Finance Committee on Oct. 20th, 2011

[Avrim Lazar]

It's Tembec.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

I regret having to cut off the discussion. It's a very good discussion. I know other members do have questions, but unfortunately we did start late. We also have a motion by one of our members and a couple of other items that I have to deal with. And I have members who I think have to be somewhere at one o'clock.

I'm terribly sorry for that. It was an excellent discussion. We thank you all for being with us here today.

If you have anything further, please submit it to the clerk. We will ensure all members get it.

Colleagues, I will suspend just for a minute and then we'll start with Mr. Brison's motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I'll ask members to take their seats, please.

Colleagues, you should have a number of documents in front of you. Does everyone have the package that was distributed? I'm assuming you do.

The first item is just the additional witnesses for Prince Rupert and Saskatoon, which have been agreed to by parties. It's for information, but we just want to formally adopt it.

Does everyone have that front page?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay.

That's okay? Thank you.

Secondly, we'll go to the motion by Mr. Brison, so I'll give the floor to Mr. Brison.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Before I speak to the motion, I want to inform the committee that I am a Taurean. My astrological sign is Taurus, and as such sometimes I can lose my temper and from time to time be bullheaded. That may have been the case, and in fact I think it was the case, three weeks ago. Yesterday my horoscope in The Globe and Mail in fact said you need to patch things up with someone you have had an on/off argument with for weeks. I take these directions very seriously, and my astrological advisor, The Globe and Mail, is quite right. I would like to apologize to Ms. Glover for my use of unparliamentary language and withdraw.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Now, beyond points of courtesy and astrology, you all have the copy of the motion with the friendly amendment:

Whereas the Government of Canada and the Bank of Canada jointly agreed in 2006 that the Bank of Canada will conduct monetary policy with the aim of keeping inflation, as measured by the consumer price index (CPI), at 2 percent;

Whereas this joint agreement on the inflation-control target ends on December 31,2011; and

Whereas the Governor of the Bank of Canada is scheduled to appear before the Committee on November 1, 2011;

Therefore the Committee should hold at least one meeting before the end of November 2011 to hear from witnesses such as but not limited to members of the C.D. Howe Institute Monetary Policy Council on whether or not the Government of Canada and the Bank of Canada should consider other targets such as but not limited to nominal GDP or full employment.

Ms. Nash has suggested in another friendly amendment that in addition to this she may wish to move that, so I move this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Brison.

I just want to point out that I have the friendly amendment but members do not, so I will just make clear that the friendly amendment is essentially this. The first three paragraphs are exactly the same, so it is the paragraph that deals with witnesses:

Therefore the Committee should hold at least one meeting before the end of November 2011 to hear from witnesses such as but not limited to members of the C.D. Howe Institute Monetary Policy Council on whether or not the Government of Canada and the Bank of Canada should consider other targets such as but not limited to nominal GDP or full employment.

That is the amendment you are making. Did everyone get that? Is that okay?

Does anyone have discussion?

Ms. Nash.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Given that if the committee is supportive of holding this kind of hearing, which we certainly are, and given that with Mr. Brison's amendment we're going to include topics like nominal GDP or full employment, I would argue that we should include other witnesses. I know they are not precluded from appearing, but we are spelling out the C.D. Howe Institute, and I would like to spell out that we also hear from the Canadian Labour Congress and Alex Himelfarb and that this be included in the motion. Just as we're listing the C.D. Howe Institute, we should list these others who could address these other issues such as full employment.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

The recommendation is that we add:

such as the Canadian Labour Congress and Alex Himelfarb.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

I would like to move that amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

I have Ms. Glover, please.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Very briefly, this side of the table will not support that friendly amendment, but we will support the amendment put forward by Mr. Brison.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Brison.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Given that we have added full employment in addition to nominal GDP, and we know that nominal GDP discussions and proposals have been, among others.... The Economist Intelligence Unit has put forth some ideas on this and also the C.D. Howe Institute's Monetary Policy Council, and people like Scott Sumner, so we understand that is covered in terms of the C.D. Howe Institute Monetary Policy Council. But when you talk about full employment, I think Ms. Nash is right that organizations and individuals who are associated with that ought to be invited as well. If we're going to talk about full employment as one of the goals to discuss, we would benefit hearing from them.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, thank you.

Ms. Nash, and then Ms. Glover, please.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Yes. I don't know why we wouldn't want to specifically indicate some other witnesses. It's about hearing from witnesses who have background and knowledge that could be very useful in this discussion. I don't know why we wouldn't want to include them if we're willing to include the topic of full employment.

I think it's important. If we're going to hear from a think-tank that's going to have one point of view on the more conservative end of the spectrum, I want to make sure we have a balanced approach and that we're hearing from an organization that is on the progressive end of the spectrum, the Canadian Labour Congress. Alex Himelfarb is eminently qualified as a former Clerk of the Privy Council to give his views and opinions to this committee, and I think his testimony would be very valuable.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Ms. Glover, please.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

I probably should have explained, because I think the opposition has missed the point of what I was trying to say in supporting Mr. Brison's motion and not theirs. The point is that it's already included that we can invite witnesses at our choosing.

We can debate at a later time whom we're going to invite, but spending the time now to talk about witnesses when we only have two minutes for one is not a good use of time, because we still have a couple of other things on the agenda. So we can certainly discuss whom we're going to invite, but at a later time.

The motion covers that we're going to be open to other witnesses, and I would rather discuss that at a later time, because we could spend the next 30 to 40 minutes talking about which witnesses we want to submit, and that should be done at subcommittee or committee at another time, not today.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I have Ms. Nash, but perhaps the chair could just offer a friendly suggestion, which is that we say:

Therefore the committee should hold at least one meeting before the end of November 2011 to hear from witnesses on whether or not the Government of Canada and the Bank of Canada should consider other targets, such as, but not limited to, nominal GDP or full employment.

My sense is the entire committee agrees with this, that there'll be a strong indication of who members want to invite, but I think the motion would pass, and then we can have a discussion as to who to invite to the meeting as witnesses.

That's just a friendly suggestion, Mr. Brison. I did it independently of....

As the mover, are you okay with that, Mr. Brison?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

I'm fine with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. All in favour?

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

That's unanimous. Thank you.

Very quickly, I'm just going to go through...you have a copy of the schedule; just review that. We will obviously be adding some more. We'll be adding this meeting as well, and it looks as if we'll have to have some form of subcommittee to decide witnesses.

It looks as if we will have the minister on November 1 with regard to the Budget Implementation Act. That has to be added to the schedule; we will do that.

We do have copies of the travel itinerary for next week. If anyone wants a paper copy, please come and see the clerk.

The last thing is with regard to the issue of notices of motions, and I don't want to get into a long discussion; this is more for members' information. This clarifies the letter I sent to members. Mr. Brison pointed out that there's a difference between what I said are the rules and what the practice is. So this document is designed to clarify that. I hope it does add some clarification. If members do want to take this further, we certainly can have a longer discussion about it. But everyone should have a copy. Please review it. If you have any questions, talk to me or the clerk.

I think that's all for today. That's it.

Thank you all, colleagues.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Are you going to fit in that meeting that we just motioned about before November 1?