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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Do we want to agree on a time to do it within 3:30 to 6:30 or 7:30 and get it done?
Liberal
Conservative
Ron Liepert Conservative Calgary Signal Hill, AB
I think we should leave it as a two-hour meeting. Then if we need to extend it, we'll extend it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay, and the government has the option, at any time, to put a motion with the time frame in it.
Mr. Dusseault.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
I think we should take the time we need to do it. If we are not done in the first meeting, we'll reconvene and continue at another meeting. We don't have to put a time limit now for a meeting. We will see if we happen to be done in two or three hours. If we need more, we'll do more.
Liberal
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We could do what we did last time. If on the 29th we were not finished the clause-by-clause by a certain time, then we would deem the clauses all moved and completed.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
That would require a motion stating what you just described. There is ample time, I think, for folks to think about it, if they want to bring that motion forward at some point in time. It doesn't have to be done today.
Are we agreed on the report of the subcommittee?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Mr. Liepert, I believe you had a motion related to the subcommittee report. Do you want to explain it?
Conservative
Ron Liepert Conservative Calgary Signal Hill, AB
Yes, I won't read it. Everyone has a copy of it.
For the benefit of the entire committee, the motion suggests that our chair invite several other committees to study subject matter that probably is a little more extensive and more narrow in scope, such that other committees are probably in a better position to call a few witnesses. It's laid out that the chair invite the chairs of these other four committees.
I don't think there's much more that I need to say on it right now.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay. Then it's open for discussion.
I have just one point, Ron. In my reading of the motion, point (i) is that the Standing Committee on National Defence look at part 4, division 12. I went back and looked at that, and it's really related to the committee on veterans.
Conservative
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
That was going to be one point, so if that's changed, I have no problem supporting that as well.
I'll deal with the last recommendation because I think it's easiest. It refers to part 4, division 18, and it's regarding the infrastructure bank, which is a finance program. I have concerns about asking the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities for this one, when it's been this committee that's talked about the infrastructure bank. I understand the rationale behind getting further input from the committees that might oversee these topics generally, but this one is a finance issue.
I'll just say that, and if Ron or anyone else has comments, I'd be happy to hear them.
The only other one is point (ii), which refers part 4, division 13, to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. I read that section, which is quite small, and it's just dealing with visas. I'm wondering what the rationale is to get that additional feedback, because it wasn't very comprehensive in terms of a policy.
Perhaps you could provide some more rationale for at least those two, although I certainly don't have an issue in principle with what you're asking.
Conservative
Ron Liepert Conservative Calgary Signal Hill, AB
Mr. Chair, perhaps I could respond in reverse.
With respect to point (ii), citizen and immigration, our member of that committee, Mr. Tilson, has written a letter to the chair. It states:
As you know, it has become customary for the various Standing Committees to review sections of budget legislation that pertain to their particular mandates. Division 13 of Bill C-44 contains amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the primary statutory instrument governing immigration to Canada. I trust this is something you and the Committee will wish to examine once the Bill has passed Second Reading.
I don't know much more about it than that, but I would suggest that it's up to the chair of the citizenship and immigration committee whether or not they should study it. They will be responding to this particular letter in some form anyway. On this one, then, I would suggest that if we could leave it on, it would then be up to the chair to determine whether it's worthy of further study at citizenship and immigration.
Looking at (ii), which mentions part 4 relative to the infrastructure bank, I don't disagree that the infrastructure bank discussion belongs here. But I think it would be helpful to also have.... We are finance, and we will be talking about the structure of the infrastructure bank. I think our thinking here with transportation and infrastructure is that those areas will be the beneficiaries of the infrastructure bank.
Maybe, in the letter from the chair, we could differentiate between the witnesses who come before the transportation and infrastructure committee and the witnesses who come before our committee. It would be an opportunity to have that committee, which will really deal with the beneficiaries of the infrastructure bank, have as witnesses what I would call “their” clients or “their” stakeholders, and we could concentrate on the financial side of the infrastructure bank.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay.
You've heard the argument. Is there anybody else on this issue? Do I hear any amendments?
Okay. Then I think there's general agreement with the four points outlined.
I do have a few suggestions based on what Mr. Rajotte did, when he was chair of this committee, where they did something similar. I think there are a few other points that we need to make in the letter that we would send to other committees.
Mr. Dusseault.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
That was my point. If the committee goes down that path and sends everything to other committees, I have a list of things that we can send to other committees. I don't know if you want me to read it out now.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Before we go that far, could I read out the suggestions I have for the letter?
The a letter from me as chair would need to say “The motion that was adopted also invites your committee”—the committee we're sending this to—“if it deems appropriate, to provide us with recommendations, including any suggested amendments.” We would have to put in a date that we need them back by, because we can't wait. Another paragraph would be, “Therefore, I invite you to send me the committee's recommendations, including any suggested amendments, by letter, in both official languages, no later than” a certain date. I think the subcommittee could determine that on Monday. Then I would say, “Furthermore, it would be greatly appreciated if you could advise me should your committee choose not to consider the matter or if it considers the matter and decides not to suggest amendments.”
Do we have agreement that those aspects be put in the letter?
Ron.
Conservative
Ron Liepert Conservative Calgary Signal Hill, AB
I have a slight variation. I think that in your letter the date by which they need to notify you if they're not going to proceed needs to be much sooner than the second date you were talking about, because if they're not going to proceed, we may want to proceed with a witness or two. I would suggest that you have two dates in there. One is, “if you're not going to proceed, please let me know by” X, and, secondly, “if you proceed, we need the amendments by” X date.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay. Is Monday too late to consider this draft letter or do we need to get it done this week? We're going to jam up other committees if we don't get it done.
