Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Banking, Trade and Commerce
Issue 1 - Evidence - Meeting of February 12, 2004
OTTAWA, Thursday, February 12, 2004
The Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce met this day at 11:00 a.m., pursuant to rule 88 of the Rules of the Senate, to organize the activities of the committee.
[English]
Mr. Gérald Lafrenière, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, there is a quorum. As clerk of your committee, it is my duty to preside over the election of the chair. I am ready to receive motions to that effect.
Senator Massicotte: I move that the Honourable Senator Kroft do take the chair of this committee.
Mr. Lafrenière: Are there any other nominations?
Senator Prud'homme: I am very happy. I was going to move Senator Massicotte just to be consistent — nothing against Senator Kroft, but just to make the morning livelier. However, I withdraw.
Mr. Lafrenière: Therefore, seeing no other motions, I will put the question formally.
It is moved by the Honourable Senator Massicotte that the Honourable Senator Kroft do take the chair. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Mr. Lafrenière: I declare the motion carried, and I invite Senator Kroft to take the chair.
Senator Richard H. Kroft (Chairman) in the Chair.
The Chairman: I want to thank you, and I would like to welcome our new clerk to the committee. I do not know if he has met anyone yet, but Mr. Lafrenière has taken over filling the big shoes of Denis Robert, and I am sure we will sail on with our usual effectiveness.
The second order of business is the election of the deputy chair.
Senator Meighen: I move the nomination of Senator Tkachuk for the position of deputy chair.
The Chairman: Are there any other nominations? I declare the nominations closed and Senator Tkachuk elected deputy chair.
Senator Tkachuk: Thank you very much.
The Chairman: We require a motion that there be a Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, which we know most commonly as a steering committee.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I so move.
The Chairman: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Prud'homme: On this point, for my own enlightenment, is there a general rule? Perhaps the clerk could inform us. Are all steering committees composed of only two senators or three?
Mr. Lafrenière: The motion requires that three senators be part of the steering committee: the chair, the deputy chair and another person designated after the usual consultation, which is usually done through the whip's office.
Senator Prud'homme: When the motion says, ``and one other member of the committee to be designated after the usual consultation,'' being the only independent, it does not say that I am excluded from being consulted. I wish to be informed, at least, of the consultation that will take place, if you do not mind. The motion does not say one way or the other. I put that to the very able chair and to the deputy chair. I would feel more part of the team, even though you do not decide, but I would appreciate that we establish a new precedent for consultation.
I saw the chair acknowledging that because head nods are not put in the record.
The Chairman: Yes, you are right. I acknowledge that and I confirm that I nodded my head in agreement.
Next, we require a motion to print the committee's proceedings.
Senator Massicotte: I so propose.
The Chairman: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
We require a motion to give authorization to hold meetings and to print evidence when a quorum is not present. I could read the subsequent detail on what the practice is.
Senator Prud'homme: I so move.
The Chairman: Everyone has a copy, do they?
Senator Prud'homme: Yes. Even though I eliminate myself there, I do agree that I cannot say, if I am there, that I can represent the opposition. I agree with this motion totally.
The Chairman: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Motion No. 6 is next.
Senator Moore: I so move.
The Chairman: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Motion No. 7 regards research staff.
Senator Moore: I so move.
Senator Angus: Can we not make one motion to do all of these at once?
The Chairman: We are being asked to do them individually.
Motion No. 7 was moved by Senator Fitzpatrick. Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Motion No. 8 concerns the authority to commit funds and certify accounts. Do we have a motion?
Senator Harb: I so move.
The Chairman: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Motion No. 9 concerns travel.
Senator Prud'homme: I have a point here. You will remember that I did not raise too much fuss.
I will not travel. It is as simple as that. However, it would be nice not to have the events that took place during the last meetings, where we arrived one morning and it was already decided four and four were approved. I was totally unaware of that decision. I know it eliminates the independents, but I would appreciate again from you, being a gentleman, that, when there is a trip, I will play music with the committee with pleasure, even though it is at my expense of being excluded from any trip, as you have done with the Washington and New York trips. Of course, I would have liked to be more informed. I do not demand much, but I should like to at least know before the decision is taken. I make a commitment here today that I will not ask to be one of those who may travel. I have come from another committee where we had a long discussion about a trip for the Foreign Affairs Committee. Again, I just want, in the good spirit of cooperation, to know ahead of time if you ever have to decide that you must travel, even though I will not ask to travel.
The Chairman: Thank you for that, senator. The motion calls for that decision to be made by the steering committee.
Senator Prud'homme: Right.
The Chairman: Consideration and consultation are appropriate.
Do I have a motion on the travel?
Senator Massicotte: I so move.
The Chairman: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Motion No. 10 is next; designation of members travelling on committee business.
Senator Tkachuk: I so move.
The Chairman: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Motion No. 11 concerns the expenses of witnesses.
Senator Biron: I so move.
The Chairman: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Motion No. 12 deals with the electronic coverage of public meetings.
Senator Meighen: I so move.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Motion No. 13 is informational. It is proposed that we continue with our traditional meeting times of Wednesday at 4 p.m., which is expressed specifically at 4 o'clock, as opposed to when the Senate rises. That is more effective in terms of giving witnesses fair notice of a time. There is also this time at 11 o'clock.
Senator Massicotte: If the Senate has not risen, there will not be a meeting?
The Chairman: We cannot meet if the Senate has not risen. Failing consent, we cannot meet.
Senator Meighen: What about the reverse? If the Senate adjourns earlier, can we meet earlier?
The Chairman: Certainly we can. It is a question of witnesses. If they are local, we try to keep them on advice to follow what is happening in the house and get it going earlier. We can do whatever we want. It is the witnesses' scheduling that creates the problem. Sometimes we reverse the order or whatever makes sense to accommodate them.
Senator Fitzpatrick: I presume we will be meeting here at room 505 in the Victoria Building. I do not know whether it is convenient to others. I am not sure where everyone's offices are, but is there any chance we can meet in either the East Block or the Centre Block?
The Chairman: I have raised that question before. We meet on occasion in the East Block for teleconferencing, which is where that facility exists. I have asked often about meeting in that room on a regular basis. The problem is that it is very difficult to schedule meetings there because it is the main teleconferencing facility. I know from my experience on the Internal Economy Committee that whatever committee is scheduled there is always being asked to move somewhere else.
Historically, I know that this committee met in the room that is still called the Banking, Trade and Commerce Room, room 256 in the Centre Block, opposite the Francophonie room. I will make inquiries on the subject. Having said that, you may have noticed something walking in over the past months.
Those of you with offices in the building know that there are two new committee rooms being built that we were supposed to be in as of last September, but that still has not happened. Those are newly designed committee rooms. One of the issues with this committee is that, as compared to other committees, we very often have large numbers of people in the room. The new rooms have been designed for an audience. Part of the problem with room 256 in the Centre Block, and even with the East Block room, although it is very gracious as a meeting room, is that it is very poor in terms of space for others viewing the meeting.
Senator Fitzpatrick: I do not want to be presumptuous, but I wonder whether other members of the committee have views.
Senator Tkachuk: We like it here.
Senator Angus: We very much like it here. It is a bright and lovely room. We have been meeting here for the 11 years that I have been on the committee.
The Chairman: The clerk will review the options and bring that back to the committee.
Senator Prud'homme: I am concerned about the time of 4 o'clock because, as you know, from time to time there could be major debates taking place in the Senate on Wednesday afternoons after 4 o'clock. If you are not there, tough luck. You have the choice of staying in the chamber and being absent here. This took place in the last session. Therefore, I am concerned about sitting at 4 o'clock, whether or not the house sits. That does not preclude a member from not giving consent.
For example, two days ago I had a big day, and during that time a motion I wanted to speak on was sent to committee because I was not there. You need to be there.
There was a debate with the last administration, as you will remember, to try to make arrangements for committees to sit around 3:30 every Wednesday. Therefore, I am reluctant to say, ``Come what may, we will sit at 4 o'clock.'' I think it should be left to the discretion of the house at that time, with negotiations. When there are negotiations, it works. Imposing decisions on people does not work.
The Chairman: We have had this discussion privately and on the floor of the Senate before, senator. All we are saying here is that this is the time slot of regular meetings.
Senator Prud'homme: That is right. Excellent.
The Chairman: You are pointing out that there are circumstances that create difficulties for either the committee or individuals, and that is the reality we have to deal with from time to time. These are the regular hours.
The Chairman: Is there any other business?
Senator Harb: In the House of Commons, at the outset of every meeting, we would normally set up rules for the length of interventions of witnesses and members. On some committees, we set a time limit for the asking of questions. I have been told that there are no such rules here, that it is left up to the chair to handle those types of situations. The steering committee may want to look at guidelines for how long members can take to ask questions of witnesses. Even if the guidelines are not entrenched in a motion and voted on, at least it gives the chair authorization to step in, if necessary. It is my hope that this will not be necessary.
Second, as I said to you privately the other day, the committee's name gives the impression that trade is part of the committee's mandate. You indicated that the committee really deals only with local trade. It is sometimes quite difficult to differentiate between local and international trade. International trade seems to be lumped in with foreign affairs and international trade.
Since trade plays such an important role in Canada in terms of how much gross domestic product we generate as a result of it, the Senate may want to give it a little more relevancy. We may want to have informal discussions with foreign affairs and international trade to find a home for it on the Senate side to give it the importance it deserves, considering the impact that trade has on the Canadian economy.
While I was on the House of Commons side, I chaired the trade subcommittee. I found a home for it, notwithstanding that even on the other side it seemed to be almost an orphan. It is an ad hoc subcommittee that reported to the Foreign Affairs and International Trade Committee, which in turn reported to Parliament. There was a movement to give it a lot more teeth than it had in the past. Nonetheless, timing was not on our side, and I was tossed to the better side of Parliament; namely, the Senate side.
I hope that some discussion will take place between members of the steering committees and your leadership and that of the deputy chair, along with the chair of the international trade committee, to find a mechanism for that.
The Chairman: I will answer both questions quickly. Both the Senate and this committee have traditions that we have followed, although that does not mean that we are not open to discussion.
On the suggestion of a time limit, the practice has been that this is very situational. To take one situation, twice a year we have a visit from the Governor of the Bank of Canada. At that time, there is always a discussion between the chair and the deputy chair on a number of items, including who will speak, the order and time allocation, because in that situation it is critical. Normally, we have been quite successful proceeding in a very informal way. Frankly, the interest level of different senators, who is able to be present to hear particular witnesses and the subject matter varies. By and large, the chair, with effective eye communication with members, has been able to keep the time fairly balanced. Sometimes, if a senator is on to a line of questioning that is of broad interest, which we all have a sense is productive, that senator continues.
The steering committee will talk about this issue. I am just telling you that historically we have had a relaxed, flexible approach that has worked quite well.
The subject of international trade was thoroughly discussed in the Rules Committee about six months ago. All of the committee mandates were reviewed, and there were a number of changes. For example, the new National Security and Defence Committee took some time to develop its name properly. All committee names and mandates were reviewed. The particular question that you have raised was carefully considered, and I participated in those considerations with the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Rules Committee. There is no question that the history and tradition in the Senate is that the Foreign Affairs Committee has addressed issues of international trade, and the ``trade'' referred to has been trade within Canada, trade perhaps in the more traditional sense of the word.
It is true that there can be areas where some of these things come together. Senator Kelleher has had an interest in some of the effects on international banking.
For instance, implications of the free trade agreement and those issues are squarely within the mandate of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and that is well understood in the Senate.
Senator Meighen: However, we do talk about them from time to time.
The Chairman: Yes. When an issue comes up that we would like to address, there is nothing wrong — and it does happen from time to time — with entering into discussion with the other committee and saying that we would like to do this; have you got an interest? Nothing is carved in stone. However, the general designation has been that international trade is in the ambit of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: As a comment, I think we are in a new situation. International trade now has become a full-fledged ministry. They are in the process of separating the two ministries. There will be two different entities. For a long time, international trade was under the umbrella of foreign affairs. I am sure that when it comes to international affairs and defence, there might be some overlap and problems to decide, but we never had to do that because it was under the umbrella of foreign affairs.
I have a particular interest in the free trade of the Americas. The Foreign Affairs Committee has a long list of applications. I have been here since 1995. I feel that, in terms of expertise related to business and all the corporations that can help trade, they almost all report here. Perhaps after the election — and before — I would think that it could be re-discussed. If the two ministries remain separate, I think that at that time it would be good to initiate discussions so that this question is here. Whether we are talking about bankruptcy, or any other piece of legislation before this committee, they almost always have something to do with trade indirectly.
The Chairman: Certainly it is a moving target, and these things will always be in front of us. I would not want to foreclose it at all. Even in the government's structure, traditionally trade and commerce was a separate department from foreign affairs. It is only fairly recently that they were together.
One thing on which we agree is that we do not want to give up turf. We do not want to lose the place of this committee as being central to the commercial concerns of the country, and we will watch this closely.
If there is no other business, I would ask for a motion to adjourn the open portion of the meeting.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I move the adjournment.
The Chairman: I would like to now go in camera.
The committee continued in camera.
The committee resumed in public.
The Chairman: A motion in both official languages has been circulated.
Senator Massicotte: I move that we accept the budget.
Senator Tkachuk: It is a little high, is it not?
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I move the adoption of the budget.
The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The committee adjourned.