[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, October 5, 1995
.1114 
[English]
The Chair: Can we come to order?
The finance committee is looking into Bill C-90. Appearing before us by popular demand is parliamentary secretary Mr. David Walker.
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Today we're dealing with Bill C-90. I have with me as witnesses two officials from the department, Patricia Malone and Geoffrey Trueman, both from the excise section of the sales tax division, etc. I'm pleased to have them with me. As we get into questions, they can clarify any questions the members of the committee may have.
I have a very brief statement, and then we'll get right into discussion of the various clauses.
[Translation]
Most of the amendments to the Excise Tax Act contained in this bill were announced in the February 27, 1995 budget. These include amendments to the air transportation tax, to gasoline excise tax rates and to marking requirements for tobacco products for sale in Prince Edward Island.
.1115
This bill also contains amendments to excise tax rates on tobacco products sold in Quebec, Ontario and Prince Edward Island. These amendments were announced on February 17 in the case of Quebec and Ontario, and on March 31 in the case of Prince Edward Island. The bill also contains a minor technical amendment having to do with the regulatory powers of Revenue Canada regarding certain gasoline excise tax rebates.
[English]
Clause 1 deals with the air transportation tax, with clauses 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, and 11 marking requirements for tobacco products for sale in Prince Edward Island.
Clause 6 is the one clause in this section that was not announced in the budget.
Clause 5 deals with the regulatory authority relating to refunds of excise tax for gasoline. This also was not in the budget.
Clause 8 is on excise tax rates for gasoline.
Clause 9 is on excise tax rates for tobacco products for sale in Ontario and Quebec.
Clauses 12 to 14 concern seizure of vehicles to transport contraband alcohol and tobacco and notification of seizure and application to court.
So it's a very precise piece of legislation, falling out of the budget mainly, with the two exceptions I've noted.
We're now open for questions.
The Chair: Will it still increase the cost of cigarettes, Mr. Walker?
Mr. Walker: It will in certain jurisdictions, yes.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Harper will lead off the questions.
[English]
Mr. Harper (Calgary West): The other day in Question Period I asked Minister Martin some questions about the government's policy on tax reduction, and he explained that this government wasn't into tax increase. However, I note that this bill is almost exclusively about tax increase.
Why was the airline transportation tax not included in budgetary documents? When it's in this legislation, why was it not considered as part of the budgetary package?
Ms Patricia Malone (Chief, Excise Tax Section, Sales Tax Division, Department of Finance): It was.
Mr. Walker: That one was. Clause 1, the air transportation tax, was announced in the budget of February 27.
Mr. Harper: It was part of that budget. Okay. That's not what my briefing says.
What assurances are there that the transportation tax will in fact go to cost recovery in services to the airline industry?
Mr. Walker: This is watched very carefully. This is the money that Transport Canada uses to operate the airports. The funds that are received from this, although they're paid into consolidated general revenues, are in fact moneys earmarked for the airports.
We watch them very carefully because obviously it's a tax on consumers and each and every one of us in this room pays his tax on a regular basis. We want to make sure it is not exceptional tax, and we watch for cost controls in that system.
Mr. Harper: Does this money go directly to airport authorities?
Ms Malone: Currently the proceeds from the tax are allocated, as Mr. Walker said, to the consolidated revenue fund, and then, on a monthly basis, Revenue transfers these funds to Transport. Currently they are used to cover the cost of air navigation services. So it's part of Transport's expenditures.
Mr. Harper: Is it the revenue from this tax that's transferred or the expenses needed by the -
Ms Malone: An equivalent of what is raised from the tax is transferred. The tax does not cover the full cost of the air navigation services, but rather just a portion of it.
Mr. Harper: There has been some suggestion - I'm not saying whether it's true or not - that taxes such as this tend to impact disproportionately on small competitors. In your view, is the tax applied in such a way that this is not the case?
Mr. Walker: The discussions we've had on that one have stated more that it impacts on short routes, which is another way of saying short couriers. It was an issue in Alberta with the Calgary-Edmonton operators. I believe that some of the changes we've made in the past two years have been to compensate for that and to make it more for the long hauls rather than the short hauls.
But there is an issue because of the distances taken and the frequency of the flights. They have worried about it. But I think the long-term strategy has been to minimize the effect on the short hauls.
.1120
Mr. Harper: But you say that impact still exists.
Ms Malone: Yes, it still exists. The structure of the tax is that it has a flat tax component - right now it's $6 - then an ad valorem component of 7%, and then a ceiling. In last year's budget the minister announced a reduction in the flat tax component, from $10 to $6. That was intended to help short-haul flights.
Mr. Harper: Why not move all the way to an ad valorem system?
Ms Malone: I think it was a question of revenues. We still wanted to recover a portion of the costs of the ANS.
Mr. Harper: Okay.
I'll move on to the tobacco taxes. Just glancing at this bill quickly, it seems to me - and I'm not the critic for it - you have a rebate program here for Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia but not for New Brunswick. Is that correct? Can you explain that?
Mr. Walker: It was a modification for the looking after of Prince Edward Island. The market is so small that it was impossible for the manufacturers to designate the taping on the packages. They took a while, but they worked out an agreement with Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island for where the markings are in fact for Nova Scotia's marketplace. So we can keep track of it, but it's just impossible to set it up for a small province.
Mr. Harper: So except for that, the rebate systems are relatively operable for, I guess, five participating provinces.
Mr. Walker: Yes, five.
Mr. Harper: The chairman had mentioned that there would be an increase in tobacco prices here. With this bill, what is the net effect between where taxes were when the reduction process started and where they're going to be when this is completed?
Ms Malone: I don't think at this point we know when the process will end, so it's a bit difficult to predict. The tax rates went before the process started in Quebec and Ontario.
I have the information here. The federal excise taxes and duties were $15.85 per carton of 200 cigarettes. After the reductions in Quebec - and correct me if I'm wrong, Geoff - the taxes in Quebec were $5.85 per carton of cigarettes. In Ontario they were $6.25 per carton of cigarettes, and in P.E.I. they were $6.60. With the increases that were recently announced, they were increased by 60¢ in Quebec and Ontario and $1 in P.E.I.
Mr. Harper: Do you have a future policy objective on this?
Ms Malone: I think the intention is to progressively raise the taxes, but that will be depending on the circumstances with regard to the markets and the prices, etc. But the intention is to raise them.
Mr. Harper: To the original levels?
Mr. Walker: We have made a policy decision that way, Mr. Chairman. What we're trying to do is to decide how much elasticity there is in the price structure vis-à-vis the national anti-smuggling campaign. We're just testing that. Literally every few months a conversation comes up again from the police force reports and the Quebec and Ontario officials. About 90% of the problem between those two provinces is trying to find out the extent to which we can move these prices.
We haven't really set a price level. I will for the committee...because reading off these figures is not always easy. We have here the three pages that will outline the previous prices and the new prices. I'll just leave it with you so you can follow it.
Mr. Harper: What is our sense right now - and this may be a little beyond the scope of the bill - of the elasticity relative to the smuggling? What's the state of the smuggling network now? Is it still fully intact or is it partially dismantled?
Mr. Walker: I think it's fair to say that Finance and Revenue Canada would be more aggressive on how much money is available. The police forces are still very nervous about these coming back into existence as quickly as we move. So I think it's part of the internal negotiations as to what price point is going to trigger the networks again. That's why we're moving so slowly. I think it's fair to say that the police are not convinced that the problem has disappeared, to use double negatives.
.1125
The Chair: I hope you wouldn't in the future, please.
Mr. Harper: I'm confused enough as it is.
I'll move on to the gasoline tax issue. I noted in my briefing notes that the gas tax was imposed as the excise tax on gasoline as a temporary one-time measure in 1975. I won't bore the witnesses with a question of when we might expect it to end.
An hon. member: It's still temporary.
Mr. Harper: We're all temporary in a sense, aren't we?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Walker: I can assure you it didn't come from the Conservative caucus in Alberta that was in Parliament at that time.
Mr. Harper: No.
I note that, as many consumers know - but some don't - gasoline taxes are 50% or thereabouts of the retail cost of gasoline. It depends on what city you live in, of course. What's the effect of the tax here both on gas prices and on that percentage?
Ms Malone: The 1.5¢ per litre increase is a relatively small proportion of the overall price. It's about 2% of the retail price of gasoline. We've been following gas prices and the impact seems to have been pretty minimal. The price of gasoline has been jumping all over the place this year, and the increase in tax seems to have had a relatively minor impact on the pump price.
Mr. Harper: It'd still be around the 50% mark.
Ms Malone: Yes.
Mr. Harper: There's not much difference.
Is this strictly a revenue measure or is there any plan to divert some of this revenue toward expenditures that are relative to it - to roads or to transportation or to environmental measures?
Mr. Walker: We have rejected a proposal from some of the provinces to designate part of the excise tax on gasoline for road construction. This is part of the general revenue and is considered a fiscal measure.
Mr. Harper: That concludes my initial questions, Mr. Chairman. I may have some others as I listen to some of the dialogue.
The Chair: Please feel free, Mr. Harper. Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Do you have any questions, Mr. Brien, or would you prefer to wait?
Mr. Brien (Témiscamingue): I would prefer to wait.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Fewchuk.
Mr. Fewchuk (Selkirk - Red River): Mr. Walker, could you or the department give us a difference in the taxes of gasoline between Manitoba, Ontario and Saskatchewan?
Mr. Walker: We certainly can.
Ms Malone: Yes.
Mr. Fewchuk: Okay. In my travels, I certainly notice a difference between Edmonton and Winnipeg.
And what is the Manitoba tax on cigarettes per carton?
Mr. Walker: I can do that while we're looking for the other one.
In Manitoba, the final retail price is $43.15. The Ontario price is $23.75. There's a difference of slightly over $20.
Ms Malone: I have prices and prices without taxes in cities, not in provinces.
Mr. Fewchuk: Do you not keep figures for provinces?
Ms Malone: The taxes are on a provincial basis, but the retail prices seem to be by major cities.
Mr. Fewchuk: Okay.
Ms Malone: That's how Revenue Canada keeps its figures.
The price as of September in Regina was 56.9¢. In Winnipeg it was 53.8¢. Did you want Toronto's price?
Mr. Fewchuk: Okay.
Ms Malone: I have Toronto at 51.1¢. And excluding taxes, those figures are 28.2¢ -
Mr. Fewchuk: It's 28.2¢ for whom?
Ms Malone: For Regina.
Mr. Fewchuk: Regina is 28.2¢.
Ms Malone: Winnipeg is 28.8¢. Toronto is 23.1¢.
Mr. Fewchuk: So we're paying a higher tax out west. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Fewchuk.
Mr. Campbell.
Mr. Campbell (St. Paul's): I have a brief question with respect to the search and seizure provisions that are a part of this bill. I'm referring to clause 12 of the bill. It proposes replacing subsection 88(2) of the Excise Act. There's a reference to seizures, and of course there's a procedure to notify owners of vehicles, etc.
I have two questions. Subsection 88(1) is not included because it's not being replaced or amended. What happens to the proceeds of seized vehicles currently?
.1130
Ms Malone: I think they're returned to the CRF. Is that correct?
A voice: Yes, the consolidated revenue fund.
Ms Malone: Yes, that's correct.
Mr. Campbell: This is just a very minor technical point. I was amused, but I guess it's called for - it refers to horses, vehicles, vessels, and other appliances, but not to aircraft. Is that already covered?
Ms Malone: I think that's covered, yes. Anything that's used to transport contraband.
Mr. Walker: The horses are to protect us in the west.
Mr. Campbell: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Campbell.
Mrs. Brushett.
Mrs. Brushett (Cumberland - Colchester): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You alluded a few minutes earlier to how you're sort of working with the protectors of the country, in the form of the RCMP and Customs - smuggling and so on. I have rather a philosophical question about relating the increase in tax to the increase in smuggling or the underground economy. There's much debate on this today out in the public realm. I'm wondering how closely we are monitoring that. Or are we looking strictly at revenue? Are we trying to -
Mr. Walker: From the tobacco tax?
Mrs. Brushett: Yes.
Mr. Walker: I think it's no secret that the health lobby, which was focused on the smoking issue - particularly, for example, the Canadian Medical Association - all treat smoking, particularly amongst young people, to be a price-sensitive activity, and maintain that we made progress where prices were higher, and we are monitoring the risk if prices are lower. I think it's fair to say the greatest barrier we had was the total collapse of the legitimate market in the early 1990s and the contraband market that led to large profits and to illegal activities, which were hard for the police forces to control.
Our major objective is not to put people at risk from a health perspective and to restore a price level that is consistent with being able to actually police it.
One of the arguments we lost in the shuffle is that the real price was not as high as it appeared to be in the published price because so many people got it contraband. So we want to find out what the real price is in the marketplace and that's why we're edging up.
But I think it's fair to say the government does not treat this simply as a physical issue, but treats it also as a health issue, absolutely.
Mrs. Brushett: I have one other question relating to the gasoline tax, another very common public debate. This is of interest, perhaps not specifically relating to the bill, to the department. How much of the gasoline tax is directed to the construction of interprovincial highways in this country? It's a common debate that I seem to be encountering a lot - that if we would apply this directly for that purpose in transportation we might do better.
Mr. Walker: Well, the strategy of the federal government has been to shy away from many designated taxes. We have programs and we have taxes, but we don't tie the two together.
One of the exceptions is the one pursued by Mr. Harper, the airport tax for the air navigation system. There you have to watch constantly with inflation against the costs you have when people see themselves as having a guaranteed revenue source - often when you're delivering a service it's counterproductive to the efficiencies you want.
In the case of road construction, because it's a federal-provincial area, you have to resist the temptation for everybody to add on a penny here and a penny there to obtain what they want, at a cost to the consumer, and use the federal government as the collecting agency. We've just been very hesitant to get into that policy model.
I know, for example, as part of a reconstruction of the road system in your area, people are...do you go to a toll road as the consumer cost? Or do you do the excise tax?
I would say also it's an ongoing debate; the door isn't closed. There are provinces very aggressively pursuing this. But we haven't bought into the designated tax at this point.
The Chair: Thank you, Mrs. Brushett.
[Translation]
Mr. Brien, you have five minutes.
Mr. Brien: When tobacco taxes were initially cut, there was talk of eventually allocating certain sums of money to anti-smoking programs. Do you intend to turn over a portion of the revenues derived from higher tobacco taxes to the Department of Health?
.1135
Mr. Walker: Yes. We are currently conducting an extensive advertising campaign and this tax is providing the necessary funds.
Mr. Brien: You are deriving your funding from this tax?
Mr. Walker: Yes.
[English]
No, I'm sorry. To be precise, part of the overall package was a surtax on the tobacco companies, and that surtax is the source of funds that's designated for the health department.
[Translation]
Mr. Brien: We are not talking then about tax revenues.
I would like your opinion on the gasoline tax. Tobacco smuggling increased alarmingly after tobacco taxes rose. Do you feel the gasoline tax has reached a dangerous level and that any further increase could result in a black market for gasoline? This could happen in the very near future.
[English]
Mr. Walker: There have been some discussions about that in parts of Ontario when the dollar exchange was much different. Currently we do not see that much of a difficulty in the black market or underground market in gasoline. In many ways there are some limits in terms of capacity. You're going to get isolated markets, but it takes a lot to move the gasoline around as compared to cigarettes, for example, which are quite expensive and quite transferable.
If I remember correctly, there were some prosecutions last year in Ontario, beginning with large amounts and breaking up a major network. In terms of what we review, I would say it's a minor concern. It's not that it's not a concern, but it's more minor than other concerns.
[Translation]
Mr. Brien: Assuming this is not a major concern, you say that the government could consider this option in the short term to increase its revenues. If you need to increase revenues, raising the gasoline tax is an option in the coming months or years.
[English]
Mr. Walker: One can never preclude tax increases, but it's certainly not our intention to go back to the excise tax. We understand as much as anybody else around the table that there are limits to how much you can tax people. People are sensitive to increases in the gasoline tax. There are no plans at this moment.
[Translation]
The Chair: Perhaps this would be a good question for the Standing Committee on Finance to take up in the course of its pre-budget discussions.
Mr. Brien: Since the Minister is not here, we are putting our questions to the Parliamentary Secretary.
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Brien: Basically, these were the questions I wanted to ask.
The Chair: As a committee, we sometimes have more powers than the Minister.
Mr. Brien: I'm still waiting for that to happen.
The Chair: Is that all for now?
[English]
Mr. St. Denis, please.
Mr. St. Denis (Algoma): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for being here. I just have a short question.
Last year when we had the fairly large excise tax on tobacco decreased to counter the smuggling, I had a fairly large, privately owned wholesale distributor in my riding. He had to absorb costs because of the tax drop, because his customers were expecting to pay the new low price for tobacco in cartons, although he had already committed the tax on it. When the excise tax goes up, do we allow these folks to keep that as compensation for the hit they took last year?
Mr. Walker: Generally speaking, we don't follow it through to the retail level. We do it at the large wholesale level. Because the history of taxation, as it is in every other area, has been upwards, the individual merchant has been able to retain whatever changes there have been. When it went down, they were in exactly the same position they had been in the past, only in reverse.
Mr. St. Denis: So there was no change in that policy, then.
Mr. Walker: No, it's too hard for us to track. It's a phenomenal policing problem.
The Chair: Mr. Harper.
Mr. Harper: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just wanted to go back to my first question. You were correct that the air transportation tax was included in the budget, but I note it was included as a cost recovery measure rather than as a tax.
.1140
We've had this debate in Alberta, and I'm just curious as to whether you believe there is really a difference between a cost recovery measure on a monopolistically supplied product versus a tax, as far as the taxpayer is concerned.
Mr. Walker: It is the core question and it is why we want to move that system into a commercial system. As long as we've been working in a monopoly system, there has not been an effective way for the government to monitor itself in that process, either in the new technology or in the actual functioning of it. So you're quite right.
We want to see other market forces in there to ensure that there are pressures on it for more efficiencies and therefore people understand they're getting value for the amount of money they're paying out. It's a very legitimate point.
Mr. Harper: So today's it's functionally the same?
Mr. Walker: Yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Brien: Is the federal government providing some compensation because of the taxation levels in remote areas? I know that that is the case in certain provinces. Does the federal government take similar action? For example, does it provide some compensation to oil companies in order to lessen the effects of tax increases or high gasoline prices in the regions?
Mr. Walker: No.
Ms Malone: Perhaps one thing should be made clear. The diesel fuel tax was not increased and transportation companies use diesel fuel rather than gasoline. There was no wish to increase unduly the transportation costs incurred by businesses.
Mr. Brien: I have no further questions.
The Chair: As there are no further questions, perhaps we could move on to the bill. Does the Official Opposition have any objections?
Mr. Brien: To the bill?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Brien: To the overall bill, yes.
[English]
The Chair: Shall I go clause by clause or...?
[Translation]
Mr. Brien: Only to the bill.
[English]
The Chair: Okay.
Shall the bill carry?
[Translation]
Mr. Brien: I request a recorded vote.
[English]
Bill C-90 agreed to: yeas 5; nays 2
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: On division.
Shall the committee order a reprint for use at report stage?
Some hon. members: No.
The Chair: Shall I report the bill to the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
The Chair: I thank you very much for your cooperation in this.
I have one other little bit of business. We have a little bit of housekeeping. We need some money to carry on our pre-budget consultations.
Maybe I could explain to you what the clerk has asked us to look at. She would like $10,000 operating to be drawn against our budget to carry out the pre-budget consultations and have other witnesses appear before us.
We also need to seek permission from the House to travel. It's been previously agreed that when we travel we will have two subcommittees, one travelling east and the other west. We have to look at a travel budget for those subcommittees.
Do we have a motion to deal with this?
Mr. Fewchuk: I so move.
.1145
The Chair: It's moved by Mr. Fewchuk and seconded by Mr. St. Denis.
Mr. Campbell: This is just with respect to the supplementary claim for $10,000 at this point? Do you want two separate motions, Mr. Chairman?
The Chair: Yes. That's a good point of order.
As for the supplementary claim for $10,000, is there discussion?
[Translation]
Mr. Brien: I would like some clarification. What budget had initially been allocated to the committee?
The Clerk of the Committee: Initially, we were allocated $10,000, most of which was spent to cover witness expenses. We requested an additional $10,000 in May, and this amount has also been spent. If you prefer, I can give you an itemized account. Currently, there is $1,200 remaining in the committee's budget. This sum would not even cover the expenses of one witness from Vancouver.
Mr. Brien: Is any consideration being given to having us travel to Vancouver to hear from witnesses rather than have them come to Ottawa?
The Clerk: We are looking into this.
The Chair: This could be something for the steering committee to decide. I would like to hear your opinion on the witnesses from each province whom we would like to bring to Ottawa. You can work with us on this.
[English]
We will be travelling to each province, Mr. Harper, as we did last year. For the pre-budget, we'll be looking at hearings here in Ottawa to deal with the major national groups, then one day in each province.
Mr. Harper: Mr. Chairman, I'm only vaguely aware of that. I'm not aware of what you discussed. Generally I defer these matters to Dr. Grubel. Had you discussed these things with him?
The Chair: Yes, we had.
Mr. Harper: So he's agreeable to this.
The Chair: If he's not, I will undertake to annul any vote that we do on this one so we can discuss it further. This is the way we proceeded last year.
Mr. Harper: Okay.
The Chair: Can we vote on the $10,000?
Motion agreed to
The Chair: Can we have a motion on travelling for the pre-budget consultations?
Mr. Campbell: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would so move that for the purposes of its pre-budget consultation, the committee seek the permission of the House to travel. I further move that this travel be accomplished by the committee splitting itself itself in two. These are not official subcommittees, but it's the committee split in two, one to travel east and the other to travel west. A travel budget for these groups should be approved.
The Chair: Okay. We have the clause at the end.
Mr. Campbell: I'm sorry. I further move that any contract to be concluded in order to assist the committee in its work be referred to the subcommittee on agenda and procedure.
Mrs. Brushett: I second the motion.
The Chair: It's seconded by Mrs. Brushett.
Mr. Harper: Am I to judge from this that there has been a budget prepared at this point?
The Clerk: Yes, we had done something general with dates that are not going to be respected, from what I see.
I have a copy of the general budget. Do you want to see it?
Mr. Harper: Maybe you could just tell me what the bottom line is.
The Chair: It's about $142,000, I think.
The Clerk: Yes.
Mr. Harper: Does it include outside contracting?
The Chair: No.
The Clerk: No, it's just for the travel part of it.
Mr. Harper: Once again, was this reviewed by Dr. Grubel?
The Chair: No, he hasn't seen this specifically. But I will undertake, if you have any problems, to open this up for debate and further discussion and further determination.
Mr. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, so that it doesn't appear to any members that this number has been picked out of the air, I presume it is based rather closely upon our experience last year in doing similar work.
The Clerk: Yes, actually it's basically the same figure, maybe a bit lower. But this is if all members travel. I would suspect that, like the previous year, we won't have the full committee travelling. So it will cost around $100,000.
Mr. Harper: Broadly speaking, I'm agreeable to it, but I will review it with Dr. Grubel.
.1150
The Chair: It is expensive to travel.
Mr. Harper: It's less than some other committees have spent.
The Chair: We did not stay in first-class accommodations in every province.
Mr. Campbell: That's for sure.
The Chair: We had a good slice of Canada.
Mr. Brien.
[Translation]
Mr. Brien: Regarding contracts for consultants, writers, media people and so forth, before this matter is referred to the Sub-committee on Agenda and Procedure, will the Official Opposition and the third party be consulted?
The Chair: Certainly. The steering committee will address this matter. If my memory serves me correctly, last year we used the services of consultants to advertise in the regions. It was rather difficult to find witnesses in the Prairies. I believe we spent approximately $5,000 on assistance from the media.
Mr. Brien: Thank you.
[English]
Mr. Fewchuk: Mr. Chairman, I think it would be helpful next time, or even this time, if we could get a copy of her budget to all members. I think that would probably suffice for some of the questions we had earlier. I wouldn't mind getting a copy, and it would give us all a chance to see what we're looking at. Thank you.
Mr. St. Denis: Is it as in the past? We're using our own MPs' travel points, aren't we?
The Chair: No. We did not do that last time. Some members felt that it was unfair and detracted from their ability to service their constituents. Any members who wish to use their travel points are encouraged to do so.
The Clerk: May I ask something?
[Translation]
The Chair: Yes.
The Clerk: In any case, the committee will cover travel costs to and from Ottawa. However, if you decide to travel back and forth between meetings, the committee will not cover these expenses. Perhaps you could use your points in such instances.
[English]
Mr. St. Denis: This is my last question. What are the proposed dates for the travel?
Mr. Campbell: Do we have a date?
The Chair: We're looking at the possibility, subject to your approval and the approval of the steering committee, of November 27 to go both ways in Canada.
Mr. Walker: That's an interesting expression.
The Chair: That was for your benefit, Mr. Walker.
Of course, this will be subject to discussion in detail with the two opposition parties. We will certainly look forward to your views on who you would like to have as witnesses here in Ottawa and in each of the provinces.
The reason for putting it off until November 27 is that we have it on a preliminary basis thatMr. Martin would like to appear before us some time in early November. We feel we should get through all the major groups in Ottawa so the people in every province have an idea as to what we will be doing and what the issues are, and so they have an opportunity to hear where various people are coming from and then respond. We feel we'll get the fullest consultation if the trip away from Ottawa is closer to the end of our deliberations than to the beginning.
Can we pass this motion, then?
Motion agreed to
The Chair: It's unanimous. Thank you very much.
The Clerk: What about my erratum?
The Chair: Oh yes, the erratum. We have the minutes of the meetings of August 15 and 16 to be modified from ``Bill C-100'' to ``the subject-matter of Bill C-100''.
I'm opposed to this amendment.
The Clerk: Why?
[Translation]
Mr. Brien: To which amendment are you referring?
The Clerk: I indicated in the minutes that the bill was referred to us after first reading. This is not the case. We dealt with the bill as Bill C-100 whereas...
The Chair: This is a technical point.
The Clerk: Yes, it is.
The Chair: It is not a substantive question.
The Clerk: Are you moving the motion?
Mr. Brien: No.
The Clerk: Who is moving the motion?
.1155
[English]
Mr. St. Denis: I'll move it.
Motion agreed to
The Chair: Thank you very much. Our next meeting will be the week after we come back. Have a pleasant week in your ridings. Thank you, members, for your cooperation.
We're adjourned.