Evidence of meeting #4 for Finance in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was advertising.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you.
I have a request for one question from Mr. Julian, which I'm going to grant if he asks a nice question and then--
5:25 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Mr. Julian, you have about a minute. We do have to finish by 4:30 because that's what the NDP mandated at our first meeting.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I don't know if this is a nice question, but it's not on softwood lumber, although softwood workers, obviously, given how many of them have lost their jobs, would be impacted by this.
It's about the wage earner protection program. The supplementary estimates have $300,000 set aside. Is that the entire amount that's been set aside?
5:25 p.m.
Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Commissioner, Finance and Administration Branch, Canada Revenue Agency
For 2008-09, yes, for that fiscal year. That's the cost we anticipate for that fiscal year for those specific duties that I mentioned earlier.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
What is the amount that would have been set aside in a previous fiscal year? Was there none or--
5:25 p.m.
Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Commissioner, Finance and Administration Branch, Canada Revenue Agency
I believe this is the first year for this.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Okay. Do you have any sense of how that $300,000 might be divided or how that was calculated?
5:25 p.m.
Filipe Dinis Director General, Resource Management Directorate, Finance and Administration Branch, Canada Revenue Agency
The amount in question is based on an estimation of 10,000 claimants for this particular initiative.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you, Mr. Julian.
Mr. Menzies, you asked for an opportunity to say something at the end of the meeting.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
Yes, just for a moment, if I may.
We've talked amongst the committee members. Considering how urgent it is that we get this Budget Implementation Act through the House and through all the processes of debate, we're certainly hoping that we will be able to see that bill clear the House this week.
Because next week is a week in our constituencies, I would like to make a suggestion. I think I have the support of most of the members of this committee to seek, if we have your approval, Mr. Chair, to have meetings on Monday morning, February 23, on Monday afternoon, February 23, and perhaps even in the evening of February 23 if we need that. We would hope to have the minister here on the afternoon of February 23, and then on Tuesday, at our regular committee meeting, proceed to clause-by-clause to expedite this.
Because we have a two-week constituency break in April, it is very critical that we get this through as quickly as we can. I think we have pretty much all-party support to move this forward, not to obstruct due debate, but to speed up the debate process so we can get this through.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
5:25 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
Mr. Chair, earlier you discussed with Mr. Menzies the importance of moving forward quickly. We don't disagree with you. However, after discussing matters with my party's officials, there is no question of delaying the process. We do believe, though, that it is very important to hold an additional meeting to hear from witnesses. We're already hearing from people who want to testify and it's very important that we be able to hear what they have to say. I think we'd like to postpone things for one meeting. As I said, it's not that we want to delay the process. We simply want to make room for witnesses. There is a difference between moving quickly, and moving too quickly. If we do not give them an opportunity to testify before the committee, I think we would be acting in an undemocratic manner in some respects. We still need to give people an opportunity to testify, even when we are fast-tracking a process.
5:30 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to follow up on what Mr. Laforest was saying. It is important for the committee to hear from witnesses. Obviously, I cannot speak for our critic who isn't here right now, but I still want to ask some questions, Mr. Chair.
As a rule, notice must be given before a committee can meet. No such notice was given to us. If I understand correctly, Mr. Menzies did not give 48 hours' notice. Giving notice is standard procedure. When a matter such as this is raised and staff is not in the room to decide on a date and time, it's much more difficult. Tabling a motion in advance is simply a matter of courtesy so that members can examine it and come to a decision.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Just out of respect for witnesses, you can ask the witnesses to leave, I think.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you for that point of order. I thought this was going to be a short session, but thank you very much for being with us here today. We certainly appreciate your time, and if you have any further information you'd like to submit to the committee, please do so through the clerk. Thank you very much. We look forward to seeing you again.
5:30 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Thank you. Merci beaucoup.
Was a motion circulated to the committee in advance of the meeting?
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Perhaps I can clarify. My understanding is that as the chair I have authority to allocate meetings or to provide and schedule additional meetings. My understanding is that Mr. Menzies is providing a heads-up. He's not putting forward a motion. He's not saying he wants a vote on this. I think what he's trying to do is to be forthright and say this is what he's hoping, that if the bill passes the House this week, that's what will happen.
We do have a motion before the committee to make Bill C-10 a priority, once and if it passes the House of Commons. That will be the first item. We're also starting a pre-study of that bill on Thursday, on the item of infrastructure, as suggested by Mr. McCallum.
So this is not a motion. As I understand it—Mr. Menzies can clarify—it's simply a heads-up to the other parties indicating how this committee would like to proceed if the bill passes second reading this week. Does that clarify matters?
5:30 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
It does, Mr. Chair. So that would mean that this motion would come up on Thursday or—