Finance Committee on Jan. 29th, 2020

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thanks for your question, Mr. McLeod.

On what that would mean, it's not in terms of party. Obviously the government is the Liberal Party, so it means there be at least two members from the Liberal Party for quorum. For the opposition, we now have three parties around the table so it would mean a minimum of two members of the opposition for that minimum quorum.

It just clarifies things in a minority Parliament. It makes it clear. We're still at the four-member threshold, but in a way that is more reflective of a minority Parliament.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I ask for permission to suspend for a couple of minutes, Mr. Chair, just so we can have a chat.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I have no problem with that. Go ahead.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll come back to order.

Do you want to lead off, Mr. Fragiskatos?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

We're fine with the friendly amendment proposed by Mr. Julian.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay. I'll read it so we're clear, Peter: “That the Chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence and to have that evidence printed when a quorum is not present, provided that at least four (4) members are present, including two members of the opposition and two members of the government ,but when travelling outside the parliamentary precinct, that the meeting begin after fifteen (15) minutes, regardless of members present.”

(Amendment agreed to)

(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On the questioning of witnesses, I move:

That witnesses be given ten (10) minutes for their opening statement; that, at the discretion of the Chair, during the questioning of witnesses, there be allocated six (6) minutes for the first questioner of each party as follows: Round 1:

Conservative Party

Liberal Party

Bloc Québécois

New Democratic Party

For the second and subsequent rounds, the order and time for questioning be as follows:

Conservative Party, five minutes (and thereafter five (5) minutes,

Liberal Party, five (5) minutes,

Conservative Party, five (5) minutes,

Liberal Party five (5) minutes,

Bloc Québécois, two and a half (2.5) minutes,

New Democratic Party, two and a half (2.5) minutes,

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

That is so moved. We are open for discussion.

The clerk has mentioned this to me. I think the motion is fine but when we have witnesses here and we're dealing with six in an hour and a half, as we sometimes do, we try to hold them to five minutes to give us more time for questioning. We can still encourage them to do that. Sometimes they go a little over the time.

(Motion agreed to)

Next we have documents.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

On documents distribution, I move:

That the Clerk of the Committee be authorized to distribute documents to members of the Committee only when the documents are available in both official languages and that witnesses be advised accordingly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is there any discussion?

(Motion agreed to)

Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

On working meals, I move:

That the Clerk of the Committee be authorized to make the necessary arrangements to provide working meals for the Committee and its Subcommittees.

It's a motion that's particularly important to Mr. McLeod.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is there any discussion? All those in favour?

(Motion agreed to)

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

On witnesses' expenses, I move:

That, if requested, reasonable travel, accommodation and living expenses be reimbursed to witnesses not exceeding two (2) representatives per organization; provided that, in exceptional circumstances, payment for more representatives be made at the discretion of the Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is there any discussion on that motion?

(Motion agreed to)

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

On staff at in camera meetings, I move:

That, unless otherwise ordered, each Committee member be allowed to have one staff member at an in camera meeting and that one additional person from each House officer's office be allowed to be present.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is there any discussion on the motion? Is it understood?

(Motion agreed to)

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

On in camera meeting transcripts, I move:

That one copy of the transcript of each in camera meeting be kept in the Committee Clerk's office for consultation by members of the Committee or by their staff.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is there any discussion? That's standard procedure.

(Motion agreed to)

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

On notice of motions, I move:

That 48 hours notice, interpreted as two nights, shall be required for any substantive motion to be considered by the committee, unless the substantive motion relates directly to business then under consideration; provided that (1) the notice be filed with the clerk of the committee no later than 4:00 p.m. (EST) from Monday to Friday; that (2) the motion be distributed to members in both official languages by the clerk on the same day the said notice was transmitted if it was received no later than the deadline hour; and that (3) notices received after the deadline hour or on non-business days be deemed to have been received during the next business day and that when the committee is travelling on official business, no substantive motions may be moved.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay. It's on the floor. Is there any discussion?

(Motion agreed to)

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Are there any other motions from the regular motions we've had before?

We had before—and it's on the list that the clerk distributed—the PBO and economic and fiscal outlook. We always have the Parliamentary Budget Officer in. They have written a letter to the clerk of the committee asking that the particular motion that we passed at previous finance meetings be changed somewhat to what is in the red, right?

Does somebody want to take a moment to look at that, at what we've had previously and what the Parliamentary Budget Officer is moving we adopt in this Parliament, and if so, could we have somebody move it?

Mr. Julian, it's in the long form and in the red. Okay, you haven't received that part. It's in the letter.

The clerk has the letter. I've seen it; you haven't. What we can do is set this aside and, at a future meeting after you receive a copy of the letter, go to any other motions that may be required. This one deals with the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and by tradition we have the Bank of Canada and others in as well, so we could deal with that at a later date.

Is there anything else on the agenda?

There is nothing else on it, but could I just take a moment? The House, when it convened for this Parliament, tabled an order that pre-budget consultations would have to be completed by February 28. For new members of the committee, the finance committee is mandated by Parliament to hold pre-budget hearings prior to the tabling of a budget.

Normally it's a fairly extensive but reasonably simple procedure. The the committee clerk normally sends out a press release in May or June with a theme that we're proposing, asking that submissions from the public be in by a specific date, usually around the middle of August. We'll get anywhere up to 500 submissions, as a committee, during that time period.

Following that, when Parliament reconvenes, normally in September, the committee will hold some hearings in Ottawa and across the country as well. I think the last time we held hearings across the country we heard from roughly 300 witnesses in 10 cities, so there is a combination of hearings in Ottawa and across the country.

Then the analysts, from that, prepare a report after some discussion. The report comes back to us; we debate the report and we discuss recommendations. Each party puts forward its own recommendations and we table a finance committee pre-budget hearings report in December, as a rule, so it's available to the minister and the department for their consideration.

Each party, of course, based on its proportion in the House, is asked to put forward a list of witnesses. Based on priority usually the subcommittee determines those witnesses.

This time, because we're now into the end of January, and the second week of February is a break week, we are in a fairly tight time squeeze to hold at least decent hearings and hear what the public has to say and give the analysts time to draft a report, and give us to be able to table that report by February 28, which Parliament has already deemed has to be done.

In 2016 as a committee we basically wrote a letter and informed the minister of the topics we had heard testimony on, and sent copies of the minutes, I believe, with that letter. Following that, we drafted a report with recommendations as quickly as we could.

That's what we're up against. If we're to go down that road, there are a couple of things we need to do. We would have to hold extensive hearings next week: Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. The last time around, I think we heard roughly 24 witnesses a day for four days and running, and then concluded the witness segment. That gave the analysts time to go through that.

We already have 261 submissions that came in prior to August. They were put forward in anticipation of pre-budget hearings this fall, but this committee would have to move a motion to bring that evidence forward from the last Parliament as evidence for pre-budget hearings, if we are to consider it in this Parliament. If I could put it this way, if we're going to do pre-budget hearings directly, we would probably need a motion to bring forward those submissions to be considered by the committee. I think a number of members have received them.

We've already approached the department. They would be willing to come in for a meeting tomorrow. I know some members would have difficulty with that because of previous commitments they've made. Nonetheless, the department would be willing to come in tomorrow and brief us on where they're at.

Each party, if they could, would have to have their witness lists to us by Friday morning so that the clerk could invite those witnesses for next week. As well, we would have to have the Minister of Finance, I would think, for an hour next week.

The floor is open for discussion. That just gives you some background on what's before us in the immediate term. After getting that out of the way, we could then sit down as a committee and determine what we collectively believe we need to do as a committee going forward, and what studies we want to undertake.

Peter, I have you and then Sean. Mr. Julian, then Mr. Fraser.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Chair, I think it's a no-brainer to move that we accept as evidence the briefs that were provided prior to the last election. I think that's obvious, and so I'll move that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay, it's moved that the evidence from the last Parliament and the briefs submitted be considered as evidence for the pre-budget consultation that we're undertaking now.

Is there any discussion on that point?

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Mr. Fraser.