Finance Committee on Feb. 5th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Pacetti.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is February, and I think that perhaps we should study the budget legislation until the end of the month. In March, we will have only two weeks, and then we will have three or four in April. We will have to decide on a date, and if necessary, we will hold more meetings. Perhaps we should suggest an amendment to say that rather than having eight meetings to hear witnesses, we could have hearings until April 30, at the latest. Then we will have all of May to draft the report. We would set a deadline, because in February, there are only two weeks, two more weeks in March, and in April, I think that there are three weeks at the most. I do not have a calendar with me.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

There are three sitting weeks in March.

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

There are three in March? So if we have to, we'll just have more sessions. At least if we fix a date, we'll have a report ready by the end of May.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Let me put something forward, and the committee can see. On February 10 we have the first hour with the Governor of the Bank of Canada. We could try to make the second hour for infrastructure. I don't know whether we'd need one or more sessions. I know it's a big topic with all members.

Then we could have February 10 and 12 for infrastructure. There's a break week following that. The following week, we could do employment insurance, if the committee wanted to do that as well, and then by that time I would suspect we'd have the bill for the budget implementation act. I don't know how long members want to spend on that bill.

We could give that study priority. If we don't have the budget bill, I suggest we start with this, because it does have support of all the committee. If we do have the budget bill, then that would take precedence, and we'd go to this immediately thereafter.

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

When will we deal with the estimates?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Again, the committee has to indicate what it would like to do with the estimates.

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

Perhaps we could ask the department to come in for one meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay.

Monsieur Laforest.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Chair, the right thing to do is to set a reasonable deadline rather than restricting ourselves to a certain number of meetings. Mr. Pacetti has suggested the end of April. But we should have at least eight meetings. What if we were to say at least eight meetings, and we were to set a deadline?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. McKay suggested 12. Is 12 closer to what the committee feels is necessary?

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

That is very long.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We could say at least eight meetings, and then if we needed more, we could add them.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

At least eight meetings and no later than April 30.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay.

Mr. Wallace.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I like your suggestion, Mr. Chair. The only suggestion I would make in addition is that since we will have Mr. Carney here for an hour, why don't we just make the second hour for the estimates and get them done next Tuesday?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, that's a proposal.

Mr. Mulcair.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

I do not think that I have quite understood exactly what Mr. Wallace is driving at. What does he mean by: “get the estimates done in one hour?”

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Am I to answer that, Mr. Chair, or not?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Wallace, through me, you can answer the question, yes.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Okay.

The supplementary estimates B are coming. They have to be approved. You have an opportunity at committee to question people from the department, in our case the finance department, where the supplementary estimates come from. Normally, you invite them to come, they answer any questions that you may have on the supplementary estimates, and then we agree.

The other option, Mr. Mulcair, would be that we would deem them to be reviewed and not do anything with them, and then they'd go back to the House. As a member of Parliament, I'd like the opportunity to at least have a look at them and ask a number of questions.

I've been on a number of committees here, and I have a bit of a reputation for being an estimates nut. I think taking one hour, in terms of reviewing the actual spending of the department, is not a bad thing for this committee to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Mulcair.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chair, I certainly do not think that one hour is too long. I find that my colleague Mr. Wallace is rather optimistic. Through you, Mr. Chair, I would like to inform him that the New Democratic Party is not part of the new Liberal-Conservative coalition. We intend to go through the budget line by line, and to do everything necessary to insure that... You need to have at least two political parties. I can assure you that the NDP will be one of the two political parties that will be looking at the estimates very carefully, using all the tools that we have at our disposal.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, that's entirely within your mandate as a member of Parliament, but if you can give some guidance to me or make a proposal to the committee as to when and how long you'd like to study the estimates, we'll certainly consider that.

Mr. McCallum.

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

I thought there was agreement generally that infrastructure was a high priority, that we should do it quickly, and that one hour was definitely not enough. I think three hours for infrastructure would be a good idea. We have quite a few witnesses we would like to call, including the minister, John Baird. So I was hoping, notwithstanding the importance of all these other things, that three hours next week could be devoted to this topic.