Yes.
Evidence of meeting #84 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was businesses.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #84 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was businesses.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Can we go through yesterday's report from the subcommittee first and deal with that so we can get the witnesses in order? We'll have time. We'll get to your motion.
Members have been given a copy of the sixth report of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. Do I need to read it? It will be on record.
We need a mover for that, do we not?
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Yes. The sixth report is before you. It really deals with the aspects of Bill C-44, the budget implementation act. We'll hear from officials on Monday and Tuesday, the current and former parliamentary budget officers and related witnesses on Wednesday, May 10, and really all other matters related to the schedule on how we would deal with Bill C-44. Instead of reading it all, I consider it moved.
It's up for discussion. Mr. Liepert.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Liepert Conservative Calgary Signal Hill, AB
I have a suggestion on point 2. I've observed that if you schedule four hours, people will find a way to fill four hours. Could we operate on the premise that it's a meeting on Monday and, if necessary, we have the Tuesday meeting, and it would be up to the chair that if we were close enough to concluding on Monday, we could extend it for an hour and get it done on Monday? I'm only concerned that if we schedule four hours, somebody will fill it.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I think we can go with that. Our understanding at the subcommittee was that if we needed Tuesday, we'd use it, and if we didn't, we wouldn't. I think we can agree to that understanding.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Liepert Conservative Calgary Signal Hill, AB
Yes, and if we need to go an extra hour on Monday to get it done, let's do it that way.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
I would like to add something to the discussion.
We would propose to have another meeting on Thursday, May 11, and the time we suggest is just after question period, 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.
5:15 p.m.
A voice
Make it 5:30 p.m.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Are we okay with that? Do we need to vote on it?
If we do get through all the witnesses, I think it would be understood we could drop one of the other meetings.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
All right, then. That would be 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. on the 11th.
Robert.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Robert-Falcon Ouellette Liberal Winnipeg Centre, MB
Personally, I am not in favour of the 11th or even the 18th. I prefer to sit longer on the Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday and have that time to do other things, because we're already moving people around and having to book translators, having to get panellists here, and myself included. I think it would be more efficient if the witnesses could all be bunched together in those three days. It would be a much more efficient use of our time, rather than having to come back again on a Thursday.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
When were we going to meet on witnesses? We've asked for the deadline to submit witnesses on the 5th—
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
—and the subcommittee is going to look at witnesses on the 8th. Depending on the number, could we leave it to the subcommittee to work out that schedule, whether we add another hour or two? We're still before the 11th, and if we think we have to add the 11th, add it. I don't think anybody's being reluctant on adding time. We know we have to do the work.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Liepert Conservative Calgary Signal Hill, AB
I mentioned to my colleague, when he raised it, that I think part of the discussion at subcommittee was whether the clerk would have time to get the witnesses lined up for the 11th. So if the clerk tells us that we can get it ready for the 11th, could we go ahead? Part of it would be whether the time lag is long enough.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I expect there are organizations in the Ottawa area that would be able to come, so I don't think there's any real opposition to either extending the hours or meeting on the 11th.
If we have the witness list by 12 o'clock on Friday, we pretty nearly may be able to determine this Friday afternoon. I think we're all going to be in agreement on some national organizations that should come on budget implementation. We might be able to line them up for Thursday.
As well, the minister is scheduled to come on either the 17th or the 18th. I don't think we'll get him for the three hours that are scheduled. We might get him for an hour.
Can we work from that, Gérard?
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Is there anything else on the motion?
I know Mr. Liepert has a motion on the report.
The clerk tells me we didn't discuss at subcommittee a time for clause-by-clause on the 29th. We usually have a time with a deadline. Correct?
Go ahead, Ron.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Liepert Conservative Calgary Signal Hill, AB
My recollection was that last year the government introduced a motion, which in essence was a closure motion on clause-by-clause. It would seem to me that, unless the government proposes to do the same thing, we did not have a time limit on it until it was introduced as part of a motion last year.
