[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, September 21, 1995
.1106 
[English]
The Chairman: Order.
There being a quorum, and since I'm anxious to establish that we're timely persons, I think we should get going.
We have an agenda, which was sent to you.
I know that Mr. Ménard has a motion. We've just been talking about this. I think he wishes to give notice of a motion to establish a subcommittee. I'm not sure about it from a technical point of view. I think we should distribute this. Because of his other committee duties, we are trying to find a time when the committee.... We want to get together to talk about it informally. It has to do with the reconversion of defence industries and forming a subcommittee to look at that. We want to work it out a little bit between ourselves, and he wants to be able to be here when the committee will vote on it. So I guess this is notice of motion.
Do we have to do anything other than -
The Clerk of the Committee: I can have it translated and distributed.
[Translation]
The Chairman: It's in both official languages?
Mr. Ménard (Hochelaga - Maisonneuve): Mr. Chairman, I'll explain the contents and give it to the Clerk so she can distribute it at the next meeting. I already tabled this motion in June, I think, but I'd like to meet the Chairman so it's fully understood.
It deals with using the PPIMD, better known as the DIPP in English, and see how, with existing funds, we could proceed to reconverting military industry to civilian ends.
This is not an insignificant problem because as Mr. Mills knows, if we don't go the conversion route over the next few years 10,000 jobs will be threatened in Quebec and Ontario. This is something that deserves our attention. However, before getting into substantive debates, our colleagues would have to see the motion before them. So I'm handing it to the Clerk and I'll come back to discuss this with colleagues at the appropriate time.
The Chairman: We'll arrange for that as soon as possible. We have the notice of motion. I understand you have to leave us because of your other commitments. Thank you indeed.
Are your colleagues going to come?
Mr. Ménard: I'll wait a few minutes so as not to deprive you of Her Majesty's loyal opposition.
The Chairman: Her Majesty is quite
[English]
delighted to hear that you're interested in her fate.
So what we have in front of us, as the notice that came to you, are really three items to consider, and I guess at the end of those we could have any other business.
The subcommittee met. It has a document, which you've just received. It has with it a timetable, which I think you have as well, which relates to the discussions on Tuesday. We'll take a couple of minutes to read through it and then we'll work through it. If you've just received it, perhaps...
.1110
[Translation]
This is the 9th report with an interim workplan.
[English]
Ms Brown (Oakville - Milton): Mr. Chairman, I'm looking at the work plan. Is the draft report on banks' benchmarks written?
The Chairman: It is. There are two documents. One is in the minutes of the August meeting. Those are specific figures that we simply have to deal with today; that's the subject of today's meeting.
The draft report is a document. Nathalie, do you want to talk about the status of that document?
Ms Nathalie Pothier (Committee Researcher): The work plan is scheduled for next week, so it will be distributed for the meetings next week.
Ms Brown: The reason I am asking if it is written... How long is it, and will it really take us four meetings to review it? Is it a big, thick report or is it half a dozen pages?
Ms Pothier: Not at all. It's a draft report. You might want to suggest more modification, more input to it. It's really open. I think you'll be the best judge next week to consider whether you need those...
The Chairman: This is simply a provisional work plan. We did try to make our best guess as to when things were coming to us and leave extra time with the possibility of removing it. Then we have a plan B that we would want to talk about, which is really point 7 on page 3 of the report. If we get through that faster or if things don't come to us quickly from the House, there's an alternative plan to get going on another body of research, which would include many issues that were raised at the Tuesday morning meeting, particularly relating to science and technology and to the new economy.
What you have before you is a best attempt to relate what the steering committee did with an agenda, understanding that the agenda is certainly open for discussion, modification, alteration. We wanted to leave enough time in case the discussions turned out to be interesting.
Mr. Mills (Broadview - Greenwood): Mr. Chairman, I think I understand where Bonnie is coming from. If we are able to finish up with the paper and discussion on major banks' performance benchmarks, would it be possible to have, for example, before our committee the status report of the Canadian Tourism Commission for the week of October 2 to 6? Could we have them on standby to fill...?
The Chairman: Oh, sure. Everything is doable.
.1115
Mr. Schmidt (Okanagan Centre): I'll support that.
Mr. Mills: They should be alerted or given notice that there's a possibility that during the week of October 2 to 6 they might be asked to come before us and give a status report so that they have -
The Chairman: That would be the six months since we did the report that we're going to dispose of formally today?
Mr. Mills: Yes, but they were to come before us to tell us what they did with the $50 million that this committee approved.
Mr. Schmidt: We actually wanted a business plan from them.
Mr. Mills: Yes, and their future business plans.
Mr. Schmidt: That's right. We wanted both.
Mr. Mills: They said that -
Mr. Schmidt: They would.
Mr. Mills: - six months was ample time.
I'll tell you why I want to spend just a minute on this. The tourism section is one of the few sectors in our economy that's doing well right now. That $50-million increase in budget has had a tremendous effect, of course in a positive way, and they might have information that will lead us to encourage the Minister of Finance, as he's pondering the preparation of his budget, to increase their budget even more. We should give them proper notice so they can come here and give us a good, solid, professional briefing.
The Chairman: Fine.
Are there any problems with that?
[Translation]
Mr. Bélanger (Ottawa - Vanier): Mr. Chairman, I would like to support my colleague's suggestion, all the more as the Canadian Tourism Commission had agreed to brief us on the way it was going to assess its work and its effect.
[English]
We had raised that and there was basically a consensus that, even if we don't know right away what result they will be producing, because it might be a tad early for that, at least we'll know what their measuring sticks are going to be.
The Chairman: There's no problem there? Okay.
That will work into our plan here.
Let's just run through the report in order to make sure that we're in general agreement with what the subcommittee looked at. As soon as we have completed our business today, I shall be writing on your behalf to the banks, with the outline of the August report. So that will set them up for their meetings, which we've scheduled for the week of October 30 to November 3.
It was also understood that, in addition to the banks, we might want to look at some of the labour-sponsored investment or venture funds. People were interested in seeing how they are spending their money. We wouldn't be writing the same kind of letter to them. We'd be inviting them to appear at about that time.
The Clerk: They are quite enthusiastic.
The Chairman: Oh, they are enthusiastic. They've already been approached.
The Clerk: They approached us.
The Chairman: Oh, they are even more enthusiastic. Good.
We will also be looking today at the tourism commission, and if we can, we will be following up in that week of October 2 to 6.
There were a number of outstanding things. I should mention just one item we talked about that got dropped from this report, for this reason. We had been asked by Paul DeVillers to do something about credit cards. He had a private member's bill and so on. The subcommittee met and said that this is interesting, but we have a pretty full fall, so we don't think we want to look at it at this time, but we should write to Mr. DeVillers and say that's the case. Then I discovered that Paul Zed had written a letter in July to Mr. DeVillers saying - and I'll just read out the relevant paragraph:
- The pressure of legislation...kept us from holding a hearing on this topic...there was support
from several Members for your position.
- But we've agreed to have a meeting to consider a review of the topic, and the implication is that
the meeting will be with Mr. DeVillers in the fall.
.1120
Mr. Mills: I couldn't agree with you more.
The Chairman: So I think out of respect for our colleague.... That's why I pulled the decision from the minutes, with your approval, I hope.
If we can then work Mr. DeVillers in as one of the people to be slotted in at the earliest appropriate moment.... We might still decide we don't want to do it now, but at least he will have had his chance to talk to us. If that's okay, we will try to schedule him then.
The other items that were slotted in are really...if you look at October, it's really a best guess at when, as Dennis said, the Small Businesses Loans Act will be coming to us. This is at the mercy of the House. There are some important issues.
Mr. Schmidt pointed out in the steering committee that we should allow ourselves a reasonable amount of time for some of the bigger principles that are at stake here. These are not simply technical matters. We hope by that time it will have gone through second reading in the House.
We have already talked about what happens at the end of October. I'm now working off the schedule. We are hopeful that by late November we will have Bill C-88, which is the agreement on internal trade, which is very important. We've left lots of space. Again, this is simply our best guess of when things are coming.
The one other piece of work that would be coming to us from the department, which they mentioned to me yesterday, Dennis, when I was over there, which might turn out to be of more interest than first meets the eye, is standards. They are rejigging the Canadian Standards Council from a rather large organization of 57 members to a smaller organization. The changes appear fairly minimal, but the issues involving standards are crucial for the new economy.
I think it might be useful for us to spend a little time, if we can, not so much on the technical aspects of reducing from 57 or whatever the heck it is, but really asking how the Canadian Standards Council will help the new emerging industries to compete globally. We saw the other day the new agreement on high density CDs that was struck by the big manufacturers. That's all to do with standards.
When I was over at Heritage, one of the most complex issues that faced us on direct to home satellites was standards. Are these standards peculiar to one particular technology or are they interchangeable? We don't want the customers to be dinged with Betamax when they should have been going off with VHS.
Just because it's an issue that is often neglected, including by the government itself, and has been in kind of a backwater, but it turns out to be one of those crucial building blocks for the new economy, I think we might want to spend some time looking at the general issues of standards and have some outside experts remind us of what is at stake in these things.
There are lots of Canadians who are committed on a volunteer basis to getting standards right; it's a large community of interest out there. It can be a tool for competitive advantage if you know how to work the standards system. It's a very interesting area.
Mr. Schmidt: Mr. Chairman, would that also include the business of the inspection of standards, to the monitoring of those, or is it simply the setting of standards? They are related. Just how would you go about doing that? Does this involve weights and measures as well?
The Chairman: I don't know. I think the part that might be of interest to those from the new economy point of view, as it were, is how do you make sure that a country is in on the establishment of the standards at an early stage, which helps favour whatever technologies you're good at? A classic case is digital radio. How do we make sure that the Canadian work is not discounted by some decision of an international body?
Mr. Mills: Mr. Chairman, maybe we could have a background briefing on the whole issue from a senior official in the department. After that we as a committee can decide how we want to approach it.
The Chairman: Great. I think that's a very good idea.
.1125
Mr. Schmidt: I think that's a good idea. Maybe it would be useful for our researchers or for some of us to perhaps articulate some of the questions that are of vital concern to us.
I think one of the questions clearly is what is the role of government with regard to the setting of standards? What is the role of government with regard to the monitoring of the application of the standards? Can some of the monitoring be delegated to another agency, depending upon how the inspection services or the monitoring services are in fact established in the first place?
Mr. Mills: Mr. Chairman, the clerk could get a hold of Alan Nymark in the department and he would get the designated team in place to give us a backgrounder.
The Chairman: Yes. Let's have a one-day session or at least a two-hour session on this so we understand what's at stake here, and then we can decide from there how much more we want to deal with this. Is that okay, folks? This would be prior to the tabling of the bill. So that's something to throw into the hopper.
Mr. Schmidt: We'll do that while we're examining Bill C-99, Bill C-88 and....
The Chairman: Whatever.
You'll see we've left quite a lot of air in the schedule. We've put in lots of meetings for the things we know about. We've left the odd week open.
There is one other item, number 7 on the hit parade here. We haven't scheduled any time for this, but this is a letter that I guess has now been distributed in both languages, which I think caught the imagination of people. It's not a letter that came to members of the committee before. I think what we decided would be helpful would be to get some preliminary work done with the researchers on how to take what is a vast and complicated subject and put it into a form that is useful for the committee, for the government and, we hope, for the Canadian economy. You've outlined a program of research in the letter that, as you said, I think, would take us to 1999 if we did everything here.
So with the permission of Mr. Schmidt, I've talked to the researchers and, from the larger world of research, I'm going to solicit some suggestions as to how to pull this together. When we have an available moment, we might have a bit of a discussion as to how we would proceed with such a study, understanding that this is in a sense our back-up plan if we get stalled on legislation. It would also be the thrust of things we might do in the new year, tied in, one would hope, with the results of the science and technology review, or whatever seems appropriate.
So that's the game plan, as was determined by the subcommittee on Tuesday.
Any comments, either from the people who were at the meeting whose positions I may have misrepresented or anybody else?
Mr. Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, I'm just wondering if there's another committee that might also be interested in this, such as the committee that might be responsible for international trade, or is this it?
The Chairman: The global...?
Mr. Bélanger: Mr. Schmidt's suggestion, which I think as a government definitely is something that is worth doing, and I believe it is being done. I just don't want to see us working at cross-purposes or cross-currents with another committee.
The Chairman: That's an excellent idea. We've discovered it's not quite on the same topic.
First of all, to respond directly, we should check with the foreign affairs and international trade committee to see where they are and let them know that we're thinking about this early on. I'll talk to Bill and Graham and you can talk to your counterparts, so we're all playing from the same song sheet.
In the same vein, by the way, we should also keep an eye on what's happening over in the Senate.
Have we distributed this document yet?
The Clerk: No.
The Chairman: I've just had a letter from Senator Kirby, from the Senate committee on banking, trade and commerce, and the Minister of Industry has asked that committee to undertake a study of the broad issue of how the federal government's financial institutions now function in relation to the private sector, particularly how they should function in an environment in which the role of government in the economy is declining and in which the government is striving to improve the efficiency with which its various institutions operate. Specifically, it's about the Farm Credit Corporation, the Export Development Corporation, the Business Development Bank and the Canadian Commercial Corporation.
.1130
This letter has come to us from Senator Kirby. You'll have a chance to look at it. It's good to know it's happening. We're invited to show up if we're interested. It's exactly the kind of thing that Mr. Bélanger was speaking about, knowing what we're all up to.
Can I assume that the researchers just check out on a periodic basis with both Senate and House committees to make sure what their work plans are, just as we would with Heritage, for instance? I think that's excellent.
Mr. Bélanger: They certainly are doing that. What we perhaps as a committee might want to concentrate on is the industry side. The science and technology keeps coming back to that, which Mr. Schmidt does mention in his letter and which indeed, I believe, is of the purview of this committee.
The Chairman: Absolutely.
Mr. Bélanger: So it's just to help perhaps focus our energies a little more.
The Chairman: I think you're saying as well that what we're worrying about is the Canadian part of this up to when they get it to the loading ramp at the airport to ship it off to wherever. It's that part of the story that we have to concentrate on.
Mr. Bélanger: Or to the time when the telephone call comes from abroad to order something.
Mr. Schmidt: Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate the comments you've made, and I concur. We cannot do all of the things in this letter; absolutely not. But I'd be quite pleased if we even took just the last bullet there, which has to do with the availability of products that are marketable globally, and simply focus on how research should be done and how industry and universities and our government labs and so on should work together to bring about and apply the knowledge that we have in the technical field so that we can have new and perhaps more and better products available for the global market. If we could limit it to that one area alone...and that would put us totally within the framework and the purview of this committee. It goes beyond that, of course.
The Chairman: Not wanting to over-praise you, but I like your second bullet a great deal. The committee also said on Tuesday that we were interested in the changing world of work. If one understands that in the broadest sense, it means that covers off everything from management techniques to...there's a whole range of things affected, which will have an impact on exports. All of which is to say that you put too many good things in your letter and I have to criticize you for that.
But we're going to try to line up as many of the committee's interests as I hear them expressed in a way that is useful.
Mr. Mills: Could I add to that praise to Werner's letter and talk about the second last bullet, the convergence of telecommunications systems.
I raise this point with the committee because we are in the process of looking at what the government's policy might be in that particular area. I will only speak for myself, but it's an area where I have very little knowledge. It's a very important issue because it has to do with whether or not we are going to continue as parliamentarians to support the enhancement of the Bell Canada Enterprises presence, the dominant presence, and make it a super dominant presence throughout our country, or are we going to listen to some of the views and approaches of the Vidéotrons of the world? This is what I call a front-burner issue.
Mr. Schmidt: It is.
Mr. Mills: Mr. Chairman, through you, I would like to appeal for support from committee members that maybe we bring the former minister in Great Britain - his name is Baker - who has gone through what we're about to go through, and have him educate us so we might be able to listen and give ideas to the government so that we could avoid some of the pitfalls or possible mistakes that can be made.
.1135
Mr. Schmidt: If it doesn't cost too much, I would agree with that.
The Chairman: We could do it by video-conference.
Mr. Schmidt: But this is a very heavy issue, and I'm sure members are feeling the lobby. As you know, Bell Canada Enterprises right now has close to 225 people wiring up the Hill - members of Parliament, their staffs, etc. The others are lobbying as well. I think as a committee we should really understand what this is all about so that we can give intelligent advice.
The Chairman: The nice thing about almost all of your bullets is that with not much work they can relate to other things that the department is already undertaking. For instance, that point relates to the Information Highway Advisory Council report, which we're going to be seeing soon.
The last bullet about R and D relates to the science and technology report, which we're going to get in October.
The second bullet relates to a body of work, which I discovered yesterday the department is undertaking in terms of the changing world of work for a new economy. In a way it obviously goes over to HRD as well.
Each one of these has a springboard into current activities of the department. We suffer from a richness of material, but we'll just have to sort it out. The news is, at least as far as I'm hearing it and as far as I feel, there's plenty there for us to chew. The main thing is to lay out some options and decide which is the most fertile ground to plough.
Mr. Mills: And timing.
The Chairman: Sure.
Mr. Mills: I mean, to do the convergence of telecommunications systems...it's too late, it's over. The decision will have been made by the government long before then.
Mr. Schmidt: If we take that particular item, Mr. Chairman, I'd suggest that we look at the CRTC's report in May on this very same issue. If we're going to do that as a study, there's a lot of material.
The Chairman: I don't want to bring closure to this, but I think people are saying (a) we're very interested in all of these things, (b) we need to know more about the implications of these and whether they're related specifically to departmental initiatives or not, and (c) there is some urgency to start deciding whether we're going to do it or not because of things like the convergence issue, which is coming at us.
Anything else on the steering committee report and the plan of action to date?
The rest of the agenda is to pick up... We can either wait for the translation of the Toronto report, which is about to arrive, we think, or we can go right on... Let's do the tourism commission, because we're ready to go on that. That's number 3.
Mr. Schmidt: Mr. Chairman, I'm feeling very embarrassed because I don't have a copy of the report with me.
The Chairman: This is the report of the Standing Committee on Industry dated June 22. There is a minority report, which is appended, dated the 21st. The issue here is that for some reason it wasn't adopted. It was considered, though.
We'll get Nathalie back here to... You might have a look at this, if you haven't done so already.
.1140
There are a couple of issues that are of a minor nature that we might want to integrate into the final text before we approve it. This was just raised by Nathalie.
The first is that in recommendation number 1 we say they should return in six months. The report is dated June, the discussions were held in March, so is it six months from March or six months from June? We should put a date in there.
Mr. Mills: It was six months from March.
The Chairman: Which is September. Why don't we make it tie in by the week of October 2 or something like that? That's the week we're trying to get him here anyway. It's a little loose. Can we assume that is integrated into the recommendation in some fashion?
Ms Bethel (Edmonton East): Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that when they come we're going to discuss not just their mandate but their business plan.
I think one of the reasons we left it at six months was because they were going to have their business plan within three months and that would be an appropriate time.
The Chairman: Do we actually spell that out in this report? Are the words ``business plan'' mentioned anywhere?
Mr. Mills: It was discussed in the committee hearing.
Mr. Schmidt: If you go back to the transcript of the proceedings, I think you'll find it there.
Ms Bethel: But perhaps it should also be added to this report.
The Chairman: Could it be added to the recommendation?
Mr. Schmidt: I support that. I think that is correct.
The Chairman: All right. Again, coming back to recommendation number 1, we put in the date and we say to discuss its progress and its business plan. Can we put that in?
Ms Bethel: Yes.
Mr. Schmidt: Yes.
The Chairman: That covers that.
Ms Bethel: In recommendation number 2, I guess I need some rationale for ``preferably soon after the annual report is tabled''. Would it not be appropriate for us to review with them, in camera if they wish, but prior to the annual report?
The Chairman: This is perhaps off the top, but it would seem to me that it's an arm's length body and it would not be appropriate for us to be in the tent until they've done their report. But we want to see them as soon as it's done. I think that would be a little cosy of us, but maybe I'm wrong. The researcher tells me I'm on the right track here. Lucky guess on my part.
Mr. Schmidt: We'll influence the next group.
The Chairman: Yes, I think that would be a problem.
The other item is that on page 4 there was something at one point that was seen as recommendation number 3, the paragraph beginning:
- This Committee would consider increasing the funding of the Canadian Tourism Commission
only when....
Ms Brown: We don't increase anything. We have no money.
The Chairman: So ``recommending'' would be understood to be a crucial word there. The issue is, should this be bumped up to be a recommendation number 3 or not? Text or recommendation?
Mr. Schmidt: Absolutely text.
The Chairman: Text. Okay.
Those are the only concerns that I think Nathalie had. Are there concerns anyone else has about passing this? It is not our business to have any view of the...we might have views, but we don't have any official views of the minority report. That's just as it is. You agree to accept it.
.1145
Ms Brown: Mr. Chairman, often when people are coming strictly from arm's length bodies to report to us...it seems to me the more specific your request about why it is they're coming and what it is you want to know, the more likely you are to get the information you're requesting.
So a business plan can be a fairly vague document, and we don't have criteria to measure progress.
There are specific things I'd like to know when they come. I don't know how we could get that into the report, or maybe it could go in a letter from you to them.
The Chairman: I have some thoughts, but go ahead.
Mr. Bélanger: If I may, the one thing they agreed they would provide us was their measuring sticks, their targets, and how they plan to measure their impact. They didn't have them at the time; they were working on them. If they could bring at least that to us at this point, perhaps that would be quite a step.
The Chairman: Okay. Can I - sorry, go ahead.
Mr. Schmidt: No, that's fine. I'd like to support that.
I'd like to add to that. This was in the discussions. Just how have they spent the money that has been given to them?
Ms Brown: That's what I want to know. I want to know the disbursements of the first six months and the partners they've been able to recruit. There are many representatives from the private sector on this. If we find out that every single partner is the company that person came from, we know their reach isn't very big yet.
Mr. Schmidt: I think the concern I have, and I'm sure all of us have, is, first, that this not become a subsidy for the advertising campaigns of companies like Canadian Airlines. The other concern we have is that it not become a capital infusion project that allows certain motels, hotels...or other acquisitions of capital assets to be engaged in. These are very critical concerns. That was not the intention of the commission, and if the commission is now financing, either directly or indirectly, the purchase of various tours and facilities, we'd want to know that.
The Chairman: Okay. So what we could do is capture this in a letter that would accompany it, and I guess the letter would say: ``As you may recall, we agreed that we would get together and you would give us a progress report. Specifically, we would of course like you to comment on the various points and concerns raised in this report, plus a business plan, plus how you've spent the money to date, plus how it's going on the partnership side.'' That covers the concerns?
Ms Brown: Plus an update on how much money they've attracted from partners, because this says $30 million or $35 million in June. I want to know if we are up to $50 million yet.
The Chairman: Partnership and how much money.
Mr. Bélanger: Plus how they are planning to measure their impact.
The Chairman: Oh, sorry, the benchmarks. Are you happy with what we have to put in that?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: All right. That letter will go forward.
Now we have a slightly sticky problem here. We need to be eight and I see seven. Because of a lack of quorum - and there are apparently one or two other little problems here as well. We have a document ready to go but not quite adopted. I guess we have to put it off until we have a quorum. We'll have to bring it back.
The Clerk: We can come back with a corrected draft.
.1150
The Chairman: I guess that's what we're going to have to do. Our world seems to be leaving us here.
I'm also a little worried about -
Mr. Schmidt: Those minutes for August are pretty critical.
The Chairman: That's right.
Mr. Schmidt: It ties your hands with regard to inviting the banks to come forward.
Do we have those minutes somewhere?
The Clerk: They've just been distributed - that document and the Library of Parliament document.
Mr. Bélanger: Are we adjourned?
The Chairman: No, we're not adjourned. Our quorum just walked out the door. So we're just trying to figure out how we can accomplish our ends in a practical way but not be wildly ultra vires.
If you'll come back to point 2, which is the stuff...what you have is something dated September 21. It says Library of Parliament, September 21. What Ms Trauttmansdorff says is that if we simply agree to receive this.... The motions are already done. We simply have to receive this as a kind of transcript of record. Then that allows us to proceed with the letters and the invitings and the forwardings to the bank. So if you would review it and just make sure we haven't done anything ghastly here, then a simple reception will -
Mr. Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, I would like to consider this with the minutes of the meeting, which we don't have yet.
The Chairman: There were no minutes.
The Clerk: My understanding - I wasn't the clerk at that meeting - was that it was a rather confusing discussion. A number of people were involved in determining exactly what these numbers and figures would be. The researcher has now coordinated the various people who were involved in the discussion, and they've put together this as a representation of what they understand was decided. So the committee is being asked now just to confirm that this is what was decided.
Normally minutes don't come back to a committee. You just read them after the fact. But because there was some dissension about just what it was that was understood by everyone, this is just to confirm...and it's not a decision. You're not making a new decision now. You're just clarifying what was decided previously.
Mr. Schmidt: I think that's fair.
The Chairman: I wasn't there. Who was there?
Mr. Murray (Lanark - Carleton): I was there.
The Chairman: Does anyone have any problem? Does it reflect accurately what you -
The Clerk: There is a video.
Mr. Bélanger: Is it or is it not the usual methodology to provide minutes of the committee meetings?
The Clerk: Just to clarify.... Minutes are an official record of the meeting. It's written by the clerk. It's a document that appears at the front of the transcript. The transcripts are the verbatim Hansard of the committee.
Mr. Bélanger: Do we have that? Is there a transcript?
The Clerk: No.
Mr. Bélanger: Will there be one?
The Clerk: Not in the normal way those transcripts appear.
The Chairman: The reason being that it was only videotaped?
The Clerk: Yes.
.1155
The Chairman: It was apparently a decision of the previous chair and the previous clerk not to do it. The issue is we have to move on.
Mr. Schmidt: Perhaps to facilitate the operation of the committee we should consider that these items be compared with what the video shows, because I think the video covered every intervention that took place at that meeting.
The Chairman: She has done that.
Mr. Schmidt: So the fact that we have a transcript.... It's just not the usual form, Mr. Chairman. But there is a transcript. That could all be put on paper, if you wanted. That could be done.
But I think the essence of what is being requested here is the two motions presented by Discepola and Nunziata. I think it is the content of those motions that is really the essence of this committee and that will form the base of our discussions with the banks this fall.
So I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that perhaps the best thing for us to do would be simply to look at those two motions and ask whether they are the correct motions, and then in the official transcript of this meeting simply say the committee reviewed the proceedings of that meeting and really focused its attention only on the motion, saying, yes, these are the motions we want to go to the banks with, and contain that in a letter to them.
The Chairman: That's fine by me. Do you want to look at the motions now?
Mr. Schmidt: Yes.
Tony and Ian were there. I know we kicked around zero to $25,000 as the first category, and...I'm not sure. Did we ultimately change that to $49,000?
Ms Pothier: I looked at the video and what happened was that with this motion fromMr. Discepola, at the beginning, after the Royal Bank appeared, he read the motion you have down on your paper. There was a discussion at the end of the meetings in August when it was not clear whether Mr. Discepola's motion was adopted, carried, or the amendments.... The discussion didn't present clear amendments. It was let's try to include gender requirements, let's try to include a breakdown that is lower than the $50,000. From the video I could not be sure if those were accepted. So that's the question that is up to you now.
The comment you have before the breakdown that is detailed on page 2 mentioned that breakdown from $1 to $25,000 and the geographical breakdown, for example, which you might want to specify. It's at this stage now. This is just to help you a little, to say this was read during the committee, this was discussed. It's still up to you.
Mr. Schmidt: Good observation.
Mr. Valeri (Lincoln): So we don't know exactly whether the amendments that were supposedly proposed to take us to $25,000 were ever actually passed at the last meeting. We don't know that.
Ms Pothier: About procedures.... I'm not familiar with it. Maybe the clerk could help if we looked at the video another time. It was more of an informal discussion, which was trying to...asMr. Discepola explains at the beginning of his motion, it was to try to get a global scenario, a common scenario, to have the banks respond to.
The Chairman: You were there, poor fellow.
Mr. Murray: I was there, and I just want to congratulate our researchers on a valiant effort to piece this together. It's only a month and a half since we were there, but I can't rely on my own memory to agree that this is as it should be. I recall the discussion. I recall the motion being put. I just want to suggest that we may want to revisit this around this committee table, as opposed to the situation we had in Toronto, with TV cameras on us and a slightly different atmosphere in the room. We may want to have a quick look with Mr. Discepola here in attendance as well.
.1200
The Chairman: May I make this suggestion? We've got two situations in which there is something that we have to do formally. We thought that would trigger subsequent meetings with the concerned persons. One is with the banks and one is with the tourism commission.
For technical reasons, we've got some problems here. What I would like your permission to do is to write to the banks and the venture capital people, the labour funds, and say, ``We want you to come in this week. In broad terms'' - to the banks - ``these are the kinds of issues we'd like you to be looking at. We'll get back to you with the details, but we just want to alert you to the kinds of issues and data we'd like. We will get back within a week as to the absolutely precise figures.''
I would judge that what we probably will do is say, ``Well, was it 25, 0 to 25?'' - or that kind of stuff.
What we're going to be asking of them will not be radically different from this, will it?
Mr. Schmidt: For us it isn't, but for them it is.
The Chairman: I understand that, but all I want to be able to do is send a letter today saying, ``The rest is to follow. We'll get on with the details, but these are the kinds of categories we're going to be asking you about'' - or not, as the case may be.
It would be the same for the tourism commission. In other words, I would like to be able to write to them and say, ``You will remember that we had this meeting. Here are the kinds of issues we want to talk to you about.''
It doesn't depend on us passing a report. We want them to come and we want them to talk to us about it. Isn't that right? We could pass the report later. It's just to set up the meeting.
Is that okay? Are there any problems?
Mr. Valeri: I would support your sending out a letter advising them of when we would like them to come so they will have notice -
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Valeri: - but I would caution you - and I think other members would agree - that when we ask them for information, I would concur with Bonnie that the information we want from the banks needs to be very specific.
The Chairman: Okay, fine.
Mr. Valeri: We can't be waffling on 25, 49. We have to ask them specifically why we want them to come with this information.
The Chairman: Okay. We'll hold on any detail to the banks until we have resolved this. However, the tourism commission seems to be different, because we don't spell out in the report the kind of detail we want.
Ms Brown: That's right.
The Chairman: So that has to go in the letter.
Mr. Bélanger: If we had a quorum, we could get that.
The Chairman: Yes, I noticed that.
So if I then may do those two things - send a general letter to the banks and a more specific letter to the tourism commission - they will allow us to get on with setting up the meetings.
Mr. Mayfield (Cariboo - Chilcotin): I want to make sure of one thing that was said earlier. When we were in Toronto, we were concerned that there was a snag in having everything homogenized in the bankers association. We decided there that that was not necessary, that in fact we would accept the banks' data as they gave it to us and sort out the differences in reporting ourselves, which seems to be different from what I heard our clerk say.
Ms Pothier: With respect to the banks, it's right that the CBA seems to be prepared to gather all the data. Because of some follow-up with respect to some of the data that were discussed, I happened to talk to some people in banks and some told me that they would provide data to the CBA. Through the CBA, then, the committee would receive the information. That's what I heard after your meeting in August. It was informal, though. You might want to check that.
The CBA seems to want to gather all the information because of the need for standardization and all that.
Mr. Schmidt: The only concern I have is that I would be quite prepared to accept the information from banks individually provided that there is standardization, that the figures represent the same things in each bank.
.1205
If that's the role of the CBA, then more power to the CBA, because I would not like to try to interpret the CIBC terms and numbers vis-à-vis the Bank of Montreal numbers when they use a different base or use different criteria. That's a senseless comparison.
The Chairman: I quite agree.
Bonnie, what's your opinion?
Ms Brown: Werner has made my point, but I also have to say I have a comfort level with the CBA doing it. Let their bureaucrats spend the time drawing up the comparison charts or whatever and just come in with a package, rather than ours. It's their own presentation.
The Chairman: Do I understand these categories are not going to come as a surprise and they have constantly been working away on them already?
Mr. Schmidt: No, they are no surprise.
The Chairman: In fact, they discussed them in public.
So the detail we were niggling over here is not going to hold up work that has already begun there. They're on track. They may come back and negotiate a bit with us and say, well, actually, we always start at 35 - I don't know what it is - we can talk about all that once -
Mr. Schmidt: I'll accept 35.
The Chairman: Just to summarize, letters are going out, of a general nature to the banks and of a specific nature to the tourism commission. Next week's discussion...when we meet on Tuesday, we'll come right back to the Discepola motion. One hopes Discepola is here to clear up any ambiguities. We'll dispose of this in a formal way. Then we'll get on to the benchmarking study, which we're going to be getting a copy of. It is the more analytical piece. And we'll take it from there.
Is that all right as a work plan?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Mr. Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate you for pulling this together in a very short time, and at the same time to express a firm wish that inasmuch as possible documentation will be distributed ahead of time.
The Chairman: Agreed.
Mr. Bélanger: It would improve the quality of our output - of mine, anyhow.
The Chairman: I agree. I think we all hear you. We're a little scrambly here, with all the new folks.
Mr. Bélanger: I understand that.
Mr. Schmidt: See you Tuesday.
The Chairman: See you Tuesday.
The meeting is adjourned.