Finance Committee on May 1st, 2017

[Jean-Denis Fréchette]

Exactly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you all for your presentations. Everybody got on the record for at least a moment with the witnesses, and no doubt, as mentioned in the earlier discussion, we will see you at some point on Bill C-44 on the proposed changes to the parliamentary budget office, and we look forward to your presentation to the Senate on Wednesday. I'm kind of interested in that myself.

The meeting will be suspended for a few minutes, and then we'll go to committee business.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll come to order and reconvene on committee business. We're in public for a bit.

Just to give people an indication of what we have to try to deal with, we need to decide on how we're going to handle the budget implementation act. Do we start do to a prestudy? We've got until.... We really think it pretty well has to be wrapped up, as we have to do clause-by-clause sometime around May 29 if it's going to get through the system, so we need to talk about that.

Also, there may be one or two motions that people want to lift off the table. There are several on deck.

We also have to talk about the budget for the pre-budget consultations in the fall. That will have to be in camera, because we're going to talk about the locations and the amount of monies that we can take forward to the Liaison Committee to request for a budget.

We can start with Bill C-44, the budget implementation act. As I indicated in the initial discussion, if we're going to get it debated and through this committee, we need to be looking at clause-by-clause sometime around May 29. Last year, for the one in the spring of 2016, we did prestudy meetings with Department of Finance officials. We had four meetings on it. One was with the Minister of Finance, two of those meetings were outside of our regular sitting days, and then we had one meeting on clause-by-clause. I do know from what I'm hearing—and I'm imagining that others are hearing the same—that we have quite a number of people who want to be here, with everything from the Canadian Vinters Association to you name it....

What's the discussion on this? Where do we want to go? I have Pierre first, and then Gérard.

Go ahead, Mr. Dusseault.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Chair, I think it's too early to discuss this, since the bill hasn't passed at second reading in the House of Commons. It hasn't been referred to us for study yet. Although we can predict the result of the vote, I think it's a little early to discuss this subject. I would wait until the bill has been passed at second reading, so that we don't work for nothing.

I don't see any urgency to establish a specific time frame to study the bill. You mentioned May 29, but that date seems to have been chosen randomly. I don't understand why you chose it. We need to decide how much time we'll spend discussing the bill. That said, it's too early to discuss it. We don't even know the result of the vote at second reading.

That's my recommendation, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

What I was saying about May 29, in looking at the parliamentary calendar and backing up what we would have to do in the House in terms of third reading and this going to the Senate, is that it's about the last day we could look at. What we did previously, and what under the previous government they did as well, was a prestudy, but that's up to the committee to decide.

We have Mr. Deltell and then Mr. Fergus. There's no motion on the floor.

We're just having a discussion here, Pierre, in terms of how we try to move ahead.

Mr. Deltell.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Chair, my colleague from Sherbrooke is partly right. We don't know the result of the vote. We can assume the result. However, we don't know when the vote will take place. We can't predict that. It's likely a bit hasty. I understand we should start looking at a game plan. However, I think it's somewhat early to establish what exactly we'll be doing, and with who, when and how we'll be doing it.

That said, clearly such a large bill, which covers seven completely different sectors, will require many meetings and witnesses. Obviously, I can immediately assure you that our friend Mr. Fréchette will be on our list. However, how many other groups will be affected? The bill covers seven different sectors that should receive a proper assessment. For that to happen, we need to schedule days and meeting days. At this time, we can't determine when the process will take place, but we can expect it to last many weeks because the bill is quite large. If we want to carry out serious, thorough, professional and relevant work on behalf of Canadian taxpayers, we need to take the necessary time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Fergus.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

For the reasons mentioned by my honourable colleagues, I think this study will be quite broad. We need to acknowledge that the committee must schedule time to study the bill clause by clause, without setting specific dates.

I imagine that, like me, my colleagues want to return as early as possible to their constituency to be closer to their constituents. However, we have duties to fulfill here. We may need to sit in July, or even later in the summer. That's why I think it would be good to look right now at the possibility of launching a pre-study. That way, we can plan our meetings better for the next two or three months.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Liepert, then Mr. Dusseault.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

First of all, doing a prestudy on bills is not an uncommon thing. We did it last year, and we've done it on several bills, so with respect to Mr. Dusseault, I would definitely want to have us start a prestudy as quickly as we can. There is no sense in kidding ourselves: we know that the government's going to make sure this bill gets to committee. It's the budget for crying out loud.

If I looked at the calendar correctly, I don't think we've got anything on next week. Let's take finance department officials, for example. If they come before this committee next week or after the bill has passed second reading, it isn't going to change anything. Their answers are going to be the same. I don't know why we don't get under way next week with a prestudy of this bill. Let's start off with finance officials, and try even to get the minister here next week if his schedule accommodates it. Then give us some time to have several witnesses come before the committee that are significantly impacted by this legislation. We mentioned the budget officer. I would like to get going on a prestudy as quickly as we can.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Dusseault, then Mr. Albas.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Chair, I want to clarify a point. We seem to give ourselves random deadlines that come from nowhere. It's a budget bill, but there's no indication that the bill must be passed before we leave in June. We're talking about a massive 300-page bill. We must do things correctly. I don't know why we give ourselves random deadlines, such as the summer.

Mr. Chair, I want to know where the legislation or our rules of procedure indicate a deadline for passing a bill. I simply want to know where the idea that a bill must be passed by a given date comes from.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Pierre, maybe that's directed at me and what I said. From my experience here and from looking at our agenda, I think Mr. Liepert said it correctly, that the key document of the government is the budget, and the government is going to want that to be adopted. Whether it's amended or whatever, that's to be seen. One of our problems in looking at our agenda from now until whenever we adjourn in June is that we only have so much time as a committee. People are asking for or suggesting that there be quite a number of witnesses. I expect that's true.

From my own point of view, and coming back to Mr. Liepert's point, if you can do a bit of a prestudy you would get some of the work done prior to the bill's hitting here. I doubt if the minister would come until the bill passes the House, but you could have departmental officials appear. While that would take take a considerable amount of time given the number of clauses in that bill and the various areas those officials are responsible for, you would get some of the work done before the bill gets to committee. That's all we're suggesting, but it's up to the committee at the end of the day on how we proceed. We're going to have to do that work at some point in time.

Mr. Albas, then Mr. Fergus and Mr. Dusseault.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I certainly appreciate that the budget implementation act is a major legislative cornerstone of the government's agenda and that it needs to be studied.

My hope is that if we do a prestudy we first of all get the word out as soon as possible that we are going to be doing this, so that people who are interested, groups that have issues.... I've heard a number of concerns back in my riding; however, I think we need to let people know we're going to do this.

Also, I think we want to also make sure that we don't end up in a pre-budget consultation state where we have so many stakeholders and such limited time that we don't get to ask as many questions. There is so much to study in this bill.

My suggestion, though, would be—and I'm glad to hear you confirm this or at least add it to your thinking—that the minister probably wouldn't want to come until after second reading. The reason is that I think it's better for us to have enough testimony on it that when we ask questions of the minister, having seen the facts and some of the responses, we can be prepared.

I would almost suggest that we save the finance officials, even the Minister of Finance, for sometime closer to the end, because I think there are a number of concerns.

I have just one question to you, Mr. Chair. Do you foresee that this bill is going to be studied in sections by different committees, or are we going to be doing the whole process here? Maybe you could update the committee on that end of it. I'd appreciate any thoughts you might have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I don't think it's really up to me to say. I think the total bill will come to this committee because it's all related to the committee.

Mr. Deltell mentioned seven areas. I had four. I think there is the PBO, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, the innovation hub, and then there are a whole lot of other things related to budget areas. That's what I have.

With regard to witnesses, I would suggest that we try to block those witnesses who are related—say, the parliamentary budget officer aspect that's in this bill. We should try not to mix the PBO with the CPP Investment Board. We should try, in that hearing—or one or two, whatever it might be—to have the witnesses basically on the same subject, and then there would be the whole general area. That would be my suggestion, but it's up to the committee.

Mr. Fergus.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Actually, it seems that the conversation is going in a way that I totally agree with. I am in agreement with my colleagues Mr. Liepert and Mr. Albas. It seems that we're moving towards a consensus on where we should go, so I'm with my colleagues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Dusseault, then Ms. O'Connell, and then Mr. Liepert.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Chair, in response to your comments, I want to remind the committee members that we don't serve the government and we don't work for the government. Our committee studies bills and other issues extensively, to ensure that the government is held accountable for its actions.

I want to remind the committee members that it's not necessarily appropriate to set random deadlines for completing studies. This doesn't allow our committee to fulfill its role. We'll need to analyze the bill clause by clause and ask questions regarding each clause to make sure we're doing the right thing and we're not making potentially costly errors. In some previous instances, these types of errors were identified after a bill was passed. We must take our work seriously.

We aren't here to serve the government and we don't need to adhere to the government's deadlines.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Pierre.

Ms. O'Connell.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I agree with Mr. Liepert. I think last year's process worked well in finding that balance between starting the prestudy and actually getting the bill. The rationale for that, as Ron pointed out, is that there is certain witness testimony that we know we're going to have. We know we're going to have officials. We know we're going to have the minister. As to how that timing sorts out, the subcommittee can certainly look at it as well.

I think the risk we run into is that if we don't start on some of that work, knowing that the bill will get to us and looking at the calendar, it could mean extended sittings and cramming lots of witnesses in at once. I think we can all agree that's not always the most productive, although we have done it when we've had to. If we can start with some of this prestudy work, it would probably allow us to get better testimony and for all of us to be better prepared for the bill without having to sit all hours of the evening to get through it, given our calendar.

I do not think this is a repeat of the pre-budget hearings, to Mr. Albas' point, but I do think we can really focus and figure out how best to schedule this. Thinking about it now, it does allow us that opportunity as well for us to put out notice to the witnesses who might want to appear. Then we can determine whether to break it down into four areas or more, whatever the case may be, and we can start planning that now.

As Ron also pointed out, we have the time available in the calendar. We should put it to good use and get started, because it is quite comprehensive. We saw that last year. This is a bill that will require a lot of our time and work, and I think we should get started as soon as we can.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Liepert again.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

To conclude, if I could, I feel there is consensus around the table that we get moving on it quickly. I would ask that you, Mr. Chair, convene a subcommittee meeting as quickly as you can this week to try to get things in order for next week, as quickly as possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Are we okay with that? Could we go this far?

We'll convene a subcommittee as.... We'll have to look at tomorrow's schedule, but I think it would be possible, with next week open on Monday, to at least hear from officials, to get a start. Then sometime next week we need to get word out that people who are interested in being witnesses need to talk to the various parties, and we need to get those lists together. We'll see if there's time tomorrow to hold a steering committee meeting, but I would say that at this stage, the clerk could be thinking of departmental witnesses.

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Can we go in camera for a minute to look at some of these figures relative to...? We'll have a committee meeting to deal with the motions following the presentation by the revenue minister.

What are you laughing at, Dan?