Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue 14 - Evidence - Meeting of October 20, 2009
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 20, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 9:35 a.m. for the consideration of a draft agenda.
Senator Joseph A. Day (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, thank you very much for being here for this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. Shortly, we will go in camera. I assume it is acceptable for staff to stay because we will be talking about future business.
Honourable senators, I will tell you why we are not proceeding this morning. First, your steering committee had discussed having an economic update today. We had difficulty with witnesses, in particular, the Business Development Bank of Canada that has the lead with respect to the Canadian Secured Credit Facility. We wanted an update on how much of the funds had been allocated for the secured credit facility.
We wanted the Department of Finance Canada to talk to us about some items and had also hoped for Industry Canada to come to discuss the auto bailout. Finance Canada felt they should not come without the others. They are correct with respect to the secured credit facility; you can understand why they would not want to be answering questions in that regard. It has also been suggested that we should try to include Infrastructure Canada in that overall package to find out how they are doing generally with respect to the economic update. I think it is a good idea.
That is our difficulty in not proceeding with the economic update at this time. It was scheduling in part and the civil service telling us that they were not the right people to talk to. Those who could be here felt they should not be here by themselves.
Therefore, we quickly regrouped. We wanted to deal with one of the other smaller, less all-conclusive items, and gender-based analysis had been suggested by a number of our colleagues. We had that set for the next couple of hearings. The intention was that we would proceed with gender-based analysis today.
However, I discovered that the House of Commons was proceeding with one aspect of gender-based analysis. We were at the early stages. We wanted to understand how the government performs gender-based analysis, if it does, in various departments with respect to legislation — the checks, rules and criteria. It was a very general aspect.
We were able to speak to those who appeared yesterday in House of Commons committee dealing with gender- based analysis of the spring 2009 report of the Auditor General of Canada. That is one aspect. We had not asked the Auditor General to come at this stage. We were at an earlier stage on this gender-based analysis. We wanted to know what the criteria are for Treasury Board, the Privy Council Office, Department of Finance and Status of Women Canada.
Three of those four departments could have come this morning, but they refused to come without the other. I wanted to put that on the record. This is the first time, in all the time I have been here and served on this committee and others that I had an indication that a department of government has refused to come at our invitation because some other government department is not coming.
We have some options. I will ask Mr. Thompson to tell us what they are. One is to say that we will try to do it another time. What are our other options, if this continues, when a witness refuses to come at our invitation?
Adam Thompson, Clerk of the Committee: As a matter of background, I do not think it was a lack of unwillingness on the part of the departments to come that made them unavailable. Certainly, every indication I had in my conversations with them was that they did want to appear and were hopeful to appear. It was a scheduling issue for Status of Women Canada, which they believe was the lead agency on this file. In their opinion, the dialogue with the committee would not have been as useful in the absence of Status of Women Canada, and Status of Women was not available to appear this morning.
As you mentioned, options would be to propose other dates and hear from them at that time. Certainly, procedurally speaking, a government official is treated as any other witness. Should they fail to appear or not be willing to appear, the committee does have the power to send for persons, papers and records and, by motion, could issue a summons, if a particular witness were being intransigent in failing to appear.
As I said, my perception of discussions with the departments involved was that such was not the case. It was simply a scheduling issue in their efforts to ensure the committee received the most complete information that they could.
Senator Gerstein: I greatly appreciate your lengthy discussion as to why we do not have witnesses appearing this morning. I am sure it is great information to us all.
Having said that, I recognize that the steering committee set an agenda. We have had tremendous cooperation from the efforts on behalf of the clerk of our committee, and I have been in contact with him. There is no indication that any ministry was not prepared to come before us. I think in the shortness of time, there was no indication, whatsoever, that individuals were not prepared to come before us. I would like that to be on the record, as well.
The Chair: That is not my information. Let us clarify this. My understanding is that because one ministry could not come, three others would not come. Is that correct?
Mr. Thompson: That is correct. The information I received from the Treasury Board Secretariat, the Department of Finance Canada and the Privy Council Office was that, in their belief, the Status of Women Canada was a fundamental part of that issue and, without their presence, they did not feel a useful discussion could be had.
Senator Mitchell: The observation that these other departments — or some of them, or one of them — said that they felt there could not be as productive a conversation with the Senate committee if the Status of Women were not there is ominous to me. It is not for them to determine what we think will be a productive conversation.
It is a precedent that we do not want to have set that these groups, or a group such as this, would say that they will not be here unless some condition is met. We want to hear from them regardless of what the Status of Women Canada has to say. We certainly want to hear from the Status of Women; they are important.
However, I think it is a disturbing precedent to set. I would inform them that they do not determine what we want to talk about; we determine what we want to talk about.
Senator Di Nino: One tries to be balanced in this, and I understand where you are coming from. Departments should not refuse to appear before us. However, the clerk, who was the one dealing with this, has made it very clear that they did not refuse in that sense to come before us. I do not want to put words in his mouth, but they expressed an opinion that to be useful and to be able to provide the right information, they would need the participation of the others to give this committee the appropriate responses to questions. I do not think we should blow this out of proportion.
I would think that, maybe, a letter approved by the steering committee could go to these three departments asking for an explanation so that we could have it in writing. We can then look at whether we should take any further action.
We have to be fair and balanced on this. As far as I know, this has never happened before with these departments. I believe that to try to use the full force of the committee's power at this stage will not result in us achieving anything of value other than putting on record the fact that we do not expect this type of a reaction from them. That can be done by way of a letter to the departments in question and a request for a full and proper explanation in writing. We can then take it from there to see if we want to pursue in any other manner.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion?
Senator Ringuette: I must admit that I am surprised and somewhat dismayed by what I am hearing this morning. Without being prejudiced about this, I certainly believe that, even though the Status of Women Canada could not appear before us, information from the different departments' participation is important. Treasury Board would issue guidelines, the budget and so forth.
This is all information that, from my perspective, we should have been able to get, even though the Status of Women could not appear. It is just the same as the Status of Women would not ask us that the Auditor General be here with her analysis of the issue.
From my perspective, this is certainly not a welcome attitude with respect to the departments. I do not think we should be accepting it and creating a precedent. Public service has a responsibility toward parliamentary committees, whether it is our committee in the Senate or House of Commons committees. We do work for the people of Canada, and, if we feel we need information from a certain file to do our jobs, it is their responsibility to be here.
If a scheduling problem occurs, I can understand that. However, I cannot accept that Treasury Board and Privy Council would not appear before us to discuss this gender-based analysis issue if Status of Women could not appear. It is putting a condition on their attendance. There is no way that this committee can accept a conditional appearance from a department. That is totally wrong. I do not know if it is a directive from higher up. I do not know the names of the people from the departments who were contacted and who gave these answers. However, as a Senate committee, notice should be given that their response to our request is unacceptable. They placed a condition on it, and we do not operate that way. We never have, and we will never operate that way.
I feel that our time — each and every one of us around this table — is precious in regard to what we want to bring to the table and to the people of Canada. This is taking precious time away from studying other issues that we want to study.
As one of the steering committee members of this committee, I would not go as far as sending a reprimand or something similar. However, I would certainly state that in no way will Treasury Board put a condition on appearing before this committee. That is absolutely unacceptable, and it should be forwarded that way.
Senator Callbeck: This is a very dangerous precedent. It has never happened before. This gives all departments an out in the future.
As has been said, I do not think we should accept this. We had reasons why we wanted to hear from these departments, and they should have appeared. At the very least, I would want to have a letter of explanation from them as to why they did not appear.
Senator Gerstein: As a member of the steering committee, the other members of the steering committee know that the discussion of gender-based analysis was on the agenda for tomorrow. It was a very last-minute shift, and I would take it as a scheduling issue. That is exactly what we heard from the clerk of the committee.
The Chair: We heard from the clerk that three of the four witnesses could come, but the three refuse to come without the fourth.
Senator Gerstein: That was a last-minute change. They were coming tomorrow, and that is exactly what is on our schedule here.
Senator Di Nino: Maybe as a bit of information, as the chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, we had asked a particular witness from a Crown corporation to attend a meeting. They sent me a letter back, which I shared with my steering committee, as to why they felt it would be inappropriate for them to attend. We accepted their explanation, and we believed it was fair, so it does happen from time to time. This is why I suggested that we give these departments a chance to officially reply to us so that it is on the record.
In the meantime, we have put our position on the table that departments cannot put conditions, and I agree with that. It must be fairly strong without, at this point, pointing the finger, but we should at least ask them to provide a written explanation so that we can put it on the record.
The Chair: Would you agree that we could put in it that departments cannot be seen to determine what panels we create? Whoever we decide to have before us at whatever time is our decision.
Senator Di Nino: Not without proper justification. That is why I made the comment about one of the Crown corporations that declined, we believe, for justifiable reasons. They did not say that they would not attend. They said that they preferred not to attend. It gave us the opportunity to say that we agreed on this issue; we thanked them and told them that they did not have to attend.
I do not dispute the clerk. I feel he is being very fair in his explanations. However, when we have something in writing where we can say that these are the reasons they are stating for not appearing, then we will decide if we need to go a step further. I suspect an explanation from them would probably be sufficient.
The Chair: Senator Gerstein is right; this was on short notice. However, three departments said that they could be here on short notice. They were all set to be here.
Senator Di Nino: That is not the issue that we are discussing. We are being told that they said that unless the other — I am not even sure that is what they said. They probably said that it would be better for them to be fully useful to us if the four of them were here, so they would prefer not to come. That is much different than them refusing to attend.
We should give them, not the benefit of the doubt because I agree with you, but we should put on the record that departments in particular cannot put conditions on their appearances. That is a dangerous road to go down.
I have never seen it done before, and it may not be the case this time, but we should at least put that on the record. Having said that, let us give them the opportunity to also put on the record the reasons why they felt they could not come this morning.
The Chair: Is there a consensus building on that?
Senator Mitchell: I feel getting it in writing and doing that process is the legitimate thing to do. However, I do not want it to go on for six months and us not meet with these groups before that.
I am very excited that we are talking about doing gender-based analysis. That is great. It is an excellent study that is very timely for this committee. We should have them appear as soon as we can.
If they use this excuse again, we have a bigger problem, but we can start that process. We can have them here and ask them personally to explain why they did not come when they were asked and why they used that condition. Then we could hear it personally, and we could get it in writing. We should get them here as soon as we can.
The Chair: Is it a consensus that we will hear those four departments at the same time on gender-based analysis? Suppose the steering committee decides we would like to have two and two? Then they will not come.
Senator Mitchell: I absolutely do not think they have to be at the same time.
The Chair: Maybe the quick solution is to give in to their demand, as it was communicated to me, that all four appear together. However, that may be creating a precedent that we do not want to create.
Senator Di Nino: We need an explanation.
The Chair: I agree, and that may take a little while.
I think I see a consensus on this. The steering committee will develop a letter, in conjunction with the clerk who was doing all the calling here at the last minute to try to set up this meeting. We will develop a letter that is appropriate under the circumstances, having in mind that we are trying to protect the integrity of the Senate, the Senate committee and our role on behalf of the people of Canada. That is the important issue here.
Senator Mitchell: Are you saying that we will not pursue having them come here before that is resolved?
The Chair: No; I think they become two different issues once we go on record with a letter to ask for an explanation, which would probably go to the deputy minister who can sort this out and let us know their position.
I suspect, in part, it will be a lack of full understanding and communication because of the quick turnaround that we are asking for. I suspect Senator Gerstein is right. However, we have to establish an important principle here.
Are we in agreement that that is the approach we will take on this?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: That is the end of that item.
I propose having a motion to go in camera, and we can deal with our schedule and two or three other scheduling items for future business.
Senator Di Nino: I so move.
The Chair: I have two motions, so I will recognize the senior member. Senator Gerstein has moved the motion. All those in favour of the motion to go in camera?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Contra minded, if any? The motion is carried.
Are we in agreement that our assistants can stay for this meeting?
Senator Di Nino: I move that the staff of senators, plus all the workers, of course, be allowed to stay.
The Chair: Also the staff of the committee.
Senator Di Nino: Also the staff of the committee.
The Chair: All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Contra minded, if any? The motion is carried.
(The committee continued in camera.)