Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue 14 - Evidence - June 11, 2008
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 11, 2008
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, to which was referred Bill C-50, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 2008, and to enact provisions to preserve the fiscal plan set out in that budget, met this day at 2:18 p.m. to give clause-by-clause consideration to the bill.
Senator Joseph A. Day (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you for being here, honourable senators. This is a public meeting, but not televised. The first order of business is to ask for a motion to have referred all of the evidence that we have heard, seen and written in relation to the study of the subject matter of Bill C-50 to this committee for the purposes of studying the bill that has now been referred to us.
Senator Di Nino: So moved.
The Chair: Thank you. All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Contra-minded, if any? Motion carried.
Next, we should determine whether we are prepared to move to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-50, which has now been referred to us, or if we need further witnesses.
Senator Stratton: I do not think we need further witnesses. I am only concerned that we all have a copy of the bill as passed. I only have first reading.
The Chair: That is a good point. We want to ensure everyone has the bill.
Hearing nothing further, I propose that there is a consensus that we proceed with clause-by-clauses consideration.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I would ask you to look to the bill itself. Under the Table of Provisions, honourable senators will note that there are 164 clauses. Rather than proceeding with every clause after we do the introductory title, et cetera, I would propose, with your agreement, to go by part. The parts are grouped roughly into subject matters. Can we agree on that? There are 10 parts.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall the preamble stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall the short title in clause 1 stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall Part I, which is clauses 2 to 48, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Ringuette: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
The Chair: Shall Part II, clauses 49 to 71, Amendments in Respect of Excise Duty on Tobacco Products and Alcohol, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall Part III, clauses 72 to 93, Amendments in Respect to Goods and Services Tax and Harmonized Sales Tax — GST/HST, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall Part IV, clauses 94 to 100, amendments to the Canadian Millennium Scholarship Foundation, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall Part V, clauses 101 to 115, amendments with respect to Federal Financial Assistance for Students, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall Part VI, clauses 116 to 120, amendments with respect to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall Part VII, clauses 121 to 135, amendments to Employment Insurance, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall Part VIII, clauses 136 to 141, in respect of Payment to Provinces and Territories, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall Part IX, clauses 142 to 145, provisions relating to Payments to Certain Entities, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: We know what the certain entities are from the committee's study. Carried.
Shall Part X, clauses 146 to 164, in respect of Various Amendments, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: That pertains to the Bank Act and others. Carried, on division.
Shall the short title in clause 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall the preamble carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Murray: On division. The preamble tries to justify and rationalize putting everything but the kitchen sink into the bill.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall the long title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall the bill carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
I understand that before I ask if I am entitled to report the bill back without amendment, there is a motion.
Senator Ringuette: I would like to circulate in both official languages, draft observations to be appended to the report of the committee. I welcome discussion on the different items and observations.
Senator Murray: On a point of order, I might as well be consistent. We, as a committee are entitled to report the bill with or without amendment. The motion that you have asked for is perfectly in order and should be put. Observations are no part of the report or of the bill. After we pass the motion to report the bill without amendment and we pass these or some other observations and you report the bill without amendment, perhaps you would ask for the indulgence of the House to table some observations. We have to be clear on that because we had a big fight many years ago about whether the observations were part of the report, and they are not.
Senator Ringuette: I want to be sure about what you are saying. Did you say that the observations are not part of our report?
Senator Murray: They are almost an aide-mémoire to help us at third reading debate. We do not debate the observations, as such, except in the course of a third reading debate. The observations are not part of the report. We are authorized to report the bill with amendment or without amendment. We could also defeat the bill or we have other options.
The Chair: Observations are not part of the bill but are appended to the report.
Senator Murray: Yes, they are physically attached to the report but you draw attention to them separately after the bill is reported without amendment. You rise and say that the committee has observations to table.
Senator Di Nino: We have to report the bill.
Senator Stratton: Senator Ringuette is looking for the wording so that the motion reflects that.
Senator Murray: First, the Chair will ask: Shall I report the bill without amendment? Then, you circulate and we discuss it.
The Chair: I propose to ask for a motion to report the bill without amendment but with observations appended.
Senator Murray: No, just say "without amendment." We will get to the observations after.
Senator Di Nino: It is the same.
Senator Ringuette: Yes, as long as the observations are appended.
Senator Murray: We are with you.
Senator Ringuette: I know.
The Chair: I should say: Shall I report the bill without amendment but with observations appended?
Senator Murray: Leave out "but" and following. The observations are not part of the report. We will get to the observations after.
Senator Stratton: In my view, it is there, and we have to deal with it. I would make the agreement that we have to deal with it, if we want to do it the way it should be done. I am with Senator Murray on that. I agree that this is important to include as far as you are concerned but they are not attached to the bill.
Senator Ringuette: Okay. It will be in our reporting process.
Senator Stratton: Absolutely.
Senator Ringuette: Okay.
Senator Murray: Two seconds after it is tabled tables, the chair says that the committee has observations; that is all.
The Chair: The clerk's office is helping me with the wording. It is suggested that when I present this, I give the report without amendments and I say, "Your committee has also made certain observations, which are appended to this report." The normal practice is to append the observations to the report but they are not part of the report.
Senator Murray: Yes.
The Chair: We are not disagreeing.
Senator Ringuette: They are not part of the bill but they are appended to the report.
The Chair: Yes, they are appended to the report. In fact, they are not part of the report.
Senator Murray: The report is the bill without amendment. That is the report.
The Chair: Appended to the report are certain observations. I heard the motion, which we have already passed: Shall the bill pass without amendment? That is carried.
Senator Ringuette: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division. Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report?
Senator Ringuette: Yes.
Senator Nancy Ruth: We will have to debate.
Senator Ringuette: Before we debate, I want to put on the record that senators have before them, in both official languages, draft observations for consideration. They are open for discussion. I was hoping for unanimous agreement but, dream on.
Chair, do you want to proceed with the different items of observations or do you want me to do so?
The Chair: Thank you very much. The observations have been circulated in both official languages. They are grouped under bold headings. I propose we go through them item by item and see what changes should be made.
Senator Di Nino: I have a general concern. I really do not know how to deal with it, although I will express an opinion for discussion.
All them start with "your committee agrees," "your committee strongly objects," "your committee" this, "your committee" that. I really cannot accept that. I have some fundamental problems with that wording. I have no problem rephrasing it to reflect the reality, which is "some senators." Even if you say "the majority of the committee," I would be okay with it. However, specifically on the Bank of Canada item, I totally disagree. I was in that business for a long time. When you say, "grant excessive powers," I believe that is incorrect and I am totally opposed. I do not mind if you want to look at that item. "Concerned about granting additional powers," et cetera, I would even be prepared to accept that, but "excessive powers," they are not. This is a power that many governors of banks around the world have. The way that works is not a dictatorship; it is an organization and a board. I do not like the word "excessive." I would even be prepared to say "your committee is concerned about the additional powers" on that one alone. On the others I think we should say "the majority" or "some committee members."
The Chair: Let us discuss the point of "the majority of the committee." If I call for a vote and some vote against and some vote for and the majority vote for it, it would be the majority anyway. Does anyone have any comment?
Senator Ringuette: Except for the last item, Bank of Canada.
Senator Di Nino: If we change "excessive" to "additional," I would be happy to accept it.
The Chair: Some of us happen to believe that the additional powers are excessive and far more than are necessary.
Senator Di Nino: If it comes to that there should be a vote.
The Chair: That is what I am thinking. If we change each of these in the introduction to "the majority of the committee," that means that "none" will be everyone, totally unanimous consent.
Senator Murray: "The majority of committee members strongly objects," or "the majority of the committee," if you like.
The Chair: "The committee strongly objects," "a majority of the committee shares," "the majority of the committee agrees," "the majority of the committee agrees."
Senator Murray: Are we going through this paragraph by paragraph?
The Chair: We will. I just want to do the front end of this, "the majority" in each of these observations. Everywhere you see a "your committee," you would like "the majority of the committee"?
Senator Murray: Yes.
The Chair: Are we all okay with that?
Senator Cowan: Or "the majority of the committee members."
The Chair: Let us decide. I thought it was "the majority of the committee."
Senator Stratton: "Majority of the committee."
The Chair: Each will read, "The majority of committee members."
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: We made that change. There is a consensus on that, at least a majority who are prepared to go along — a majority of committee members who would accept that.
Senator Murray, if you agree, we will start with the clauses — we know Senator Di Nino's position in relation to the last clause, but let us start at the first clause.
Does anyone have any other issues with the first clause?
Senator Murray: Do you mean the first paragraph of the draft observations?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Murray: Yes, I refer to the first paragraph entitled, "Non-budget items." I agree with the thrust of it. The second line from the bottom states, "In particular, your committee notes that the amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act properly belong in a stand-alone bill." It is almost as if we are inviting them to bring the same. I would say, "Your committee notes that major amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act properly belong in a stand-alone bill." I would add there, ". . . which should also address the backlog of applications that is now approaching 1 million." In other words, we take out the reference to "backlog" in the bottom part.
The Chair: "Which should also address . . ."
Senator Murray: ". . . the backlog of applications that is now approaching 1 million."
The Chair: That is helpful. You can tie that into the two sentences we are thinking of deleting in the immigration section, which we will get to.
Are there any other changes to the introductory paragraph?
Senator Stratton: To reinforce, "In particular the majority of the committee members note that the amendments," will be changed as well?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Di Nino: Will it be changed in each instance?
Senator Stratton: Just go through it each time to make sure.
The Chair: Guy already had that one.
Senator Stratton: Thank you.
The Chair: The first paragraph stands as amended?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The next observation concerns the scholarships. Are there any changes? the minority are objecting everywhere, I am just hearing from the majority. Thank you, no changes to that one.
As to the Employment Insurance Fund, should any changes be made? No changes.
In the paragraph concerning immigration we have two suggested changes from Senator Murray. The first one change concerns the end of the first sentence, third line down. Senator Murray notes it says "minister if citizenship and immigration"
Senator Murray: Yes, and it should read "minister of citizenship and immigration."
The Chair: Do you want to read that?
Guy Beaumier, Research Officer, Library of Parliament: "With regard to applications filed after February 27, 2008."
The Chair: Then we go down to five lines from the bottom of this page, and the sentence starts, "Your committee is also concerned that the present bill . . . ." That sentence would be removed and the next sentence would also be removed. Those points have been made and changes made earlier.
Senator Ringuette: "The majority" again.
Senator Stratton: That is not there anymore.
The Chair: Another sentence says, "Finally, your committee is concerned . . . ."
I have three "your committees." The very first one is on line 7.
Senator Ringuette: The other is on line 5.
The Chair: Two lines from the bottom.
Senator Ringuette: On line 5 of that paragraph, a sentence begins with "Your committee disagrees. . . ."
The Chair: Yes, and then again two lines from the bottom.
Senator Ringuette: Yes.
The Chair: Each of those will read instead as "majority" believing.
The next observation is on the Bank of Canada. I would like to hear from the majority only. Senator Nancy Ruth.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I would like, in the second line, to strike the word "excessive." Let me read it.
Your committee is concerned that the clause 146 (new section 18g(ii) of the Bank of Canada Act) would grant additional powers to the Governor of the Bank of Canada by completely removing all constraints and limitations . . . .
I would like to strike the word "completely." I find this superfluous language dysfunctional. I would strike "completely" and I would strike whatever the word is between "removing" and "constraints" is. I cannot read it now. It is the word "all."
Senator Murray: Would you support the paragraph then, if those words were removed?
Senator Nancy Ruth: On division.
Senator Murray: Oh, well —
The Chair: It seems to me the minority would like to water down — this is a lot of extra power that is given. If we do not want to call it "excessive," it is more than just additional power.
Senator Cowan: Why not just do "the majority" and have it stand?
The Chair: All those in favour of this clause as it appears with the one change being "the majority of the committee" — that is the one change, everything else remains the same — signify by saying "yea."
Some Hon. Senators: Yea.
The Chair: Contrary-minded? On division. The motion is lost, the motion is defeated. Senator Massicotte voted to defeat this motion, so I am in your hands.
Senator Cowan: What is the proposed wording?
The Chair: It has been defeated.
Senator Stratton: The voting is over now. I really believe that that was a very good move on your part to do that, I really do. If you read the background on this, most banks are doing exactly that. They have to move so quickly now.
Senator Murray: The bank is usually governed pretty prudently. I do not think I am concerned that he will —
Senator Di Nino: Thank you for supporting me.
The Chair: Is there any other proposal for the final paragraph concerning the Bank of Canada, or are we putting nothing in there?
Some Hon. Senators: Nothing.
The Chair: I think that is a mistake, but I am in the minority. That is the way it will be.
Honourable senators, do I have a motion to report the bill without amendment but with these — now changed but they will be — with observations, as amended?
We will have them amended so it will not read that way, but we will have them amended in the manner we have discussed.
Motion carried. That is it.
Senator Ringuette: Are you reporting this afternoon?
The Chair: No, the Senate has adjourned.
Senator Ringuette: When are you reporting?
The Chair: Tomorrow.
Senator Stratton: The Senate is gone for the day.
Senator Di Nino: Could we have confirmation about tonight?
The Chair: There is no meeting tonight and no meeting until further notice.
The committee adjourned.