to changes that might be made to financial institutions legislation. Of course when I speak of financial institutions legislation I mean more than the Bank Act. There are the other statutes governing the insurance sector, the trust sector, the investment dealers. It's a whole range of legislation, including the Bank Act.
Mr. Grubel: When will the Bank Act come up again for the ten-year -
Mr. Campbell: What will happen is that following on the tabling of the white paper, this committee will likely take on some aspects of that consultation. There is also a Senate committee that has been doing a great deal of work in this area.
Mr. Grubel: Under what authority did the Minister of Finance in his budget announce an bill that properly should be considered under this legislation?
Mr. Campbell: Why don't you state what specifically you're referring to, rather than my guessing?
Mr. Grubel: The matter that made all members of the government in Parliament stand up for a spontaneous round of applause -
Mr. Campbell: Name them.
Mr. Grubel: This was so beautiful -
Ms Whelan (Essex - Windsor): Many times.
Mr. Grubel: No, only once. It was so uniform. It has to do with the sale of insurance on bank premises.
Mr. Campbell: Within bank branches.
The issue of whether or not to allow the expansion of bank powers to include the sale of insurance within bank branches is a fairly straightforward one, as opposed to many of the other issues that have been the subject of the ongoing departmental consultation and will be the subject of the white paper. They are much more complicated issues.
The one of whether or not there has been enough experience with the 1992 reforms to warrant additional powers was fairly clear-cut vis-à-vis insurance, so it was not considered by the government that there was any need for further discussion of that issue. The other issues that will be within the white paper are much more complicated than that.
The Chair: Are you suggesting, Mr. Grubel, it had anything to do with politics?
Mr. Grubel: I would just like to hear him on the record so I can send it to all the bank representatives. This was such a clear-cut issue that has been made by the government. But it was a kind of strange thing that we were all anticipating the opportunity to hear from all stakeholders in this, and especially this committee is supposed to have input in these things, and then we are simply confronted by the fact that it is now decided in the budget that we're going to rule one way.
I'm not saying which way I would have voted, but I was looking forward to hearing in a systematic way, including questions from everyone here, what the arguments are for and against. As far as I can see.... Will we still have an opportunity to do that on that particular issue?
The Chair: I would like to suggest, Mr. Grubel, that this could be a matter for the steering committee to look at. I'm not sure we can limit the testimony of any witnesses who appear before us.
Mr. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, if our experience is any harbinger of things to come, that's usually the case. Witnesses tend to talk about what they want to talk about. But the parameters of the discussion before this committee will principally revolve around the issues raised in the white paper. That would typically be what we would then discuss as a committee if we're involved in that consultation.
.1805
[Translation]
Mr. Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières): Mr. Chairman, regarding the select panel appointed by the Finance Minister to study corporate taxation, are you familiar with its timetable, its mandate and its relationship with the Finance Committee?
The Chairman: Right now, I don't think there is any relationship between that committee and ours. That panel will suggest some amendments to the Minister which we might review afterwards. Nonetheless, we might review the matter if the Steering Committee and the Standing Committee wish to do so.
[English]
Mr. Benoit.
Mr. Benoit: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask the parliamentary secretary, Mr. Campbell.... Again, I didn't hear an answer there. Under what authority did the finance minister announce that this decision had been made?
Mr. Campbell: I guess the prerogative about whether or not to introduce legislation lies with the government. This is a change the government chose -
Mr. Benoit: But he announced it as a done deal, a decision.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Duncan, for being with us.
Mr. Duncan: I have a dinner engagement. Otherwise I'd stay.
The Chair: I don't blame you. If you want me to substitute for you there, I'd be happy to.
Mr. Duncan: No. The conversation wouldn't go that well if you were to substitute with me.
The Chair: Is this one on one?
Mr. Benoit: Again, the finance minister announced this as a done deal, a decision made. Who did the finance minister consult with to make this decision?
Mr. Dhaliwal: Mr. Chairman, we're not really talking about the issues. The member will have an opportunity in the House to put that question directly to the finance minister. I don't think it's really the mandate of this committee to discuss whether he has the legal authority otherwise. But he'd be free to ask in the House.
Mr. Benoit: I'm enjoying it so much I wanted to prolong it a little.
Mr. Dhaliwal: I don't think it's an issue we want to deal with.
The Chair: I can certainly have some insurance agents give you a call and explain the issue to you, if you want.
Mr. Benoit: I think I've heard from a few.
The Chair: Are there any other issues you want to talk about? What I was going to suggest is that we perhaps have a steering committee at some time later this week, one in which we could go over some of these issues in detail and discuss them.
Mr. Grubel: Can you refresh my memory on one thing, please, Mr. Peterson? Did we have hearings on the budget itself last year, once it was out?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Grubel: Was that on the list?
The Chair: Yes, and quite frankly, as soon as we see this, it will be up to you to decide. We'll work together to see how much time you want, which witnesses you want, and how far you want to delve into any one of these issues.
If there's nothing else, let me just say, first of all,
[Translation]
that I would like to welcome Mr. Bélisle and Mr. Pomerleau to our committee. But it is always a pleasure to have Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral and Mr. Rocheleau with us,
[English]
and Herb, welcome back. It's nice to again have you here.
Mr. Benoit is not a stranger to us, nor Mr. Solberg. I'd particularly like to welcome new Liberal members to our committee: Mr. Duhamel, Mr. Dhaliwal, and our new vice-chair, Susan Whelan. I also welcome back Mr. Campbell, who is here in his capacity as the enemy, the new parliamentary secretary. Of course it's great to have familiar faces such as Mr. St. Denis, Mr. Pillitteri, Mr. Fewchuk, and Ms Brushett, who's back with us. We'll also see, from our party, a lot of Brenda Chamberlain and Nick Discepola, who will be giving us a lot of time.
If you have any questions, we're always open to your suggestions about how we act as a committee, how we conduct our affairs, what issues are important to you. My assistant Lou Ricaboni is at the back. If I'm not around, you can always get hold of him.
We're going to have a very busy session.
[Translation]
It will be interesting. There will be a lot of complex issues, but I am very much looking forward to working with you. I am in your hands.
[English]
Thank you all very much.
The meeting is adjourned to the call of the chair.