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
Monday, February 4, 2002
| ¹ | 1535 |
 |
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil--Soulanges, Lib.)) |
|
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance) |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola) |
|
M. Epp |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola) |
|
M. Epp |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola) |
|
M. Epp |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola) |
|
M. Epp |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola) |
|
M. Epp |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola) |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola) |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola) |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola) |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola) |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola) |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola) |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola) |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola) |
|
M. Epp |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola) |
|
M. Epp |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola) |
|
Mr. Epp |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola) |
|
Mr. Epp |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola) |
| ¹ | 1540 |
|
Mr. Epp |
|
Ms. Tara Hall (Assistant Director, Parliamentary Affairs Section, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency) |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
Mr. Abbott |
|
Mr. Epp |
|
Ms. Tara Hall |
|
M. Epp |
|
Ms. Tara Hall |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola) |
|
M. Epp |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola) |
|
M. Epp |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola) |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola) |
CANADA
Standing Committee on Finance |
|
l |
|
l |
|
COMMITTEE EVIDENCE
Monday, February 4, 2002
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
¹ 
(1535)
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil--Soulanges, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order, colleagues.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): Yes, Mr. Epp.
Mr. Ken Epp: There's just a little technicality that I think we should begin with, and that is the authority by which this meeting is called. I'd like to know whether the chairman of the committee did indeed call the meeting according to the rules, or whether there was a misplaced call.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): Okay. Actually, it was the Speaker of the House who referred the question to the committee, and by a rule of the House we have x days within which to respond to it.
Mr. Ken Epp: Okay, but who called this meeting?
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): Mr. Bevilacqua himself, who is still the chair. He hasn't resigned yet.
Mr. Ken Epp: That was my question. I just wanted to make sure. I guess I was limiting my own power in the sense that I'm also a vice-chair of this, and if you had the power to call this meeting, then I was going to call one again myself later, at two o'clock.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): You want to call one after this?
Mr. Ken Epp: Well, no, whenever I feel like it.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): We can accommodate that--
Mr. Ken Epp: I just wanted to make sure the precedent was square, because I don't want that kind of power.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): The chairman called the meeting and he didn't ask me my opinion either.
Mr. Ken Epp: He didn't? Okay, then as a follow-up to this, I assume Mr. Bevilacqua will discontinue being the chairman of this committee, and I'd like to know whether there's any plan for us to have an organizational meeting soon in order to elect a new chairman.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): Okay. Do you want to deal with that right away, or can we—
Mr. Ken Epp: No, I just want to know whether it's on the agenda.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): It's not on the order for today.
Mr. Ken Epp: It isn't? So when is it? That's all I'd like to know.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): I believe, Mr. Epp, that at the current time the House leaders are in consultation to strike the committees. That will be done in the House very shortly. Once the committee membership is struck in the House, then the committee will be free to establish the next meeting and elect the chair at that point, according to the constitution.
Mr. Ken Epp: Okay, is there any idea of the timeline for that?
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): You'd have to ask your House leader. I know, from our perspective, the timeframe we're working towards, but....
Mr. Ken Epp: You do, and you won't tell us?
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): No, I can only speak for my party. I can't speak for yours.
Mr. Ken Epp: Okay, that's fair enough. Thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): Thank you.
Colleagues, today we have one item on the agenda. It is in essence a technicality. I believe--and I don't know on what date--a member of the opposition, Mr. Gerald Keddy, asked a question of the government, and the government did not respond in the prescribed timeframe. As a result, automatically, according to Standing Order 39(5)(b), the question is referred to the appropriate committee.
I state that the government didn't respond. It did respond; it just didn't respond in the prescribed time period. You have before you a copy of the journals, number 134, which shows clearly that Mr. Regan, the parliamentary secretary to the leader of the government in the House of Commons, responded to the question--number 96 is what we are referring to. Unfortunately, he responded to it Tuesday, January 29, at 10 a.m., which was roughly 48 hours too late.
You also have a copy in front of you of the response to that question--specifically, the statistics Mr. Keddy was asking for. As a result, I'm in your hands. We have officials here from the agency prepared to answer to the committee.
If we do debate it, the debate must stay focused on why they didn't answer, not on the statistics or anything of that nature and the content of the question. It's just why they didn't answer.
Yes, Mr. Epp.
Mr. Ken Epp: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I've been thinking about this, because I believe, if I'm not mistaken, that this week is the first time committees are seized with this question under the new rules. I don't know if this is the very first meeting, but I really think--
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): No, just to clarify, last week there were a few. In total, I'm told, 15 questions were referred to various committees by the Speaker last week.
Mr. Ken Epp: I have a strong suspicion, Mr. Chairman, that from here on in, because of this new ruling--and this turns out to be very positive--the government will be more diligent in answering the questions “in a timely fashion”, as our previous justice minister used to say.
I think that will occur, but I would still be very curious to know where the bottleneck was. If we could have the officials come before this committee and ask a few questions, I think that would give us some clarification and also would probably help them be able to respond in the way in which the rules are written, for the benefit of members of Parliament.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): I'm prepared to do that, without a doubt.
Mr. Ken Epp: Do you need a motion for that?
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): No.
Mr. Ken Epp: Okay.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): On the question, I've taken the initiative to find out why they didn't. As I said before, there are already 15 other questions before various committees that have not been answered. I'm told that because of the cabinet shuffle, the incoming minister did not have the authority to sign off on the question and that's why there was a delay.
Mr. Ken Epp: You said that the officials are here.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): Yes.
Mr. Ken Epp: So let's bring them to the table.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): Before I call the officials, are there any housekeeping-type questions? No.
Would the officials please come to the table.
We'll go directly to questions. Mr. Epp.
¹ (1540)
Mr. Ken Epp: What I'd really like to know is the chronology of events when a question is placed on the Order Paper. Of course, it is accepted in the House by the minister, and I'm sure that the minister's staff transmits it. What I would like to know in detail is the chronology for this particular question, question 96. When did you in your area find out about the question, and, as it was sent out to other people, what timelines were involved? In general when these questions come to you, because I believe this probably isn't the only one you've ever had for CCRA, is the timeline adequate or onerous? Do you have any other comment on that? That's where we'll start.
Ms. Tara Hall (Assistant Director, Parliamentary Affairs Section, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency): Id like to thank everyone for the opportunity to appear before you today. My name is Tara Hall. I'm the assistant director of parliamentary affairs and the parliamentary returns officer at the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.
Just to mirror what you have said, Mr. Chair, the reason for the delay in this instance was in fact the cabinet shuffle.
I would like to address Mr. Epp's question directly. With regard to the timeline, we are obliged by the Office of the Coordinator of Parliamentary Returns at PCO to ensure we have a response within a certain timeframe that will allow them an opportunity to review the response before it's tabled in the House. We do subscribe to a 40-day or 45-day timeframe. In this instance the answer was due to PCO the week of January 14.
But that was also the week in which the cabinet shuffle fell. When there is a change in a ministry, according to an established practice of the Office of the Coordinator of Parliamentary Returns, we are required to provide the responses to the written questions under the signature of the incoming minister. Due to the ministerial transition, in this case it created some delay in terms of providing the response. The response was given to the new minister as soon as possible, and it was provided to PCO at our earliest opportunity. Unfortunately, it was not tabled in the House until the 29th.
In terms of whether or not it's an adequate timeframe, as members will realize, the focus of the written questions is usually for more complicated.... In the standing order I believe it says “If a question involves a lengthy, detailed or technical response, a written request may be appropriate”. In some cases, if the question is perhaps not as clear as it ought to be, we take time and work with PCO to ensure we understand the question and what the members expect. The nature of the information can affect the timelines as well. But in any case we usually negotiate that with the Privy Council Office to ensure we're not creating any inordinate delays.
Mr. Ken Epp: Then my follow-up question to that would be, in this particular instance, when did you first receive the request? Do you monitor CPAC to see what questions are asked? In this case it's a written question, so it doesn't actually appear on television as such unless the... There are two tracks, as you know. So how do you find out about them, and in this case, when did you find out about the question?
Ms. Tara Hall: We do monitor question period and the Hansard. Also, the Privy Council Office has a system whereby we are notified, and a copy is sent to the minister's office as well. I believe that would have been in mid-December. I don't have the exact date the question was tabled, unfortunately. The 40th day fell on January 14, I believe it was, so the earliest tabling opportunity would have been January 28. We would have had that maybe in mid-December, but I don't have the exact
Mr. Ken Epp: In other words, you would have been under a time pressure in any case to answer this question.
Ms. Tara Hall: Yes, that's correct.
Mr. Ken Epp: Would you favour having a longer time period?
Ms. Tara Hall: Well, speaking on my own behalf, I certainly have an opinion, but I don't know if it's appropriate for me to...
Mr. Ken Epp: If there's an ongoing problem for you people to do the work, we have to correct it. On the other hand, we want to have answers as quickly as possible when we ask them.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): Yes.
Mr. Ken Epp: No, I know.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to defer to other members if they have any other questions. I don't want to dominate the whole meeting here.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): Are there any other questions?
Mr. Ken Epp: I am curious, if nobody else has any other questions then, whether Mr. Keddy expressed satisfaction on having a satisfactory answer to the questions he asked.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): I'd have to assume by his absence, Mr. Epp, that he probably received a satisfactory answer, because he was invited to attend this committee.
Mr. Ken Epp: He was specifically invited? Okay.
I have no more questions then.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): Thank you very much.
Thank you, Ms. Hall.
Does the committee concur that the question was answered to the committee's entire satisfaction and that I can report the same to the Speaker?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): Okay, thank you very much.
The meeting is adjourned. Thank you, colleagues.