FINA Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Finance

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, April 16, 2002

¹

1535

The Chair (Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.))

Mr. Bob Lingwood (President and Chief Executive Officer, British Columbia Ferry Corporation)

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Bob Lingwood

¹

1545

¹

1550

The Chair

Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Scott Brison (Kings--Hants, PC)

Mr. David Reid (Vice-President, Business Development, Washington Marine Group)

Mr. Scott Brison

Mr. David Reid

Mr. Scott Brison

Mr. David Reid

Mr. Scott Brison

Mr. Bob Lingwood

Mr. Scott Brison

¹

1555

The Chair

Mr. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.)

Mr. Bob Lingwood

Mr. Shawn Murphy

Mr. Bob Lingwood

Mr. Shawn Murphy

Mr. Bob Lingwood

Mr. Shawn Murphy

Mr. Bob Lingwood

Mr. Shawn Murphy

Mr. Bob Lingwood

Mr. Shawn Murphy

The Chair

Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Bob Lingwood

º

1600

The Chair

Mr. Richard Harris (Prince George--Bulkley Valley, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Bob Lingwood

Mr. Richard Harris

Mr. Bob Lingwood

Mr. Richard Harris

Mr. Bob Lingwood

Mr. Richard Harris

Mr. Bob Lingwood

Mr. Richard Harris

Mr. Bob Lingwood

Mr. Richard Harris

Mr. Bob Lingwood

Mr. Richard Harris

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.)

º

1605

Mr. Bob Lingwood

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Bob Lingwood

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Bob Lingwood

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. David Reid

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. David Reid

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. David Reid

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

º

1610

Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Jason Kenney

Mr. Scott Brison

Mr. Jason Kenney

The Chair

Mr. Richard Harris

The Chair

Mr. Richard Harris

The Chair

Mr. Richard Harris

Mr. Jason Kenney

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Lorne Nystrom (Regina--Qu'Appelle, NDP)

The Chair

Mr. Bryon Wilfert

The Chair

Mr. Bryon Wilfert

The Chair

Mr. Bryon Wilfert

The Chair

Mr. Bryon Wilfert

The Chair

Mr. Richard Harris

The Chair

º

1615

Mr. Richard Harris

The Chair

The Clerk of the Committee

The Clerk

Mr. Bryon Wilfert

The Chair

Mr. Bryon Wilfert

Mr. Jason Kenney

Mr. Bryon Wilfert

The Chair

Mr. Jason Kenney

The Chair

Mr. Richard Harris

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Finance

---

NUMBER 088

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, April 16, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1535)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.)): Welcome to our committee. These are our witnesses: from B.C. Ferry Corporation, Bob Lingwood, president and CEO; and from the Washington Marine Group, David Reid, vice-president, business development.

    The order of the day is Bill C-47, an act respecting the taxation of spirits, wine, and tobacco, and the treatment of ships' stores. I'm going to let you go ahead with your presentation. Please commence.

    Mr. Bob Lingwood (President and Chief Executive Officer, British Columbia Ferry Corporation): Thank you, Chair and committee members. We appreciate the opportunity to meet with the committee today. My name is Bob Lingwood. I'm the president and chief executive officer of the B.C. Ferry Corporation. With me is David Reid, who is the vice-president of business development for the Washington Marine Group.

    B.C. Ferry provides passenger and motor vehicle transportation on coastal British Columbia. We operate 40 ships on 25 routes throughout coastal B.C. On an annual basis we carry 21 million passengers and 8 million vehicles, and as such are one of the largest ferry operators in the world.

    The Washington Marine Group is British Columbia's largest commercial employer in the marine sector, with 2,000 employees. The group comprises over 20 companies, including Sea-Span International and three shipbuilding companies, both in Vancouver and Victoria.

    B.C. Ferry and the Washington Marine Group are here today to jointly request that Bill C-47 be amended. Since 1986, the legislative framework has given unfair advantage to certain marine vessels operating in the Great Lakes and parts of the St. Lawrence River. It does so by precluding other operators, including those along British Columbia's coast, from receiving the very same form of tax or duty relief provided to the eastern operators.

    Again, the Washington--

    The Chair: Excuse me. We're just going to check the translation.

    We'll suspend just for one or two minutes to be sure about the technical difficulties, because it's important that we have the full translation.

¹  (1539)  

---

¹  (1543)  

    The Chair: We can start. Go ahead.

    Mr. Bob Lingwood: Thank you.

    The Washington Marine Group and the B.C. Ferry Corporation have long objected to the legislative framework that was put in effect in 1986. On May 10, 2001, after almost seven years of litigation by B.C. Ferry, the Federal Court of Appeal ruled that the ships’ stores regulations flowing from the Customs Act and the Excise Tax Act were not in accordance with the authority in the enabling legislation. It also ruled that without changes, these regulations would cease to have effect on October 1, 2001. The court determined the regulatory scheme was unauthorized and therefore discriminatory.

    On September 27, 2001, the government announced, through a ways and means motion, now replicated in part 10 of Bill C-47, a number of legislative changes. These changes effectively perpetuate the same discriminatory tax treatment favouring certain operators in the Great Lakes and parts of the St. Lawrence over operators on the east and west costs of Canada until the end of 2004.

    If the proposed changes are enacted, an act of Parliament will have superseded the finding of discrimination by the Federal Court of Appeal. The Washington Marine Group and the B.C. Ferry Corporation therefore continue to strenuously object to a continuation for an additional three years of these discriminatory provisions in a repackaged form. As a result, we're seeking appropriate changes to part 10 of Bill C-47.

    We feel that these changes are needed for two reasons. First, the provisions are clearly discriminatory, and second, the proposed measures generate costs for both operators and their customers that render us less competitive.

    On the first point of discrimination, the Government of Canada has argued in the Federal Court of Appeal that these policies were created to support some kind of protectionism for Canadian suppliers. However, the geographical formula the government wants to maintain was clearly rejected by the court. It concluded that at best they appear designed to give a fiscal preference to certain parts of the country as compared to certain other parts. In the same vein, the proposed changes are inconsistent with the multilateral Agreement on Internal Trade, an agreement to treat persons, goods, and investments equally irrespective of where they originate in Canada and to ensure that any measure does not operate so as to discriminate among provinces or regions.

    On the second point, we feel that the proposal creates unfair additional costs for us and our customers, making us both less competitive at a time when the British Columbia economy faces serious challenges. Since 1986, when the discriminatory provisions came into effect, the Washington Marine Group has paid approximately $20 million in diesel marine fuel taxes, about $2 million annually at present. Fuel costs represent the largest portion of operations after labour and capital. The costs of fuel have a flow-through impact on B.C.'s coastal forest industry as their inputs in finished products are sent to mill and market.

    Elimination of these taxes would, for example, have an immediate impact on reducing towing costs for the B.C. forest industry. If tax relief is obtained, the Washington Marine Group will pass these savings directly on to customers by applying the legally binding de-escalation clauses in the transportation contracts with their customers, resulting in immediate cash rebates applied retroactively. The major benefactors will be the forest products companies of British Columbia. This would see an immediate infusion of $20 million into the British Columbia economy, two-thirds of which would go to the forest industry.

    The British Columbia Ferry Corporation pays over $5 million a year in fuel tax and since 1986 has paid about $60 million in marine fuel tax. This tax impacts on the cost base and immediately flows through to the customer.

¹  (1545)  

    B.C. Ferry's operations impact various industries including tourism and the commercial sectors. As such, they have a significant impact on regional and local economies. If tax relief is obtained, B.C. Ferry will pass this saving directly on to customers by reducing pressures on future tariff increases and, if applied retroactively, paying down debt, thereby reducing the future rate of tariff increases.

    In conclusion, the B.C. Ferry Corporation and the Washington Marine Group request, one, that access to the transitional excise tax rebate in Bill C-47 be expanded to include B.C. operators and other operators who have been discriminated against in the same manner; and two, that this access be applied retroactively to 1986, the year when the discriminatory practice was established, in order to refund the diesel fuel taxes previously paid by the B.C. Ferry Corporation, the Washington Marine Group, and other similarly affected operators.

    Thank you once again for providing us with this opportunity to make a presentation on an issue that we've worked on for many years and that is of extreme importance to us.

¹  (1550)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Madame Picard, avez-vous des questions?

[Translation]

    Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Madam Chair, I'm not familiar with Part 10 of the Bill. May I yield to Mr. Brison?

    The Chair: Yes.

[English]

     Ten minutes, Mr. Brison.

    Mr. Scott Brison (Kings--Hants, PC): I won't require ten minutes, but I have a couple of questions.

    I see there is both Atlantic Canada and of course the Pacific coast affected. To what extent have you engaged your counterparts in Atlantic Canada in your lobbying efforts?

    Mr. David Reid (Vice-President, Business Development, Washington Marine Group): The American group is currently doing some calculations. When I talked to them, their view of the world was that their quantum would be smaller than ours, but they're certainly interested and will be pursuing it.

    Mr. Scott Brison: Have they taken a position? Have they and others with a vested interest taken a public position?

    Mr. David Reid: Not that I'm aware of.

    Mr. Scott Brison: This is more of a national or, if you will, a bicoastal issue, which makes it more of a national issue, and it makes it easier for us to address in a substantive way, because if you look at this purely as a one-off, it's quite a different approach than if you look at it from a more holistic or national perspective. I really think you have a very good argument, and we ought to be approaching it from that perspective, from a tax fairness perspective.

    You may have said this, but I didn't hear, or don't remember hearing, you say what the cost to the treasury of these changes would be.

    Mr. David Reid: In terms of the commercial market on the west coast, the Washington group represents about 60% of the market, so we're taking a look at maybe something in the order of about $30 million, $35 million, retroactive to 1986.

    In terms of going forward, the way the transportation rates are structured, typically it would mean a 2.5% to 3% reduction in transportation rates to customers.

    Mr. Scott Brison: What precedents do you cite when you speak of going back retroactively? I don't have a lot of institutional memory for this kind of situation. Moving forward, I can see the change being easier to effect, but for the retroactive part of what you're seeking, what precedents are there? I'm asking because I'm not aware.

    Mr. Bob Lingwood: We haven't cited any specific precedents. I think the issue we bring forward is a clearer decision by the Federal Court of Appeal saying this was discriminatory. I think in that sense it may not be unique, but it is certainly very different from most situations.

    Mr. Scott Brison: I have no further questions, although it would be helpful if you could identify those groups on the east coast with whom we could make contact. That could help, as well as any decisions you are aware of that are taken from that, and we'd gladly play a role in that regard.

    Thank you very much.

¹  (1555)  

    The Chair: Mr. Murphy, you have 10 minutes.

    Mr. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.): Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson. I won't require 10 minutes.

    First of all, Mr. Lingwood, I just want to follow up on a question pursued by the previous member, and it relates to the cost to the treasury. I take it that if this exemption were allowed, it would have to go to all international sea carriers operating in Canada.

    Mr. Bob Lingwood: International sea carriers receive a rebate, so it's really those of us who are operating domestically.

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: You've given me the evidence as to how much your company and also the Washington group have paid since 1986, but do you have any idea what it would cost on an annual basis?

    Mr. Bob Lingwood: We don't have the information nationally in terms of the other players who would be affected.

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: What you seem to be saying is that your two companies appear to have the bulk of the work on the west coast. Is that what you're saying?

    Mr. Bob Lingwood: Absolutely. Mr. Reid has described the situation with the Washington group. Certainly, among domestic carriers on the west coast, B.C. Ferry is by far the dominant carrier.

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: Perhaps you can't answer this question, but I'm curious as to why the part in northern Quebec was carved off as being a tax-exempt area. I just don't understand the public policy rationale. Do you understand it?

    Mr. Bob Lingwood: I don't understand it. I think it was perhaps the lack of public policy rationale that resulted in the court decision we received.

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: So you can't offer any explanations.

    Mr. Bob Lingwood: No, I can't.

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: I wouldn't classify it as an inland water, no more so than with the other Atlantic Canadian provinces.

    I have no further questions, Madam Chair.

    The Chair: Mr. Wilfert.

    Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Madam Chair, I did meet with these gentlemen earlier. Reviewing the comments they made in their presentation and looking at the implications, particularly the issue of retroactivity, I can certainly say this is a very sensitive issue. There are criteria, as you know, that were adopted back around 1996 with regard to retroactivity, as to whether or not it should be applied.

    The issue also pertains to other modes. You talked about rebates that would go...and I think you mentioned the forest industry. The issue might be for rail and other modes of transportation that would not necessarily fit into this category, but that may come to us at another date asking for relief. I do think the arguments they presented are ones the department is reviewing.

    At this point I'll just say that I would agree with the presenters that the 1986 regulations don't seem to have much rhyme or reason, and I think that's illustrated in the map. It's also illustrated in the fact that they were viewed as discriminatory.

    I believe we have support in terms of where we are going in the final analysis, within three years, and also in terms of the relief we're looking at in the interim period. The real question is, can we go back to 1986? If we do, what are the consequences, both for this particular industry and for others that may choose at some point to also come forward?

    The Chair: Mr. Lingwood, would you like to respond?

    Mr. Bob Lingwood: Yes. I think the comments are quite accurate. We had a very good meeting this morning, and we agree on the end state. After 2004 we're in agreement.

    Perhaps at the outset we would have hoped for a different result after 2004, but it's clear that after that the discriminatory practices will have ended. For us it's very simply the issue of the three years leading up to 2004 and then the issue of retroactivity. They are probably two different issues, but those are the only issues, and we have no issue going forward into the long term.

º  (1600)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    You have some more time, so I'll take Mr. Cullen and then go to Mr. Harris.

    Mr. Harris, go ahead, if you'd like to go first.

    Mr. Richard Harris (Prince George--Bulkley Valley, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Gentlemen, I apologize for coming late. I had people from the tourism industry in B.C., which I'm sure you know all about. We're seeking some changes as well to enhance that vital industry in B.C.

    I'm playing a little catch-up here. As I understand it, there are ships, marine vessels, operating in the inland waters, Great Lakes area, that have a tax exemption in these two areas, while you are not privy to that tax exemption. Are these vessels operating in a similar nature to yours? Is it like apples to apples? There are ferry ships in the inland waters operating that get the tax consideration; there are ferry ships in the outer waters that don't. Is that what we're looking at?

    Mr. Bob Lingwood: That is correct. The ferry going from Toronto to Toronto Island is exempt--it's a rebate--whereas the ferry going from Vancouver to Vancouver Island pays the tax.

    Mr. Richard Harris: And this has been in effect since 1986.

    Mr. Bob Lingwood: Since 1986. We began our court challenge seven years ago.

    Mr. Richard Harris: And where are you in the court challenge?

    Mr. Bob Lingwood: We received a decision in the Federal Court of Appeal in May of last year, which was successful in showing the practice put in effect in 1986 was discriminatory.

    Mr. Richard Harris: Over the period of years I'm sure you probably petitioned the government a number of times, and we've had, what, two different governments since then? Have either of them given you any type of rationale as to why this perceived discriminatory tax application exists? Is there any rationale to this that they are clinging to?

    Mr. Bob Lingwood: We could never see a clear rationale that one would call a sound public policy. I think that's one of the reasons why we've been so tenacious in pursuing this.

    Mr. Richard Harris: But did they ever suggest to you why this is and then give you some sort of a rationale they had in mind? Did they ever say that to you?

    Mr. Bob Lingwood: Perhaps Mr. Reid can comment more on this. It was there to provide relief from ships that were moving into the U.S. and I think an opportunity for those ships to buy products in Canada rather than buying them in the U.S. So there was a protectionist basis to it. We argued that it was discriminatory.

    Mr. Richard Harris: So the tax rebate was to make it more attractive for these ships to buy their goods in Canada, as opposed to buying them when they reached the U.S. port at perhaps a lower price. That was the rationale. Does it hold any water, that rationale?

    Mr. Bob Lingwood: I think the Federal Court's decision is quite clear.

    Mr. Richard Harris: Right. Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Madame Picard? No?

    Mr. Cullen.

    Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Thank you, Mr. Lingwood and Mr. Reid. I apologize. I was also meeting with the tourism representatives from Ontario, so I'm catching up a little bit as well.

    By the way, I have a buyer for your three fast ferries. I've passed the message onto David Emerson and I quoted $50 million for three. It's in Ghana. All he needs is a bit of financing.

    Nonetheless, I'm curious. I'm not a lawyer myself. I think what you're saying here makes a lot of sense to me. When you took it to the courts, did the court then not say this is wrong and therefore the government has to fix it? How does that process work? It sounds like the court indicated you were on the right side of this issue and then it just ended.

º  (1605)  

    Mr. Bob Lingwood: That's exactly what the court did. The ruling in May gave the federal government until October 1, 2001, to change. If nothing was done, the regulations that provided this rebate to certain operators would cease to be in effect. What we see in the ways and means motion, which now has been replicated in part 10 of Bill C-47, is the government's answer to the result of this court case.

    Mr. Roy Cullen: So the government is saying it's business as usual, the status quo, or...

    Mr. Bob Lingwood: No. The government is saying that we will phase out this benefit for the Great Lakes operators and for some on the St. Lawrence over a three-year period. We are saying, that's fine, but those same benefits should accrue to those on the west coast and, as pointed out, to some on the east coast as well.

    Mr. Roy Cullen: So the government is saying that rather than give you the same treatment, they are going to take it away from the Great Lakes operators over a period of time. Your position is that since they are doing that, there is still a retroactive element from which you could get the benefit by claiming it back.

    Mr. Bob Lingwood: There are two issues. One, if we look at the three-year period, we believe that discrimination should stop and that if there is to be a period of phase-in for Great Lake operators, the rebate that applies to them during the three years should apply to all of us. We also believe we should receive refunds for the taxes we paid during this period.

    Mr. Roy Cullen: I have one last question. The Washington Marine Group is owned by whom?

    Mr. David Reid: Dennis Washington. It's family owned.

    Mr. Roy Cullen: You say here that the Washington Marine Group will pass on the savings directly to consumers. Can you elaborate?

    Mr. David Reid: Yes. It relates to the way the transportation contracts are structured. For any cost increases for fuel, labour, or the cost-of-living index there's a formula in the contracts that allows our prices to change. That formula applies to increases in cost as well as to decreases in cost. We're legally bound by those contracts to pass it on if there is a refund.

    Basically, my role is that I am here on behalf of the customers. We are the taxpayer. It is up to us, if we are successful, to make a claim for the refund, but the end benefactors are all our customers who have paid over the years.

    Mr. Roy Cullen: So your company essentially hauls log booms and barges, does it?

    Mr. David Reid: Yes, tugs, barges, and train ships up and down the coast of B.C.

    Mr. Roy Cullen: And B.C. Ferry is still a wholly owned crown corporation.

    If any industry needed it right now, it would be the B.C. forest products industry.

    I don't have any more questions. Thank you very much.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    I don't have any more questioners on my list and I see no hands up.

    Seeing that all your documents have been circulated, I thank you very much for stating your case here today.

    I'll excuse the witnesses, but would the rest of the committee members remain. We have ten people around the table. The clerk advised me that between our morning meeting and our afternoon meeting he got two calls. One was from the Canadian Cancer Society, who said they would be prepared to come tomorrow if there was the consent of the committee. I said we would be meeting this afternoon. Seeing that we have enough people here, is everyone at the table in agreement that this is worth...

    Yes?

º  (1610)  

    Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance): Yes, in principle, to them appearing. Perhaps you could present the other witness who'd like to appear, then scheduling-wise we could have two at once. If that means Thursday, I think that would probably be more sensible than meeting twice to accommodate two witnesses.

    The Chair: Okay. The other witness is the Association of Canadian Distillers. It was put to them that it would potentially be Wednesday or Thursday. They actually told the clerk that they didn't have it together--

    Mr. Jason Kenney: They called about this as well--they had just heard about the hearings--and they told me, at least, that they wouldn't be able to make it until at least Thursday afternoon.

    Mr. Scott Brison: Could we meet with them say around happy hour?

    The Chair: Would you be here, Mr. Brison? If that would entice you...

    Mr. Scott Brison: Meet with them over a drink.

    Mr. Jason Kenney: Five o'clock Friday afternoon.

    The Chair: There are two spots, potentially. We could add one or both to Wednesday afternoon, if they could make it, or Thursday morning is available at this stage. Now, I have a conflict for about an hour and a quarter on that morning. We start our consultations on Tuesday morning, so we'd still have Tuesday afternoon for clause-by-clause, if that's...

    First of all, I'd like to hear from... You can vote on either one of these things, or both of them. If I see consensus, I can...

    Mr. Richard Harris: Just for clarification, we can see them both in one sitting session?

    The Chair: Certainly.

    Mr. Richard Harris: Thursday is best for one and Wednesday is best for the other? Is that what we're saying?

    The Chair: That's what it looks like at this point.

    Mr. Richard Harris: It would be, I think, more convenient for everyone if we could settle on a particular day. Considering caucus is on Wednesday, my choice would be Thursday morning.

    Mr. Jason Kenney: Madam Chair, just for clarification, my understanding is that the Cancer Society can appear as early as tomorrow, but you're not ruling out Thursday, whereas the distillers can't appear until Thursday. So wouldn't that be more...

    The Chair: Well, it wasn't even clear to me whether their people would appear Thursday. The clerk told me, and I said I'd take it to the committee for consultation.

    Yes, Mr. Cullen?

    Mr. Roy Cullen: I have a question. Is there any particular issue that the Canadian Cancer Society...?

    The Chair: Yes, tobacco taxes. I'm making the assumption, but that's the only....

    Mr. Lorne Nystrom (Regina--Qu'Appelle, NDP): Maybe the clerk can sort out if the two groups can come on Thursday.

    The Chair: Why don't we say that those two times are available to them. My preference, quite frankly--I would like to be here for the meeting--is that if we have only one, then we can have a shorter meeting, just like today. But if we can offer them both...

    Mr. Wilfert, please.

    Mr. Bryon Wilfert: My preference, Madam Chair, would be to have it all in one meeting and to then move to clause-by-clause Tuesday. But it indicates that you've already scheduled Tuesday morning. We already have the start of our round table.

    The Chair: Yes, we do.

    Mr. Bryon Wilfert: So we're going to be a bit disjointed, because then we go to clause-by-clause Tuesday afternoon.

    The Chair: Yes.

    Mr. Bryon Wilfert: We had originally, this morning, talked about doing it Thursday morning, but now we...I mean, just how many add-ons are we having here?

    The Chair: Well, I can only give them to you as they come to the clerk, and we tried to--

    Mr. Bryon Wilfert: If we could package them all together, I think that would be preferable for all the members.

    The Chair: Well, we can suggest that to the two associations, but if they can't, then we'll have to have it.... Is everybody agreed? Do we have consensus around the table that they're both invited, that it is this week, and preferably together?

    Mr. Bryon Wilfert: And if there is a difficulty, maybe they would like to send a written submission. That is an alternative that others have done.

    The Chair: Yes.

    Mr. Richard Harris: Madam Chair.

    The Chair: Yes.

    Mr. Richard Harris: I think it would be easier if we picked a day and put the onus on them to appear that day. If we say we have Thursday and Wednesday open, nine times out of ten, one's going to say Wednesday and the other one's going to say Thursday. So why don't we pick the day and invite them to come?

    The Chair: Well, we have tomorrow available, and we know that one of them can come tomorrow. There's room in tomorrow's meeting, in the afternoon.

º  (1615)  

    Mr. Richard Harris: Don't we also know that the other one absolutely can't come tomorrow?

    The Chair: Was that said to you?

    The Clerk of the Committee: Perhaps I can offer some comments, Madam Chair.

    In terms of the Canadian Cancer Society, they're based in Ottawa and they're certainly available to come Wednesday afternoon. I didn't explore the possibility of an appearance on Thursday morning with them.

    In terms of the Association of Canadian Distillers, the comment they made to me was to the effect that they wanted some of their senior staff present to address the committee and that Wednesday afternoon or Thursday morning would not be good for those senior staff to make the presentation. What I did not explore with them at that time was whether or not they would be comfortable sending in a vice-president or someone other than the president, or some senior legal counsel from the association.

    The Chair: Or a brief.

    The Clerk: I did mention that they could always send in a brief. They indicated a clear preference for appearing before the committee.

    Mr. Richard Harris: What date did they say was good for them?

    The Clerk: They said they could consider Thursday afternoon, which I know is certainly not ideal from the committee members' perspective usually, or the following week.

    The Chair:Yes, Mr. Wilfert.

    Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Am I correct, Madam Chair, in understanding that tomorrow afternoon at 3:30 the Association of Canadian Airport Duty-Free Operators and Produits Ronald Inc. will be before the committee?

    The Chair: Yes.

    Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Will it be hoped that maybe we could add the other presenters?

    Mr. Jason Kenney: We could put the cancer group on that.

    Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Tomorrow afternoon.

    The Chair: Yes.

    Mr. Jason Kenney: And then try to work somehow with the distillers.

    The Chair: We'll say yes to both groups and offer them tomorrow afternoon.

    Are we headed towards clause-by-clause on Tuesday? I'm trying to give people as much notice as possible. You'll notice in your offices you have the posting that will go on the Internet. They edited it and translated it for everyone, so we'll put that out there. We have our business panel on Monday and some of the other witnesses--the Governor of the Bank of Canada--on Wednesday.

    We're going to be getting into the heavy slugging, with a lot of meetings coming up. It's important. We will offer Wednesday afternoon to both of these. What is the fallback position if it's absolutely not available for the distillers on Wednesday afternoon? Would you consider a short meeting on Thursday morning, say from 11:30 till 12:30?

    Mr. Richard Harris: Sure.

    The Chair: Okay. Thank you very much, and we'll see you next week. The meeting is adjourned.