Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue 2 - Evidence, February 25, 2004
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 25, 2004
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, to which was referred Bill C-212, respecting user fees, met this day at 6:15 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Lowell Murray (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, we have before us Bill C-212, respecting user fees. We are resuming our study of this bill.
Honourable senators, is it agreed that the committee move to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-212?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Is it agreed to stand the title?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Is it agreed to stand clause 1, which contains the short title?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 2 carry?
Senator Ringuette: Honourable senators, I move:
That Bill C-212 be amended in clause 2, on page 1, by replacing lines 8 and 9 with the following:
""Committee'' means, in respect to each House of Parliament, the appropriate standing committee of that House.''.
The Chairman: Thank you, senator.
Honourable senators, I think you know the purpose of this amendment. It is simply to put the Senate on the same basis as the House of Commons in this bill. Is there any discussion?
It is moved by Senator Ringuette that Bill C-212 be amended in clause 2, on page 1, by replacing lines 8 and 9 —
Hon. Senators: Dispense!
The Chairman: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the said motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 2, as amended, carry?
Senator Ringuette: Honourable senators, I have another amendment. I move:
That Bill C-212 be amended in clause 2, on page 1,
(a) by replacing line 17, with the following:
""Minister'' means the appropriate minister, as defined in section 2 of the Financial Administration Act, who is responsible for''; and
(b) by replacing lines 21 to 23, with the following:
"body mentioned in Schedule I, I.1 or II to the Financial Administration Act that has the power to fix a user fee under the authority of an Act of Parliament. Where the Act gives that power to the Governor in Council or a Minister, it means the body proposing the user fee.''
The Chairman: This amendment, I take is, is technical, for purposes of clarification; am I correct?
Senator Ringuette: This is essentially to remove the doubts from some Crown corporations, including NAV CANADA, that have sent us some recommendations. They will not be subject to this act.
The Chairman: I should mention, honourable senators, that we are once again happy to welcome Mr. Roy Cullen, the sponsor of this bill from the House of Commons, and Madam Bouzigon from the Treasury Board. They are both here to assist us and should feel free to speak up if there is something that senators ought to know about any of these amendments.
Senator Comeau: Might I make a point on that? We will be looking to Mr. Cullen to guide us through this as well, because Senator Oliver and I have not had a chance to review this new set of proposed amendments. We have just received them. We will rely on Mr. Cullen's deep knowledge of the bill and the amendments that are being proposed. I will be looking to him to give us some guidance as we go through it, given the fact that we just got the proposed amendments.
Senator Oliver: Could I ask a question of the chair for my own clarification? Schedules I and II of the Financial Administration Act are mentioned. Would those be attached, or would the person have to go to the Financial Administration Act to know what is in the schedule?
Senator Ringuette: One would have to go to the Financial Administration Act.
Senator Oliver: So they would not be attached here?
Senator Ringuette: I used to have a copy with me, but I do not. I can send you a copy, if you wish.
Senator Oliver: No, I wanted to know if a person reading this bill, in order to find out who is in and who is out, would find it attached, as an attachment.
Senator Ringuette: No, an individual would have to refer to the Financial Administration Act.
The Chairman: Senator Ringuette moves that clause 2 be amended, on page 1, (a) by replacing line 17 —
Hon. Senators: Dispense!
The Chairman: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the said motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 2, as amended, carry?
Senator Ringuette: Honourable senators, I move:
That Bill C-212 be amended in clause 2, on page 1, by replacing lines 25 to 28, with the following:
"product, regulatory process, authorization, permit or licence, facility, or for a service that is provided only by a regulating authority, that is fixed pursuant to the authority of an Act of Parliament and which results.''
This is to add the products into the line of user fees subject to the process herewith.
The Chairman: Senator Ringuette moves that Bill C-212 be amended in clause 2, on page 1, by replacing lines 25 to 28 —
Hon. Senators: Dispense!
The Chairman: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the said motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 2, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Shall clause 3 carry?
Senator Ringuette: Honourable senators, I move:
That Bill C-212 be amended in clause 3, on page 2, by replacing lines 1 to 9, with the following:
"3.(1) This Act applies to all user fees fixed by a regulating authority.
(2) This Act does not apply to a user fee fixed by one regulating authority and charged to another.''
The Chairman: I think that is pretty clear. Questions?
Senator Ringuette has moved that Bill C-212 be amended in clause 3, on page 2, by replacing lines 1 to 9 —
Hon. Senators: Dispense!
The Chairman: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the said motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 3, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 4 carry?
Senator Ringuette: Honourable senators, I move:
That Bill C-212 be amended in clause 4,
(a) on page 2,
(i) by replacing lines 29 to 31, with the following:
"(e) establish an independent advisory panel to address a complaint submitted by a client regarding,'' and
(ii) by replacing lines 34 and 35 with the following:
"to those established by other countries with which a comparison is relevant and against which the;'' and
(b) on page 3,
(i) by replacing line 4, with the following:
"(a) explaining in respect of what service, product, regulatory process,''
(ii) by replacing lines 9 to 12, with the following:
"(c) including the performance standards established in accordance with paragraph (1)(f), as well as the actual performance levels that have been reached;''
(iii) by replacing line 17, with the following:
"the costs that the user fee will cover; and
(e) describing the establishment of an independent advisory panel in accordance with paragraph (1)(e) and describing how any complaints received under section 4.1 were dealt with.'' and
(iv) by replacing lines 20 and 21, with the following:
"higher than that existing in a country with which a comparison referred to in paragraph (1)(f) is relevant, the.''
The Chairman: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the said motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 4, as amended, carry?
Senator Ringuette: Honourable senators, I move:
That Bill C-212 be amended in clause 4, on page 3, by replacing lines 2 and 3 with the following:
"Minister must cause to be tabled in each House of Parliament a proposal.''
The Chairman: I think we understand that amendment.
Honourable senators, Senator Ringuette moves that Bill C-212 be amended in clause 4, on page 3, by replacing lines 2 and 3 —
Hon. Senators: Dispense!
The Chairman: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the said motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 4, as amended, carry?
Senator Ringuette: Honourable senators, I move:
That Bill C-212 be amended on page 3, by adding after line 25, the following:
"4.1(1) A regulating authority that receives a complaint about a proposed user fee within the period set out in a notice issued by that authority must (a) try to resolve the complaint; and (b) give the complainant notice in writing of proposed measures for its resolution.
(2) If the complaint is not resolved to the complainant's satisfaction within 30 days after the expiry of the period set out in the notice, the complainant may request in writing that the regulating authority refer the complaint to an independent advisory panel.
(3) Within 40 days after the expiry of the period set out in the notice, the regulating authority and the complainant must each select one member to sit on the panel and those members must select a third member.
(4) The regulating authority may decide, for reasons of economy and efficiency, that two or more complaints about a particular proposal be dealt with by the same panel. In that case, the panel member to be selected by the complainants is selected by a majority vote.
(5) The panel must, within 30 days after all members have been selected, send a report in writing of its findings and recommendations for resolving the dispute to the regulating authority and the complainant.
(6) Subject to the subsection (7), the panel has the power to award costs of the proceedings, including the cost of the fees and expenses of panel members.
(7) If, in the opinion of the panel, a complaint is frivolous or vexatious, the complainant bears all the costs.
(8) Costs payable by the complainant become a debt due to Her Majesty and may be recovered as such in any court of competent jurisdiction.''.
The Chairman: Thank you, senator.
Honourable senators, this is a new clause 4.1, as you see, being put here.
Senator Ringuette: Are there questions?
The Chairman: Whose idea was it to change the dispute resolution authority to the advisory panel?
Mr. Roy Cullen, Member of Parliament, Etobicoke North, Sponsor of the bill: Honourable senators, there is still in the bill a requirement for an independent dispute-resolution mechanism. This clause basically talks about the modalities, and that is enacted through the independent advisory panel. The independent advisory panel provides the means by which the users can achieve an independent resolution of disputes. It is more of an action response to the requirements of the bill.
The Chairman: Senator Ringuette moves that Bill C-212 be amended on page 3, by adding after line 25 —
Hon. Senators: Dispense.
The Chairman: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the said motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 4, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 5 carry?
Senator Ringuette: Honourable senators, I move:
That Bill C-212 be amended in clause 5, on page 3, by replacing lines 27 to 29 with the following:
"for a user fee referred to it''; and by replacing line 31 with the following: "Senate or the House of Commons, as the case may be, a report containing its''.
The Chairman: Any questions? Comments?
Senator Ringuette has moved that Bill C-212 be amended in clause 5, on page 3, by replacing lines 27 to 29 —
Hon. Senators: Dispense!
The Chairman: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the said motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 5, as amended, carry?
Senator Ringuette: Honourable senators, I move:
That Bill C-212 be amended in clause 5,
(a) on page 3, by replacing lines 34 to 38, with the following:
"5.1 Where a regulating authority's performance in a particular fiscal year in respect of a user fee does not meet the standards established by it for that fiscal year by a percentage greater than ten per cent, the user fee shall be reduced by a percentage equivalent to the unachieved performance, to a maximum of fifty per cent for the user fee. The reduced user fee applies from the day on which the annual report for the fiscal year is tabled under subsection 8(1) until the day on which the next annual report is tabled;'' and
(b) on page 4, by deleting lines 1 and 2.
The Chairman: Thank you, Senator Oliver, for being so alert. That is why they pay the lawyers big money.
Honourable senators, Senator Ringuette has moved that Bill C-212 be amended in clause 5, on page 3, by replacing lines 34 to 38 —
Hon. Senators: Dispense!
The Chairman: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the said motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 5, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 6 carry?
Senator Ringuette: Honourable senators, I move:
That Bill C-212 be amended in clause 6, on page 4,
(a) by replacing line 3 with the following:
"6.(1) The Senate or the House of Commons may pass a;'' and
(b) by replacing line 7 to 12 with the following:
"(2) If, within fifteen sitting days after the tabling of a proposal under subsection 4(2), the Committee fails to submit a report containing its recommendation to the Senate or the House of Commons, as the case may be, the Committee is deemed to have submitted a report recommending that the proposed user fee be approved.''
The Chairman: Honourable senators, Senator Ringuette has moved that Bill C-212 be amended in clause 6, on page 4, (a) by replacing line 3 —
Some Hon. Senators: Dispense!
The Chairman: Shall I dispense?
Senator Comeau: Why not read it so that I can reflect. Read through it.
The Chairman: In French or English?
Senator Comeau: In English.
The Chairman: Okay. Senator Ringuette has moved:
That Bill C-212 be amended in clause 6, on page 4,
(a) by replacing line 3 with the following:
Where it now says "The House of Commons may pass'' it says:
"6.(1) The Senate or the House of Commons may pass a;'' and
(b) by replacing line 7 to 12 with the following:
"(2) If, within fifteen sitting days...
That is not 40.
"(2) If, within fifteen sitting days after the tabling of a proposal under subsection 4(2) —
You see that? The minister must table in both Houses.
— the Committee fails to submit a report containing its recommendation to the Senate or the House of Commons, as the case may be, the Committee is deemed to have submitted a report recommending that the proposed user fee be approved.''
Senator Comeau: I should like to ask Mr. Cullen a question here.
The original bill stated 40 sitting days in this clause — which made a lot of sense to me, given that committees are busy. If a committee is busy examining legislation or is conducting a major study, all of a sudden, the committee must drop everything — am I reading this right — and, within 15 sitting days, go through this and submit its report?
Mr. Cullen: Yes, that is correct, senator. Frankly, the original bill had 40 days. I heard the arguments of the government that, when one looks at recesses, 40 days can cover quite a few weeks and months.
Senator Comeau: True.
Mr. Cullen: Frankly, I think 15 is somewhat tight. I would be happier, myself, with 20 or 25 days. That would be my suggestion.
Senator Comeau: Yes. We do not want this to be a tie-breaker or anything, but I do know that, while sitting on committees, 15 days can go by fairly quickly. Sometimes, as the chair will know, it is hard to get members to find the time. We are talking sitting days here. The committees may be very busy.
The Chairman: I would think that if the fee involved is a contentious matter various stakeholders and interested parties will want to be heard.
Senator Comeau: Obviously, the researchers will have to scramble fairly fast as well because I would imagine that these user fees are quite complex.
Mr. Cullen: My concern is be that 15 days would be insufficient if the committee is already proceeding with other business and must call witnesses and table a report. I was trying to negotiate an increase with the government, but it slipped through the cracks. I guess the government is saying that 15 days is a sufficient period of time. I would prefer 20 or 25. I could live with 20; 25 would be better.
The Chairman: Is Madam Bouzigon in a flexible frame of mind tonight?
Ms. Mylène Bouzigon, Senior General Counsel, Legal Services Branch, Treasury Board Secretariat: Somewhat.
The Chairman: I should say: Is the Treasury Board ever in a flexible frame of mind?
Ms. Bouzigon: I am representing my client, the Government of Canada. I think 20 days is something that the government could accept.
Senator Comeau: It would show some sympathy towards parliamentarians, who do have other things on their plates.
The Chairman: Do you want to change it to 20 then, Senator Ringuette?
Senator Ringuette: I move that it be changed to 20.
The Chairman: All right. The motion in amendment would read, "If, within twenty sitting days after the tabling of a proposal,'' et cetera.
Is it your pleasure to adopt the said motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 6, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Now, colleagues, let me at clause 7.
Far be it from me to tell the committee what to do, but there is a movement afoot, which I think is understood by all concerned, to delete clause 7.
Am I correct in that, Mr. Cullen? Madam Bouzigon?
Ms. Bouzigon: Sorry, I do not think I am there, either.
Mr. Michel Patrice, Parliamentary Counsel, Office of the Law Clerk, Senate of Canada: Yes, there was a discussion about clause 7 and whether clause 7 joined or coupled with clause 4, where it talks about the precondition for the consultation requirement. There is a bit of conflict or a contradiction. Clauses 7 and 4 do not seem to match.
Mr. Cullen: The potential conflict — I am still thinking about that, but let me give you the background with respect to this clause. Clause 7 was put in there to circumvent a department or agency that would not increase a fee but would increase the scope or application of a fee. I notice that clause 7 says "forty sitting days.''
Mr. Patrice: It also says "after their implementation.'' Basically, on clause 4, there is a discussion that prior to implementing there will be a consultation requirement.
Senator Ringuette: May I also add that clause 4(1) states, "Before a regulating authority fixes, increases, expands the application of...'' That would also include increasing the scope of persons, the way we are reading it.
The Chairman: Do I understand, Mr. Patrice, that you had a discussion about this with Treasury Board?
Mr. Patrice: Yes, we had a brief discussion with Treasury Board officials on that matter.
Ms. Bouzigon: We have determined that there might be a slight difficulty, but it is something we can work with by leaving it as it is.
The Chairman: Just a moment. If it is a policy matter, it is a policy matter. The committee's legal adviser has a responsibility to let us know if this will create problems in the legislation. Will it do so?
Mr. Patrice: It is a policy matter, but the way I read it — "If a regulating authority amends the definition of persons subject to the application of a particular user fee for the purposes of maintaining firmness or covering additional costs'' — I take it as expanding a user fee — "the Minister must, within forty sitting days of Parliament after their implementation'' — basically, the fee would be implemented.
My reading is that the fee would be implemented and that within 40 days the minister will report to Parliament about it.
You are talking about clause 4, however, where it states:
"Before a regulating authority fixes, increases, expands the application of or increases the duration of a user fee, it must...''
You have two conflicts. Maybe Treasury Board can address that.
Mr. Cullen: In drafting this bill, I, perhaps, was a little paranoid in the sense of what departments and agencies might try to do. It was drafted this way to say that, in most cases, if a department or agency changes the scope of a fee, chances are it is probably appropriate, but that at least there would be a reporting back to the committee as to why it was done.
In the overall scheme of things, I could live without this clause. I do not think we will run up against this type of activity very often — never, hopefully.
Senator Day: The way I am sure Senator Oliver and I read this is that it is not necessary because clause 4 covers the situation. Expanding the application of the user fee would be to amend the definition of "persons subject to the application.'' It is a duplication, in effect. All clause 4 activities will have taken place anyway, so we do not need clause 7.
The Chairman: Would you agree with your learned and junior confrere?
Senator Oliver: Yes, I do.
The Chairman: You are longer at the bar than he is.
Senator Oliver: Yes.
Senator Comeau: I am not a learned lawyer, so I have to ask the question. My impression was that clause 4(1) talked about increasing user fees, whereby clause 7 talks about amending the definition of "persons.'' That has nothing to do with fees; it has everything to do with persons subject to the fees, rather than the fees. I am not a lawyer, mind you.
Senator Day: Bear with me, Mr. Chairman. The fee would be expanded to cover other persons. You can do it by saying that a user fee will apply to a new group of people or you can say we are expanding the definition.
Senator Comeau: Where does it say that in clause 4(1)?
Senator Day: Clause 4(1) states:
Before a regulating authority fixes, increases, expands the application of...
When you are expanding the application, you are applying it to new people.
Senator Comeau: All right. Thank you.
The Chairman: Our legislative counsel here feels that the bill is better without clause 7. He seems to have the agreement of two. There is unanimity among three lawyers; that is quite a feat.
Ms. Bouzigon, you, too?
Ms. Bouzigon: Yes.
The Chairman: Four lawyers then.
The way this is done, by the way, is not by amendment. When I ask you, "Shall clause 7 carry,'' you will kindly reply no and that will be it.
Shall clause 7 carry?
Hon. Senators: No.
The Chairman: Clause 7 is negatived.
Shall clause 8 carry?
Senator Ringuette: Honourable senators, I move:
That Bill C-212 be amended in clause 8, on page 4, by replacing lines 21 and 22 with the following:
"before each House of Parliament, on or before December 31''.
The Chairman: You all understand that, I believe.
Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the said motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Shall clause 9 carry?
Senator Ringuette: Honourable senators, I move:
That Bill C-212 be amended on page 5, by adding after line 15, the following:
"9. A review of the provisions and operation of this Act shall be completed by the President of the Treasury Board during the third year after this Act is assented to. The Minister shall cause a report of the results of the review to be laid before each House of Parliament on any of the first fifteen days on which that House is sitting after the report is completed.''
The Chairman: On page 5, after line 15 — actually, it becomes 9. When I said, "Shall clause 9 carry,'' I should have said —
Senator Ringuette: Clause 9 and 10 should be deleted first.
The Chairman: Be careful, now. We deleted clause 7, which means that what is now clause 8, "Annual report by Minister,'' becomes 7? No? Please explain.
Mr. Patrice: Basically, as I understand it, you adopted clause 8 as amended. We will report that.
The Chairman: No, we did nothing of the kind. We defeated, negatived, clause 7. Now I go to the next clause.
Senator Downe: We amended it.
Senator Ringuette: We amended clause 8.
Senator Oliver: We amended clause 8, page 4.
The Chairman: Yes.
Senator Day: We should have amended number 2 but we did not.
Mr. Patrice: Adjusting the numbering comes at the end.
The Chairman: All right.
Mr. Patrice: You can note that Senator Ringuette has moved the new clause to be added to the bill. You can number the new clause 8.1 and then go to clause 9, which is in the bill, and clause 10.
The Chairman: What happens to the clause 8 that we have just amended?
Mr. Patrice: It still remains clause 8, as amended.
Senator Ringuette has moved the new clause and it could be called clause 8.1.
Senator Ringuette: I so move that Bill C-212 be amended by adding a new clause, clause 8.1, at page 5, by adding after line 15, the following:
"8.1 A review of the provisions and operation of this Act shall be completed by the President of the Treasury Board during the third year after this Act is assented to. The Minister shall cause a report of the results of the review to be laid before each House of Parliament on any of the first fifteen days on which that House is sitting after the report is completed.''
The Chairman: Senator Ringuette has moved that Bill C-212 be amended on page 5, by adding after line 15, the following: 8.1. "A review of —''
Hon. Senators: Dispense.
The Chairman: Is it your pleasure to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
You look puzzled, Senator Oliver.
Senator Oliver: I did not see one of the clauses that we just mentioned.
The Chairman: This is the three-year review that we just passed.
Senator Oliver: It is clause 9 on page 5 that we are calling 8.1?
The Chairman: No, it is page 4, after line 27, a new clause 8.1 is added. That is not 8(1), but 8.1. It is the three-year review.
I can now go to clause 9.
Senator Day: For clarification purposes, the amendment that we have in front of us, and the motion, must be changed. I think that is what happened. Senator Ringuette read it as "page 5, line 15'' whereas in effect the chairman read it as page 4, line 27.
Senator Oliver: That is what confused me.
The Chairman: It is page 4, line 27.
Senator Day: That is correct, but that is not what she said in the motion. We have it sorted out now.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, shall clause 8, as amended, carry?
We passed the new clause 8.1 and that is it. We move now to clause 9.
Shall clause 9 carry?
Hon. Senators: No.
The Chairman: Clause 9 is negatived.
Senator Comeau: Is this the new clause 9 or the old clause 9? Sorry, but I am getting a bit confused at this point.
Senator Day: The new clause 8.1 replaces the old clause 9.
Senator Comeau: I had a clause 8.1. I remember we deleted clause 7. We have a new clause 8.1. What happens to the old 8.1?
Senator Day: We will come back to them as amended and we will change the numbers.
The Chairman: This is a substantive matter, as I understand it, Mr. Cullen and Madam Bouzigon. You want to delete the present clause 9, about the regulation-making authority, because it is not necessary in this bill. That seems to be the view of the government's legal advisors and of our own.
Mr. Cullen: Yes, honourable senators, I am not a lawyer. I take the advice of legal counsel on this. I gather that the government is saying that this clause is not required because all the items that might have been dealt with by way of regulation have been incorporated into the bill.
The Chairman: Is that the case, Mr. Patrice?
Ms. Bouzigon: They are in the bill and in the Financial Administration Act.
The Chairman: So you have all determined this clause is not necessary?
Mr. Cullen: Yes.
The Chairman: I will get it negatived then, right?
Shall clause 9 carry?
Hon. Senators: No.
The Chairman: Clause 9 is negatived.
Shall clause 10 carry?
Hon. Senators: No.
Senator Day: You do not need 10 either?
Mr. Cullen: No.
The Chairman: Clause 10 is negatived.
Is it agreed that the Law Clerk be authorized to renumber clauses to reflect clauses that have been struck from the bill, with any cross-references to be renumbered accordingly?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Is it agreed that clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Is it agreed that the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Is it agreed that the bill, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Is it agreed that I report the bill to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Thank you very much, colleagues.
Thank you, Madam Bouzigon and Mr. Cullen.
Mr. Cullen, congratulations. Your bill has taken one further step forward. We will be reporting it and submitting it to the Senate promptly. I will take the occasion at report stage to explain something of the background to this bill and the various permutations and combinations that we have endured all this time. I will tell them that, on balance, it is better to pass this bill than the alternative, which is to be left with no bill. We will see how they respond.
Mr. Cullen: Thank you very much, honourable senators, to all of you on this committee, and to the staff and to the department, to all of you who worked on this bill to get it to this stage. Thank you very much.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Cullen.
Honourable senators, as I told you, we have two modest budgets to propose to the committee for the fiscal year that ends at March 31, 2004.
We must present separate budgets for separate referrals. The budget for $2,500 relates to legislation and is for professional and other services. Those services will mostly consist of meals for honourable senators when we meet at night.
The chair will entertain a motion to approve this budget.
Senator Finnerty: I so move.
The Chairman: Senator Finnerty has moved that this budget be approved and submitted to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.
Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
The second budget is for $500 regarding our reference to review some chapters of the Auditor General's report. We put $500 down for professional and special services in respect of that reference.
Senator Ferretti Barth: I move the approval of the budget.
The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
As of now, we are scheduled to meet on Tuesday morning at 9:30 to hear from officials on the Main Estimates for 2004-05 and to consider a draft report on the Supplementary Estimates (B) for 2003-04. I do not know whether the Senate is sitting next week and, if it is not, whether it is intended that committees sit. Stay tuned. We will be in touch.
If we do not meet on March 2, we will almost assuredly meet with the officials on March 9 because Minister Alcock is coming on March 10 under the rubric of Main Estimates. We will have a better idea in the next day or so.
We also will have the equalization bill coming at some point.
Senator Ringuette: Before we adjourn, I should like to say that this was my first experience of sponsoring a bill. It was quite an experience. I enjoyed it. I appreciated the support that I received from my colleagues. It was a good experience.
The committee adjourned.