FINA Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION
Standing Committee on Finance
COMMITTEE EVIDENCE
CONTENTS
Tuesday, February 19, 2002
| ¿ | 0935 |
 |
The Clerk of the Committee |
|
Le greffier |
|
M. O'Reilly |
|
The Clerk |
|
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance) |
|
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings--Hants, PC/DR) |
|
The Clerk |
|
Mr. Lorne Nystrom (Regina--Qu'Appelle, NDP) |
|
The Clerk |
| ¿ | 0940 |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Clerk |
|
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.) |
|
The Clerk |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot, BQ) |
|
The Clerk |
|
Mr. Roy Cullen |
|
Mr. Lorne Nystrom |
|
M. O'Reilly |
| ¿ | 0945 |
|
The Clerk |
|
The Chair (Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.)) |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Scott Brison |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brison |
|
Mr. Nystrom |
|
The Chair |
|
The Clerk |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Nystrom |
|
M. Loubier |
| ¿ | 0950 |
|
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil--Soulanges, Lib.) |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Nick Discepola |
|
M. Loubier |
|
Mr. Nick Discepola |
|
The Chair |
|
The Clerk |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West--Nepean, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Scott Brison |
|
An hon. member |
|
The Chair |
|
The Clerk |
|
Mr. Nystrom |
|
The Clerk |
|
Mr. Lorne Nystrom |
|
Mr. Scott Brison |
|
The Chair |
| À | 1006 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Nick Discepola |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Nick Discepola |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Roy Cullen |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Scott Brison |
|
Mr. Lorne Nystrom |
| À | 1010 |
|
The Chair |
|
The Clerk |
|
M. O'Reilly |
|
An hon. member |
|
Mr. John O'Reilly |
|
The Clerk |
|
An hon. member |
|
The Clerk |
|
An hon. member |
|
The Chair |
|
The Clerk |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance) |
|
The Chair |
| À | 1015 |
|
The Clerk |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Monte Solberg |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Scott Brison |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Scott Brison |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Lorne Nystrom |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Roy Cullen |
| À | 1020 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
CANADA
Standing Committee on Finance |
|
l |
|
l |
|
COMMITTEE EVIDENCE
Tuesday, February 19, 2002
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
¿ 
(0935)
[English]
The Clerk of the Committee: I see a quorum. I would like to advise you of a letter I have received from the Honourable Maurizio Bevilacqua, addressed to me as clerk of the Standing Committee on Finance.
[Translation]
The letter is dated yesterday.
[English]
Le greffier: It says:
| Dear Mr. Toupin: |
| As you know, on January 15, 2002, the Prime Minister of Canada appointed me Secretary of State for Science, Research and Development. Therefore, please be aware that, effective immediately, I am resigning as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance. |
Therefore, your first item of business is to elect a new committee chair.
[Translation]
I am ready to entertain motions to that effect.
Mr. O'Reilly.
[English]
Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton--Victoria--Brock, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I nominate Sue Barnes to be chair of the committee.
The Clerk: It has been moved by Mr. O'Reilly that Sue Barnes be elected chair of this committee. All those in favour?
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Shouldn't we call for a ballot, at least?
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings--Hants, PC/DR): Mr. Clerk, I would like to nominate Roy Cullen.
The Clerk: I will put forward these motions seriatim, one at a time, as per the procedures of the House of Commons.
I have heard a request for a secret ballot. Is there unanimous consent to have a secret ballot to proceed with the election?
Mr. Lorne Nystrom (Regina--Qu'Appelle, NDP): I would suggest that we have a vote on a secret ballot. We have a precedent, with the Speaker of the House now being elected by secret ballot. I think that's probably a wise precedent to follow, so that everybody can freely vote their own minds in regard to who the chair should be. It's nothing revolutionary, nothing radical, but I would like to move that as a motion, if you need a motion.
The Clerk: I am in the hands of the committee, but I can perhaps read something from Marleau and Montpetit. Perhaps it will be useful for members in making a decision on how to proceed.
I quote 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. Is there a unanimous desire to proceed in this manner?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Clerk: There is not a unanimous desire.
¿ (0940)
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Clerk, one of the things I have found intriguing is that whenever we have gone to the Speaker of the House with an issue that has to do with committees, he has said committees are masters of their own destiny, their own fate, their own procedures. Even in some instances in which there was a pretty serious breach, the Speaker did not choose to intervene in those cases. I would therefore call for a simple majority vote on whether or not we should vote by secret ballot. I do that on the basis of the fact that the committee is master of its own affairs.
The Clerk: Mr. Cullen.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): I would just like to agree with what the members opposite are saying. We have the precedent in the House with the Speaker. I think the committee should be able to decide on whether or not it wants to vote on a secret ballot or otherwise.
The Clerk: I am obviously not the committee chair. My only power here is to elect a committee chair. I read the appropriate excerpt from Marleau and Montpetit, but I am in the hands of the committee. I cannot tell you whether or not it's in order to proceed in this fashion. All I can do is tell you what is in the rules and what the procedures of the House are, but it is ultimately up to you to decide how you wish to proceed.
Mr. Ken Epp: In that particular case, I think the expression of the members here is that we would at least be willing to vote on a majority vote on whether or not to conduct a secret ballot on this election. I think you may find that if we do not have unanimous consent, we certainly may have majority consent to conduct that vote to see whether or not a majority would like to have a secret ballot. I think if a majority wants it, the committee should do it.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot, BQ): Mr. Chairman, or in this instance, the Clerk, I don't think we can change the rules just like that. It should be remembered that committees are an extension of the House of Commons. The Speaker of the House may well have deemed that the responsibility for making decisions falls to committee members, but by that, he means administrative and political decisions made pursuant to the standing orders. We cannot change the rules that apply for nominating a committee chair, just as we cannot alter the standing orders of the House of Commons simply because a majority of Members so desire. To my mind, the process is more complex than that. I've never seen this happen in eight years. As a rule, the nomination of the chair is a formality. Normally, parties agree on a candidate and an open vote is held. I see no reason here for a secret ballot.
[English]
The Clerk: Mr. Cullen.
Mr. Roy Cullen: In the House of Commons and in Parliament generally, all of us have been striving to put more power back in the hands of parliamentarians, so I'm not sure our decision should be swayed by the way this has been done in the past. I think Mr. Epp has put forward a good point. If the will of a majority of the committee is to conduct a vote by secret ballot, then we should do that.
Mr. Lorne Nystrom: I've been here all but four years since 1968. It took a long, long time to have a secret ballot for the Speaker of the House, but it has worked very well. It has been very good for the Speaker, and it has been very good for all of us to be able to vote freely and independently. I think we should take the timid, little step of extending the same procedures to the election of a committee chair. Why not? It's a modest, little step for parliamentary reform. It's nothing radical. People can still vote the same way, but in case certain eyes are watching, people don't have to feel any sense of pressure from Big Brother or Big Sister.
I remember having these arguments years ago, when electing the Speaker by secret ballot was seen as such a terrible thing. All of a sudden, we did that, and now nobody objects to it. So why don't we take that timid, little step and follow the same precedent we have in the House? I think a majority vote here should suffice.
Mr. John O'Reilly: Mr. Clerk, this discussion is out of order. You can only receive motions for the election of the chair. You cannot receive other types of motions. You cannot entertain any orders, nor participate in debate, so you're really put in a very awkward position. Your job is to receive motions for the election of the chair, which you have done. I would therefore ask that you call the question.
¿ (0945)
The Clerk: It has been moved by Mr. O'Reilly that Sue Barnes be elected chair of this committee.
(Motion agreed to)
The Clerk: Ms. Barnes, congratulations. You may take the chair of the committee.
The Chair (Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.)): Thank you. We will start with future business.
Mr. Epp, did you have something to say?
Mr. Ken Epp: I have a short statement that I'd like to make.
Having seen the outcome of the election, Ms. Barnes, I would like to say to you that you have my full cooperation. Regardless of whatever electoral process went on here—which I question seriously from the point of view of democracy—it was not a personal thing. The issue was whether or not we get to express ourselves freely without being told how to vote.
I just want you to understand very clearly that, from my point of view—and I think I speak on behalf of my colleagues—you will have our cooperation here. We congratulate you on winning this position, and we will work together as a team.
The Chair: Thank you, and I value each and every member of this committee.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
The Chair: I wouldn't expect anything less of you and every other member around this table, Mr. Epp. This has been a hard-working committee in the past. Each person has worked hard, and every member of this committee contributes. We have a lot of legislation to deal with, and I look forward to us getting our work done in the same efficient in which way we've done it in the past.
The past couple of chairs have been extremely good at their job, and I will try to work hard. Having said that, I also value the people who are equally quite capable of sitting in this chair. Their presence on this committee and their work on this committee is certainly valued by me and by all of us.
Thank you very much.
We do have future business, unless somebody else wants to say something. No?
Turning to the future business of the committee, last night we got the Budget Implementation Act, 2001. You know some of this is very time-sensitive, because there are measures—
Mr. Scott Brison: There is one procedural issue in terms of the last vote. There were fifteen votes, but Mr. Discepola didn't vote. Now, I'm not that good with numbers—that's why I'm in finance—but....
The Chair: Everybody in the room had the right to vote.
Mr. Scott Brison: Yes, but there are only fifteen members. It was an 8-7 vote and Mr. Discepola didn't want—
Mr. Lorne Nystrom: There was one abstention, but there were still fifteen votes.
The Chair: I didn't really watch the vote that closely.
The Clerk: I counted it as 8-7.
The Chair: How many people are in the room?
Mr. Lorne Nystrom: For everybody's sake, I think it's best that we have a recorded vote so that there's not doubt whatsoever.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: No. We're not about to start the voting over, Madam Chair. There are limits to this kind of tomfoolery. We voted. I counted the number of hands raised at the same time as the clerk and the outcome was eight to seven. We can't start over just because someone has come to his senses 10 minutes after the fact.
I've never seen such silliness in my eight and a half years in Parliament. The Liberals should settle their problems amongst themselves before coming here to vote. I find the situation rather ridiculous. We counted the hands raised at the same time as the clerk, just to be certain. The outcome was eight to seven. It's not our problem is Mr. Discepola comes to his senses ten minutes after the fact. We're not about to start the voting process over. There's a limit, after all.
¿ (0950)
[English]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil--Soulanges, Lib.): I have a democratic right to abstain, Madam Chair, and that's what exercised.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: You have the right to abstain, but you should also abstain at this time from speaking.
[English]
Mr. Nick Discepola: It's up to you to judge the count and to see who had the right to vote or not, but I expressed my democratic right to abstain.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Madam Chair, there are 16 members present. The results were eight yeas, seven nays, and one abstention. Eight plus seven equals fifteen, plus one, equals sixteen. That's the final count. The record merely needs to show one abstention. However, there is no need to take the vote over again.
Mr. Nick Discepola: Nevertheless, 15 members did vote, Mr. Loubier.
[English]
The Chair: I can only go by the clerk. The clerk says he saw eight votes against seven.
Did you see an abstention?
The Clerk: I was not asked for a recorded vote. Perhaps I should have called out the names, but it was not requested. I counted eight in favour and seven against, and Mr. Loubier says he counted the same numbers.
The Chair: I'm going to be in the hands of the committee.
Madam Catterall.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West--Nepean, Lib.): This discussion is out of order. We had an election. The clerk counted. The clerk declared who was elected chair. It's over. It's done. Maybe the committee should move on with its business.
The Chair: Mr. Brison.
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Discepola is saying he abstained. Unless we're using the new math, an 8-7 vote would be impossible with a fifteen-member committee if Mr. Discepola abstained. I trust Mr. Discepola.
An hon. member: One member has already left.
The Chair: There is nothing wrong with an abstention on a vote. All the members here voted except for one. As I understand it, more than fifteen people were in the room and voting, and there are more than that on the committee. I don't see the issue, unless the clerk is telling me something contrary to that.
The Clerk: In terms of the members I have on this list, fifteen members are registered members.
Mr. Lorne Nystrom: There are fifteen registered members. Is Mr. Discepola one of them?
The Clerk: Mr. Discepola is a member, yes.
Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Therefore, if Mr. Discepola abstained, the count is impossible, Mr. Clerk.
From my own glance around the room, I put it at 7-7, although I can't tell you exactly who voted which way. I don't know if that was a precise count, but I thought it was a tie. I remember saying to Scott that I though it was a tie.
But if we had fifteen members here and Mr. Discepola abstained, then we couldn't have had an 8-7 vote. It's mathematically impossible.
Mr. Scott Brison: We would accept mathematical impossibilities on the heritage committee, but this is the finance committee.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chair: The finance committee can add.
Perhaps we should take a very brief adjournment so that we can take a look at this. I didn't count the votes around the room, but I wasn't in the chair. I will therefore take a look into this.
We'll adjourn for two or three minutes.
¿ (0954)
À (1006)
The Chair: We're back in session.
Before I give the floor to Mr. Cullen, I'll tell you that, from what I can piece together, it would appear to me that there was a substitution for Mr. Discepola. Mr. Discepola walked into the room but did not vote, but that would not have allowed that substitute—
Mr. Nick Discepola: I was here before 80% of these members. How could I have been substituted for? Who substituted for me?
The Chair: As I understand it, Mr. Duplain was here as a substitute.
Mr. Nick Discepola: When I asked him, he said he didn't know what he was here for.
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Discepola. Order.
I didn't see the vote, and I didn't count the vote. I can tell you, though, that I'm not prepared to take the chair on any committee when I'm not endorsed by the people around me, so we're going to resolve this.
Mr. Cullen.
Mr. Roy Cullen: Madam Chair, in the interest of getting on with the business of the day and of Parliament—and I appreciate all the support offered by the people opposite and on this side—I think I will withdraw my name so that we can get on with the business of government.
The Chair: I thank you, Mr. Cullen. I think that's incredibly generous. It shows the spirit and quality of the parliamentarians who sit around us on this committee.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
The Chair: I value that, Mr. Cullen. Thank you very much.
In the interest of the work of this committee, let's move forward to look at future business, because we do have a lot of it.
Mr. Brison.
Mr. Scott Brison: Madam Chair, this is not a reflection on you at all, but the fact is that Mr. Cullen's withdrawal does not impact on the fact that there were difficulties with that vote. There could have been other nominations after that vote.
While I respect Mr. Cullen's magnanimous gesture, I don't believe the gesture changes the controversy and uncertainty around that vote. The vote was clearly in support or in affirmation of your nomination. Mr. Cullen's withdrawal does not impact that vote in any way.
Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Madam Chair, the other point is that we had only one motion on the floor. There was only one nominee, that being yourself. Mr. Cullen was nominated, but that motion was not put to the committee. I therefore suggest that Mr. Brison is right. We still haven't cleared up anything. There may have been somebody else nominated other than Mr. Cullen.
I think we should clarify whether or not we have clearly elected a chair, in order that the chair of this committee has the full support of the committee. We had a vote that is in doubt. Unless we clarify it, that vote will remain in doubt. If I were in your position in the chair, I think I would want that clarified so that I had the full support of the committee. You're absolutely right on that, so I think we should put the question once again.
À (1010)
The Chair: I am going to remove myself from the chair and let the motion stand before the clerk.
The Clerk: I understand that there is consent to proceed to receive a new motion for the election of a chair.
Mr. O'Reilly.
Mr. John O'Reilly: At this time, I nominate Sue Barnes to chair this committee.
An hon. member: That's your vote gone, John.
Mr. John O'Reilly: I know, but I'm a gunfighter. I just do what I'm told.
The Clerk: It has been moved by Mr. O'Reilly that Sue Barnes take the chair of this committee. All those in favour?
An hon. member: May we have a recorded vote?
The Clerk: Yes.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 11; nays 4)
The Clerk: Congratulations.
An hon. member: That wasn't as much fun as the first one.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chair: Colleagues, sometimes this place makes us have to sacrifice a lot, but we are great people, all of us. Thank you very much, everybody who voted for or against. You are equally high in my regard.
We'll now finally get on to business. Let's go to the Budget Implementation Act, 2001.
The clerk informs me that the Air Transport Association of Canada and WestJet have asked to appear, and that the Canadian Alliance has given us some suggestions on people they would like to invite. You know there are some deadlines respecting budget legislation in order to get the moneys flowing. Obviously, I think we should have departmental officials in, but are there any other suggestions for witnesses? No?
Seeing none, I will ask our clerk to contact these people and to see who can get here as soon as possible.
Did you tell me you had a room temporarily booked for this afternoon?
The Clerk: Yes, and that's for departmental officials if members want to...
The Chair: Yes, Mr. Solberg.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): I assume we would entertain written submissions, if we have a local airport or that sort of thing.
The Chair: Yes, but I think we're moving to clause-by-clause, so we would need them as fast as possible.
This afternoon, we'll have a meeting with the departmental officials on the budget. For tomorrow, we'll try to get the rest of these witnesses in, and we'll got to clause-by-clause as soon as we have finished with these witnesses.
Is there any discussion on that plan. All in favour?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Okay.
The other item I see here is Bill C-209, which is a private member's bill on income tax amendments. I believe it is a bill respecting public transportation, and I believe it was a Bloc bill. We have to deal with this within a certain timeframe, otherwise it's deemed to have been dealt with.
What's our timeline on that, Mr. Clerk?
À (1015)
The Clerk: The deadline is March 13.
The Chair: It's March 13.
Why don't we move to that as soon as we finish with the Budget Implementation Act, 2001? If anybody has witnesses, they can inform the clerk.
I do propose to start re-establishing a steering committee, but we don't have our parliamentary secretary named yet. For now, then if you'll bear with me, we can do it as a group in terms of decisions, as a committee of the whole, until we can get the steering committee up and running.
If people could get their requests in to the clerk in terms of who they would like to have as witnesses on Bill C-209, we'll tentatively plan to get into that immediately following the Budget Implementation Act, 2001.
Mr. Solberg.
Mr. Monte Solberg: One other thing we might want to entertain is a review of our customs ports with the United States, in light of everything that has happened. Of course, customs doesn't have its own committee. Typically, I think finance has been the committee for customs and revenue, so I'm suggesting that we take a look at that, with an eye to examining whether or not we have adequate resources at the border points to ensure the facilitation of trade and that sort of thing.
The Chair: Mr. Loubier.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: I'd like to propose another topic. The new Bank Act has been in force for almost three years now. Judging from some of the feedback we're getting, a number of legislative provisions have yet to be implemented owing to the absence of regulations.
That's understandable given that the review of the Bank Act was a fairly complex undertaking. However, it would be a good idea to bring members up to date on the status of the legislation, on the direction that has been taken and the implementation time frame.
Let me give you one example. The consumer agency is not yet up and running because the regulations have yet to be tabled. So, while we claim that the issue of protecting depositors is being attended to, the fact is there are no appropriate regulations in place.
Therefore, it would be a good idea to call in some senior officials, or even the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, to give us an update on the situation.
[English]
The Chair: We have heard a couple of ideas, and I'm sure others will have some. May I suggest that we have agreement on the two pieces of legislation we have to deal with first, that we then take those suggestions—among others that people might wish to make—to the steering committee, and that we start with those afterwards?
Mr. Brison.
Mr. Scott Brison: Madam Chair, I think the Canadian dollar is an issue that we ought to study in terms of linkages with productivity. Prior to his ascension to the position of Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Graham was chairman of the foreign affairs committee, and he was about to lead the foreign affairs committee in some fairly exhaustive activity on the Canadian dollar and some of the issues around a North American common currency. I think those are some discussions we ought to be having. Those discussions are occurring elsewhere, and those debates and discussions should probably occur within Parliament as well. We should take a serious look at some of those issue issues.
The Chair: Perhaps you could check to see whether or not the foreign affairs committee is going to continue with that. Maybe you could get back to us or to the steering—
Mr. Scott Brison: Maybe we could propose that we do some cooperative work with the foreign affairs committee on that, as opposed to reinventing the wheel. While much of it is in the purview of foreign affairs, I would also argue that a lot of it is in the purview of finance, so perhaps there should be some cooperative efforts between the two committees.
The Chair: Mr. Nystrom, and then Mr. Cullen.
Mr. Lorne Nystrom: It's just another idea for the idea hopper.
The interest rate on credit cards is at an historical high in terms of the gap between the prime rate and the credit card rate. The credit card rate is now 18%, and the department store rate is 24%, while the prime rate is at 3.75%. That's an historical spread. The new minister is interested in the issue, and has said so publicly, so I just want to put that in the idea hopper as well.
The Chair: Okay.
Mr. Loubier.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Speaking about that, the Industry Committee is responsible for looking into the issue of interests rates and the gaps between current rates and credit card interest rates. Historically, this has been the job of the Industry Committee, which has formed coalitions of members demanding that the major banking institutions lower their credit card lending rates. Perhaps we could work with the members of this committee as well.
[English]
The Chair: I think all these ideas are good, but I think it's also important that we don't duplicate the activities of other committees. We might therefore be passing ideas on to other chairs and the steering committees of other committees.
Mr. Cullen.
Mr. Roy Cullen: Madam Chair, if we're taking down ideas, I know dealing with legislation is a key priority—especially Bill C-49—but I also have an idea for the ideas hopper, as my colleague across the table called it.
I don't know about others, but I believe greenhouse gases are a problem and that we need to start dealing with them. Particularly given the position of the United States, I think it might be useful for this committee to perhaps look at the economic costs and benefits of Canada implementing the Kyoto Protocol.
A lot of work has been done, and there are studies around. I don't think we would necessarily have to reinvent the wheel, but perhaps we could bring in various stakeholder groups that have done some work in this area. I think it would be useful for the committee to sift through that information, call in witnesses, and perhaps then develop some recommendations for consideration by the House and the government. I think that would be a useful project to look at.
À (1020)
The Chair: I think there would be an awful lot of interest in that. I'm very open to it. As a priority as chair, though, I will always put the legislation first, but I think it's important for this committee to examine other ideas. Perhaps we'll have the steering committee take on all of these suggestions, and I would propose that we have a session at which we come back, go over these together, and then decide. With that in mind, we'll probably be moving toward clause-by-clause as soon as possible on the budget implementation bill, as long as we get through the witnesses. We'll then move into the private member's legislation, and then into our steering committee, with the idea being to look at examining one or more of these before the end of the year. So thanks very much.
Is there anything else from anybody? Mr. Epp.
Mr. Ken Epp: With respect to this afternoon's meeting, I don't know if there is a Standing Order requirement in terms of a notice of meeting. I have offered to substitute at the public accounts meeting this afternoon. They're dealing with a pretty important issue, and I've been studying in order to get up to speed on the issue they're debating this afternoon at 3:30. I don't know if other members have such conflicts as well, but because this is at sort notice, I wasn't able to plan for it.
The Chair: I'm going to go with the will of the committee, but I think we should have three meetings this week. It's fine with me, though, if they're tomorrow afternoon, Thursday morning, and Thursday afternoon.
Mr. Ken Epp: That would be better.
The Chair: That would help our clerk, and it would also free up our schedule, because I actually have things—
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Are we meeting tomorrow morning?
The Chair: No, Thursday morning.
[English]
We would meet tomorrow afternoon, on Thursday morning, and on Thursday afternoon.
Our clerk will find us and we'll start off with the officials, and then we'll move to whatever witnesses wish to appear. If we're at that stage, we'll then go into clause-by-clause. If we're not, we'll continue with witnesses.
Mr. Ken Epp: So it's Wednesday afternoon, Thursday morning, and Thursday afternoon.
The Chair: Right.
Mr. Ken Epp: Thank you.
The Chair: And I hope the clerk will get a notice out for all three of those meetings by this afternoon.
Thank you very much. I look forward to working with you.
We are adjourned.