Finance Committee on Oct. 31st, 2006

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

Just to give an indication of why this is not just for the fun of it, I think there were serious issues raised, and we have serious concerns on privacy. I think we need to hear the Privacy Commissioner. We want to hear the Auditor General. We want to hear the chair of the Senate Committee, whose recommendations were not adopted. I think there are serious matters about privacy, about solicitor-client privilege, and possibly about other areas. It is our duty to review these things before passing legislation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Are there any further comments?

Yes, Madam Wasylycia-Leis?

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Maybe there's a compromise between endless hearings with witnesses, and a rather tight period of hearing from the key witnesses. I would agree that we need to hear from the three that John McCallum just mentioned. Actually, there are four: Senator Grafstein and the Senate committee; the Auditor General, since she's the one who has brought this to our attention to begin with; the Privacy Commissioner, because there are some real concerns being raised back and forth; and the law society. I think those four would actually clear the air, and we'd have a chance to then proceed to clause-by-clause.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Could I offer this, then, to the committee? How would committee members respond to the format that we had used on other issues, which is the establishment of a panel, in which each witness makes brief introductory comments, and then question and comment exchanges with committee members? Would a panel satisfy the intent of the motion?

Yes, Mr. Pacetti.

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

Mr. Chairman, there are some amendments to this bill that relate to some of the other government agencies, like the Canada Border Services Agency and the Canada Revenue Agency. The Senate prepared a report. There are a number of witnesses that are important. We don't have to hear from all of them, but if we set up two panels of seven or eight witnesses each for an hour and a half, which is a three-hour block, as we've been doing for the pre-budget hearings--it's not a big deal--then we get this thing over with. I'm not asking for a lifetime of hearings, but I think by only having the Auditor General or the Privacy Commissioner, we're not going to--

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you.

Go ahead, please, Mr. Wallace.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

That was completely my point: that if the mover of the motion narrows it to the numbers and the hours, I am interested in supporting it if it's reasonable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Madam Ablonczy.

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

Yes, I think it's good to hear more witnesses. It is an important piece of legislation.

I just wanted to remind the committee that the big picture in which this legislation is coming forward is that Canada is going to be assessed by the FATF. Our regime will be assessed at the beginning of the new year. So if we're going to bring our regime in line with those of our international partners, we do need to get this legislation through the House before the Christmas break.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you.

Restate the motion, please, Mr. Pacetti, and then I'll call for the vote.

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

I believe we should have witnesses before we table any amendments to Bill C-25, and the witnesses appearing before the finance committee could be in blocks of an hour and a half. One session of three hours would probably suffice, but if you need a limit, we can limit it to 16, with eight witnesses per panel.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

There won't be royal assent by January 1, regardless.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

No, I'm not entertaining discussion.

I'm allowing Mr. Pacetti to state his motion so that--

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

But I have a full list of names, and it's 15--

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

We'll establish the panel after we debate this motion, sir, but the motion is to have hearings not in excess of three hours, not in excess of 16 witnesses. Is that correct?

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

Yes.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

All right.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Okay, I call for the vote on that motion.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Madam Wasylycia-Leis.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

I'm pleased to introduce this motion. Should I read it for the record?

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Please.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

That the Standing Committee on Finance reconstitute its program of quarterly independent fiscal forecasts employing the services of the Conference Board of Canada, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, Global Insight and Dr. Vaillancourt or other independent forecasters, as determined by the Finance Committee, with an initial appearance before the Finance Committee in November.

To speak to it very briefly, in terms of the program I'm referring to in the motion, I would refer committee members to the motion that was put before the committee on December 1, 2004, by Monte Solberg, which was adopted and began a process for the committee. It outlines the purpose and the format that we used in the whole program, so I won't go into detail on that front.

The second point I would make is that the four organizations that are named, including one individual, are only there because that's basically the list we used the last time; however, it is open for other suggestions. It's not a fixed list. In fact, the last report of the fiscal forecasting program included Ellen Russell of CCPA; Dale Orr of Global Insight; Don Drummond of TD Bank; and François Vaillancourt from the University of Montreal.

That's basically the motion. And I'm suggesting we have some initial appearance in November just because with this period of time where we're expecting the report from the minister, where we have concerns about the accuracy of fiscal forecasting and the surplus dollars that are presumably rolling up, we need to have all the facts before us.

Finally, let me say that this is an interim program that always was intended to be a temporary initiative until such time as we have a more independent bureau in place to provide us with the budget advice we need. That idea is ensconced in Bill C-2, which, once through, will hopefully be the permanent way we deal with this. This is, therefore, only a temporary and interim measure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

We have three indications of wishing to speak. I will, however, not to attempt to influence your feelings on this particular motion, but solely for information, let you know that based on the previous motions we discussed and our obligations to report back by said dates, we have now, in total, five meetings left available to us to deal with the pre-budget consultation report.

Now, on the motion, Mr. Wallace.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

On the motion, Mr. Chairman, I need a clarification, because I was not here, on whether this is a panel approach similar to what we've just experienced, which I'm assuming it is, but I'm not positive. And the other piece I have concern about is a November meeting, which you just mentioned, because I think we're going to have a very hard time squeezing that in.

I appreciate the member's concern and wanting good numbers, but I don't know if we could push that off to the beginning of the new year as a first meeting.

Those are my comments, and I'm willing to hear what everybody else has to say.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you.

Mr. McKay.