Finance Committee on Oct. 18th, 2006

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

If it's information that the committee is looking for, I get a sense that the information can be provided and it doesn't necessitate having folks in to talk or having folks in to see this. If it's a matter of gathering information and presenting it, whether it be through research or whether it be through the clerk, that is....

There is a purpose and a reason for the decision, in terms of moving forward on this particular item. It doesn't necessarily mean we all agree on it, but it certainly means there is information in response to why the decision was made. I wonder if that's not at least a better interim option than immediately requiring folks to come down here and respond. I'm sure we can get any type of information that will at least give an indication as to why the cuts were made.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

For clarification of that comment, I have already committed to the committee and we have agreed on a process of bringing in people from the Department of Finance to answer our questions on priorities that we have identified as committee members. Certainly to some degree at least, what Mr. McCallum is presenting to you today fits into that process. In terms of the 45 days, which he has in his motion, it actually fits in perfectly with the timelines we've already established.

I throw that out there. We have agreed that we're identifying priorities. We are going to have Finance officials in to address those with information, and Mr. McCallum has identified this as one of his priorities with this motion.

Seeing no further hands, I will call for the vote.

Madam Ablonczy, with a question.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

I'm sorry, I need some clarification.

Does this mean a full-blown study? Or as you've suggested, and as Mr. McCallum and I were talking about, does it mean just some further information from the department, as to what this is all about?

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Madam Ablonczy, if you wish to make an amendment to the motion to further clarify what the word “study” means, you are quite able to do that, if you so desire. Otherwise I, as chair, will determine what study means, in the absence of further clarification.

The motion is in order, and unless someone proposes an amendment, seeing no further interest in discussing it....

Mr. McCallum.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

As I said earlier, the intent is that we have witnesses here. If that's also your understanding, we'll leave it as it is. But if that's not your understanding, then I'd like to amend it to that effect.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Propose an amendment to that effect.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

So you don't see it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

No, because I can't commit to the witnesses without knowing who you want or what time we have available. Certainly I can commit to studying it, if the committee so desires.

If you wish to propose an amendment, Mr. McCallum, please do so now.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

The committee's quite busy, so let's not overextend this. I think the problem is that some of these groups have not been consulted. We want these groups to appear. So if we can say “that the finance committee study for one committee hearing all groups that are affected by the GST cut”, I think that would suffice and complete what we're trying to do.

Is that okay, Mr. McCallum?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

If it means that we have one session of, say, up to three hours with witnesses and discussion, that would suffice from my point of view, yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

We have only two hours for meetings—

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Okay, two hours.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Okay. So it's a friendly amendment in that case.

What Mr. Pacetti and Mr. McCallum agreed to is that this amendment be included in the motion, which basically says that the Standing Committee on Finance will hold one hearing to study the implications of the notice of ways and means motion.

Is there any further discussion?

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

One hearing from all interested parties.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Mr. Paquette?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

There is no further discussion, so I ask for a vote on the motion.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

We are adjourned.