FINA Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Finance

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Monday, October 21, 2002

¹

1535

The Clerk of the Committee

Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.)

Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance)

The Clerk

Mr. Dale Johnston

The Clerk

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

The Clerk

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.)

The Clerk

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance)

The Clerk

Mr. Richard Harris

The Clerk

Mr. Richard Harris

¹

1540

Mr. Gary Pillitteri

Mr. Dale Johnston

The Clerk

Mr. Dale Johnston

The Clerk

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

Mr. Gary Pillitteri

The Chair

Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance)

¹

1545

The Chair

Mr. Gary Pillitteri

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mr. Charlie Penson

The Chair

Mr. Charlie Penson

The Chair

Mr. Charlie Penson

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

¹

1550

The Chair

Mr. Charlie Penson

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Richard Harris

The Chair

Mr. Richard Harris

The Chair

Mr. Richard Harris

¹

1555

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Richard Harris

The Chair

Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Richard Harris

The Chair

Mr. Gary Pillitteri

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. John Maloney

The Chair

Ms. Maria Minna

The Chair

Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ)

º

1600

The Chair

Ms. Pauline Picard

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Ms. Pauline Picard

º

1605

The Chair

Ms. Maria Minna

The Chair

Ms. Maria Minna

The Chair

Ms. Maria Minna

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Gary Pillitteri

The Chair

Mr. Reg Alcock

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.)

The Chair

º

1610

Mr. Bryon Wilfert

The Chair

Mr. Richard Harris

The Chair

Mr. Charlie Penson

The Chair

º

1615

Mr. Charlie Penson

The Chair

Mr. Charlie Penson

The Chair

Mr. Charlie Penson

The Chair

Mr. Charlie Penson

Mr. Reg Alcock

The Chair

Mr. Bryon Wilfert

The Chair

Mr. Richard Harris

The Chair

Ms. Pauline Picard

º

1620

The Chair

Mr. Gary Pillitteri

The Chair

Mr. Bryon Wilfert

The Chair

Mr. Charlie Penson

º

1625

The Chair

Mr. Richard Harris

The Chair

Ms. Maria Minna

º

1630

The Chair

Mr. Bryon Wilfert

The Chair

Mr. Bryon Wilfert

The Chair

º

1635

Mr. Richard Harris

The Chair

The Chair

The Clerk

Mme Pauline Picard

The Chair

Mr. Gary Pillitteri

The Chair

º

1640

Mr. Bryon Wilfert

The Chair

Mr. Bryon Wilfert

The Chair

Mr. Charlie Penson

The Chair

Mr. Charlie Penson

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Finance

---

NUMBER 001

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Monday, October 21, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1535)  

[Translation]

    The Clerk of the Committee: Honourable members, I see that we have a quorum. So, I am ready—

[English]

    Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.): Mr. Clerk, I'd like to nominate Sue Barnes for chair.

    Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Clerk, I think you will find that this would probably be an appropriate time to seek the consensus of the committee to have a secret ballot for chair of the committee. This would seem to support the words of one of our colleagues, the member for LaSalle--Émard, Mr. Martin, who said in a speech at the York University campus this afternoon:

...committee chairs should be elected by secret ballot by the majority of the committee itself for the life of a Parliamentary session....

    That is a quote from Mr. Martin. I believe this would increase the independence and expand the authority of all committees.

    Mr. Clerk, I think we might find consensus. I would like to seek consensus for the use of a secret ballot in this election.

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    An hon. member: No.

[Translation]

    The Clerk: So, we have already received a motion.

[English]

for the election of the chair. Secondly, the practice for elections in committees is to proceed by a show of hands, unless there is unanimity, as the book provides. I am going to proceed by a show of hands.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: I have a point of order. Mr. Clerk, what I am asking for is the unanimous consent of the committee to proceed by secret ballot.

    The Clerk: I am in your hands.

    Yes, Mr. Harris.

    Mr. Richard Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Clerk, I think it should be clear that this is not a motion. This is a request of the committee. In fact, this request was made at the first session of the environment committee in the 37th Parliament. It was certainly well accepted in the spirit it was presented. If we on the committee truly do seek to add further democracy to how this Parliament operates, I would suggest that members on all sides of the House would want to ensure that the purest form of democracy can be obtained, and thus this request of the committee to approve this method of voting.

    The Clerk: Is there unanimous consent to proceed by secret ballot?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    Some hon. members: No.

    The Clerk: Mr. Maloney.

    Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): I have a point of order, Mr. Clerk.

    There have been two requests on which there has not been unanimous consent. We have a motion on the floor. Can we not deal with that motion now?

    The Clerk: Mr. Epp.

    Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): I just want clarification. Is there a standing order that says a nomination is made and voted on before another nomination can be made, so that in fact we don't have a choice in the election with respect to the member? Is there only one nomination at a time? Is there a standing order that tells us that?

    The Clerk: Yes. I will quote the book.

    The election of a chair, presided over by the clerk of the committee, proceeds by way of motion. The way it works is the clerk receives all the motions for the nomination. It may be one; it may be two or three. The second and third motions will be dealt with as a notice of motion.

    So I will ask for the vote on the first motion, and if there is no decision made, then I will proceed to the second motion and so on.

    Mr. Richard Harris: Mr. Clerk, I think there might be some misinterpretation or misunderstanding regarding the term “consensus”. I believe you'll find that, as happened in the environment committee, where there was a consensus of members of the committee to adopt the secret ballot method of voting, consensus does not mean unanimous consent. I think you will find that our guidelines indicate that if there is a majority consensus of committee members to proceed with a vote in a certain way, that would be enough to proceed that way. It should not be misconstrued as unanimous consent. I believe you'll find that majority consensus is sufficient.

[Translation]

    The Clerk: Thank you very much, Mr. Harris. I am going to quote Marleau-Montpetit, page 830:

On occasion, committees have had recourse to a secret ballot. This is done only when the committee members express a unanimous desire to proceed in this manner.

[English]

    Mr. Richard Harris: Mr. Clerk, it appears to me this is carved in stone, then, and I would just like to be on record as wondering why this committee would choose to be less democratic than the Standing Committee on Environment, because it puts this committee squarely in that position.

    Thank you.

¹  (1540)  

    Mr. Gary Pillitteri: I have a point of order. We have a motion on the floor, and you have quoted already from Marleau-Montpetit that it requires unanimity.

    Would you please call a vote. You have no other choice but to call a vote.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: Do you accept that the motion be amended by replacing the name of Sue Barnes with the name of Roy Cullen?

    The Clerk: You have to proceed with another motion. You cannot just amend that motion.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: Well, then I would like to nominate Roy Cullen.

    The Clerk: Okay, I am going to proceed to the vote on the first motion. It was moved by Mr. Pillitteri that Ms. Barnes be elected the chair of this committee.

    (Motion agreed to: yeas 12; nays 4)

    The Clerk: I declare Ms. Barnes duly elected as chair of the committee.

    The Chair (Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.)): —[Editor's Note: Technical difficulty] —and nothing personal taken, for the sake of democracy.

    We will continue with the election of two vice-chairs. First, according to Standing Order 106(2), we will need one from the opposition and one from the government party.

    Who would like to make a motion? This is for the government, first of all.

    Mr. Pillitteri.

    Mr. Gary Pillitteri: I would like to place the name of Nick Discepola.

    The Chair: Mr. Discepola, in absentia. Thank you.

    Seeing no other nominations, we can do a hand vote unless I am requested to do a--

    Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): If we close nominations it becomes automatic.

    The Chair: Shall we close nominations?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Mr. Discepola is declared unanimously to be the vice-chair from the government side.

    I would like to now take motions from the opposition.

    You have the floor, Mr. Penson.

    Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Madam Chair, I would like to nominate Dick Harris for the position of vice-chair.

¹  (1545)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    I see no other nominations. Shall nominations be closed?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Congratulations, Mr. Harris. You are the other vice-chair.

    Thank you very much.

    There are some routine motions for the committee.

    Mr. Clerk, do you have copies? Have they been distributed?

    The Clerk: Yes.

    The Chair: The first one deals with the establishment of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. Would somebody like to move this motion?

    Mr. Gary Pillitteri: I so move.

    The Chair: Do you want to read it just for the record?

    Mr. Gary Pillitteri: I move that the subcommittee on agenda and procedure be composed of the chair, the two vice-chairs, the parliamentary secretary, and one member from each of the other parties.

    The Chair: Just for information purposes from the clerk, this is the same motion the committee had last time.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: The motion is unanimously carried.

    On reduced quorum, there's a second motion, similar to the one we had last time.

    Mr. Dromisky, would you...

    Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): I move that the chair be authorized to hold meetings and to receive and publish evidence when quorum is not present, provided that the chair and at least two members are present, including a member of the opposition, provided that if no member of the opposition is present 10 minutes after the designated start of the meeting, the meeting may proceed.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: Perhaps someone would like to move the Library of Parliament motion.

    Mr. Penson?

    Mr. Charlie Penson: I'll let Ken do that one.

    The Chair: Okay, Mr. Epp, go ahead, sir.

    Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Chair, I move that the committee retain the services of one or more of those wonderful research officers from the Library of Parliament, as needed, to assist the committee in its work, at the discretion of the chair.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: We have three of our researchers here today. They are the same ones we had last year.

    Allocation of time for questioning: this is the one we had last year, except that there has been some discussion with regard to pre-budget. You have the briefs in your offices. For anybody whose name was on the list last week, I believe all the briefs have come.

    It says ten minutes here, but I suggest that there may be times when it needs to be less than ten minutes to get everybody's time in. So would “up to” ten minutes be...?

    Charlie, would you like to address this?

    Mr. Charlie Penson: Madam Chair, I think I'd like to see a little less time for the presenters. In the cases where we have their written brief, we don't have to have them read it to us word for word. It's presented to us. In the interests of time, and a shortened pre-budget hearing, it would seem to me that this would be the more important part.

    The Chair: I've heard that. It's something that a number of people from all the parties have said. Especially in the pre-budget discussions, a lot of those briefs came in through the summer and they have been translated. They are in your offices. If any more come in, they will get there as soon as possible. As chair, I then can ask people to speak to their brief as opposed to reading their brief.

    Would you be satisfied, Mr. Penson, with “up to eight minutes”? Or how would you like to amend this?

    Mr. Charlie Penson: The problem I have with it is not so much the time associated with questioning the witnesses as the time it takes them to present. That's the difficulty I have with the motion as it's stated here.

    The Chair: Would “up to ten minutes” address it, and then leave the discretion with the chair to do it according to the number of witnesses we have?

    Mr. Charlie Penson: I'll make that motion, yes.

    The Chair: Do we have consensus on this point?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Thank you very much. So it's up to eight minutes, and then it would be five minutes.

    And the same thing for the rounds of questioning, Mr. Penson?

    Mr. Charlie Penson: Yes.

    The Chair: So it's up to eight minutes, up to eight minutes, and then five minutes.

    Yes, Mr. Epp.

    Mr. Ken Epp: If I may, Madam Chair, I have a little bit of a problem with the subsequent rounds and even the first round. I think there should be some recognition that all members of the committee who are attending should have proportionately the same amount of time.

    So instead of saying that it should be five minutes for each subsequent questioner, it should be in proportion, including the first round; it should be in proportion to the number of members here for each party.

¹  (1550)  

    The Chair: Mr. Epp, you know that when I sit in the chair I try to make it very fair around the table, and no party gets more time than anybody else. But I also need the cooperation of all the members here. So I take your point.

    Mr. Penson.

    Mr. Charlie Penson: I'm sorry, but I don't want to let this slip through. I think the suggestion from Mr. Epp was up to ten minutes but at the discretion of the chair. If we lock it in at eight minutes, that's locked in. So let's leave it up to ten minutes at the discretion of the chair. That leaves you some flexibility.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Seeing no dissent, we'll move on with that one....

    Oui, Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Madam Chair, I want to make sure I understand Mr. Epp's motion. Unless I do not understand English very well, what he said would mean that the Liberals would have more time than the opposition. I don't understand what he said very well. Is he moving a motion? Is it an amendment? I don't know where this is coming from, nor where it is going.

[English]

    The Chair: As I understood what was just proposed by Mr. Penson, who encapsulated what was said, at the discretion of the chair it would be up to ten minutes with the witnesses, with the idea that it would be eight, and then in the questioning it would be up to ten minutes, with the proposal that most of the time we would be going with eight.

    I can tell you that I propose to do the same as what we did last year. It will be first round over to the Alliance, then second round to the Bloc, then to the Liberals, back to either the Tory or the NDP, who are sitting there, back to the Liberals, back... The time at the end of the day will be equalized, and then, depending on whether we have a two-hour meeting or a one-and-a-half hour meeting, I'll take the times down and you will see that rather than giving a second round unequally, I will try to ask for one question, to keep it fair.

    We've done quite well with that system over the last little while. People have respected not only each other's time but the witnesses' time.

    Is anybody unclear right now? No?

    (Motion agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

    The Chair: The next item is in camera meetings.

    Can I have somebody move motion five, please.

    Do you want to put it into the record, Mr. Harris?

    Mr. Richard Harris: I would like to move this, but I was wondering if there's a way to put in an amendment.

    The Chair: You can move the motion you want.

    Mr. Richard Harris: I'm just trying to see how I can fit it in. I would like to move an amendment.

    The Chair: There's no motion on the floor.

    Mr. Richard Harris: Let me make a motion, then. The motion is that this committee will only go into in camera meetings following a majority vote of the committee as a whole.

¹  (1555)  

    The Chair: Does everybody understand that the motion on the floor is not the motion that's here? That's a totally different motion. There's a motion on the floor that we only go into in camera meetings if there is a majority vote of the committee. If you mean the full committee, we'd have to have ten people here. We've been doing our future business in camera.

    Is there any discussion on that?

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Could he tell us why? Could he explains the rationale behind the motion?

[English]

    Mr. Richard Harris: Rather than simply have the chairman of the committee declare that we're going in camera, it should be agreed upon by the committee as a whole. There may be members of the committee who for whatever reason don't particularly want something discussed in an in camera situation and who may want to go on record.

    The Chair: Shall I call the vote?

    Maria.

    Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.): I'm not clear on what the motion is because he made one and then he made another. Is he amending his first motion? I'm not clear on what it is we're voting on.

    The Chair: Mr. Harris, would you please restate your motion? This is not the motion 5 that you see before you. This is a separate motion that Mr. Harris is going to make.

    Go ahead.

    Mr. Richard Harris: I move that this committee shall only go into an in camera meeting following a vote of the committee members to do so.

    The Chair: Does everybody understand that?

    Mr. Gary Pillitteri: It's a good way to stop the committee from going ahead and doing its work. That's what he just did. I cannot support that motion.

    (Motion negatived)

    The Chair: We'll move to the next motion.

    Mr. Proulx.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I move that one copy of the transcript of all in camera meetings be kept in the committee clerk's office for consultation by members of the committee.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: Thank you.

    The next item is order in council appointments. Would somebody like to move that one?

    Mr. Maloney.

    Mr. John Maloney: I move that pursuant to Standing Order 111(4), whenever an order in council for appointment or a certificate of nomination for appointment is referred to the committee, the clerk shall obtain and circulate to each member of the committee a copy of the curriculum vitae of each appointee/nominee.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: The next item is distribution of documents. Can I have a mover?

    Ms. Minna, go ahead.

    Ms. Maria Minna: I move that the clerk of the committee be authorized to distribute to the members of the committee documents in the original language provided, and the translation and the distribution of the translation follow as quickly as possible.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Yes, Madam, go ahead.

    Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Madam Chair, I would like to add something to this paragraph, which could read as follows:

Moreover, the clerk will ensure, when witnesses are invited, that they be asked that their brief be in both official languages, or that it be sent sufficiently ahead of time to allow the committee to have it translated before their appearance before the committee.

º  (1600)  

[English]

    The Chair: Okay.

[Translation]

    Ms. Pauline Picard: This means that the clerk will have to make sure that the witnesses send the documents in both official languages before their presentation to the committee. This is often very difficult, Madam Chair, when the witnesses arrive. I think that we don't insist enough on this point with the witnesses. They often arrive here with a document that is solely in English. I think that when that happens both official languages are not being respected. It is very important, for myself, in any case, as I am practically a unilingual francophone, that I be able to work when a document is presented only in English. So I think we should really insist that documents be translated so that we have them in French and in English. This is just as valid for those who are—

    I know that there were a few that arrived in French last year. I believe they were presented in French only, and the members of the committee who are English-speaking did not appreciate the situation very much. So when the reverse situation arises constantly, it is not very pleasant for me either. We have to emphasize this point.

[English]

    The Chair: I'll address this a couple of ways, substantively and procedurally.

    Procedurally, we have one motion on the floor. That motion can only be amended by a friendly amendment, if it's accepted. Otherwise, I have to proceed with the first motion and then do yours. But the clerk is also telling me that Canadian taxpayers have the right to submit in any language they choose, French or English. They can communicate to their Parliament in either/or. They don't have to communicate in both. However, there is the facility to do the translation. This particular committee, like all the committees of the House, has that facility.

    To alleviate this problem, Madam, we put out the notice very early. About 95% of the briefs that we will hear in the pre-budget discussion have already been translated. We did this over the summer.

    I appreciate the thought. As soon as possible...and knowing that we have all of them, most of which are in both languages right now. But we cannot change the fact that Canadians can do that.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Madam Chair, this is not another procedural motion; it is an amendment that does not run counter to what Maria had moved.

    Secondly, I understand what Mr. Dupuis is saying, and we have no problem with that. We would simply like to see it included in our routine motions that witnesses be asked to have their briefs translated or to send them sufficiently ahead of time so that we can have them translated.

    You state that 95 per cent of documents have already been sent. I presume that is in the context of pre-budget consultations. But as a former member of this committee, I know that on a few occasions, people arrived with their brief when they came. So, we simply want to make sure that when they are invited we ask that they send their brief sufficiently in advance to give us time to have it translated.

[English]

    The Chair: If it would assist you, as chair I can easily direct that in every contact made with witnesses we stress, as we do now, that as a courtesy to all the members of our committee we would appreciate receiving briefs as soon as possible so they can be translated, or, if they have the facility, then they could provide the translation.

    The point that's being made is that we cannot tell people they have to send it in both languages. We have the facility, but we need the time to do it. Since we have this clerk, I know that is what we are doing, and he is telling me he is doing that.

[Translation]

    Ms. Pauline Picard: But is it really a problem to encourage witnesses to send their brief in advance so that we can have it translated? Can we amend the motion?

º  (1605)  

[English]

    The Chair: There has been no problem with regard to pre-budget discussions. We started it last year. We specifically asked for briefs to be in by a certain deadline so that the clerk could organize the hearings for us, especially since the committee had indicated it wished to travel.

    We're going to have to deal with some of those motions again today because all of them died with the prorogation. We can deal with them as soon as we get through these.

    Madam Minna's motion is on the floor. It's up to her as to whether or not she wishes to add a few words.

    Madam Minna, I give you back the floor.

    Ms. Maria Minna: Right now it says “as quickly as possible”. This is really more of a guide to the work we do. I was wondering if we could say something to the effect that the clerk, and of course the chair, would encourage people to submit in two languages if at all possible--not that one is demanding it--and would also ask them to submit as early as possible so that we could do a translation. Those two statements in there would reinforce it. At least it's a proactive thing we're doing with the witnesses. If you could put those two sentiments in, that would be acceptable to me. Thank you.

    The Chair: I'm just going to ask my clerk if he has any issues relating to that.

    The Clerk: No.

    The Chair: So it's a courtesy toward the committee and the witnesses. But I'd want it very clearly understood that we cannot prevent somebody from submitting a document in one language or the other.

    Ms. Maria Minna: That's why I'm saying encourage them to submit in two languages if possible and to submit early.

    The Chair: It's going to be more difficult in some regions of the country than in others. The bottom line is that we don't want to prevent people from being able to communicate with the committee.

    Ms. Maria Minna: We're encouraging them to do those things.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: The next item is witness reimbursement, number 8.

    Mr. Cullen, would you like to move that?

    Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Madam Chair, I move that, as established by the Board of Internal Economy and if requested, reasonable travelling, accommodation, and living expenses be reimbursed to witnesses who are invited to appear before the committee, up to a maximum of two representatives for any one organization.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: Item 9 has to do with working meals.

    Mr. Pillitteri.

    Mr. Gary Pillitteri: I move that the clerk of the committee be authorized to make the necessary arrangements for working meals for the committee and its subcommittees.

    And I hope it's all edible.

    An hon. member: Wishful thinking.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: The next item is televised meetings.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: Is motion number 10 a routine motion for this committee?

    The Chair: Yes. In the past we've always had a motion that says when a minister of the crown or the Governor of the Bank of Canada appears before the committee, the proceedings will be televised. I can give you some background on that. We need ten people to do motions and there may not always be ten here to hear witnesses, such as we have this week. We have people coming in very quickly. We always give the courtesy of television. So it's important that that's routine so that those arrangements can be made.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: Number 11 has to do with 48 hours' notice.

    Mr. Wilfert, go ahead.

    Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Madam Chair, I move that 48 hours' notice be given to the members of the committee before any new item of business is considered by the committee and that the notice be filed with the clerk of the committee and circulated to all members in both official languages. Upon receipt of the notice, the clerk will put the new item of business on the agenda of the next committee meeting.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: Those are our routine motions. Now we have some other motions because of the prorogation. This committee had passed motions last year with respect to our travel and we have to redo those. I will advise you that there was an order in the House giving us permission to travel, but we need to re-outline those cities. I think it was Vancouver, Calgary, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Toronto, Halifax, and Montreal. That is what we were planning last year. All of those reservations have been maintained.

    Would somebody like to move that?

    Mr. Gary Pillitteri: I so move.

    The Chair: Mr. Dupuis, do you have that motion for Mr. Pillitteri?

    Okay. In the course of pre-budget discussions the committee will travel to Vancouver, Calgary, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal, and Halifax. Is there discussion? All those in favour?

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: Again, we had planned to do this in the week of November 4, but I can also advise the committee that the clerk has been contacted by the minister--and maybe I can confirm this with Mr. Wilfert. The minister still wishes to do his...? Please go ahead, sir.

º  (1610)  

    Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Madam Chair, it is the minister's intent to deliver a fiscal update, and the minister would like to deliver that on Wednesday, October 30, the venue being Halifax. The minister is giving a speech in Halifax on the Monday, and it would be an opportunity, Madam Chair, to do two things: one, to hear the fiscal update from the minister, and two, to have our pre-budget consultations.

    The Chair: I should advise you that the clerk has had notice that the Governor of the Bank of Canada wishes to appear before the committee and the date proposed is this Wednesday afternoon.

    Perhaps I should do this one at a time.

    Can I get a motion respecting the Bank of Canada first?

    Mr. Richard Harris: Madam Chair, is there a motion on the floor to change the proposed date of travel?

    The Chair: No. What was just put on the floor is a request from the Minister of Finance to do his economic update in Halifax.

    Halifax is one of our venues. The dates are different because the date we had planned to travel last year was the week of November 4. What is on the table now--and this has not yet been fully explained, but there have been some discussions with the clerks apparently--is that the week of November 4 be the travel week for the committee in all cities except Halifax, and that we do what we would have done in Halifax the week of November 4 on the same day that we do the economic update, but all of the committee can go to that one venue. We can do it in the morning and in the afternoon. We can do a full day and do both the pre-budget consultations with the public and also hear from the minister. We can all get a direct flight out and go to Halifax for one day. But that is next Wednesday, which I believe is October 30.

    Is that correct?

    Mr. Bryon Wilfert: That is correct.

    The Chair: Could I have a motion that the Governor of the Bank of Canada be invited to the committee this Wednesday?

    Mr. Gary Pillitteri: I so move.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: Yes, Mr. Penson.

    Mr. Charlie Penson: I'm just trying to think through this process that the entire committee would go to Halifax, because in some cases we intend to cover this one week by having different members from our party travel to different parts of the country.

    The Chair: That's why there are two different weeks.

º  (1615)  

    Mr. Charlie Penson: I know, but it still means that the entire committee would then have to go to Halifax, which would not be the norm for what we were proposing. So this is a significant change.

    The Chair: But it prevents us from going twice and it keeps the costs down. That is one of the other things we have to do today, redo our budget, and it is much cheaper to combine the pre-budget for all of us.

    Mr. Charlie Penson: I'm sorry, but can you just explain...? If we were having pre-budget consultations in Halifax, with approximately a third of the committee going there--

    The Chair: Half.

    Mr. Charlie Penson: Well, depending on how many.... If we only went there once, how would that add up to higher costs? The minister could present his fiscal update here in Ottawa.

    The Chair: They are different dates.

    Mr. Charlie Penson: I know. I'm just saying that he could also move his dates around to fit into an Ottawa date so that all of the committee wouldn't have to travel.

    The Chair: That's your point, Mr. Alcock.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: I don't understand why the minister would make his fiscal update in Halifax. This is an issue that's of interest to people. I don't understand why he would take it that far off campus. He's here in town most of the time too. Why couldn't he present it here?

    The Chair: He can, and that's been done in the past, but it's also been done outside of the.... Just as a point of information, it was done in London, Ontario, a couple of years ago. So there is a precedent for the committee to travel on that day.

    I can tell you that right now we can do all of the witnesses who have applied for the eastern area in the half day. So my preference, for what it's worth, is that we wouldn't spend money twice to go to a city, and I think the thought was trying to save money.

    Mr. Wilfert and then Mr. Harris.

    Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Madam Chair, I would like to indicate that in fact we have held it outside of Ottawa on other occasions. The suggestion was that since the minister was going to be in Halifax and that we were going to have pre-budget consultations, we would combine that with the minister's fiscal update in Halifax, flying out on the Tuesday night and returning on a Wednesday evening, after both the consultations and the fiscal update. That is a request, and I seek the support of the committee.

    The Chair: Mr. Harris and then Madame Picard.

    Mr. Richard Harris: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    You know the life of an MP is a busy one, and we like to plan, and our party has been planning for the week of November 4, assuming that the travel would come back. We tried to juggle things around so that we could get our members out to the east and the west. At that time the minister's economic update was not even part of the equation; it was not part of how this committee was going to travel. Now, with all due respect to Mr. Wilfert, realistically, what we're getting here is a request from the Minister of Finance to deliver his economic update on a date of his choosing, asking that the finance committee change, not a carved-in-stone plan but an assumed travel plan, in order to give his economic update a little bit better photo op. It's nothing more than that, Madam Chair, and I actually feel quite insulted that the Minister of Finance wants to use this committee to support his grandstanding at the economic update in Halifax. He wants us to alter a schedule that we have discussed and grown comfortable with.

    It's two different things. He wants to do his thing. Let him do it, but don't try to use this committee as a prop or as an enhancement to his photo op. I feel quite insulted by it.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Ms. Picard.

    Ms. Pauline Picard: Madam Chair, I am somewhat in agreement with Mr. Harris. Why would the minister go to Halifax to make his economic statement when all of the members who represent the Canadian population are here, where he can also benefit from the presence of all the reporters, the television and all of that when he makes his statement, when he announces his economic update? I don't understand his purpose in going to Halifax. I don't know if you know. Is there something else we don't know about?

    Secondly, I agree with Mr. Harris when he asks why the committee should accept the decision of the Minister of Finance. The same thing applies to our party: the members work very hard and we had planned to divvy up the trips, one for the west, and one for the east. So all of this process does not suit us very much. If it is simply a matter of obtaining greater visibility in the Maritimes, would it be possible to bring pressure to bear on the minister to urge him to make his statement here? I don't want to impugn anyone's motives, but this really does not suit us very well.

º  (1620)  

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Pillitteri.

    Mr. Gary Pillitteri: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Let's not forget that the previous Minister of Finance made announcements in other parts of Canada. As far as I can remember, there has never been an announcement made in Halifax. So in the interest of all Canadians being treated equally in all parts of Canada, I see nothing wrong with the Minister of Finance making the announcement in Halifax. The only thing is the support of the finance committee by being there. We are to travel there about a week later. There's no problem with changing our schedule to that of the minister. I don't think we want to deprive Atlantic Canada of the opportunity to have the announcement made there. Ontario has had it. Out west we've had....

    Mr. Reg Alcock: When was it out west?

    Mr. Gary Pillitteri: I don't recall when it was out west, but I'm pretty sure that it was during my eight years here. I don't go that far back. I only have certain segments that I want to remember.

    I think it's quite appropriate for us to make those changes.

    The Chair: Mr. Wilfert and Mr. Harris again.

    Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Madam Chair, the minister has put forth a request that the fiscal update take place on October 30, which I don't think is a surprise to too many people. It was indicated that we are going to be doing pre-budget consultations, and the view was that we could do that as well as accommodate the minister on October 30. As other members have said and I have indicated, fiscal updates have been done outside of Ottawa in the past. Obviously, the committee needs to make a decision as to where we would like to hear the fiscal update. But on the fiscal update proposal, I'm sure no one is imputing any motives to the minister. The minister has simply indicated that it has not been held outside of Ottawa for a while. It would be an opportunity for the committee to do two things: to have the consultations and at the same time to deliver the update in a part of the country where it has not been presented before.

    I don't know that it's posing a great deal of difficulty. Some of the members across the way are indicating that they're having difficulty without having checked first. Maybe they could check and let us know expeditiously what the difficulty would be. I'm sure that both Mr. Penson and Mr. Harris have someone of equal quality and ability who could substitute for them if in fact they didn't think they could make it. But I'm presuming that they would change their schedules to try to be there for this update.

    The update is important, and it is something that we as a committee had indicated we'd like to see happen before the end of October. The only dispute, Madam Chair, seems to be the venue.

    The Chair: I think Mr. Harris is first and then Mr. Penson. I don't care between Mr. Harris and Mr. Penson. Would you like to sort out who would like to go first? I'm prepared to give both of you the floor.

    Mr. Charlie Penson: It's just that Mr. Wilfert referred to me, because I made the comment that only a portion of the committee was scheduled to go to Halifax and that's how we were dividing it up within our party. We were going to cover off different parts of the country with different members, and hopefully we didn't have to incur the huge cost of everybody going. But I think it is important that the entire committee have an opportunity to hear the fiscal update from the finance minister. In fact, we would prefer that there be a fall budget, as there was last year, but short of that, we have a fiscal update that's being proposed, and it means that at least half of the committee has to be added if they want to hear the minister present that. I don't see how that's saving anybody money. It seems to me that it's not. The minister should change his plans and present it here in Ottawa, where we have an opportunity to hear it, the entire committee, without incurring that extra expense. If he chooses not to do that...he can do it in Halifax if he wants, but he doesn't necessarily have to have the committee there to do it.

º  (1625)  

    The Chair: Just before Mr. Harris speaks, maybe I can put another piece of information on the table. Because we had also anticipated potentially hearing witnesses in Ottawa before the break, and now we haven't, we have loaded down the travel time, and in actual fact that extra half a day could be utilized in Toronto, because otherwise we're going to be sitting late into the night and the next day too. So the extra half a day that we pick up--I can tell you we're going to have more witnesses in that week than we have over the next two weeks here in Ottawa, and that's what we've had to do.

    I think most of you are aware we're heading towards more than 200 witnesses, and a lot of these are going to have to be heard on the road.

    So if we do it on the Wednesday...we would normally be in our caucuses that week. We would be dealing with Atlantic Canada, because we're only making the one stop, as discussed, and for people coming into Atlantic Canada it would give them the opportunity to have all of us there and all of us represented on committees.

    It doesn't mean all of us have to go; it's just that all of us have that opportunity, because I would suggest that nobody wants to be denied the opportunity to question.

    Mr. Harris, go ahead.

    Mr. Richard Harris: Madam Chair, Mr. Pillitteri said it shouldn't be a problem for members, and I would say for members who live, for example, within a couple of hours of Ottawa it probably isn't a problem, but many of our members have to spend a full day travelling to get to and from Ottawa, including myself and Mr. Penson. Having planned the travel the week of November 4--and I know, because my office does the committee members, trying to divide people up, that people are away and there are people trying to get here. It is a difficulty for us to arbitrarily decide we're going to go to Halifax to support the Minister of Finance's photo op.

    Madam Chair, I should be clear. The finance minister can have his economic update in Tuktoyaktuk, for all I care. What I object to is his request that the finance committee as a whole be there to support him in his economic update. Perhaps the Liberal members would support the economic update, but I would hazard a guess that the opposition members on the committee have no desire to be there as a prop for his economic update.

    So I would recommend that we send a message to the finance minister that this autonomous committee has no problem where he has his economic update, but we won't be joining him in doing it. We're going to be sticking to our schedule, notwithstanding prorogation and not carving it in stone. Speaking for our party, our planning has been around the week of November 4.

    The Chair: Ms. Minna and Mr. Wilfert, and then we're going to call the question.

    Ms. Maria Minna: Madam Chair, I simply want to say two things. First, the Minister of Finance delivers his update to the Standing Committee on Finance. He doesn't give it in the middle of a hotel somewhere, in absence; he comes to the standing committee. This is where he delivers it.

    It has been done before in different parts of the country. If we can facilitate it and do it in Halifax.... We are going to be doing hearings, and we were going to go there anyway, so I don't see why, if we just do it a bit early, that's such a big problem. In fact, I think it's positive that (a) we're blending the two and (b) we're showing that the government, the minister, is able to be in different parts of the country at different times. He makes his presentation to the standing committee, and I'm quite sure that members of this committee will have questions on his presentation.

    So it's not just a speech he gives somewhere out in the middle of nowhere. He has asked to give it in Halifax, and I think it's good that other Canadians in different parts of the country can participate. It's not a budget, with respect. A budget, of course, is in the House of Commons, but this is not a budget. This is an update, which is always presented to this committee.

    The other thing is that it's a Wednesday, and we are here already, just to go back to Mr. Harris' concern with respect to travel. The House is sitting. It's a Wednesday. Caucuses are meeting. We're in Ottawa anyway, so our members as well as those of the opposition are not travelling from opposite ends of the country. We are in Ottawa, travelling to Halifax, basically.

    So I would suggest that we go ahead and move on with it, because we're taking up a great deal of time on something that I think is quite positive. I suggest that we be open as a committee and say, “Yes, it's a good idea to have the Minister of Finance make his presentation in a part of the country that normally doesn't get to see that kind of thing.” The budget, yes, is in the House, but this is a totally different situation.

    I think we should just get moving.

º  (1630)  

    The Chair: Mr. Wilfert, and then I'm calling the question. I would like you to restate your motion before we call the question, just to be clear.

    Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Madam Chair, my motion stands. We can impugn whatever we want with regard to where the location is. The fact is, there is a fiscal update and I think it's important to all members. I certainly concur with my colleague with regard to the travel issue. We're already here. It's not as if it was a Monday.

    The fact is, the fiscal update is important to all members. If there are Liberal members who cannot attend, I'll make sure that there are Liberal members who will be there, because it is important.

    With all due respect to my colleagues across the way, if this had never been done in the past, then I would say you may have a point. But in fact it has been done in the past, and far be it from me to suggest that we shouldn't be providing an opportunity for a different venue. The fact is, we are also going to deal with the issue of the pre-budget at the same time, which I think is very helpful, very relevant for all members.

    So my motion stands, Madam Chair, and I'd suggest that you call the vote.

    The Chair: I just want to make sure I have it right, Mr. Wilfert. Your motion is to travel....

    Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Exactly what I said.

    The Chair: I don't have it written down.

    Mr. Bryon Wilfert: That we be there on the Wednesday for the fiscal update and to hear the pre-budget.

    I will leave it up to you, but I assume that we will travel out Tuesday night, be there Wednesday morning, and return Wednesday night.

    The Chair: Apparently, there's a direct flight on the Tuesday night and a direct flight back too.

    Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Yes.

    The Chair: So that's the motion on the floor.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: So we will travel to Halifax.

    We have already passed a motion that says the minister is televised, so that carries forward to this.

    I think we should have a motion confirming what we've all been discussing about the committee being split in two when we're travelling east and west during the week of November 4. There are more stops on the west portion but more witnesses on the east portion, so you're working hard wherever you go. I'd like to have a motion that during the week of November 4 the committee divide into two subgroups, one for Vancouver, Calgary, Saskatoon, and Winnipeg, and one for Toronto and Montreal. We will have already done Halifax. That feeds in from some of the other provinces. Who would like to put that motion?

º  (1635)  

    Mr. Richard Harris: I so move.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: At present it looks like Mr. Discepola will be going west. I'll be going east. If you would let the clerk know your preference as soon as possible, then we could make travel arrangements. The rooms have all been booked. The clerk advises me that his office will contact all of you. Obviously, we can't have everybody go one way or another. We'll try to accommodate your first choice, but if we can't, please be cooperative so that we can make sure there are people at all locations.

    We need a budget. We passed the budget once, but the budget has to go through again. We already have our travel order from the House. In case the liaison committee is not struck to pass our travel budget, the clerk advises me that our travel budget will go to the Board of Internal Economy.

    Are there copies for people?

    The Clerk: Yes.

    The Chair: Does everybody have them?

    The Clerk: Yes.

    The Chair: The clerk has done this similar to what we had before. The only difference would be putting in the extra people to Halifax. There's just the change of date. There's no difference in distance. So it's slightly more for the hotels that night. There's also an extra half day in Toronto. Unless things have changed in the last couple of weeks, it looks as if there will be two days in Vancouver. Is that correct?

    The Clerk: Yes.

    The Chair: There will be two days in Vancouver, one day in Calgary, one day in Saskatoon, and one day in Winnipeg. We will have two and a half days in Toronto now that we have done this and two in Montreal.

    For the half day in Halifax we didn't get a lot of witnesses or they were coming to Montreal. When we lost the week before the break, a lot of the witnesses who would normally have appeared in Ottawa were asked if they'd like to choose one of the other locations across the country. So, for instance, you might see an economist who would normally have appeared here now appearing in Vancouver or somewhere closer to their head office.

[Translation]

     Ms. Picard, you have the floor.

    Madam Chair, can you tell me what the meeting dates are for Toronto and Montreal?

[English]

    The Chair: The clerk will have to provide me with the dates.

[Translation]

    The Clerk: In Toronto, they are Monday, November 4, Tuesday, November 5, and Wednesday, November 6. In Montreal, the dates are Thursday, November 7, and Friday, November 8.

    Mme Pauline Picard: Thank you very much.

[English]

    The Chair: Unless we get more people coming in over the next couple of weeks, we start at noon on the Monday in Toronto. So it allows you time to travel there. It's right from the morning in Vancouver. We have the two days there, unless we get more, and then we'll try....

    Can I have a motion on this budget?

    Mr. Gary Pillitteri: I move that the amount of $282,079 be approved for travel.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: This is significantly less than in other years, by the way. That was because we brought in some of those panels from the north last year.

    By the way, there was a House order adducing the evidence from all the panels that we heard in April, May, and June into our work this time.

    I have a copy of our witness list. As you've heard, most of the briefs from people are in. This is the list of those who wish to appear. As for how we came by this, last year as we went through the list we took your suggestions, we did the invite letters, and we listed on the website. These are the people who have responded to one or the other. As well, as your chair, under your motion last year, I wrote to every member of Parliament asking them if they had individuals or groups, giving them the invitation to send this out in their community.

    We also did something special to try to encourage more individuals. Again, I wrote to individual MPs trying to encourage individuals to come. We haven't had that many more. Quite frankly, we're really full right now, and I just want to let you know that we have huge numbers of groups. Some of these have been set up in panels. We have a few more--the health panel, the finance panel--that we can finish off. Those will probably be two-hour meetings just because of who is involved and the numbers.

    As for some of these others, when we're doing panels we're going to try for one-and-a-half-hour meetings, and that's where I'll use my discretion, Mr. Penson, to ask people to be judicious about the length of their questioning. I'll try to alert our witnesses at the same time.

    We have not told people that they can't; if they've contacted us, they're on this list. Most of them have submitted briefs.

    The meetings begin tomorrow; I think we have three. Again, most of you have come and talked to me either over the summer or during the last couple of weeks. We have tried for either a morning or afternoon two-hour panel and then the opposite, with a one-and-a-half and a one-and-a-half back to back. We should not have to go into the evening.

    Unless we get more people than we currently have on this list, we should be able to go Monday to Thursday for the next two weeks here, and then, because people have been very cooperative with the clerks on going into the regions, we'll do a lot of people in the regions.

    Okay?

    Yes, Mr. Wilfert.

º  (1640)  

    Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Could we have the clerk provide us with an update, at least for the next couple of weeks, on proposed times of meetings?

    The Chair: Yes. I guess he has something here, but he doesn't have the people put in. As soon as we leave here tonight, people who have tentatively been put on hold will be notified. They've been waiting for a week to get here.

    Mr. Bryon Wilfert: You may also have some legislation before you very shortly.

    The Chair: Just to make perfectly clear the first order of business under the rules, we now have been tasked by the House and by our standing orders for the pre-budget report. Under the rules, the report has to be tabled by November 29, which is a Friday. So the idea, folks, is that we're going to have a real crunch, working hard over the next three weeks. I think we can get it all done because of doing a lot more on the road.

    If we have to, I'll go to a Friday morning, but right now, I think, as I canvass people, the preference is to go with three meetings on Monday to Thursday, and I'm trying to accommodate that.

    Do you want to talk, Mr. Penson?

    Mr. Charlie Penson: I was noticing, Madam Chair, that of those wanting to make presentations to the committee, there are a lot from Ontario. It doesn't look like there are very many from the Montreal area. Are you planning on having some of the Ottawa-based organizations present in Montreal in order to free up some time?

    The Chair: Yes, and the clerk advises me that we took some of the organizations from Kingston, from Toronto, and also from New Brunswick. So we did it regionally. There were some people--

    Mr. Charlie Penson: It looks like there were too many from Toronto.

    The Chair: No, it was national organizations that normally would have appeared here, but because we lost the time here, we added the day, and that was the only way we could accommodate it to get it done and expedite it.

    Does everybody agree to this witness list? I'm going to authorize the clerk so that if somebody comes on who.... My preference is not to turn people down, but at some point the end date for hearing witnesses is going to be that week before November 11. Okay?

    So the schedule is before you. Just check your e-mail as soon as possible. We have a meeting from 9:30 until 11 tomorrow morning, 11 to 12:30, and then 3:30 to 5:30. Then the next day we have the Governor of the Bank of Canada, 3:30 to 5:30, I presume. Thursday is 9:30 to 11, 11 to 12:30, 3:30 to 5:30. Then we're back here on Monday at 3:30 to 5, and then 5 to 6:30.

    Again, I've tried to take into consideration the travel needs of people from coast to coast to get here. So I hope this meets with your approval.

    Seeing no other conversations, we are adjourned. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. Merci beaucoup.