Evidence of meeting #33 for Finance in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was back.
A recording is available from Parliament.
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Jean-François Pagé
In accordance with Standing Order 81(4)(b), the leader of the opposition could extend the main estimates period for 10 sitting days, for finance only. But we don't have any....
Conservative
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
I think having the finance minister is more urgent, or else we could find another time.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
If committee members are willing to sit twice in one day, that's always an option.
I have Monsieur Laforest.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to suggest that the committee quite briefly hear from Ms. Johanne Deschamps, the member for Laurentides—Labelle, whose bill on young graduates in the regions was passed on second reading last week. That vote means that the Finance Committee must hear Ms. Deschamps in order to conduct the clause-by-clause consideration of her bill. I think we could do this quickly, particularly since the pre-budget consultations will be held in the fall. There's a time period for the committee to hear the bill's sponsor. I know that Ms. Deschamps would be available on June 11 or 16. Moreover, last year, the sponsoring member took an hour to introduce his bill. We could do the same thing. I suggest that we do it on June 11 or June 16.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I'll remind colleagues that this bill was referred to the committee. We do have to report it back to the House by November 30. So Monsieur Laforest is correct; it has 60 sitting days.
I'll also remind colleagues that we're going to Washington Thursday and Friday of this week. Next Tuesday we have a joint meeting, again dealing with the credit card issue, from 9 a.m. until 11 a.m. On Thursday from 9 a.m. until 11 a.m. we have BDC and EDC, which all members of this committee asked for. And then on June 16 we have another joint committee dealing with the credit card issue. We'll obviously try to fit in the Nortel meeting. We'll try to fit in the finance minister. So we're looking at a very full agenda.
Unless members of this committee tell me they want two meetings a day.... The committee can indicate to me what its priority is, but we did pass.... Mr. Mulcair's motion was withdrawn, but my understanding was that there was unanimity to have that fairly soon. That was my understanding. My understanding was that the finance minister...because of the timeline with the estimates, we'd have to do that by June 11.
Monsieur Laforest, perhaps you can convince your colleagues to have another sitting day or have another meeting. The other option is to start with that the first week back in September.
Monsieur Laforest.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
Mr. Chairman, we don't necessarily need to add a full meeting. We could hold a three-hour meeting on one of those days that would round out the other items you've mentioned, the minister's visit in particular. It's next Tuesday; so it won't change anything. Surely it's possible to add an hour to one of the meetings without necessarily convening an additional meeting.
Conservative
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
I can't support this motion. I'm completely accepting of having that honourable member with her private member's bill come in the fall. But to be very frank, we haven't even done an accurate assessment of what it's going to cost. So what would we ask her? And I don't think she has an accurate costing of the liabilities of that particular bill.
We've got a pretty exhaustive schedule. We're into a very busy season. We've got members on all sides doing double duty on committees. I think it's only fair to leave this until September.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
I find it hard to understand Mr. Menzies' argument when he says that the costing hasn't been done. The same bill was passed last year; it was even passed on third reading. A costing was no doubt done by the government and the Department of Finance on that same bill, which is a certified copy of the one that was passed on second reading during this Parliament. The idea would be to use the costing that was previously done. I'm convinced the Department of Finance has a fairly accurate assessment of the costs entailed by this bill.
Mr. Chairman, you haven't shown me that all the days here at the end of the session are full. We should look at a calendar together with the agenda for each day. We don't have that before us, but I think there must be room to hear Ms. Deschamps for an hour.
Conservative
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
I'll get right to the point, Mr. Chair. I was opposed to this bill in the House. I asked the mover of the motion of the bill specifically whether he had the Parliamentary Budget Officer analyze the costs. If you check the purposes of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, one of the purposes is to check that. I also checked with the Parliamentary Budget Office. I got a letter back saying they did not. One of the key purposes of that role is for individuals such as ourselves, when we come up with a bill, to have it independently priced out, costed out. It has not been done.
I can talk to this for more than an hour, trust me. It will not be done in an hour. There's no way we're going to get through it in an hour. I have a ton of questions. I don't like where it's going, and I want a response from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. I want to refer to the Parliamentary Budget Office for their independent study of what the actual cost would be. I don't know how long that would take. I think that office could probably get it done over the summertime, but I don't think it will happen in the next two weeks, so I will not be supporting having it.
We're bumping EDC and BDC for the finance minister. I'd like to see them before the break, because we've had lots of discussion. Now we've gone onto the credit card issue. We have plenty of discussion under the credit study and lots of questions—I don't know if you want to call it criticism—about their efficiency and effectiveness. I want to find out from those witnesses what they think of the testimony and what they have done in the meantime to fix those issues. I want to see this before I leave.
Based on what you've said here, we've basically two weeks left after Washington, when we get back. I think that's four meetings.
We're full enough. Legally, we have until November to do it. Let's do it in September; give us some time. That's why I won't be supporting having it before we leave.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
Like the majority of Liberals, I voted for this bill. I spoke with my Bloc Québécois colleague half an hour ago. I agree that we should hear this witness, but perhaps I misunderstood the timing issue. I don't see the need to do it before the summer. It seems to me we can do it in September, in view of everything that remains for us to do in the two weeks before the end of session.
I hope you're not thinking I'm reneging, but I didn't fully understand the timing. It seems to me that hearing the people in September would be good enough.
Conservative
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The last time we examined this bill, we received studies and took our time, so that we had the opportunity to move two or three amendments. We improved the bill. There are two weeks left and we have other priorities. I don't see why we should still rush to examine the bills. There's no pressure. If we take our time, perhaps we can move amendments, if necessary. In that way, the bill will be better than the one we examined the last time.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
That's my last speech, Mr. Chairman.
I understand my colleagues' arguments. I nevertheless have one suggestion to make. Everybody seems to take it for granted that there are two weeks left starting next week, before the end of the session. As I've heard nothing confirming that assumption, I suggest that, if the session is extended beyond those two weeks, we be able to set down Ms. Deschamps for the first meeting held after those two weeks. Otherwise, it will be in September.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you, colleagues.
We will now move in camera to do the budget. We'll also have a briefing from the Finance officials relating to our trip to Washington.
[Proceedings continue in camera]