FINA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES FINANCES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Monday, February 19, 2001

• 1532

[English]

The Clerk of the Committee: Honourable members, I see a quorum. Pursuant to Standing Orders 106(1) and (2), your first item of business is to elect a chair, and I am ready to receive nominations to that effect. Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Madam Clerk, based on the past service and competence of my colleague from Vaughan—King—Aurora, Maurizio Bevilacqua, I would like to nominate him as chair of the Standing Committee on Finance.

[Translation]

The Clerk: Moved that Mr. Bevilacqua be elected chair of the committee.

[English]

Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance): Madam Clerk, I would like to recognize the tremendous past service of Mr. Bevilacqua to this committee, but in the interest of the opportunity for parliamentarians to be able to make a choice about their chair, I would move that Mr. John McCallum be chair of the finance committee.

The Clerk: The motion is as follows then.

Mr. John McCallum (Markham, Lib.): Madam Clerk, I am new to this. Presumably one can express gratitude for a nomination and not accept it.

An hon. member: Not that new to it.

The Clerk: So we have a motion that Mr. Bevilacqua be elected chair of the committee. Is everybody in accord with that?

Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance): I would like to nominate Ken Epp, the member for Elk Island.

The Clerk: Okay. As you know, we can only consider one motion at a time, so the motion for Mr. Epp will be considered a notice of motion. It has been moved that Mr. Epp be elected chair of the committee.

Mr. Jason Kenney: I have a point of order. I know points of order are not accepted, Madam Clerk, but with regard to the motion, I would ask from what authority the clerk doesn't permit the receipt of other nominees to be considered simultaneously. I do have before me various precedents of the committees of this House during the Parliament before the last one when members of the now governing party moved and obtained concurrent consideration of different nominees for election as chair of different committees.

The Clerk: Obviously, the reference I have to refer the members of the committee to is that the only business I can handle is to accept nominations for the chair, and I'm instructed in that business by Marleau-Montpetit, which is the authority. On page 829 it says:

Where several different motions are proposed, the clerk may take those proposed after the initial motion as notices of motion. The motions are put to the committee seriatim until one of the motions is adopted.

• 1535

That's on page 829, and that is the authority guiding me in the way I am proceeding at this point.

Mr. Jason Kenney: Madam Clerk, again in speaking to the motion for this nomination, in reference to precedents from other committees, I would ask that in the interest of parliamentary freedom the consideration of this motion be made by secret ballot.

The Clerk: If it is the general wish of the committee to proceed by secret ballot, I am guided by the committee.

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Madam Clerk, may I then enter into debate on the motion before us?

The Clerk: I can't recognize you. You are free to speak—

Mr. Ken Epp: I think you can, because when there's a motion, motions are debatable.

The Clerk: The only motion I can entertain is the motion to elect a chair.

Mr. Ken Epp: And you are.

The Clerk: Is this on the motion to elect Mr. Bevilacqua?

Mr. Ken Epp: I'm going to debate that motion. Thank you very much.

Madam Clerk and fellow members, you know that we have before us here a window of opportunity to change Parliament. Not only the Prime Minister but also a number of the other members of the Liberal Party and certainly almost all of the members of the opposition parties in the last election and also in many interventions in the House have spoken about the necessity for more authority for ordinary backbench parliamentarians.

We have on the record in many instances a ruling by the Speaker of the House that says that committees are the masters of their own business. I know that on a number of occasions I have raised issues about things in the committee that didn't go right. I refer you to a specific one where we were going through clause-by-clause consideration of a bill, and on one occasion the chairman said the motion was defeated—

Mr. Roy Cullen: I have a point of order, Madam Clerk.

Mr. Ken Epp: This is right on topic.

The Clerk: I can't entertain points of order.

Mr. Ken Epp: The chairman of the committee on which I was sitting indicated that a motion to amend was defeated. Yet on that particular occasion I and one of my colleagues said yes and no one else said anything. So I challenged the chair at that time. Of course, they went through their usual rigamarole. Finally, he asked whether or not the ruling of the chair that the motion was defeated should be upheld, at which point all of the other members of the committee on that side awoke and said, yes, we uphold the ruling of the chair.

I then went to the House with that as a point of order, and I said, Mr. Speaker, there's a problem here. The chairman of our committee has ruled as defeated a motion where the only members present who said anything said yea, yet the chairman said it was defeated. Then in subsequent debate the chairman was able to bring in that the other members had upheld the ruling of the chair and had actually caused this ruling to be incorrectly upheld. So I raised it in the House as a point of order. After some time the Speaker then gave his ruling. He came back and said what has happened in committee has happened and the Speaker of the House will not interfere with the dealings of the committee. So what happened there could not be undone.

I, of course, was properly miffed and offended by the fact that in that particular case the chairman had actually gone contrary to the wishes of the committee.

I use that as only one example of the many times committees were masters of their own fate as per rulings by the chair, and I think all honourable members are aware of that.

So we are masters of our own situation here. Here we have a number of members who, in voting on the position of chair, would be simply exercising their right as parliamentarians. If we decide as a committee to do that, then that's our prerogative, and as far as we know, the Speaker of the House is not going to interfere with that decision.

Moments ago one of my colleagues here asked for unanimous consent to conduct this vote by secret ballot. If I may be so bold as to give you a little bit of insight, I have a big suspicion that even on a secret ballot Mr. Bevilacqua would win. I have that suspicion.

An hon. member: With my vote too.

Mr. Ken Epp: Yes, and with mine probably.

An hon. member: Why bother then?

• 1540

Mr. Ken Epp: Why bother? To set an important principle and precedent to say that these votes are going to be held in the confidence of a secret ballot, something that is well-established. In fact, during the past fall election every citizen in this country went to a booth where he or she could not be observed and marked their ballot in secrecy, and that ballot was kept in total confidence going into the vote. We have exactly the same thing in our House when we elect our Speaker, where we go to a secret ballot.

As a matter of fact, Madam Clerk, the issue before us is exactly the same. It's one of democracy. It's one of establishing the right of parliamentarians on both sides of the table.... Why should we in a committee where we get along so well disagree on something like this, where we simply say we need that option?

I want to talk specifically to the election of the member. As I and my colleague Mr. Kenney indicated, chances are pretty good that Mr. Bevilacqua would win this on a secret ballot. So what we are doing here, ladies and gentlemen—and I emphasize this: it's not that we want to undo the decision that presumably has already been made; it's that we want to set the precedent.

I ask the honourable members, particularly on the opposite side, to think really hard. During your life as a parliamentarian, have there ever been chairmen of committees who shouldn't have been there? Most of you have been here only since 1993, a number only since 1997. There have been some chairmen who really shouldn't have been there, but that decision was brought forth from on high, and then everybody in the public vote doesn't have the fortitude to go against the wishes of the party hierarchy. It can ruin your future as a politician. It can wreck your future political career to go against the stream. Yet, individually, we know there is better wisdom in electing a person other than the one chosen. Wouldn't it be better for democracy and for our committees if by a secret ballot we could elect a person and then have no individual recriminations, just as in all of our secret ballot voting right across the country?

What I'm saying, Madam Clerk, is simply this. I believe very strongly that in accepting this motion that would put Mr. Bevilacqua in the chair just like that—probably the same outcome as if we had the secret ballot—I really believe we're doing a disservice to the democratic process and to the committee process in our Parliament. I would urge members to carefully reconsider their decision not to have a secret ballot here. I think it sets a very important precedent and would give all of us a measure free from harm and recriminations to put the best person into the chair irrespective of what anyone else has done.

How about some individual getting the nod of the Prime Minister of the day—someday it's going to be someone on our side—who's going to—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Ken Epp: You just wait. Some day the Prime Minister or the party whip may give the nod to someone who is not the best person and those of us who work on that committee will know who the best person is. You can't argue against that. To put the best person into the job has to be an advantage to everybody, to us in the committee, to the House of Commons, and to the people of Canada as they build respect for what this place actually represents and for the respect we as individual MPs get back in our riding, because we can say we are able to actually use our heads in Ottawa, instead of just following a presumed pre-orchestrated party line.

Madam Clerk, with all deference to this situation, I would ask you to once again ask the people here whether they would now reconsider and have this vote by secret ballot. All you need is unanimous consent for that, and I beg none of you to say no. That's what we want. Let's do it. This time the outcome will be the same, but we will have taken our opportunity not to establish but to merely live up to an important democratic principle we have come to accept in this country for a long time.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

• 1545

The Clerk: I'm not presiding, but I do see that there is a list of people who have indicated they want to speak. So for the purposes of simply going one at a time, Mr. Saada had indicated he wished to speak.

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): On page 830 of the same document my colleague referred to a moment ago it says:

...since the committee is not properly constituted until the Chair has been selected, the clerk who presides over the election has no authority to hear points of order or to entertain any motion except that for the election of a Chair, not even a motion to establish the manner in which the committee wishes to proceed with that election.

So I contend that this is totally out of order.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Ken Epp: But by unanimous consent we could still do it.

Mr. Jacques Saada: We have declined unanimous consent, so it's out of order.

The Clerk: Do I hear agreement, then, to proceed to the question?

Some hon. members: Yes.

Mr. Jason Kenney: No, Madam Clerk. In addressing the motion and in response to my colleague Mr. Saada, I would point out that in fact during the 34th Parliament, when his party was in opposition, the now government House leader brought forward an effort similar to this one to seek the consensus of the various standing committees of the House that elections for chair be conducted by a secret ballot and that nominees be considered concurrently. So, Madam Clerk, this is not a dilatory effort. The precedent upon which we base this effort is a parliamentary effort made by Mr. Saada's House leader, who at the time had a very acute interest in parliamentary reform, an interest that perhaps Mr. Saada doesn't share.

I would point out that on May 30, 1991, during the third session of the 34th Parliament at a meeting of the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Mr. Boudria made precisely the same proposition that I and my colleague Mr. Epp have made. Further to that, during that same session of Parliament, on June 4, 1991, Mrs. Sheila Finestone, now a senator but then a Liberal member of the official opposition, made a similar effort.

So I think this is not a partisan matter. It's simply an effort for us to embrace the flexibility of the rules with regard to the election of a chair and to set an important precedent for the future. I know that all members have expressed an interest in parliamentary reform, particularly with regard to committees.

Having said all the above, I do want to say that I regard the nominee currently before the committee as a man who is supremely well qualified to chair the committee, and I want to make it clear on the record that neither I nor any of my colleagues raise any objection to his nomination. I want to make that clear. Thank you.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Madam Clerk, could we have a ruling?

The Clerk: The only thing I am empowered to do is to accept nominations for the chair. I'm not empowered to preside. When I hear agreement to proceed to the question, I will proceed to the question. If I hear agreement to proceed to the question by way of secret ballot, I will proceed to the question by way of secret ballot. Do I hear agreement among the members to move to the question?

Some hon. members: Yes.

Mr. Ken Epp: By secret ballot.

The Clerk: I do not hear agreement to—

Mr. Ken Epp: Is there not agreement on a secret ballot? Who says no?

Mr. Jason Kenney: The parliamentary secretary to the finance minister is saying no, just for the record.

Mr. Roy Cullen: We're all saying no.

The Clerk: Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen: I was just going to say, Madam Clerk, that I think the argument fails on a number of accounts. First, we seem to be within the finance committee talking about some theoretical notion. Most of the members opposite support the nomination of Mr. Bevilacqua, and the members on this side support the nomination of Mr. Bevilacqua. Second, it is a well-known parliamentary precedent in Canada that we construct the committees in a way to mirror representation in the House of Commons. The members on this side support Mr. Bevilacqua's nomination, so it's kind of an academic exercise, in my view. By the same logic, Mr. Epp would then call for secret ballots in the House of Commons on matters that are brought to the floor of the House. I don't see the logic in theoretical terms and in practical terms with this committee. I think we've heard everyone endorse Mr. Bevilacqua's nomination as chair, so why would we waste time and taxpayers' money debating something that is totally theoretical in this case and I think in the case of the conduct of all parliamentary business in committee?

Mr. Jason Kenney: In speaking to this motion to nominate Mr. Bevilacqua, in reference to the parliamentary secretary to the finance minister who sits on this committee, I would like to point out that I think it's a dangerous thing to suggest that to conduct the business of these committees constitutes a waste of taxpayers' time. The logical extension of that argument is that we should shut this place down, which I suppose some might like to do.

• 1550

Madam Clerk, Mr. Cullen suggested that the members of the government who sit on this committee support Mr. Bevilacqua's nomination as chair. I have no doubt that may in large part be the case. I note that the parliamentary secretary nominated Mr. Bevilacqua. I wondered if that was the result of a consensual meeting amongst his colleagues as individual members or a suggestion given to him by the minister, the Department of Finance, or the executive branch.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Madam Clerk, I can answer that very directly. There has been no discussion between myself and the minister or myself and the whip. I think the members on this side recognize the amazing amount of effort and work and quality that Mr. Bevilacqua offers.

Mr. Jason Kenney: As do we.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Members on the opposite side talk about the need for continuity. We have a chair who has experience and who has been through a lot of these battles before and who has the confidence of the members on this side. In your comment about the debate being a waste of time, you clearly read more into what I said than what was intended. What I'm saying is if all of you on that side and all of us on this side agree that Mr. Bevilacqua should be the chair, why would we engage in a debate, as we have for the last 35 minutes, on something that is somewhat theoretical?

Mr. Jason Kenney: I take it then that the nomination of Mr. Bevilacqua is not the result of a consensual meeting amongst the members of the government.

The Clerk: Mr. Brison.

Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Madam Clerk, as someone who was a member of this committee for three years prior to last summer, I am appalled by Mr. Epp's and Mr. Kenney's opposition to openness and transparency. As individual members we should not be afraid to vote for whomever we want and to entrust ultimately the chairman. The notion that there would be repercussions based on our vote for a committee chairman or that ultimately our political career would be somehow hindered, as Mr. Epp asserted, is, I think, ludicrous. I think a more important principle to defend is the principle of openness and transparency and that as individual members of Parliament we are in this place and in the House of Commons always willing to vote however we feel is appropriate in a representative democracy and to bear the consequences. So I don't understand the notion of proceeding on this basis.

Mr. Jason Kenney: Madam Clerk, the member for Kings—Hants believes it's ludicrous and contrary to openness to have secret ballots for the election of chairs. I'm sure he'll want to inform his whip, who voted for a motion at a meeting of the procedure and House affairs committee last week to have all committees elect their chairs by secret ballot. I'm further certain he'll want to seek amendment to the Standing Orders of the House that require the secret ballot election of the Speaker of the chamber.

The Clerk: Mr. Saada indicated he wished to speak.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I would suggest, Madam Clerk, that the only motions acceptable at this point are the names of people who were nominated for the chair. So either there are other people nominated for chair, in which case there is a vote, or there are none, and we have to deal exclusively with this order of business. That's what the order of reference specifically says.

The Clerk: Do I now have agreement to move to the question?

Mr. Peschisolido indicated he wished to speak.

Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Madam Clerk, I think what has become clear from this conversation is that there really isn't consensus legally or politically on how to proceed. I think we all share—

Mr. Jacques Saada: Consensus is required only in case we want to debate something else or the process by which we are going to vote, not the fact that we nominate. This does not require consensus.

Mr. Joe Peschisolido: Mr. Saada, with respect, that's one point of view of proceeding, but if you look at a variety of precedents, as has become clear from interjections—

The Clerk: I'd just like to remind the members of the committee that there is a motion before us now that Mr. Bevilacqua be elected chair of the committee. There is a motion on notice that Mr. Epp be elected chair of this committee. Do I sense a willingness to go forward and put the question on the first motion?

Some hon. members: Yes.

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): We can test the floor as to whether the majority of people here wish the question to be put. That's the only way to put an end to this. Otherwise, it will go on all night. So why don't we test the floor as to whether the question should be put on the original motion?

• 1555

Mr. Joe Peschisolido: Madam Clerk, we can test the floor, but I think that as a very important committee, the finance committee, we should have a thorough discussion on this. I think we'd be setting a very bad precedent on the first day here to be cutting off the debate. Madam Clerk, I leave it to your discretion as to whether you'd like to check to see if there is a majority will, but I'd like to continue to discuss what I think is a very important issue at hand here.

The Clerk: Does the committee wish me to proceed with the question that Mr. Bevilacqua do take the chair?

Some hon. members: Proceed.

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Clerk, can I move an amendment?

The Clerk: I'm sorry, I can only entertain motions to elect the chair.

Mr. Ken Epp: According to the rules a motion can be amended. I don't think there's a standing order that specifically prevents an amendment to a motion.

The Clerk: Until your committee is constituted with a duly elected chair, I cannot accept points of procedure. I can only accept a motion to elect the chair. If the committee wishes to proceed to that question, I will put that question, and if the committee—

Mr. Ken Epp: But this is an amendment to this motion. The motion is to elect the chair.

The Clerk: The only motion I am empowered to accept is a motion to elect somebody to the chair.

Mr. Ken Epp: I humbly submit that you're wrong there.

The Clerk: Shall I put the question?

Mr. Ken Epp: How can there be a motion that can't be amended?

Mr. Jason Kenney: Madam Clerk, Standing Order 116 says:

In a standing, special or legislative committee, the Standing Orders shall apply so far as may be applicable, except the Standing Orders as to the election of a Speaker, seconding of motions, limiting the number of times of speaking and the length of speeches.

So I think the Standing Orders apply and do permit some of the motions that I and other members have attempted to bring forward.

Mr. Ken Epp: If I could also add, Madam Clerk, on page 452 of Marleau-Montpetit it states:

A motion in amendment arises out of debate and is proposed either to modify the original motion in order to make it more acceptable...or to present a different proposition as an alternative to the original.

On page 453 it says:

An amendment must be relevant to the main motion. It must not stray from the main motion but aim to further refine its meaning and intent. An amendment should take the form of a motion to...leave out certain words; or insert or add other words to the main motion.

I want to make such an amendment, which is permitted here according to—

The Clerk: I will refer members again to the citation in Marleau-Montpetit on page 830, which says:

As the meeting is called pursuant to Standing Order for the sole purpose of electing a Chair, and since the committee is not properly constituted until the Chair has been selected, the clerk who presides over the election has no authority to hear points of order or to entertain any motion

—and that includes an amendment, which is a subsidiary motion—

except that for the election of a Chair, not even a motion to establish the manner in which the committee wishes to proceed with that election.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Madam Clerk, I think the rule is quite obvious. I think we need to proceed with the vote on the chair.

Mr. Joe Peschisolido: With respect, I don't believe the rule is obvious.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Well, it is, because the clerk can only accept motions for the nomination of a chair and not for the method by which it's conducted.

The Clerk: Mr. Saada indicated a wish to speak.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: I just want to remind you that no amendment should be allowed. There should be no debate about the formalities or the way in which the vote is to be conducted. There should only be nominations. The motion should only put forward one name as candidate for chair, and there should be no debate. There should be a vote on the motion, and consensus is unnecessary. All that is required is a vote. If there is not enough support for the proposed candidate, then other members of the committee can suggest other names.

So I suggest we follow Marleau-Montpetit to the letter and that we vote immediately on the first name put forward. If that motion does not carry, then we will look at others.

[English]

The Clerk: The motion is as follows—

Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Clerk, if I may speak again, the amendment is not a new motion. It merely refines the present motion. It's not a new motion, and I argue that it's perfectly acceptable for you to accept this amendment. This is not an amendment that replaces the motion. It's simply an alternative proposal. I would like you to just take a few seconds to tell us precisely on what grounds you're saying we cannot make this amendment, because I—

• 1600

The Clerk: I just have to repeat that I cannot rule. I am not presiding. I am only empowered to receive that motion. I cannot proceed until it is the will of the members of the committee to proceed. If I hear a willingness to go ahead, I will repeat the question as follows: that Mr. Bevilacqua do take the chair as chair of this committee. Are the members of the committee willing to proceed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Clerk: So ordered.

Mr. Bevilacqua.

The Chair (Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.)): Thank you so much. I appreciate your vote of confidence. As you know, one of my hobby horses is productivity, and I'm sure we'll be able to elect chairs in a quicker fashion next time.

I want to move on to important issues, like the election of vice-chairs. I see Mr. Pillitteri has a nomination.

Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I would like to nominate Mr. Discepola, who is very capable of conducting meetings in both official languages and is very capable of efficiency and decision-making.

The Chair: It's moved by Mr. Pillitteri that Mr. Nick Discepola be elected vice-chair of the committee. Is it agreed?

Mr. Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Chairman, I think it has been the tradition of committees that the position of vice-chair be vested in one of the members of the opposition. This is a tradition just as solid as the fact that very often—not always, but most of the time—the chairmen of committees are members on the government side. I think it would be very appropriate for us to allow the government members, this time in a secret ballot, to make their choice and to defeat the motion before the committee in order to give an opportunity for another member from the opposition to be nominated.

The Chair: We'll deal with this motion first. There is a second vice-chair and we'll deal with the election of the second vice-chair, but this is basically the way it's going to be run. We'll deal with this particular motion, which is that Mr. Nick Discepola be elected vice-chair of the committee. Is it agreed?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: He is elected, and we express to him our best wishes.

Now we have a second vice-chair we have to deal with.

Mr. Ken Epp: He isn't even here. How do you know he's accepting?

The Chair: He's accepting.

Mr. Ken Epp: How do you know that? I wouldn't have accepted if I had not been here and you had elected me.

The Chair: It's a known fact that members of committees can in fact be elected in absentia.

Mr. Gary Pillitteri: Do we take it you're not going to be vice-chair?

Mr. Ken Epp: No. I said only if I weren't informed.

The Chair: Let's move on to the next issue, which is the second vice-chair, which is usually a member from the opposition.

Mr. Pat Martin: I nominate Scott Brison.

The Chair: If I can just have the attention of all members, this is an important nomination for a second vice-chair of this committee. We have a motion to have Mr. Scott Brison....

Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): I move adoption.

The Chair: Is it agreed?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Mr. Scott Brison, you're vice-chair.

Now we're dealing with routine motions. I draw your attention to the agenda. It's an agenda with three pages. We have dealt, of course, with the election of vice-chairs and now we go to the establishment of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. I believe Ms. Guarnieri is moving that the chair and the two vice-chairs and the parliamentary secretary and one member of each of the other parties do compose the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. Is that agreed?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: I would bring to your attention that Mr. Discepola is facing some challenges, which many of you know about, so for this period, perhaps between now and whenever the situation hopefully improves itself, I would like to have the unanimous consent from the committee to have a member of the government party, the Liberal Party, attend on his behalf. Is it agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you.

• 1605

On the issue of reduced quorum, which is number 2, it is moved by Ms. Sgro that the chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence when a quorum is not present, provided that the chair and at least two members are present, including a member of the opposition, and provided that if no member of the opposition is present ten minutes after the designated start of the meeting the meeting may proceed.

Is it agreed?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: The Library of Parliament, moved by Mr. Saada.... Shall I dispense with the reading of this, since everybody in this committee can read?

The motion is that the committee retain the services of one or more research officers from the Library of Parliament.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Number 4, it is moved by Mr. Saada, that witnesses be given.... Shall I dispense with this? Is it agreed?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: It is moved by Ms. Guarnieri that a transcript of in camera meetings be kept in the office.... Is it agreed?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Number 6 is order in council appointments. It is moved by Mr. Price that pursuant to Standing Order.... Shall I dispense? Is it agreed?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Distribution of documents. It is moved by Ms. Guarnieri that the clerk of the committee be authorized to distribute.... Shall I dispense? Is it agreed?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Witness reimbursement. Mr. McCallum, are you moving this?

Mr. John McCallum: I so move.

The Chair: It is moved that, as established by the Board of Internal Economy and if requested, reasonable travelling, accommodation, and living expenses.... Shall we dispense? Is it agreed?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Number 9, working meals. It is moved by Mr. Price that when required the clerk be authorized to make the necessary arrangements for working meals for the committee. Carried?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you so much.

Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: Is this a new item, because I want to get to some of the work of the committee for next week?

Mr. Jason Kenney: It is a procedural motion.

The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Kenney.

Mr. Jason Kenney: I notice that we do not have any agenda item with respect to the appearance of ministers and the televising of those hearings. I would move that the clerk of the committee be instructed to arrange to have all meetings televised whenever a minister appears at a committee.

The Chair: Are you going to put any conditions on that? For example, are we going to check if we have the room available before we invite the...? In other words, are you willing to not listen to a minister because it's not televised? That's basically the question.

Mr. Jason Kenney: Should the motion pass, then clearly the committee will be required to schedule its hearings with ministers so that those hearings can be available for telecast.

The Chair: Could I add the Governor of the Bank of Canada?

Mr. Jason Kenney: Sure.

The Chair: That was a friendly amendment, Mr. Kenney.

Mr. Jason Kenney: I accept it.

(Motion as amended agreed to)

The Chair: Before we leave today, because I don't think there will be time for a steering committee meeting prior to the hearings of Bill C-8, I want to ask the clerk to provide you with a schedule for the coming three to four weeks to deal with Bill C-8.

Basically today is our organization meeting. There will be nothing scheduled for this week to organize ourselves for the hearings on Bill C-8. We would like to begin—and of course I'm in the hands of the committee—on Monday, February 26, with Bill C-8 officials. Then we'll have witnesses on Tuesday, February 27, on February 28, and on Thursday, March 1. Then there will be the parliamentary recess from March 4 to March 11. We will resume hearings on March 12, 13, 14, and 15. At that point in time we'll find out more or less how many witnesses have appeared. We will then determine whether more witnesses will have to appear in front of committee prior to proceeding to clause-by-clause or if in fact the committee is ready to entertain clause-by-clause.

I just want to put this out as an example of a possible working schedule so that you can organize your parliamentary lives accordingly.

Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and congratulations on your unanimous election.

I just want to raise two points with respect to Bill C-8. I raised with the clerk on the phone the notion of having testimony from the last Parliament adopted. I was advised by the clerk that because this is a new Parliament the only way this could get done, if it's the will of the committee, would be to have it raised in the House of Commons. I just wondered if that would have the support of the members of the committee, and the opposition parties with their House leaders. Obviously if there are some witnesses who want to add something in writing, that would be totally welcome. We could adopt the previous testimony from the last Parliament.

• 1610

I put that out to you. If you have any comments or you want to discuss that with your House leaders—I'm discussing it with our House leader to see if that's a feasible alternative to put forward.

Secondly, I'm just wondering, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, do we want the Department of Finance to brief the committee? I know the department has briefed many members of the opposition. Any new members of this committee—well, some are very familiar I'm sure with Bill C-8—could be briefed privately on Bill C-8, which is largely the same as Bill C-38. The changes are in the area of housekeeping. I'm wondering what are the views of the committee. Do you want the department to come here initially and take the committee through the changes or take us through the whole act again, or are we happy with private briefings as and when required?

The Chair: Perhaps I can intervene here just for one second in reference to witnesses appearing. We have just recently prepared a letter that will go out to all the individuals who were invited to appear or to submit a brief on Bill C-38. With your permission I can just very briefly read you the letter, and tell me if you agree with this:

Dear

The Standing Committee on Finance expects shortly to consider Bill C-8, An Act to establish the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada and to amend certain Acts in relation to financial institutions. As you are no doubt aware, the current legislation replaces Bill C-38, which the House considered last fall but was unable to pass before Parliament was dissolved.

The Committee would like to know your views on Bill C-8 and invites you to submit a brief. If you feel that your submission regarding Bill C-38 is pertinent to the current Bill, please resubmit it formally. If, on the other hand, you would like to modify your previous submission, or make an entirely new intervention, could you please send us a copy of your written brief, along with a request to appear if this is your intention.

Of course, they can contact the clerk, Ms. Pat Steenberg, if that's what they choose to do.

We're going to be re-inviting everybody to appear, but we'll leave it up to them whether they want to appear or not. Just for historical records as well, we want everybody to resubmit even if they're not changing anything.

Mr. Roy Cullen: So that would accomplish the same end as what I proposed.

The Chair: Absolutely.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Okay. Procedurally, if that flies—

The Chair: Yes, it does fly.

Mr. Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: I was just going to ask about the briefings. We have had a private briefing from the departmental officials already in our party. I don't know if the others have and if they want to get such a briefing. I presume the Liberal members of the committee either have had or will arrange to have that separately. I don't know. We're open. If the committee wants to bring in the departmental officials to go over the changes from Bill C-38 to Bill C-8, we're certainly willing to go through all that again for the benefit of those who didn't get it on an individual briefing. But if they've all had those individual briefings, then we could dispense with them.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you, Mr. Epp.

I know there have been briefings with members of the opposition parties. As far as members on this side are concerned, what I would suggest is that rather than slowing down the work of the committee, we can arrange private briefings if they haven't been arranged already with members on this side. If the other side is comfortable with that, then presumably, Mr. Chairman, we would start straight in with any witnesses with testimony. That's fine from where I sit.

The Chair: Is that okay?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: So we'll be hearing officials on Monday, February 26 from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.

Mr. Roy Cullen: They're scheduled to come in anyway?

The Chair: We're going to invite them for that period.

Mr. Roy Cullen: To do what?

The Chair: To appear in front of the committee on Bill C-8.

Mr. Roy Cullen: That's what we were just talking about.

Mr. Ken Epp: We just talked about this.

The Chair: Oh, you don't want to hear from them at all.

• 1615

Mr. Ken Epp: We've had briefings on the changes and it's our impression that a lot of the submissions, even from the witnesses, that suggested changes to Bill C-38.... Some of those technical changes have been included in Bill C-38. That was the information we got. So I don't think we need to rehash this 49 times.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Mr. Chairman, that was my suggestion. Rather than slow down the committee...there have been briefings that have been arranged with members of the opposition parties, and now that we know the composition of the committee we can arrange for the same for members of caucus on this side who want a briefing with the department. So we can dispense with the need for the department to come to committee.

The Chair: Fine. You've seen the schedule, so the easiest way to do this would be to switch Wednesday's witnesses with Monday's witnesses. We won't have any hearings on Wednesday. Is that okay, or do you prefer not having any hearings on Monday?

Mr. Ken Epp: Probably Monday would be a better day.

The Chair: So no hearings on Monday. Basically on the calendar that's been given to you the only amendment will be that there will be nothing happening on Monday.

Mr. Ken Epp: Monday, February 26.

The Chair: That's correct.

Before we leave, I want to welcome the new members of the committee: Mr. John McCallum, and Mr. Joe Peschisolido, from British Columbia.

Thank you very much. The meeting is adjourned.