Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue 43 - Evidence - June 19, 2013
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 19, 2013
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day, at 6:50 p.m., to study Bill S-217, An Act to amend the Financial Administration Act (borrowing money).
Senator Joseph A. Day (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, tonight we are continuing our study of Bill S-217.
[English]
Senator Moore is the proponent of this bill, but he is also a regular member of the committee this evening, Senator De Bané having another engagement this evening, as you might guess.
Senators, I may be anticipating, but I think we should talk about the approach we normally take on these. It is pretty straightforward, and we talk about doing clause-by-clause consideration. If there is any mood not to proceed with clause by clause because you feel that the bill in its entirety should not be proceeded with for whatever reason, we should have a discussion about that before we proceed.
Senator Buth: At this time I would like to move the following motion:
That the committee not proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-217, An Act to amend the Financial Administration Act (borrowing of money);
That pursuant to rule 12-23(5) the committee recommend that the Senate not proceed further with the bill;
That the committee adopt the draft report that has been circulated;
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be authorized to make minor editorial revisions for the purpose of correcting any typographical or grammatical errors; and
That this report be presented in the Senate at the earliest possible opportunity.
The Chair: We do not need a seconder for motions at committee. What we should have now is a discussion on the motion moved by Senator Buth.
You have the motion in front of you, but there are two parts to it from a rules point of view. One is that the majority of this committee recommends we not proceed further with the bill. In the event that is the case, the rules are clear that the report back to the Senate, number one, should have reasons attached to it; and, number two, that the report be put on the Order Paper for debate.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Before we vote, I would like a list of the reasons not to support this bill because, ultimately, if we do not support the bill, it is because of the reasons. I do not see why we would then vote on the reasons because, in any case, the first vote is to determine whether we will report the bill. If we do not report the bill, it is because we have reasons not to do so. So I would simply like the proponent of the motion to list the reasons so that we are clear on the vote that is to be held, which is whether we will withdraw the bill and why we would do so.
[English]
The Chair: I was anticipating proceeding within the motion, and we can do this by consensus.
There is a motion on the table. Senator Hervieux-Payette's thought is to go through the reasons before we make a decision on determining whether we should or should not proceed, but I think the majority has a consensus. I am assuming you are speaking for the majority.
Senator Buth: Yes.
The Chair: The majority is of the view that we should not proceed further. Looking at the numbers here, the real issue is what will be in the report. What do we say? You were kind enough to provide us with a copy of the draft report, which has been circulated to everybody, and so it is a matter of debate on that report now. We have all seen it.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I am sorry. Normally, whether there is a consensus on the first vote or not, I think those who are watching the meeting via public broadcast should know the reasons and why we vote in favour of withdrawing the bill. It looks a little ridiculous, and I am asking for you to be rational. If there are good reasons, we would probably go along with that, but if I do not find a proper reason, we will discuss the reasons later. Right now, I would like the reasons to be on the table before we take the vote. Do you mind?
Senator Buth: The reasons are included in the draft report. If you want me to read the draft report, I am more than happy to read the draft report. I am not sure if you want to consider a draft report in public or if we want to go in camera, which is what we normally do, but I am more than happy to read the entire draft report.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Those who are attending outside of these premises need to know why we vote one way or the other on the first vote. You need to have good reasons to refuse to report the bill.
For me, refusing even before the reasons are tabled — we can discuss it after that. If we like the reasons, if we want to change a report, no matter what, you have the majority. We know that whatever you propose will be voted on, but as far as I am concerned, for the logic of the process, we should at least have the draft of the report, and we can discuss some amendments that could be made later tonight. I would feel more comfortable.
I saw that quite late today. Maybe you will convince me, but as far as I am concerned, people should know why we take one side of the vote or not.
Senator Buth: There is a motion on the table that indicates that we not proceed with clause by clause and that we accept the draft report.
The Chair: You are quite right.
I think I have one more person on my list here, but this has been circulated to everybody — not much time — but everybody has seen it. The most effective way to know what is in the report is to go through it on a clause-by-clause basis and determine if there is any debate in relation to the wording of this particular clause.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I do not see the reason why we should debate a report if we have not expressed our opinion on the first vote. If I say that I agree, then we proceed, and if I disagree, we will proceed anyway.
Senator Buth: There is just one motion on the table, not two.
The Chair: There is just one.
Senator Buth: The motion reads that we not proceed to clause by clause, that we adopt the attached report, and that the report be presented to the Senate. There is just one motion.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: You need reasons to do that. If you need reasons to do that, why do you not table the reasons?
Senator Buth: It is in the report.
Senator Moore: I am struggling with the procedure here. The motion is not to proceed with the bill but to adopt this draft report. Is this sheet supposed to be the reasons for not proceeding?
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Yes.
Senator Moore: If that is the case, do we get to respond to each of these individually, and, if we do, we have to get them on the record?
The Chair: We are going through that very shortly. We will start on those.
Senator Moore: Thank you.
The Chair: The rules state that if a committee recommends, we must report back. This was sent to us from the Senate chamber. We must report back. Rule 12 says that if in reporting back we recommend to the Senate as a whole that this bill not be proceeded with further, there must be reasons for that recommendation.
That is the debate we are about to begin. Our honourable colleagues have helped expedite matters by providing us with their thoughts. None of this has been voted on, and now is the time to discuss it, to find out the basis and the origin of these paragraphs, and then we can determine whether we can accept each of them.
The first paragraph is just history, explaining when we got the bill.
The second paragraph, which is lines 5 and 6, states:
Your committee recommends that the bill not be proceeded with further in the Senate for the reasons that follow.
That is the wording according to the rules. If you recommend that, then you must give reasons that follow.
The next paragraph starting at line 8 is, ``Your committee was told . . .'' et cetera. I am asking Senator Buth to help us with that.
Senator Buth: I can go through paragraph by paragraph.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Do we not take a vote on the first motion?
Senator Buth: We can discuss the motion.
The Chair: It is all part of the same package.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I thought there were two motions.
Senator Buth: I said there was only one motion.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: It was a misunderstanding.
The Chair: Let us do the first substantive paragraph beginning at line 8: ``Your committee was told . . . .''
Senator Buth: The report continues:
Your committee was told that in comparison to the previous framework, which Bill S-217 seeks to restore, the present borrowing authority regime has provided for a more efficient, flexible, responsive and prudent financial management and greater transparency and accountability. Witnesses who appeared before the committee emphasized the important part the current borrowing authority process played in facilitating Canada's actions in the fall of the 2008 global financial crisis.
The Chair: Let us stop there.
Senator Callbeck: That paragraph, I guess, came from a witness. Was it the Bank of Canada? Was it officials from the Department of Finance? That does not even come close to reflecting what we heard from the other witnesses. This is not what the last panel of two witnesses said.
Senator Buth: This is not a report on what the committee heard. This is just a report on the reasons for not proceeding. It is not a report on the reasons for not proceeding and the reasons for proceeding in the debate. This is just a report on the reasons for not proceeding.
Senator Callbeck: You are saying that the ``committee was told.'' We were told that by officials from Finance, but certainly we were not told that by the last panel.
Senator Buth: That is one of the reasons. If you want to add that we were told by the Bank of Canada and by the Department of Finance, I am fine with that.
The Chair: We should add that, as it would be helpful to know what the witnesses said.
Senator Callbeck: Be sure to add that.
The Chair: Who will make the changes and additions as we go through? Will it be Ms. Turner?
Édison Roy-César, Analyst, Library of Parliament: I can do it.
The Chair: We want it to read: ``The committee was told by the Department of Finance and Bank of Canada representatives . . . .'' We can confirm that.
Is there anything else? Were they the witnesses in the second sentence: ``Witnesses who appeared before the committee . . . ''?
Senator Hervieux-Payette: They were some of the witnesses but not all of them.
Senator Buth: It is just the two witnesses that we are going to say, from the Department of Finance and the Bank of Canada.
Senator Callbeck: We need to hear what the last panel said too.
The Chair: We have not reached that part yet. We will not get everything we want in the first paragraph. Let us go along and see if there will be some sort of consensus.
What we try to do in these committees, and you have seen our reports many times, we might say ``some senators,'' et cetera. We are looking for consensus. We know that we will not agree, but if we can get consensus that this is factual and that the majority of senators were swayed by this information and that the minority of senators were swayed by something else, then that is factual.
The next paragraph starts at line 14.
Senator Moore: As justification for recommending not going ahead with the bill, are you saying the first reason is that government officials indicated what is here? That is not the whole story.
The Chair: We have not finished the whole document.
Senator Moore: I am talking about this paragraph.
The Chair: If this paragraph is not factual, tell us where it is not.
Senator Moore: Government officials told us they could handle this under the previous financial system and that this time it took them two to three weeks to do it and they could have done it then as well. Mr. Foster said that.
The Chair: What does that go against in the report?
Senator Moore: What is it going against?
The Chair: Did the government officials say what is in this paragraph? I will ask you if you have another paragraph you want to put in in due course. You can give me the wording for that. Is this factual? Did they say these things?
Senator Moore: The witnesses said that there could be no greater transparency than before Parliament. That is apart from what these two witnesses said.
The Chair: I will be asking you for that paragraph in due course. We are going through these paragraphs because this is being proposed. Tell me if there is something not factual.
We will check it all.
Senator Moore: It may not be all the facts.
The Chair: No, absolutely not. The first paragraph will not be all the facts.
Senator Chaput: I have a problem with this kind of report. I find that it does not fairly treat what we heard from witnesses.
I understand, Senator Buth, that it is a report to give the reasons for not studying the bill further. If I understand correctly, you started with the fact that it will not be reported, and then you talked about what the witnesses said as the reasons. However, we do not have the other side of the coin.
Senator L. Smith: This was what we heard at the meeting here with the witnesses. There were four witnesses, one from the Department of Finance, one from the Bank of Canada, and two who appeared as individuals — the professor and the fellow who worked in a government department that was represented by Finance, historically.
We took the information that we listened to, discussed it amongst ourselves, and in our minds these are the valid reasons to put down on paper to suggest that we do not want the bill to proceed at this time. That is our interpretation of what we heard. It is not a case of us deciding and then trying to find reasons. We had the reasons in our minds, which are outlined in the report. From those reasons, we sat and chatted amongst ourselves and decided to put these reasons on paper that we do not want to proceed with this. We thought it would be ethical, from our perspective, to put this down on paper, to get it to you before, so that we are not suddenly coming in and trying to blindside the group. That was what we were trying to achieve.
We recognize that this is a sensitive subject. It is a passionate subject for Senator Moore, and we respect that. There is no debate about that. However, we feel it was important to do what we have done.
The Chair: Obviously, there will be other paragraphs to add that swayed the minority. I hope that you will give us only the paragraphs that you need in order to substantiate your decision that we should not proceed with the bill. That is what we are going through and just testing those. We do not have anything in writing from our colleagues; and it may take some time to get that. At least we will know your position and what it came from. If we can clarify this part of it, the whole thing will go faster. That is what we are trying to do now.
We are now at line 14. I presume the committee heard from the same people.
Senator Buth: It is the same people.
The Chair: Maybe the wording could be changed slightly, using their names.
Senator Buth: The report says:
The committee heard that the current regime introduced enhanced disclosure requirements on anticipated borrowing and planned uses of funds. In part, this is achieved through the Debt Management Strategy which is included in the Budget and is debated and voted on by members of the House of Commons each year.
The Chair: Could you stop there?
Senator Buth: Sure.
The Chair: This is implying that the Debt Management Strategy and the Debt Management Report are new things that came about when the law was changed in 2007. My understanding is that they were in place prior to that.
Senator Buth: Yes.
The Chair: This is implying —
Senator Buth: If you take a look at the Debt Management Strategy, though, I think that improvements have been made to it.
The Chair: Okay. Then can we tighten that wording up to say that the Debt Management Strategy, as a result of this change, has had certain improvements made to it. That is what they told us.
Senator L. Smith: We brought a copy of it with us, just to make sure.
The Chair: What they said was ``improved''?
Senator L. Smith: No, we brought copies of the actual document for 2013-14 so that if people had not had a chance to look at it, it provides a really interesting information package.
The Chair: What I think would be interesting, Senator Smith, would be to compare that to 2006.
Senator L. Smith: It could be different.
The Chair: The Debt Management Strategy and the Debt Management Report, in my understanding, were in place prior to this change in the law.
Senator L. Smith: I just brought the most current one.
The Chair: Yes, so you understand my concern?
Senator Buth: Yes.
The Chair: Okay. ``The committee was told —
Senator Buth: The fourth paragraph continues:
The committee was told that the Debt Management Strategy contains information regarding anticipated financial requirements, borrowing requirements, refunding requirements as well as detailed information outlining planned sources and uses of funds.
The Chair: Is it helpful to us if that was in existence prior to the change in the law?
Senator Buth: I am not sure. As you say, we would have to go back and take a look, but in terms of the detailed information, we can go back and take a look and see what kind of detail was included.
The Chair: Fine.
Senator Buth: The last sentence in that paragraph reads:
Your Committee was told that this information forms the basis for the submission the Minister of Finance makes to the Governor in Council on borrowing authority.
The Chair: Okay. The next paragraph.
Senator Buth: It says:
The committee was also informed that, in addition to the Debt Management Strategy, the Government is required to publish a Debt Management Report. This report provides a reconciliation of the projections in the Debt Management Strategy and what was actually required by the Government. This information, like the Debt Management Strategy, is available to Canadians and Parliamentarians. It was also noted to the committee that under the current system the Debt Management Report is required to be published within 30 days of the release of that years' [sic] Public Accounts, 15 days less than under the previous process.''
The Chair: Yes, and the ``15 days less than under the previous process'' indicates that there was a previous process —
Senator Buth: Correct.
The Chair: — for the same thing.
Is that paragraph necessary? If that convinced you that the change in the law was okay, when all that you are describing here was in existence before, that should not be used to convince you.
Senator Buth: I think what we heard from Senator Moore was concern over the transparency, that the ultimate in transparency would be that this be essentially debated in Parliament. We are saying that this is included in the budget, which is debated in Parliament, so the transparency is there.
The Chair: Yes, but if it was there before, then you had two items. One of them has been taken away, and you are saying, ``We are convinced there is transparency because of the other item.''
Senator Buth: We are saying the transparency is essentially still there and enhanced because of the Debt Management Strategy.
The Chair: The enhancement is what we will have to look into.
Senator Buth: Right.
The Chair: Okay. Can we go on to the next one?
Senator Buth: ``The committee would also note that Bill S-217 —'' and this is something that we noticed; it was not discussed by the witnesses.
The Chair: Is this a reason for not proceeding with the bill? That could be easily changed by an amendment.
Senator Buth: We do not have any amendments before us. In this report, we are stating the bill as presented because that is what we would be voting on in terms of going clause by clause.
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Buth: We are saying that Bill S-217, as presently drafted, does not have a coming-into-force provision.
The Chair: I read that, and I said to myself that this could be easily rectified if it was not intended to have it come into force immediately.
Senator Buth: This omission constitutes a significant structural concern for the members of the committee because it would be. If it came into force, things would change immediately on that day.
The Chair: Yes. If an amendment were proposed, would you be happy to remove that?
Senator Buth: Yes, if the amendment were proposed and passed.
The Chair: How do you mean ``passed''?
Senator Buth: We would have to approve an amendment, right? We would have to vote on an amendment.
The Chair: At the committee here.
Senator Buth: Yes, and we do not have an amendment before us.
The Chair: No, we do not.
Senator Buth: What we are proposing is not to do clause by clause, so I am not sure how you would do an amendment. It is a bit of a circular argument.
The Chair: It would be a matter of negotiation, convincing you to withdraw your motion, but I just looked at that as being an interesting addition. That is fine.
Senator Buth: The last point.
The Chair: One more paragraph, yes.
Senator Buth: The first sentence in the last paragraph reads:
It is also important to note that the process relating to borrowing authority has changed a number of times in the last half century.
The Chair: Who said that?
Senator Buth: That is just an observation by our group.
The Chair: You want to put that in as a reason for not proceeding with the bill, something by your group that goes outside of what we heard? Do you want more witnesses?
Senator Buth: No, we are not interested in having more witnesses.
The Chair: I do not think we should be putting in reasons for not proceeding with information that is not —
Senator Buth: It is addressing one of Senator Moore's concerns. The comment that I raised is that things change, and his comment was not something that I want to repeat in terms of me saying that things change. This essentially supports the fact that things change over the years. We have had different administrations look at things differently.
The Chair: Let us finish this paragraph. I am running a list of names here.
Senator Buth: The last says:
It is the committee's opinion that the present borrowing authority process strikes an appropriate balance between these two, often competing, objectives.
The Chair: This is the conclusion.
Senator Buth: Yes.
The Chair: I do not know about that last paragraph, if it is appropriate in providing reasons for recommending we not proceed.
Senator L. Smith: It does touch on the subject that the young — what was the professor's name?
Senator Buth: I cannot remember her name.
The Chair: I will have to go through the transcript. If it came out in the evidence —
Senator L. Smith: She was the one who talked about efficiency versus democracy.
Senator Buth: Turnbull; the balance between democracy and efficiency.
The Chair: Dr. Turnbull. She did talk about that.
Senator L. Smith: She did.
The Chair: She said that we have gone far too far toward expediency.
Senator L. Smith: Her opinion was that it looks like we are going —
The Chair: Maybe that paragraph should be in here.
Senator Callbeck: Are we saying that the last paragraph came from Dr. Turnbull?
The Chair: It is a conclusion.
Senator L. Smith: We listened to what she suggested, and then we put down, in our own minds, our own interpretation of that. Is that correct?
Senator Callbeck: For the first question I asked, I thought the answer was, ``We are just putting down here what we heard from the witnesses,'' because I said that you have ignored the last panel completely. However, that last paragraph is your own thoughts.
Senator Buth: No, actually what I said was that what we are putting down here are the reasons for not proceeding, not just from the witnesses. I did not mention that we are just quoting witnesses. I just said that the reason for the report is the reasons for not proceeding.
Senator Callbeck: All right. I misunderstood.
Senator Chaput: Those are the reasons for not proceeding, so those reasons come from something that has been said, that you have listened to. They are not just reasons, things that you have discussed amongst yourselves out of committee.
Senator Buth: We are prepared to take out lines 36 to 39 if that is okay. There is the conclusion sentence that I would like to remain in, but I am okay if we take out 36 to 39 and leave in, ``It is the committee's opinion that the present borrowing authority strikes an appropriate balance . . . . ''
Senator Chaput: I think this has to reflect what was heard at the committee. Whether they are reasons for or against the bill, the report has to reflect what we heard. Otherwise, we can go in all directions.
Senator Buth: Okay. We are okay to take that piece out. I think we still need a conclusion in terms of a sentence. We can work on that.
The Chair: Assuming we are able to agree on some wording here — and we should talk about some other wording that you might want to put in there — the end result is that the majority of the committee will be of the view that we should not proceed further. That is a recommendation that will be taking back to the chamber.
Where you have ``It is the committee's opinion,'' do you have any objection to that saying ``the opinion of the majority of the committee''?
Senator Buth: When we vote on something, will it not be reported back that it was on division?
The Chair: On division? It probably would be, but a written report sometimes —
Senator Buth: I am not sure about that.
The Chair: I am not sure about that either.
Senator Buth: I think the tough part here is that if it is a reason for not proceeding, it does not include the reasons for proceeding.
Senator Chaput: I understand it now.
Senator Buth: That is part of the terms of the discussion, right?
The Chair: Another approach is sometimes taken. I must confess that in my years here this is the first time I have ever had one of these, and it is probably showing in the way I am asking all these questions.
Senator Buth: I do not know why, but I think I have dealt with one of these. I cannot quite recall, but I remember going through the discussion about not reporting back.
The Chair: Not here. I am pleased that you are here to be able to help us with your wisdom and experience.
Senator Chaput: So this is not a report.
Senator Buth: It is a report back.
The Chair: The report is that the majority of the committee — you are right, it is probably the committee, and then it is going to be shown that the vote went on division. Is that right?
Jodi Turner, Clerk of the Committee: In the minutes, yes.
The Chair: How about the report? The question is the report.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I have some answers for you.
The Chair: Good.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I had previous experience with this question of withdrawing the bill and having a report. In my case, it was my bill, women on boards. The bill was removed and the report was like that, totally written, and had nothing to do with the hearings of the committee. Not a single word from one of the witnesses was reported, and it was adopted by the majority. That is just to tell you that this is my second time.
Mr. Chair, we are in a parliamentary democracy. I would like the whole Senate to hear about and discuss that, rather than making a report and not having anyone look at the bill and look at this. We may have different opinions, but right now I think if we are going to kill a bill, let us kill it at the right place. Here, in this case, I feel very uncomfortable. I am certainly going to vote against the motion.
As far as I am concerned, to have a one-sided report, I do not agree with that. That is not the way things work when you have witnesses who come and appear. We have just one point of view that is being reflected here and I feel it is very undemocratic to proceed like that. If we take the time to invite people, to have people come and appear, and totally remove whatever they said, one can form his own opinion on what we heard, but right now this is going nowhere in the political policy process. I totally oppose this way of doing our work.
The Chair: The rules require us to report back with reasons, and what we are trying to do is follow the rules.
Senator Chaput: And understand the reasons.
The Chair: If there are other items, we are open to discussion. I know you have only had this for a day, so we really have not had a chance to understand it until this discussion this evening. We are now informed that these are the points that convinced the majority of senators that the recommendation should be not to proceed further. The question is: Are there other points that you would like to add here? There is another process that is sometimes followed, where there is a minority report. You recall that from time to time.
There will also be the opportunity for every one of us to speak and put his or her position on the record at report stage.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: It will not be in the bill.
The Chair: Yes, it is the bill. It is the report stage. We are reporting on the bill, so the bill is before us. You can use the bill as your prop and go through each of the sections and explain why you thought we should have gone forward, but the majority is trying to convince the Senate, as a whole, not to proceed. If that report is rejected, it is back to us. If the report is accepted, that is the end of the bill. That is my understanding of how that works.
Senator Buth: I just want to make a comment in terms of the witnesses. As with any bill, there is not a report that goes back on what the witnesses said. The only thing that happens is the bill goes back. We did hear from witnesses. The witnesses are on record and that record still holds.
The Chair: Other comments?
Senator Moore: The other side of the story is not being set out in this report.
The Chair: I have asked the question twice now.
Senator Moore: No, you asked me whether what was said here is true or not. I am not saying these people lied, because they did not. It is their opinion, but there are other witnesses who told other things. You are saying that for us to make those points, the place for that is in the Senate when this is reported back.
The Chair: No. That was one of the ways you can do it. I have also asked: Are there any other paragraphs that you feel should be added here that would provide some balance, because all you are seeing here is from certain witnesses and the points that convinced the majority that this bill should not be proceeded with.
Do you have some other points now, or do you need time to come up with a document that is similar to this to convince the minority to vote against the majority?
Senator Moore: I can add and subtract, multiply and divide. It is pretty clear to me that whatever we come up with here will not be passed, so the prevailing position will carry the day. The only place for my colleagues and me to make our points would be in the Senate chamber.
The Chair: That certainly is one way.
Senator Moore: There is no point wasting our time here. That will be the position.
The Chair: Do you wish to debate any further or add anything further?
Senator Chaput: There is no point in debating any longer.
Senator Moore: There is no debate.
The Chair: Colleagues, there are a number of points we want to check and change some wording and add the names of witnesses and if that is what in fact they said so that this document would be reflective of what those witnesses said.
Senator Buth: In my motion, I commented that this could be done by steering, so the subcommittee.
The Chair: Yes, I saw that. I was about to get there. You are much more experienced than I.
Senator Buth: Right.
The Chair: I think steering could go through this and help make these changes. It would appear that those who are not in favour of this are not asking for any other paragraph to be added. We are deleting lines 36 through 39.
Senator Buth: At the end of ``flexibility,'' and then we have to come up with another statement. The conclusion, essentially, refers to the two competing objectives above.
The Chair: Yes. ``In the opinion of the majority of the committee,'' and then whatever the wording is that we decide to use here.
Senator Buth: I think we did talk about the fact that it is a committee report and it is reported on division.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: No. We did not say that.
The Chair: It would be helpful if we could agree that this is a majority report influenced by all these things. That is what it is.
Senator Callbeck: No; we would like to have a recorded vote.
Senator Buth: We are not there yet, I think.
Senator Callbeck: When we get there, rather than just saying ``on division.''
The Chair: Yes, I understand. What we are talking about here is the phrase ``the committee.'' I am asking that it say, ``The majority of the committee was of the view that it should not be proceeded with,'' and then there is ``the majority of the committee'' down at the bottom.
Senator Buth: Ms. Turner might have some comment on it.
Ms. Turner: The way the reports are written, the standard wording would be ``your committee.''
The Chair: The standard report looks for consensus and we are not getting consensus here; this is not a standard report.
Senator Chaput: The committee does not speak for me if I do not agree with the report. I am sorry.
The Chair: I think the solution is if you can agree with me on that, then —
Senator Buth: I will agree with you on that one.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Moore: I am not quite sure where we ended up with respect to point number 5, the very last one.
The Chair: Could you give us a line?
Senator Moore: I do not have line-numbered paper.
The Chair: There is one coming down to you.
Senator Moore: You mentioned line 36, going down to the word ``flexibility'' in line 39.
The Chair: We are deleting that.
Senator Moore: What comes after that?
The Chair: ``It is the opinion of the majority on the committee that,'' and then we said we may have to do some wordsmithing to reflect what has already been said.
Senator Moore: ``It is the opinion of the majority of the committee . . .''
The Chair: ``. . . that the present borrowing authority process strikes an appropriate balance between,'' and then these two —
Senator Buth: ``Parliamentary oversight'' and ``for efficiency.''
The Chair: Yes, exactly, just use the words.
Senator Buth: May I repeat what we might have as the final sentence? ``It is the majority of the committee's opinion that the present borrowing authority process strikes an appropriate balance between parliamentary oversight with the requirement for efficiency.''
Senator Moore: That is just so far from the real world that I cannot even comment on it. We had this system in place for 140 years and it worked perfectly; it gave all the proper accountability and transparency. There is no balancing act. This is not something we are playing with. This goes right to the heart of the governing of the country.
The Chair: I take it you do not agree with this one.
Senator Moore: No; it is bizarre. I will not say ``preposterous'' again, but it is certainly bizarre.
The Chair: A recorded vote has been called for. The first thing is for me to ask the clerk if everybody at the table is an official member of this committee and entitled to vote.
Ms. Turner: Yes.
The Chair: Would you please proceed? Do I have to read something?
Ms. Turner: Do you want to repeat the motion?
The Chair: I will repeat the motion so we have it here.
It has been moved by Senator Buth:
That the committee not proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-217, An Act to Amend the Financial Administration Act (borrowing of money);
That pursuant to rule 12-23(5) the committee recommend that the Senate not proceed further with the bill;
That the committee adopt the attached draft report;
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be authorized to make minor editorial revisions for the purpose of correcting any typographical or grammatical errors; and
That this report be presented in the Senate at the earliest possible opportunity.
The only point I would make is that it is a little bit more than typographical and grammatical errors that we might be correcting, and we have discussed the changes we were going to make here. I am satisfied, if you are, that steering can work on these changes. Should we change that wording somewhat, make minor editorial revisions and stop there? Could we do that?
Senator Buth: Sure.
Could I just make a comment back to this business about how the committee reports? Only the committee can report back to the chamber. The majority of the committee cannot report back to the chamber; just the committee can. When the Senate essentially adopts laws and passes things in the chamber, it is not the majority of the Senate that passes the law; it is the Senate that passes the law.
The Chair: How do you square that with a minority report that is sometimes filed back again; a majority report and a minority report?
Senator Buth: I have not experienced one of those before.
The Chair: I have seen them. I have not participated, but I have seen them in the Senate. We saw one this year from a committee. There are minority reports and majority reports.
Would anyone else like to comment?
Senator Wells: I would like to suggest that if it is the majority report that is of the committee, and it would be the minority report for the record for those in the minority, but it is still the committee.
The Chair: The majority rules; that is right.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: We have both. We can have the majority and the minority on the same subject matter, some bills where we have had that, but it is not often.
The Chair: It is not often, but Senator Wells is right; it is for the record.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: On Foreign Affairs and other places on various subject matters, there are two or three that are analyzing a situation and they see it that way so it was changed. We had that. It has not been often, but more than once in my time here.
The Chair: It is just that it is not being suggested that there is a minority report here, but it would be nice that people understand that they just see this piece of paper without anything else. Without the transcripts of what might have been said in the Senate, they recognize that this might not have been acrimonious.
Senator Buth: How is it reported back, though? Is it reported ``on division,'' or is it just reported?
The Chair: When I report it back, I normally say ``on division.''
Senator Buth: Then it is reported back.
The Chair: When they read it back, they often drop the ``on division,'' so at least it is in there once.
Senator Buth: It is on the record.
The Chair: That is how Senator Gerstein does it too, I think.
We are about to proceed with a recorded vote, as requested.
I am voting against the motion.
Senator Buth: Are those your notes, Senator Day?
The Chair: Yes. I was reading what she had written down.
Senator Buth: I hate to go back to this, but —
The Chair: We are doing a recorded vote now. Do you want to stop doing the recorded vote?
Senator Buth: I want to go back to talking about the majority because I do not know if you can have a minority report as an official report of the committee.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Yes.
Senator Buth: Can you?
Senator Hervieux-Payette: You can ask the Clerk tomorrow and he will tell you that a number of committees have done that. Let us say Senator Moore would like to have a minority report and we would agree with him, then the committee can have a minority report and a majority report on the same subject.
The Chair: We are having a recorded vote now.
Senator Buth: I understand.
The Chair: Maybe we should leave this to be sorted out.
Senator Buth: Is it appropriate to have a majority discussion by steering?
Senator Hervieux-Payette: No, unless you want to come back tomorrow and we will have through the minority report that Senator Moore will prepare overnight.
Senator Buth: Just record the vote.
The Chair: We are now doing a recorded vote and the chair is allowed to vote.
Do I have to vote first? I think I just did.
Senator Buth: I think Ms. Turner has something for you.
Ms. Turner: Rule 12-22(1) states:
A report of a Senate committee had shall contain the conclusions agreed to by majority.
The Chair: There you have it, and the conclusion is that the majority is suggesting that we not proceed further.
Senator Gerstein: Time to have the vote, chair.
The Chair: Well, I have tried three times now to have this vote. Thank you to Senator Gerstein, the former chair.
Ms. Turner: The Honourable Senator Day?
Senator Day: Against.
[Translation]
Ms. Turner: The Honourable Senator Bellemare?
Senator Bellemare: For.
[English]
Ms. Turner: The Honourable Senator Black?
Senator Black: For.
Ms. Turner: The Honourable Senator Buth?
Senator Buth: For.
Ms. Turner: The Honourable Senator Callbeck?
Senator Callbeck: Against.
[Translation]
Ms. Turner: The Honourable Senator Chaput?
Senator Chaput: Against.
[English]
Ms. Turner: The Honourable Senator Gerstein?
Senator Gerstein: For.
[Translation]
Ms. Turner: The Honourable Senator Hervieux-Payette?
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Against.
[English]
Ms. Turner: The Honourable Senator McInnis?
Senator McInnis: For.
Ms. Turner: The Honourable Senator Moore?
Senator Moore: Against.
Ms. Turner: The Honourable Senator L. Smith?
Senator L. Smith: For.
Ms. Turner: The Honourable Senator Wells?
Senator Wells: For.
Ms. Turner: Yeas, seven; nays, five.
The Chair: Honourable senators, the majority has spoken. Therefore, the committee is speaking, as the majority has determined.
We will report this back to the Senate with the recommendation that the matter not be proceeded with further. There will be attached, as the rules require, a report showing the items that the majority of senators were persuaded by.
Senator Buth: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Senator Black: As I said at the end of last week's session, I am very impressed, Senator Moore, that you feel so strongly about something that you would take the energy, the commitment and the research that you have done into this. It has not worked out as you hoped it would, but I certainly respect the time and commitment you put to this. It is very impressive.
Senator Moore: I appreciate that. Thank you very much. It is not over.
Senator Buth: We would not expect it to be.
The Chair: Anything further?
Senator Moore: I will try to convince you in the chamber.
Senator L. Smith: Just so we understand each other, the approach we have taken tonight was not to be hard-handed; it was to try to be thoughtful and considerate, based on the meeting that we had before, with the passion that you demonstrated, which I think has been reiterated by my confrere. We just wanted to make sure that we have thought this thing through and that we came up with something that we recognize you folks would not be in agreement with. We were not interested in any form of an ambush or a fight. We were interested in trying to ensure we were logical, and we think we were. It is a different opinion because there are two opinions here, but we respect the position, the history and the passion with which you have come forth with your proposal. We wanted to show you the respect we think you are owed.
Senator Moore: I appreciate that, I really do.
Senator L. Smith: I am serious about that.
Senator Moore: As I said, I will try to persuade you otherwise in the chamber.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I would like to say a word about this. I received the document with a cover page and I did not see the report until someone called my office to ask me if I had seen the report. Attached to it, there was the caution not to publish it or send it to anybody. Since it was two pages long, and I have read the same caution many times in the past, I just threw it in the garbage. I have only been familiar with the text for the last hour, so I could not discuss this question with my colleague.
It was very kind of you to come with your report, but I would have felt more comfortable if the two opinions were in the report, even though you would win in removing the report.
I think to set the record straight and to be fair to my colleague Senator Moore, I understand, Senator Black, you appreciate the kind of work done by our colleague, but I feel that in fairness it would be more fun to sit where at least we have an overview of what happened. This does not mean you do not have a reason to vote for one thing, but we have our reasons for our vote as well. That is it. I will say the same thing tomorrow.
The Chair: Colleagues, the steering committee will try to resolve the wording, and as soon as it is resolved, we will file the report with appended reasons, as is required by the rules. There will be one day following that within which we can start the debate on this.
Assuming we are able to file this tomorrow, that would mean Friday is the first day for debate. Anyone can speak. Normally, Senator Smith and I would speak on this and explain it. Because it is mainly explaining his colleague's point, I may well ask you to open the debate on this by explaining the report.
Senator L. Smith: Between the two of us.
The Chair: Or you could delegate that.
Senator L. Smith: Since Senator Buth is the proposer.
The Chair: Anything further before this committee at this time? The meeting is concluded. Thank you very much.
(The committee adjourned.)