Evidence of meeting #1 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was witnesses.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I know you said three, Phil, but I think we're up against a wall here. I think that if we're going to do it and be fair, then we really have to meet intensively that first week.
Mr. Caron.
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
I'm familiar with the time constraints this committee is subject to, having sat on it for two or three years. I agree that, most of the time, we held 3-hour meetings. Generally speaking, for pre-budget consultations that began in September and ended in November or December, we would hold, on average, 12 to 15 three-hour meetings, totalling anywhere from 36 to 45 hours.
We can't squeeze that many hours in now, but we could come close by holding intensive meetings the week after the break. If it is the pleasure of the committee, I suggest planning for the days of the following week and ending there. Even though we won't have 36 or 45 hours under our belt, we still need to conduct some meaningful consultation.
Pre-budget consultations have already been submitted to the government in the course of the process. We aren't reinventing the wheel here. Very often, we look to those consultations for guidance in choosing witnesses. It can be done fairly quickly.
I suggest the committee meet for up to six hours a day. We could do that on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, in other words, the 16th, 17th and 18th. We would need to meet for at least three days, but if the committee wishes, we could meet for just as long for four days, ending on Thursday, February 25.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Thursday of the following week, February 25.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Yes.
Can anybody from the Library of Parliament tell me how long it takes to do that work once you have all the evidence from those witnesses? How long does it take the Library of Parliament? We don't want them working 24 hours a day either. How long does it take them to do that work?
Analyst, Library of Parliament
From the time we meet the last witness, we would need at least a minimum of three weeks to be able to write the report, to get it translated, and to distribute it to members. After that, they would be able to consider a written report and there would be a sort of common revision process.
Conservative
Lisa Raitt Conservative Milton, ON
That's okay. Actually, I was on the same train of thought, Mr. Chair.
We're kind of throwing darts in the dark here, because we don't know when the budget is going to be, and we're making some assumptions. I do not want it to be the fact that a budget is going to be postponed because they're waiting for the finance committee. That certainly is not the intent of the opposition. We would like to see a budget. We would like to see the plan as quickly as possible.
If the government members have a notion that they can help us with and let us know when they think the budget will be, we will meet their schedule and we will go to their date. They don't have to tell me when it is. I know it's a big secret. I used to sit in government as well.
That being said, I certainly want to make it very clear that on our side of the House it's not our interest to have the finance committee pre-budget consultation be a reason or an excuse for why the budget isn't forthcoming. I hope I'm clear in my concern on the matter.
That being said, we'll go around the clock.
Liberal
Steven MacKinnon Liberal Gatineau, QC
While we're being clear—and we're certainly not going to change the tradition of the prerogative of the finance minister to announce his own budget date—
Liberal
Steven MacKinnon Liberal Gatineau, QC
Let us just be clear. If I'm understanding what we've discussed already, the last time a similar circumstance was encountered, in 2008, the government of the day was unable, unwilling, or whatever “un” you care to apply, to do expedited or whatever sorts of consultations. That's the first thing I wanted to clarify.
The second point is that, in the absence of formal consultations by this committee, as contemplated in the Standing Orders, the minister—I think all members, to be fair—and his parliamentary secretary have put in place numerous means of meaningful consultation right across the country, involving hundreds of thousands of submissions, speeches, interventions, meetings, and so on. Those continue, I think, to this day and beyond.
I just want us to be frank, realistic, and honest with each other that this cannot be, of necessity, a full-blown consultation, as contemplated in earlier years. I don't know if that changes the time frame for the drafting of a report. This process cannot, as Madam Raitt says, delay a budget, if that would be the impact on whatever date the minister is contemplating.
We may have to go through the earnest process of soliciting and listening to witnesses. But as for the time to deliberate and come up with a proper set of formulations, I think we all just need to be very realistic about the time available to us and the capacity of this committee to follow its rules and to do meaningful consultation.
I expect that I speak for all of my colleagues on this side of the table. We are prepared, as well, to do as much consultation and hear as many people as we are able to within the time frame afforded to us. But I want to have it on the record that, first, a meaningful consultation has occurred and is occurring as we speak; and second, that the report that emanates from the consultation process may not be the kind of report that I'm sure this committee would be able to come up with given the timelines we will be given in subsequent years.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
I don't disagree in terms of the problem we're facing right now. I think we're all aware of that. And I agree with Ms. Raitt that the intention is not to delay or change when the budget is tabled. However, it's just as important that we conduct the most meaningful consultations possible in spite of the time constraints we're facing.
I realize that the government has conducted consultations. That's not something new. Mr. Flaherty and Mr. Oliver, of the previous Conservative government, conducted government consultations on the budget, as well. It's a common and logical practice. Those consultations, however, don't replace the consultation process that the Standing Committee on Finance is supposed to carry out.
As I said, I think it's important to hold pre-budget consultations despite the tight timeline we all know is facing the committee. To ensure those consultations are as robust as possible, we need to undertake an intensive process. That's why I suggested two weeks. One week, including the minister's appearance, is still short. Spreading it out over two weeks, with the understanding that the input may not be reflected in the budget because of the deadlines imposed, also strikes me as an acceptable option.
I move that we schedule two weeks of intensive meetings, with the process ending on Thursday, February 25; that the analysts work their usual magic within a time frame that is humanly possible; and that the results then be provided to the committee. Not only will these pre-budget consultations be useful for the coming budget, but they will also give us plenty of financial food for thought in the year ahead.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Yes, if that budget is in March—
Sorry, Mr. McColeman, you get the floor.
Conservative
Phil McColeman Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
It strikes me that we're trying to redesign a process that has traditionally been the work of this committee, so I'll make this attempt to add to the redesign. Three weeks to have a report come back is absolutely a deal-breaker. If we were able to gather evidence and this committee could put it into a fashion that we could pass along to the Minister of Finance, instead of a formal report—and remember, I'm saying this in the context of a complete redesign—would we be allowed, Mr. Chair, to do that as a committee? Is that outside of our purview to suggest that?
Second, if we're not able to, then it may turn out to be a farce—to use a word you used in our discussion—and that's not what we want. None of us wants that. I'm just asking the question. Could we consider the evidence that we gather and package it in a different fashion to get it to the minister in a timely fashion?
Liberal
June Dewetering Committee Researcher
I'll jump in.
My name is June Dewetering and I work for the parliamentary information research service, and these two fine fellows are part of the team.
For the benefit of members who haven't served on the committee in the past, in recent years the report has comprised two pieces. The main body of the report, the text, was related to the presentations that were made by witnesses, so it was testimony-based. Over the course of the summer we typically received about 400 briefs from other Canadians, and their input was included in an appendix to the report. We went through all of those and categorized the topic of the briefs into about 24 different categories.
Obviously, the time that it takes to write the report really depends on the number of people who make presentations to the committee. In the past we've taken about three weeks and that's been really pushing it, given the volume of witnesses who have appeared. When we had about 120 witnesses present testimony, three weeks were taken. It's taken less time to look at the briefs and do that categorization that was included in the appendix in prior years.