FINA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES FINANCES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, October 2, 1997

• 0900

[English]

The Clerk of the Committee: Good morning, honourable members. I see a quorum. Your first item of business is to elect a chair, and I'm ready to receive motions to that effect.

Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Madam Clerk, might I recommend that the committee entertain a secret ballot for the chair?

The Clerk: Is it the desire of the committee to do this?

An hon. member: No.

Mr. Tony Valeri (Stoney Creek, Lib.): We certainly don't want to start off on that basis. We'd like to have a very open and transparent committee.

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): I would like to nominate Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua as chairman.

The Clerk: I guess there is no agreement to do the secret ballots.

It has been moved by Paul Szabo, seconded by Mr. Gallaway, that Maurizio Bevilacqua do take the chair of this committee. Is it the pleasure of this committee to adopt the motion?

(Motion agreed to)

[Translation]

The Clerk: I declare the motion carried and Mr. Bevilacqua duly elected chair of the committee. I invite him to take the chair.

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.)): First let me express to all of you my warmest and sincerest gratitude for having elected me as your chair.

I look forward to the challenges we face in this committee. It's a very important committee of the House and we'll be dealing with very important issues, all of which, I'm sure, will reflect Canadian values as we address the new economic and fiscal reality of this country.

I want to deal with some routine motions that we have to go through. Thereafter I will want to address some issues related to the workings of the committee, particularly as they relate to pre-budget consultation. We need to get some quick consensus on those issues because time is of the essence.

We will move to the election of the first vice-chair. Do I have any nominations?

Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): I'd like to nominate Paddy Torsney as vice-chair.

The Chairman: Do you have a seconder for that? Seconded by Mr. Riis. Any other nominations? No?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Paddy Torsney is the first vice-chair.

We'll move on to the election of the second vice-chair.

Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): I nominate Mr. Solberg.

The Chairman: Moved by Gerry Ritz, seconded by Gary Lunn. Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt this motion?

(Motion agreed to)

Mr. David Iftody: For the purpose of clarification, I know there has been agreement with the government and the opposition parties, but Standing Order 106(2) says that the two vice-chairs shall be members of the governing party, under the current Standing Orders as they are written here.

Mr. Monte Solberg: The third member from opposition.

The Chairman: Two of the three.

Mr. David Iftody: Okay. I see.

The Chairman: Congratulations, Mr. Solberg. Any comments, Mr. Solberg?

Mr. Monte Solberg: None right now, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: It was duly noted that there were no secret ballots for your election. It was unanimous.

• 0905

Mr. David Iftody: Aren't you glad now?

Mr. Monte Solberg: Yes, I'm very thrilled.

The Chairman: I'm sure this is the way we'll work all the time.

I'll take this opportunity to introduce Ms. Janice Hilchie, who will be our clerk. You know she'll be doing most of the work. We'll probably be getting all the credit for it, but she'll be doing most of the work. She has been noted as one of the best clerks in the House, so we're quite fortunate to have her. Welcome.

The Clerk: Thank you.

The Chairman: We'll now move, with the help of Ms. Hilchie, of course, to some routine motions for the committee. I think the first one deals with the steering committee. Is that correct?

The Clerk: Yes.

The Chairman: On the issue of the steering committee, we could go with this make-up. It's entirely open for debate. This is merely a suggestion. It's to have the chair, two vice-chairs, and a representative from the New Democratic Party, the Progressive Conservative Party, and the Bloc Québécois; and of course the parliamentary secretary, Mr. Valeri.

Mr. Riis.

Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): I think this is fine. I think it's a good opening for the committee in terms of recognition of the new composition of Parliament. I think it will go a long way towards making the work of the committee very productive. Wonderful.

The Chairman: As Mr. Riis has pointed out, you can try it for a while on a trial basis and if you see it's not working the way it should you can change it.

Mr. Monte Solberg: I thought there was a no-secrecy agreement.

Mr. Nelson Riis: It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that if we're going to develop a good working relationship and three out of the five political parties have no input into the agenda it would not be a good way to proceed. If we're serious about working on this—and I suspect we all are—I would really encourage that people set aside some of their partisan differences in the spirit of a productive committee and see to it that everyone who is interested in participating in the creation of the agenda at least have that possibility.

The Chairman: I would also like to remind members that any decision made by the steering committee has to come to the main committee for approval. I don't know if that's one of the sensitivities about this decision, but if it is, you can rest assured that, as always, there will be full debate on any decision made by the steering committee.

• 0910

Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Chairman, one thing we may wish to note is that in the formation of the procedure and House affairs committee they did include all of the members of all of the various recognized parties on the committee but not the parliamentary secretary. It is not as if I have anything in particular against the parliamentary secretary, but that was how they comprised their membership and perhaps we can take some guidance from them.

The Chairman: Yes, okay.

By the way, Mr. Solberg, we will be going to Mr. Valeri as a resource person from time to time, just so that you know.

Mr. Monte Solberg: Okay.

The Chairman: Are there any other concerns about this motion? Is there general agreement?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: So you'll know what you've agreed to, on the steering committee we will have a chair, two vice-chairs, the parliamentary secretary, one member from the New Democratic Party, one member from the Progressive Conservative Party, and one member from the Bloc Québécois.

The next motion deals with research staff. The motion reads:

That the committee retain the services of one or more research officers from the Library of Parliament, as needed, to assist the committee in its work, at the discretion of the Chair.

Could I have a mover for that?

Mr. Monte Solberg: I would move that.

The Chairman: Seconded by?

Ms. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): I will second the motion.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: I gather that everybody has this piece of paper with the motions on it.

The next motion deals with meetings in the absence of a quorum and reads:

That the Chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence when a quorum is not present provided that at least

—it's usually three—

members be present, including—

I feel comfortable with this particular motion:

That the Chairman be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence when a quorum is not present provided that the Chairman and at least two members are present and provided that if no member of the opposition is present five minutes after the designated start of the meeting the meeting may proceed with the Chairman alone as the reduced quorum.

Is that agreed?

Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): You said five minutes?

The Chairman: Five minutes, yes.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: We used to have fifteen minutes.

Mr. Monte Solberg: Twenty minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I apologize for being late this morning, but I was fascinated by my English class and I forgot that the Finance Committee was meeting.

Last year, we waited 15 minutes before getting under way and declaring a quorum. I hope that this will be the case again this year because we sometimes run late, particularly in light of the work taking place on the Hill and on the streets which impedes traffic flow.

[English]

The Chairman: Agreed, but let me make it very clear here so that we will start on the right foot. I understand that there are many commitments that members of Parliament have in and outside of the riding, around the country and within Ottawa and so on, but there's one thing I'm going to stress here, and that's punctuality. That's very, very important, because time is valuable for everybody and if we're going to work as efficiently and as effectively as possible then we need to be here on time, to start on time, and to finish on time. So that everybody knows, I'll tell you right now that that's the way I'm going to be running this committee.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Hear, hear.

The Chairman: We will wait for five, ten or fifteen minutes, but the country doesn't have the time to wait for us for any longer than that. So that's the way it's going to be. But the point is well taken.

• 0915

Mr. Monte Solberg: What is the motion?

The Chairman: We've just made a friendly amendment. Instead of five, we'll put fifteen minutes.

That was what you would like, right, Mr. Loubier?

Mr. Monte Solberg: It was twenty, but fifteen is fine. It's twenty right here in the minutes.

I'll be very punctual, Mr. Chairman; I can guarantee it.

Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I would just make a comment that in fact, although the amendment may be made and the motion may be forward, I'm quite confident that all members of this committee will ensure that they are here punctually at the meetings and we will be able to start on time. So as a measure of good faith we can put in fifteen, knowing that we will very rarely, if ever, have to use that motion. Thank you.

The Chairman: So that's accepted?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: The next one is on opening statements and questioning of witnesses. We'll try this one: that the witnesses be given ten minutes for their opening statements and that during the questioning of witnesses there be allocated five minutes for the first questioner of each party and thereafter five minutes be allocated to each subsequent questioner at the discretion of the chair.

Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Chairman, that would amount to fifteen minutes for the Reform, ten for the Bloc, five for the Conservatives, five for the NDP—is that correct? And then the government side would get how much time, in total?

The Chairman: The first questioner would get five minutes for each party, so we'll do a round.

Mr. Monte Solberg: Oh, I see, okay, and how many rounds would there be though? I guess it depends on the—

The Chairman: It depends on how many five minutes there are in an hour and how many hours we're sitting.

Mr. Monte Solberg: There are twelve five minutes in an hour; there always have been.

The Chairman: We also have to build in some flexibility on that particular issue. I mean, there will be times when very interesting points are being raised or an answer is extremely important and I sense that the answer may be important to everyone involved in this committee—as I'm sure most of the answers will be—and we'll have to exercise a little bit of flexibility. We'll work on these things as the committee evolves.

Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Chairman, typically, the way this has worked in the past is that there was a specific amount of time allocated to parties based on their membership on the committee. I'm just a little concerned here that if we do the five-minute rotation—

Mr. Yvan Loubier: No, no.

The Chairman: Mr. Loubier, just one second; he's not finished his thought.

Mr. Monte Solberg: If we proceed on this basis that will mean that the Reform Party, with three members, will get the same amount of time as the Conservatives, with one member, or the NDP with one member. I'm a little concerned about that breakdown in time.

The Chairman: This is just a proposed motion; it's open for debate. I'm sure that there are other people who might have some concerns about this as well.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to Mr. Solberg, when there were only two opposition parties, it was customary to grant exactly the same amount of time to each committee member entitled to vote. We went around the table once, and then a second time. Mr. Pillitteri was there and he will remember. The government party had a little more time because it had more members who were entitled to vote. However, as a general rule, the time was always split equally. That was the first point I wanted to make.

My second point concerns flexibility. I am happy you mentioned this earlier on because flexibility will be important. It will be important because this committee will hear from representatives of major Canadian and Quebec organizations who will need more than 10 minutes to make their presentation.

I recall the important debates on the proposed legislation to amend the Financial Institutions Act and to enact new legislation. When we welcomed the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, we allotted at least 20 to 25 minutes, not 10 minutes, for his presentation so that he could explain complex issues before we moved to questions. Quite often, we allotted more time when these senior officials appeared as witnesses.

• 0920

I am happy to hear you talk about flexibility. I don't feel that we should proceed exactly the same way in the case of every witness. Depending on the subject matter and the witnesses, I think we should show a little more flexibility. I don't know whether you agree with me.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Valeri.

Mr. Tony Valeri: I tend to agree about the flexibility. As witnesses come before us, the chair, in his discretion, will certainly be able to determine whether we should continue a line of questioning, whether it's relevant to what we're trying to accomplish as a committee.

I also take the point Mr. Dubé has made about the voting members. It may in fact answer your question, Mr. Solberg, about the time allocation on a five-minute basis per voting member. It would mean you as the official opposition would have more time for questioning than the other parties and the government would have greater questioning opportunity than members of the opposition. How we structure that, whether we go around the table or go back and forth, I'm really going to leave to the discretion of the chair and perhaps to some type of discussion here with the members of the opposition.

Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Chairman, just so I'm clear here, is the proposal that there be five minutes for each voting member of the committee? Is that the idea?

Mr. Tony Valeri: That's the way I understand it.

Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Chairman, I don't understand on what other basis you could possibly start to distribute the time. We have a larger representation here. Rather obviously, in my judgment, that should suggest we would have a chance to question the witnesses to a greater extent than some of the parties that don't have as large a representation.

The Chairman: The questioning should represent the percentages of.... For example, the government side would get whatever percentage they—

Mr. Monte Solberg: What I'm suggesting is that the opposition parties should have the amount of time allocated to them on the basis of their representation on the committee.

The Chairman: What you're saying is that the government side should get over 50% of the time and the opposition—

Mr. Monte Solberg: I'm suggesting they should get 50% and the other 50% should be allocated on the basis of the representation of the parties. That's the way it was done in the past, if I'm not mistaken. I think there was some agreement that it made some sense. If you allocated five minutes per member of the committee, I'm not certain how many members the government side has, but you would come somewhere close to what we did last time, I believe.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Tony Valeri: I don't have any difficulty with the 50-50 split. I think the members on the government side would agree with that. The only comment I would make is that we go back and forth, so members of the government and the opposition can interact with the witness. Rather than have members of the government wait until the entire opposition gets through, I would prefer that—

Mr. David Iftody: Out of the remaining 30 minutes.

Mr. Monte Solberg: Yes, that would make some sense.

Mr. David Iftody: Then we would divide that according to the basis of representation on the committee on the other side.

The Chairman: Could we have a motion that represents those thoughts?

Mr. David Iftody: I'll move that motion.

Mr. Nelson Riis: We can go to that debate. I appreciate the suggestion and I like the idea of the five minutes per participant. That makes sense to me. A concern from my Conservative colleague and myself would be that by the time we go back and forth across this table we will hear about half a dozen interventions in the questioning by members of the government before we get to a member of the Conservative Party or the New Democratic Party. We'll also hear all the interventions from the two major opposition parties. To me that doesn't seem quite fair, to be honest—in other words, for the government party to have half a dozen interventions before we even hear from a member of the fourth or fifth party.

Mr. David Iftody: We can mix it up somehow, Nelson, as long at the end of the day, out of one hour of questioning, if we're dividing it into five-minute questions, there's that 50% representation here. I can ask the last question. You can go second or third, perhaps, from the opposition side.

• 0925

The Chairman: To solve our problem, I could rotate it. On the first round we can start with the Reform, on the second with the Bloc, and work our way across. Rotation would probably address that particular issue.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, you will recall that it is customary to begin with the opposition parties, and then proceed to questions from government members. The Standing Committee on Finance is supposed to proceed in this manner...

[English]

The Chairman: I understand that.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: ...and has for many years. This approach gives opposition parties an opportunity to assume their rightful role under the circumstances. You make the decisions; we are part of the process, but ultimately the decision rests with you. Committees provide a kind of release mechanism to compensate for the lack of this ultimate power.

[English]

Mr. Nelson Riis: What about a compromise? We could have the first round include all parties, including the government side. So on the first round of questions everyone will have at least an opening comment or statement. Then beyond that it would revolve between the government and the opposition parties. It would be in the spirit of fairness.

The Chairman: And that would be done through the 50-50 formula. Right?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: If I understand Mr. Riis' motion correctly, we would begin with the Reform Party. Next, it would be the Bloc Québécois' turn, followed by the NDP and the Progressive Conservative Party and then back to the government party, then back and forth between the Reform Party, a government representative, the Bloc Québécois and again a government representative, and so on.

[English]

The Chairman: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: That would be okay.

[English]

The Chairman: Is that okay?

Mr. Paul Szabo: The motion, Mr. Chairman, specifies ten minutes for the witness. I think there was consensus on that point. Secondly, it specifies that five minutes be allocated. That seemed to be the consensus on length of time for a questioner. Subsequent questioners were going to be five minutes also, at the discretion of the chair. This motion does not in fact deal with the distribution of the five minutes, and as everybody has recognized by now, it's very difficult to articulate. I would recommend that we adopt this motion as is and that the chair, in the spirit in which we've discussed it this morning, ensure that there is a fair and equitable representation based on the proportional representation on the committee.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I disagree with what was just said and with the motion referring to the chair's discretion. The rules must be fairly clear. Mr. Riis has made an interesting proposal. The first questioner for each opposition party and for the government party puts his initial question with a preamble and is allotted five minutes. We would start with the Reform Party, then proceed to a question from the Bloc Québécois, and then hear from the Progressive Conservative or NDP representative, and then back to the government member.

The order must be clearly established, Mr. Chairman. The Reform Party has a turn, and then we go to the government representative, and then to the Bloc Québécois, then to another government member, then to the New Democrats, back to a government member, on to the Progressive-Conservative Party, and then back to a government member. I am reluctant to rely on the chair's discretion, with all due respect, Mr. Chairman, and even though I am convinced that you will do an excellent job. I think we would be better off avoiding any reference to a decision that you might be called upon to make one day, and which might be different the following day. This could create some confusion and friction. Therefore, let us be clear on this. Let's adopt Mr. Riis' excellent motion, as I think it will work well in this committee.

[English]

The Chairman: I think the clerk has captured the spirit of the debate here. We're going to attempt to come up with a motion that may reflect the wishes and wants of the committee.

The Clerk: It's that witnesses be given ten minutes for the opening statement and that during the questioning of witnesses there be allocated five minutes for the first questioner of each party and that thereafter five minutes be allocated to each subsequent questioner, alternating between opposition and government parties, and that the total time for questioning be divided as much as possible evenly between the government party and the opposition parties, at the discretion of the chair.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Okay.

• 0930

Mr. Monte Solberg: On a point of clarification, so I'll understand, questioners are defined as people having official standing before the committee. In other words, I guess what I'm saying is that when this all breaks down Reform would have three questions, the Bloc would have two, the Conservatives would have one, and the NDP would have one. Correct?

The Chairman: You would have that type of distribution, I gather, to reflect the make-up of the committee.

Mr. Tony Valeri: Mr. Chairman, I think it goes back to the point that was made earlier that the time allocation for questioning would be based on the voting representation by each party. So if Reform has three official members of the committee who are able to vote, they'd have five minutes each.

Mr. Monte Solberg: Okay. Now a further clarification. We have three members on the committee. If only one of them is present, I'm suggesting that that person would get three rounds of five minutes. I just want to make that clear. That's how we have dealt with this in the past.

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Monte Solberg: Oh, Mr. Chairman, this is ridiculous. This is how we dealt with this in the past when there was one Bloc member.

The Chairman: Mr. Solberg, we haven't made any decisions and therefore nothing is ridiculous yet.

Mr. Monte Solberg: But there seem to be a lot of people on the other side. The decision may be imminent, so I want to address this.

In the previous Parliament, if there was one Bloc member and one Reform member, we were certainly not precluded from asking questions because we'd asked questions in the first round. I would hate to see Mr. Loubier denied his chance to ask a second round of questions because of adhering to the letter of the law instead of the spirit. I think the idea here is to ensure that the parties that have a larger standing will get more questions. To me, that just makes absolute sense. What's the point of sending three members here if we don't have more time to question?

Mr. Nelson Riis: I think Mr. Solberg just answered his question. The point of sending three members to the committee is to hear from three individuals representing his political party.

I would shudder to think of the committee meeting when the entire opposition feels it's important to turn out to hear a witness, and one member of the government side, who would then take questioning for the entire time simply because he or she is the only member of the government here.

If we are members of the committee, we also have associate members, and in the absence of a committee member you send an alternate. If a political party can't feel serious enough to have its full contingent here, then it ought not to feel that it has the right to the whole set of questions. That's why we give so much attention to the composition of the committees and we have a very easy system of substitution in the event that people can't attend.

So with all due respect to my colleague, I'd hate to look across the aisle and see one Liberal member here participating fully on a par with, equal to, all of the opposition parties.

Mr. Paul Szabo: I'd like to move the motion that the clerk tabled for the committee's consideration.

The Chairman: Is there a seconder?

Mr. David Iftody: I second the motion.

The Chairman: Remember that we had the original motion, and now there is the amendment that the clerk read out. Is the amendment agreed to?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Monte Solberg: No, I don't agree.

The Chairman: Is it carried on division?

Mr. Yvan Loubier: It's very important to have an agreement on that, because the efficiency of this committee depends on it.

Do you have something to propose on the formulation of that?

Mr. Monte Solberg: What I would like to propose is simply that the questioning be allocated on the basis of how many members each party has sent to the committee, not necessarily how many people are physically sitting here at the time. It follows completely in the tradition of the committee, what we've done in the past, and it worked very well, in my judgment.

The idea that there's going to be one Liberal sitting across here is ridiculous, because of course the government always has more members than the opposition. I think it's absolutely ridiculous to do it in any other way.

• 0935

Mr. David Iftody: Mr. Chairman, I rather agree with Mr. Solberg on this. In the composition of the House, which is reflected here in the committee, of course, in the rules of the House, the agreement among the particular parties on questioning in the House and questions to the government from the opposition side is reflected and consistent with the formula we've come up with. I think to be consistent with that here in this committee is to reflect the agreement of the parties in the House of Commons on the questioning in the House. I think on that basis it's reasonable and fair and it's what we've agreed to as a committee of the whole in the House of Commons.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: We could add the following to the clerk's proposed amendment; "taking into account party representation in the House of Commons", and this would take into consideration what you have proposed.

[English]

The Chairman: Shall we consider that a friendly amendment?

Mr. Monte Solberg: As long as the understanding is clear.

The Chairman: Oh, it's always clear.

Mr. Monte Solberg: Okay.

Mr. Tony Valeri: So the understanding is that the time allocated for questioning is in fact allocated to the party rather than any one individual.

Mr. Monte Solberg: That's correct.

Mr. Tony Valeri: In fact, the end result will be that the government side will get at least 50% of the time allocated for total questioning, as a minimum.

Mr. David Iftody: We're being generous—very generous.

Mr. Monte Solberg: I appreciate your generosity.

Mr. Tony Valeri: Mr. Chairman, could we have the question?

The Chairman: We're going to read it one more time.

The Clerk: With the subamendment and the amendment, it would be that witnesses be given ten minutes for their opening statement and that during the questioning of witnesses there be allocated five minutes for the first questioner of each party and that thereafter five minutes be allocated to each subsequent questioner, alternating between opposition and government parties, and that the total time for questioning be divided evenly between the government party and the opposition parties, in proportion to the representation of the opposition party on the committee.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Now we move to witnesses' expenses. The motion is that as established by the Board of Internal Economy, and if requested, reasonable travelling, accommodation, and living expenses be reimbursed to witnesses who are invited to appear before the committee, up to a maximum of two representatives for any one organization.

Mr. Paul Szabo: I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Now we have dealt with all the routine motions. I want to thank you very much. That didn't take us too long, except for item 4. Now I want to address a few issues we need to address, the issues related to pre-budget consultation.

I'm sure you've all received this briefing book. I'm sure it was all read last night.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Twice.

The Chairman: And you probably saw the fourth section, on topics of interest for the 36th Parliament. There is a section in the Standing Orders that deals with when we report the pre-budget consultation, when we give that to the House. It's Standing Order 83.(1). There are individuals here who have sat in the finance committee, so you know there are some time restrictions we must deal with. Standing Order 83.(1) basically says the committee would have to report to the House by November 28.

I'm sure you are also aware of the fact that this report must be written and we would have to allocate at least 15 days for it. If we count backwards 15 days, that brings us to November 13.

• 0940

We are now in early October, so we must move quickly to make sure that the pre-budget consultation will be done in a timely and efficient fashion and also will include as many Canadians as possible.

I'm going to be asking for your support on this particular issue. I would like to approach the Minister of Finance and ask him when he will be available to provide us with economic and fiscal updates. As soon as I will have a date from the Minister of Finance I would personally like to make that public to the Canadian people so that they may get ready for their submissions.

Do I have approval from the committee on that particular issue?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: That's agreed? That's very clear. If I get a date, a place—time, location—from the Minister of Finance, I will be able to make that public. That's agreed upon. That's great.

The next issue deals with the fact that—and I don't know how you feel about this—we are on the threshold of a new era in this country. For the very first time we need to debate the issue of a balanced budget, possibly a surplus, which means that we need to reach out to as many Canadians as possible. As talented and as gifted as we who are around this table all are, we certainly can't reach as many people as we would like to, given the time and the resources available.

However, as chair, I would like to open up the committee a little bit more to members of Parliament, who I am sure would agree with me that they have a responsibility to seek input from their constituents. By that I mean that while this committee travels throughout Canada to seek input, probably in major centres of this country in various regions and provinces, I would like to offer the opportunity to members of Parliament to hold consultation meetings in their own areas, in their own ridings, and report to the committee as a way of submission. It is not as if all members of Parliament will appear in front of the committee, but in fact they would provide a submission that would be part and parcel of the report that we will table in the House of Commons. That allows more Canadians to participate, and it also allows members of Parliament to exercise their duty and responsibility to seek input on this very important issue.

As chair of the committee, I would like to provide members of Parliament with a very brief document immediately on how to run a town hall meeting, how to set up meetings, and those sorts of things, to give guidelines as to what we may be looking for. I'd like to do it immediately because right now they should start to plan the actual location and all the logistics that they have to go through.

Obviously, when the minister presents the economic and fiscal update, that will also help members of Parliament to receive input from their constituents. I think it's a way of opening up committees of the House and Canadians will benefit. I certainly think our committee will benefit a great deal from reaching out to more people and getting input from more members of Parliament.

Mr. David Iftody: I think that's an absolutely excellent idea. I like the premise of your comments with respect to consulting very broadly with Canadians on this important epoch in our history.

One of the things I'd like this committee to consider.... I know that the hon. member for the NDP represents a rural riding in British Columbia, as I do in Manitoba. Correct me if I'm wrong, please, but my general sense is that the committee on finance and other important ones traditionally have gone to the larger urban centres for their consultations when they have done cross-Canada consultations. I would like the members, in planning these cross-Canada consultations, to consider very sincerely that we as a committee of the whole should visit some rural areas as well and invite participants from rural Canada to come to those committee hearings and make their views known to the public and to the House of Commons through us. So I would like to put that on the table as a point of agreement with this committee, that somewhere in that cross-country tour we will make a point and a gesture of doing that. Where doesn't matter—it's up to the committee—but at least in some locations we should go to rural Canada and seek the views of those people as well.

• 0945

[Translation]

Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased with your suggestion that the committee display greater flexibility because I am convinced that many organizations would be interested in sharing their viewpoint with us.

I would like to make a suggestion. It would be important for the committee to understand how the Bank of Canada operates and to get an overall view of our country's monetary policy so that from the very start of our discussions, we have a clear picture of how our monetary policy works and how the creation of money impacts on our economy. Perhaps we could look into why Canada is one of only three countries in the world not to have any reserves. These are fundamental questions to which our committee should turn its attention in order to understand the ramifications of the economy, the budget and monetary policy.

[English]

Mr. Monte Solberg: Reformers of course have appeared before the committee in the past, and we'd be very pleased to do that again. I think you're asking for individual MPs to be allowed to come to the committee. Is that correct?

The Chairman: To hold town hall meetings or consultation and report to the committee with a written submission.

Mr. Monte Solberg: Absolutely—and we'd be more than happy to do that again. But I'm wondering if we know yet what the terms of reference will be in respect of this discussion over the surplus and, if we do, when we would have a copy of those or when they would be released.

The Chairman: I don't know. I haven't spoken to Mr. Martin about this particular issue, but I will. As soon as I know, I will let you know.

I think that one of the issues would be what the priorities of the Government of Canada should be in a time when there may be a balanced budget and/or surplus. What are the priorities? For example, you've advocated tax cuts. I'm sure that may or may not reflect the views of your constituency, and you're going to find out through your town hall meetings—

Mr. Monte Solberg: Right.

The Chairman:—and you'll let us know, and so on.

From a general scope, as soon as we hear from the Minister of Finance, he will probably pose some questions and set up the framework.

I know, Mr. Loubier and Mr. Solberg, that you are members of the committee, but what I'm saying is that the preparatory work can be done now so that once we hear from the Minister of Finance then we'll provide also some further materials to hold these town hall meetings. I hold town hall meetings all the time—and I'm sure you do as well—and you need to prepare. It's just a matter of the time lines we're looking at; those are very, very sensitive. We have to be very sensitive to that.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: What Mr. Solberg meant is that once the details have been worked out, our respective parties would like to have at least one of their members appear and make a presentation, as the Reform Party did in past years and as we did one year in the course of pre-budget consultations and discussions on the use of the surplus. We would be prepared to appear as witnesses to discuss these matters.

Your suggestion to hold consultations in our own ridings is a sound one and we support it. Some of us have already held partial consultations in the past.

In response to my Liberal colleague's question concerning the Bank of Canada, every year, we receive Gordon Thiessen, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, when he tables his annual report. This would perhaps be an opportunity for us to ask him questions about the operation of the bank and the lack of reserves.

• 0950

Mr. Mark Assad: Although he does table his report, for those mere mortals among us, the issue of our country's monetary policy has always been rather intangible. Monetary policy and the creation of money by the chartered banks is indeed one of our country's great mysteries. We have to understand this issue, otherwise we are talking in the dark.

[English]

Mr. Nelson Riis: I want to join with my colleagues and applaud the suggestion that we reach out and encourage our colleagues to hold town hall meetings and make submissions, as you say, in written form, particularly as we have so many new members. This may provide them with an excellent opportunity to launch their public initiatives in their own communities or own regions.

I also liked the suggestion that we give some thought to some areas of Canada other than Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg, and Vancouver. I think the optics of that would be important, to say to the committee to move out beyond the traditional urban areas.

I'll make a suggestion that if we're going to a smaller community—Medicine Hat, for example—I think we can make a case that the entire committee need not attend but we might split up the committee into two or three subgroups and take in some smaller regions so that the committee's presence will be clear. For the entire committee to have to go to a community might not be an appropriate use of resources.

I also want to support the suggestion that we hear early from the Bank of Canada. Monetary policy is crucial. My suspicion is that if we look carefully at the mandate of the Bank of Canada and ask the governor to explain what he perceives the mandate to be, it will be contrary to what the direction of the Government of Canada has been over the years.

If the bank is moving away from its full mandate, it is important for why this decision has been taken to be explained to us. So if we're going to be going out on financial and fiscal matters, monetary policy is crucial and an update would be appropriate prior to our departure, if possible.

Mr. Tony Valeri: Just to bring some closure and some framework to the discussion, the comments we've heard this morning with respect to parts of rural Canada that the committee should be visiting are certainly well taken. That with your assistance and your guidance other members of Parliament would have the opportunity to hold town hall meetings speaks to that as well. That we can provide a format for members of Parliament to hold those town hall meetings in some remote areas where the committee in fact would not be able to attend and then have an individual from the party as well as submissions from individual members to the finance committee as part of the pre-budget consultation is all very good advice to you from the members of the committee.

With respect to the discussion that is going on now with the Bank of Canada, I would submit to you that perhaps it would be better suited to have that discussion in the steering committee where the latter can decide on the business of the committee and bring it back to the committee, rather than having that discussion here today, since today what we're trying to deal with are some of the logistics of the committee itself, rather than getting into a discussion of subjects that the committee should in fact be looking at. I submit that to you and to the other members of the committee.

The Chairman: Point taken. I've duly noted the issue of the Bank of Canada. It's in my memory bank. I'll deal with it accordingly.

One thing, though, that I want to deal with is the issue of splitting the committee—it came up—as we travel, because we want to cover as much territory as possible. That's something that we will probably have to entertain. I would like some latitude from the committee vis-à-vis scheduling and so on. Otherwise, if we have to meet every time we have to make a decision, we'll be having steering committee meetings from now until when we have to get on the plane and travel. What I need from you is some latitude and discretion to perhaps chart the course of the travel and that kind of thing. Do I have that from you?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: So I can basically come up with the schedule. And we'll all show up, right?

The other issue I want to deal with and I think I received approval on is that once those documents are drafted vis-à-vis town hall meetings, I can send a letter to all members of Parliament. That's correct? So I'll be doing that right away.

• 0955

I'm going to require some help on the particular issue of the list of interveners. I'm sure that your caucuses are organized in such a fashion that you push a button on your computer and it gives out lists of people you want to appear. I would need that list by perhaps this afternoon, or at the latest tomorrow, so we can begin to make phone calls so people in fact will be able to appear in front of the committee. It's very important to me that, if we're able to get confirmation as to where we're going to go and how we're going to approach this, over the weekend we should be already calling and making sure that people will appear in front of the committee.

Is that agreed upon? You will provide me with lists?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: We have one issue we want to deal with. There's going to be a steering committee meeting on Monday at 3.15 p.m., and then on Tuesday we'll meet with the entire committee at 9 a.m. So those are the two dates.

The meeting is adjourned. Thanks very much.