Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue 21 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 3, 2005
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, to which was referred Bill C-33, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 23, 2004, met this day at 9:35 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Donald H. Oliver (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, I call meeting 24 of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance to order. I remind you that this committee's field of interest is government spending, either directly, through the Estimates, or indirectly through bills.
[Translation]
On April 20 last, Bill C-33, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 23, 2004, was referred to our committee by the Senate.
[English]
We have already heard from the Minister of Finance and officials from the Department of Finance. Yesterday, we had a marathon session with a full slate of witness who made presentations on this bill.
We agreed as a committee yesterday to hear from the Honourable Marc Lalonde who is with us this morning. Mr. Lalonde began his illustrious career teaching commercial law and economics at the University of Montreal and practising law in Montreal. He then served as a policy adviser and principal secretary to the Prime Minister of Canada.
Between 1972 and 1979, and 1980 to 1984, Mr. Lalonde served as a member of the federal cabinet, occupying several major portfolios including Health and Welfare, Federal-Provincial Relations, Justice, Energy, Mines and Resources, and Finance. Mr. Lalonde became a partner at Stikeman Elliott in 1984. Mr. Lalonde appears before us on Bill C-33.
We welcome you to the committee. Please proceed.
[Translation]
The Honourable Marc Lalonde, P.C., as an individual: I would like to start by thanking you for receiving me despite your heavy agenda. Yesterday you decided to invite me to appear, and I am very honoured by that decision. To compensate for this additional task, I'll be brief. I'll be very pleased to answer all your questions.
I appear before you not only as an advisor to the law firm Davies Ward Philipps & Vineberg LLP, a well-known law firm, but also as a former federal Minister of Justice and Finance. First, I wish to register my full agreement with the presentations made by the Joint Committee of the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, and by Mr. Roger Tassé, Q.C., a highly respected former Deputy Minister of Justice. Their presentations categorically reject the recourse to the retroactivity provisions contained in Bill C-33.
The Department of Finance has always recognized that resorting to retroactivity had to be an exceptional measure that should only be used in exceptional circumstances. The proposed retroactive provisions contained in Bill C-33 do not meet the criteria enunciated by that same Department in its report to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts of the House of Commons in 1995. What the amendments do here is to radically change the law retroactively to 1988.
It is specious to argue that it merely clarifies the situation. I would particularly like to emphasize that the question here is not whether there has been misuse or abuse of the provisions of tax treaties in the past, but simply the request for the rule of law. If the Department of Finance and/or the Revenue Canada Agency are of the view that there has been such misuse or abuse in some circumstances, there are clear ways of dealing with such situations. The solution is not to retroactively grant to officials the right to decide what they think the law might have meant between 1988 and 2004.
Under the Canadian democratic system, it is for the courts, not bureaucrats, to determine what the law currently is. If the Revenue Canada Agency is of the view that the law has not been respected, let it take the matter to the courts and let judges decide the matter. On the occasion of his appearance before this committee on April 20 last, the Minister of Finance declared that the only judicial decision involving GARR and treaties has been favourable to the Crown. I'll have a comment or two on that decision, but, taking the minister at his word, if that is so, what has the Department of Finance got to fear? In that case, under that interpretation, if a court has previously decided in the government's favour, the retroactivity proposed in this bill is not only unjust in terms of the rule of law, but it is also superfluous.
Once again, I have no objection to the department's relying on an obiter dictum of a judge in RM Canadian Entreprise v. The Queen, but I note that Judge Bowman held in that decision:
[English]
I have not devoted much time to the principles to be followed in interpreting tax treaties.
[Translation]
It is on pages 23 to 29 of the Canada Tax Cases reports. We are clearly dealing with an obiter dictum here. As you heard yesterday, there have been decisions on the application of the anti-avoidance rule under the Income Tax Regulations which moreover have gone against the government. So the best that can be said, as is said in Latin, is scinduntur doctores: opinion is divided.
I would like to make a few brief comments on the arguments that were advanced by the government's witnesses yesterday. In particular, you were told that this provision could not commence as of the date of the 2004 budget simply because that would imply that had not previously been the state of the law. That interpretation is not valid. I'm going to quote the text of the act in English:
[English]
The argument that a prospective amendment would destroy the government's position respecting the past is bogus. The Interpretation Act is clear on the meaning to be given to an amendment. Section 45(2) states:
The amendment of an enactment shall not be deemed to be or to involve a declaration that the law under that enactment was or was considered by Parliament or other body or person by whom the enactment was enacted to have been different from the law as it is under the enactment as amended.
I would emphasize the words, “shall not be deemed” in the first line of the section. The federal Interpretation Act is quite clear and categorical in that respect. Nobody is entitled to conclude from an amendment introduced on a prospective basis that it is changing the law or the practice as it is, that has existed before.
My second point on this issue of the interpretation I have already mentioned. The officials testified yesterday, and they were adamant, that the law is clear on treaties. If it is clear, why do we need this amendment? Let the judges decide. Why do we need an amendment if it is clear?
The fact is, as the Canadian Bar Association, the Chartered Institute of Accountants and Mr. Tassé stated clearly to you, the fact is that it was not clear. Opinions are divided on the subject. There have been debates in the legal and fiscal community on this subject for years. For whatever reason, the government decided to remain practically silent on the subject until the introduction of this bill, trying to go back some 16 years.
Third, in the past, the government has proceeded by way of prospective amendment and has continued to litigate old cases. These old cases have been dealt with by the courts, sometimes to the taxpayer's satisfaction and sometimes to the satisfaction of the government. There is no reason to argue or believe that the application of this proposed legislation, effective from the date of the budget on March 22, 2004, would be interpreted as changing the law as it stood before. The Interpretation Act is quite clear in that regard. There is ample judicial precedence in that regard as well.
Yesterday, Mr. Adams for Revenue Canada was asked:
What will the passage of Bill C-33 do to the investigative work you were doing in relation to the type of GAAR case you have just explained to us?
He responded as follows:
I do not know that it would represent a real change to any investigative action we take. Some of the commentary in the public has proven to be a distraction to our Justice lawyers as they prepare to go to trial on these cases — the question of whether it might apply to treaties or to regulations. I think it is clear that it does, but there is no doubt that it adds an additional burden.
I find this answer quite surprising. I did not know that the fact that lawyers in the Department of Justice could be “distracted” by a difficult legal problem should mean that you should retroactively legislate for 16 years and ensure that there will be no distraction for the lawyers in the Department of Justice. This statement should not go unchallenged. Any reasonable person who has respect for the rule of law would conclude, in my view, that the amendment that has been introduced before you is extreme, goes beyond what is necessary and, on the basis of the arguments of the department, it is superfluous to say the least.
[Translation]
In conclusion, I strongly urge the honourable members of your committee to amend the retroactivity provisions contained in Bill C-33 and adopt the measures proposed by the government on a prospective basis only from the date of the budget of March 22, 1994. I believe that the law and justice will be better served in that way. I will be pleased to answer your questions.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Lalonde, thank you for your incisive, concise and important words with respect to this bill and certain aspects of the bill relating to the retroactivity.
At the beginning of your remarks you indicated that you are here as a former Minister of Justice and Minister of Finance. In your remarks before us today you said, “If that is so, what does the Department of Finance have to fear?” You were referring to the decision regarding the GAAR treaties favourable to the Crown and so on. As a former minister, could you give us your views as to what the department might have to fear?
Mr. Lalonde: The only explanation or fear I can imagine is that a taxpayer will argue that GAAR does not apply to fiscal treaties, but applies only to the Income Tax Act. In that case, the Department of National Revenue will not have the discretion in qualifying transactions as being a misuse or an abuse of the provisions of the act. It will be left to courts to decide whether or not GAAR applies to tax treaties.
I argue that this is still very much an open question. It is not clear. There are a number of different opinions in that regard. I will not go back and read the references given to you by the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. It is there and it is quite clearly spelled out.
This provision will obviously make life simpler for officials in Revenue Canada and Justice. They will be less distracted, to use the words of Mr. Adams, by having to address and deal with this question before a court. It is a significant argument that taxpayers can use when they go before the courts to say, “Listen, there is a tax treaty here. We have consulted lawyers and fiscal experts. They have advised us that we could set up an arrangement that would meet the provisions of the treaty and the Income Tax Act. We think we have acted on the basis of professional opinion, in good faith, and we think this is right.”
The court at the first instance and all the way up to the Supreme Court may have to decide whether or not the GAAR provisions of the Income Tax Act apply to tax treaties. I do not know what the conclusion will be. From the various decisions we have on the record now, it appears that the courts are divided in that regard. There is one obiter dictum by Judge Bowman in RMM Canadian Enterprises where the judge said, “I do not have to decide on this issue. I am not an expert on tax treaties, but I believe that it would apply to tax treaties.”
We have two other decisions that find that the GAAR does not apply to regulations under the Income Tax Act; GAAR applies only to the Income Tax Act.
In my view, the case for non-applicability of GAAR to tax treaties is much stronger as an argument than the argument about regulations. After all, regulations are regulations under the Income Tax Act. Fiscal treaties are different pieces of legislation enacted by Parliament, negotiated between Canada and foreign countries. There are 80 such treaties. As far as I know, most, if not all, of those treaties have a specific clause specifying the paramountcy of the treaties; that is, those treaties prevail over any other domestic legislation that exists in the countries that are parties to the treaties. These are important words in the legislation and treaties. In spite of the fact that the treaties and the law passed by Parliament concerning a treaty states that treaties have paramountcy over other pieces of domestic legislation, a judge would be called upon to rule on the applicability of GAAR to treaties and would have to decide whether GAAR would apply.
I am not a judge and I do not know what the courts will decide, but I think there is a fair argument and a fair case. You heard yesterday from the bar association that the courts would conclude that you would have to have specific legislation in that regard to make it apply. That legislation may be challenged under the treaties. The foreign country could say, “You have changed the rules and we want to renegotiate the treaty. The rules were not what they were when we signed it.” There will be complications.
The Chairman: Yesterday, three of the witnesses spoke about the decision, as you have, of Justice Bowman as though it were the law of the land. You have used the word today “obiter” and you are a former professor of law. Could you explain to us, so that we can understand it, what is the difference between a judge making an obiter finding and making a decision that becomes the law of the land? What is the effect of the obiter reference upon which the department is relying?
Mr. Lalonde: Judges are called upon to render a decision. They base their judgements on their analysis of the law. Many arguments are presented before them. When they make their decision, they may come to the conclusion that, under the first argument of the claimant, the claimant is absolutely right, and that decides the case. That is the Latin phrase which means: This is the reason for the decision. This is the foundation of the judgment.
The claimants may have raised two or three other arguments, but the judge makes the finding: “I have already decided this matter on the first issue but, frankly, if I had also to look at the other issues, the second and third arguments, I would come to similar conclusions.”
However, the complainant generally does not bother to argue, and it is not essential to the decision. The decision stands on the first argument that has been granted.
The Chairman: What is the effect of the obiter?
Mr. Lalonde: It is an opinion of one judge. That opinion could have been reversed on appeal to the Court of Appeal or to the Supreme Court. It is one opinion. It has value, it is not irrelevant, but it has the value of an opinion, not a judgment. You meet this constantly in the practice of law and in judicial judgment.
Therefore, an obiter is an opinion that judges mention in their cases but which do not go to the heart of the case and which do not make the decision. The decision in RMM Canadian Enterprises was not made on the basis that GAAR applied to tax treaties.
Senator Cools: Could you explain that more fully? It is called obiter, but sometimes it is not even an opinion of the judge. Sometimes it is just the judge thinking aloud or musing. It happens all the time.
It is interesting to note, for this committee's knowledge, that the departmental lawyer, Mr. Roy, used the term. We have all read what he had to say and we heard his testimony last night, but I have sat in on other committees where he has used the term obiter.
Could you explain a little more? Many members of this committee felt that, because they were not lawyers, perhaps they could not understand or master some of the arguments in the face of lawyers arguing against them. Could you, as a former minister and a former parliamentarian, clarify that a little more? Many senators and many members are intimated by the departmental lawyers. They are intimated by lawyers and judges.
Mr. Lalonde: I have the highest respect for Judge Bowman. He is a former partner of mine. He was a very good lawyer, and he is recognized as a very good judge.
Senator, you will meet all kinds of obiters. You will meet an obiter that can run for 20 pages in which a judge is interested in the subject and has already reached his decision on another ground, but he is attracted by an issue and so goes on writing. After all, he has done the research and does not want it to be lost to posterity, so he goes on to argue his views on a particular issue which is not directly a factor in the decision.
Other obiters will be one-liners. Lawyers will utilize these if they happen to be in their favour, but those remains obiter too.
You have quite a spread of obiters, from the off-the-cuff opinion mentioned by a judge in a case to a rather learned essay. I would repeat what Judge Bowman said. He said,
I have not devoted much time to the principles to be followed in interpreting tax treaties.
I do not blame him for that. He did not have to devote time, but he wanted to express his opinion. That is his opinion. This is not what one would call a judgment in my favour. The judgment in that case was based on a different issue.
Senator Murray: Mr. Lalonde, I think the recent history and background on this issue is such as to truly undermine the credibility of the government's case in putting forward this proposal.
As you have noted, there were two cases in which the courts found that the GAAR did not apply to regulations. Mr. Tassé told us yesterday that the government initiated appeals and then dropped them. I believe there were two cases on the issue of whether the GAAR applied to tax treaties and that these were settled out of court at the government's initiative. As a layman, I come to the conclusion that they were not willing to take their chances in court, so they had recourse to this extraordinary proposal to amend the law retroactive 16 or 17 years.
Who has the last word as to whether to appeal decisions of this kind? Is it the Justice Department adviser or the financial client? Why do you suppose that the government did not proceed through the courts in those cases?
Mr. Lalonde: Senator, I was not the lawyer representing either the government or the parties in any of those two cases, and I would not be in a position to comment one way or the other as to what the claimants, the government, and the defendants found to be in their best interests.
I do not know today what the practice is between the Justice Department and the Department of Finance and Revenue Canada on such cases. The practice may have changed since my day.
I can say that, when I was Minister of Finance or Justice, we had assigned to our department lawyers who worked full time on financial matters and who worked very closely with Revenue Canada and with the Department of Finance.
In the end, I never had to face that situation, but if there were a difference of views between the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Finance, I would presume that the view of the Minister of Justice would be the one to prevail. However, that would be a rare event. Generally, if the Department of Finance or Revenue Canada is keen on proceeding and there is some justification or arguments for it, the Justice lawyers represent the departments that are their clients. If the client wants to go ahead, whatever happens, the lawyers in Justice will do their job unless it would be such a frivolous case that the Minister of Justice would say that they just cannot waste money that way, and then there would be an argument, obviously, and theoretically the Minister of Justice could refuse to take the case. I must say I never had to face that difficult situation. You have been in government yourself. The lawyers of the Department of Justice assigned to the departments consider those departments their clients. They tend to behave a little bit like lawyers in private practice.
Senator Murray: Let us deal with the drafting of the law. If Revenue Canada makes it known that it wants this to be made retroactive 16 years, in terms of the criteria of your profession, is that contrary to the rule of law? It raises considerations about the rule of law. Is it the job of the lawyers in the Department of Justice to tell their client that this is something that we do not do in this country, and that we cannot do in this country?
Mr. Lalonde: I did not attend those discussions. I was out of politics by quite a few years when those arguments arose. The lawyers in Justice would certainly raise the issue of retroactivity, whether one year or 16 years. However, if this is what the Department of Finance or Revenue Canada wants to do, they will warn them. They will tell them that they are taking a chance, but that Parliament is supreme. If this is what the Department of Finance really wants to have or do, they will draft the best text they can and then let Parliament decide. I cannot comment on exactly what happened in this particular instance. I do not have a clue.
Senator Murray: I find that slightly shocking because my contention is that, if a proposal like this had come up from any other department other than Finance through the budget process, something would have happened in the cabinet process or just below that level to stop it. Yesterday, Mr. Tassé suggested that the problem here of course is that it never did get out of the Department of Finance because fiscal matters are so tightly held. Therefore, Finance and their lawyers did it, and it sailed through the cabinet process and into Parliament without much discussion about the generality of principle that is being offended here.
Mr. Lalonde: I am not party to the cabinet process, but what I find strange — let us put it that way — in the presentation of Bill C-33 is that, in the presentational pages, the summary, pages 1 and 2, if you read the small print carefully on those two pages, there is not a single reference to the retroactivity element in this bill.
The Chairman: That is correct.
Mr. Lalonde: Not a single one. You would have thought that, if you wanted to be straightforward and honest with Parliament, with a provision of this nature, trying to go back 16 years, they would have made a little note in the summary of the bill indicating that they want to make the GAAR applicable retroactively to 1988. I suspect that the cabinet committee it went to had the same kind of summary.
Ministers deal with technical bills like this by the dozen every year. You have been a minister, and I have been a minister, and we know that ministers do not spend their nights reading technical bills. Ministers ask their officials whether there is anything in a bill that is politically important or risky. They ask what the bills hopes to achieve and about the policy behind the bill. If the officials say that the bill contains just technical amendments and clarification, ministers will believe their officials.
You know what happened in the House of Commons. The bill was introduced for second reading, it was passed at second reading and, within 24 hours, there was a 15-minute session of the House of Commons committee without anyone but the federal officials having an opportunity to be heard as witnesses.
The Chairman: Mr. Solberg asked the question about retroactivity and the response is on the public record. It is worth looking at.
Mr. Lalonde: I have read it, senator. However, the Canadian Bar Association would have loved to have been heard by the House of Commons committee, as would the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. That also applies to Mr. Tassé.
Senator Murray: What was your own experience with retroactive legislation? How much did you introduce?
Mr. Lalonde: I am sure if you go back and look at the record you would find that I did introduced some; and every budget is retroactive. There is an element of retroactivity in every budget because you are passing the budget of 2004 which is effective retroactively to the date of budget. It is not the principle of retroactivity itself. In 1995, the Department of Finance put forward a helpful series of guidelines that would guide the department. That was in response to queries from the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons. It is a number of guidelines that the Department of Finance will apply when using retroactivity.
The point is that, apart from the Department of Finance and the Justice officials who appeared before you, not many professionals in the field of taxation in this country agree that this is just a clarification. The overwhelming opinion in this country is that this is an overreach or an attempt to do something that should have been done a long time ago, but for whatever reason finance did not do.
[Translation]
Senator Massicotte: You have registered as a lobbyist. May we know the name of your client?
Mr. Lalonde: My services have been retained by the Canadian law firm Davies Ward Philipps & Vineberg LLP. I asked who their clients were in this matter so I could register properly in the lobbyist registry and provide all the information. The clients that Davies Ward Philipps & Vineberg represent in this matter are three foreigners, and their names appear in the lobbyist registry. I can give you the names if you wish.
Senator Massicotte: Yes, please.
Mr. Lalonde: The first one is Trevor Carl Michael, the second is Roy Smith and the third is Bruce Gudelson.
Senator Massicotte: I would like to have your reaction to the last argument — which I call a moral argument — of the Minister of Finance when he appeared before our committee. Why are you concerned by this exception? Let's say that the GAAR applies to the treaty and, according to his proposal, this will only apply if there is an abuse of the Income Tax Act as a whole. Why have any sympathy for these people if the Superior Court deems that there has really been an abuse of the act as a whole?
Mr. Lalonde: The minister's concern is legitimate and was raised by the Auditor General of Canada around 1981. However, the solution is not to give bureaucrats retroactive discretion, telling them: we believe what you did in 1989 or 1990 was an abuse and here's your assessment. The normal solution, where there has been abuse, is to go to court. The courts exist for that purpose. The Tax Court does only that. In my view, no moral argument applies. If there has been abuse, it's very simple: you file suit in the courts and you let the courts decide.
If, as I believe, it is the department's view that the situation isn't clear and that it should be clarified, the department has the right to do so, but not retroactively because that's not a clarification; it is changing the substance of the act.
Senator Massicotte: I'd like to make sure I completely understand. A bureaucrat will decide to apply it, but it will eventually be for the court to decide whether or not it applies. That's based on the act that will be passed. I thought the purpose of the GAAR was more to say that there is a way to manipulate the words or conditions of the Income Tax Act. The GAAR was simply to explain parliamentarians' intent, and you cannot manipulate a clause to your advantage without taking the whole act into consideration. What is wrong with clarifying the intent of the clause?
Mr. Lalonde: Because it is not a clarification. As I said, the proof is that opinion is extremely divided on the substance of this, and the rules, the directives that Revenue Canada has passed on this recognize that retroactivity might apply in cases where that had been the clearly established policy of the department over a number of years; second, it was a policy recognized and accepted by the community. However, this is not the case.
Senator Massicotte: I understand the retroactivity argument. These provisions will simply apply in cases of abuse. If it is wrong, whether it is 16 or 40 years later, it is still wrong.
Mr. Lalonde: We go to court, but not retroactively. You live with the consequences of what has been adopted. You can argue again over a transaction conducted in 1990 or 1991; it was an abuse of the Income Tax Act, and the act was used in an abusive manner. We can argue that. Revenue Canada can argue that, but in court. This doesn't eliminate a citizen's right to say this does not constitute an abuse of the Income Tax Act.
[English]
Senator Cools: I would thank Mr. Lalonde for what I consider to be stunning testimony. It is comforting to listen to witnesses who know something about Parliament and who know something about the principles of governance.
My question builds on those asked by Senator Massicotte. In response to him a moment ago, you placed on the record the names of some of the clients in question, and the names of the law firm in question. For the sake of the record and in the interests of openness and transparency, is there anything else that you would like to place on the record? If you do, I would like to provide you with the opportunity. There was a brief exchange at the committee yesterday, and I believe you should have ample opportunity to respond, if you so wish.
Mr. Lalonde: The only thing I could add to the information I have given is that my name is Marc Lalonde. That is all there is and that is all that I know. As far as I am concerned, my client, Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg, went further and gave even more information. Frankly, I tend to over register so that no one can question. Even when I am not paid, I register.
I would repeat and make very clear, that this is not a clarification. This retroactive element is not by any standards applying the rules and the guidelines of the department itself. This is not a clarification of the law. It is a retroactive change. I believe in that regard, again, it should not be accepted by the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.
Senator Cools: You recited the history of the journey of this bill through the House of Commons. You said that the witnesses who appeared yesterday would have loved the opportunity to have appeared before the House of Commons committee. Is there anything about that journey through the House of Commons that you might wish to report here? It seems to me that, once some persons had become aware of the deficiencies in the bill, perhaps some people would have attempted to speak to the minister himself to see if a correction could be made or an amendment initiated. Do you have any insight into that or any knowledge of attempts to cause the minister to see the deficiencies in his own bill?
Mr. Lalonde: Yes.
Senator Cools: Could you share those with us?
Mr. Lalonde: Yes, I did speak to the minister and drew his attention to this particular provision. I urged him to reconsider the matter with his officials and advised him that there was very strong opposition to this particular provision. I reminded him of the brief submitted by the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants in July of the previous year. He told me he would go back to it and would give the matter consideration. This happened on one day of the week and the bill was given second reading in the House the next day and sent to the committee the following day. I heard about it from the minister's office post factum. That is all I will say for the moment. This was a swift operation that you would have thought should have taken a little longer so that people who wanted to be heard could at least request to be heard.
Senator Cools: In addition, they could have given the witnesses time to become aware that the bill is before us, an opportunity to apply, and some opportunity to prepare.
This is a large and momentous bill. I keep expressing concerns with the rapidity and speed that this government is moving through legislation that is extremely important.
Senator Comeau: I have a brief question. Your arguments are usually cogent and much appreciated.
Canada prides itself on respect for the rule of law, and allowing people their day in court. These are arguments we all respect. My question is: Have you had discussions with colleagues on the implications of the bill and the implications on the investment community if we start on this route of retroactively — not going back two years for a bill that everybody is aware will come through — and go back many years and change what was perceived to be the intent some years ago? Have you had any kind of discussion with your colleagues on this about whether this might do harm for us as an investment area?
Mr. Lalonde: If you refer to colleagues as colleagues in the profession of law, yes. If you refer to colleagues as ministers, I am no longer a minister. I have not shared or exchanged views with ministers who are members of the government.
I have had discussions with the legal and accounting profession. They have concerns on two grounds with this kind of provision and its impact on foreign investment. First, the retroactive application of a tax measure going back 16 years is never a good thing, even in domestic legislation. Foreigners who are unfamiliar with the Canadian situation and with what is generally a welcoming environment for investment will, no doubt, see this as a negative proposition. You have seen some of this in countries like Argentina, and I could name a few others. Canada has never been seen in that light of going back on its word or going back on its legislation and saying, “Well, you came in under this rule and you did not know it, but now here is the new rule starting from the moment you invested.” That is clearly and unavoidably a negative element.
The second element has to do with our relationships with foreign countries and governments with which we have negotiated treaties. Again, those treaties contain what we call a paramountcy provision that says that the treaty prevails over any domestic legislation. We now have an amendment to the Income Tax Act that specifies that the Income Tax Act provision will prevail and the GAAR provision will prevail over the treaty. This has not been negotiated with those governments. Those governments have not, as far as I know, been informed of that situation. I do not think they will recall their ambassadors, but Canada does not win any brownie points with this kind of measure in terms of honouring its word.
The Chairman: Mr. Lalonde, on behalf of our committee, I would thank you for your presentation. Your remarks were clear, helpful and informative and very much to the main point that we have been looking at in Bill C-33, that is, the concept of clarification and retroactivity. We will take your words and comments to heart as we proceed. Thank you for coming today.
Mr. Lalonde: Thank you for your patience and for having modified your agenda to receive me.
The Chairman: Honourable senators we will now move to clause-by-clause consideration.
Is it agreed, honourable senators to proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-33, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 23, 2004?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Murray: Mr. Chairman, for your convenience and the convenience of colleagues, I should flag to you that I have three amendments to propose that will have the same effect when we arrive at clause 52 on page 66. Perhaps other members of the committee who may have an amendment to propose would similarly flag them so we could expedite the process.
The Chairman: Do any other senators have anything they wish to flag at this time?
Senator Cools: When we do move into clause by clause, I suggest that we proceed more slowly so that senators can have time to comment. In other words we can deal with the clauses in clusters where there is clear agreement. For example, I found our last clause-by-clause consideration to be not what we should have done. I believe senators can read and respond in a timely way. No one can act, debate and vote at the speed at which the chairman can read. We could slow down somewhat so that senators can wrap their minds around the amendments they may wish to propose.
Senator Day: I do not disagree with that. I find it quite tedious, for want of a better word, to go through every individual clause when there is no real disagreement. Therefore, we could group the clauses and deal specifically with the ones that have drawn our attention and time.
Senator Cools: I also propose that, since there are some agreements and disagreements, if it is agreed, perhaps we should also record that a motion was moved. If there are agreements, it fits into the proper form.
Senator Murray: If it would be helpful, I will circulate the amendments that I intend to propose.
Senator Day: Mr. Chairman, I believe we usually do that at the end. My recollection is that, at the end of this process the chairman asks if there are to be any observations.
I recommend for the consideration of the committee that certain observations be attached that, I believe, are reflective of the fundamental point that has come out of our deliberations over the past two weeks. I will ask the clerk to distribute those observations to my colleagues.
Senator Stratton: Were they not emailed?
Senator Day: I am not sure if everyone received those.
Senator Stratton: On clause 35, in particular.
Senator Day: That is correct.
The Chairman: Senator Murray, our clerk does not have quite enough copies of your amendment yet, but perhaps we can start and, by the time we get to your amendment, we will have those.
I would like to go back to my question.
Is it now agreed that we proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-33, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 23, 2004?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Shall clause 1, the short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Shall clauses 2 to 50 carry? Senator Murray's do not begin until after that.
Senator Day: What page does 50 take us to? Is it 2 to 50 or 2 to 30?
Senator Stratton: We have a problem with clause 35.
The Chairman: All right. Shall clauses 2 to 34 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Shall clause 35 carry?
Senator Day: We should look at that one.
Senator Day: Do honourable senators wish me to read the observation I will propose with respect to the charitable donation aspect? Would that be convenient at this time?
Senator Cools: Maybe the proper way for the chairman to proceed is to call for some debate on the clause and then you can join in the debate.
The Chairman: Normally, observations are separate from clause-by-clause consideration. I think it would be neater, cleaner and more efficient if we did clause by clause and, when that is concluded one way or another, we then proceed to observations.
Senator Stratton: If we go blithely by clause 35 and approve it, how can we go back and make observations with respect to it? When you hit a problem clause, you should talk about it. The observations can then be attached later, but the clause has to be dealt with, otherwise it is approved as it stands.
Senator Cools: What Senator Day was proposing is the best. Include it in the debate, but, when we get to the end, you move it formally as an observation to be included in the report, but you have to register your thoughts within the debate.
Senator Stratton: That is what I said.
Senator Day: That was my thought. That might help certain senators, who might otherwise be inclined to propose an amendment, accept the observations.
The Chairman: Senator Day, we are on clause 35 and you have the floor.
Senator Day: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to read these words because I think the words are critical.
The Chairman: Could you go slowly because this is being translated.
Senator Cools: Also, if you could, too, Senator Day, identify the particular segments or subsections of the clause.
Senator Day: It is with respect to clause 35 of Bill C-33, relating to charitable organizations and these comments reflect the concerns that were drawn out by a number of honourable senators, but, in particular, by Senator Ringuette during the discussions with the individuals representing charitable organizations. The observation is as follows:
The Committee also wishes to address issues related to charitable organizations. First, witnesses from the voluntary sector told the Committee that the proposal to modernize the regulatory regime under the Income Tax Act for registered charities contained in Bill C-33 is generally acceptable. The Committee believes that this may be due to the positive work of the Voluntary Sector Initiative Joint Regulatory Table. The work of this Table represented a new way of developing recommendations for legislative change. It brought together people from the voluntary sector and the public service so that they jointly could find ways to create an appropriate legislative regime for the country's 81,000 charities. One of the witnesses told the Committee that he and his colleagues were delighted with the government's quick and positive response to the Joint Table recommendations. The Committee was impressed with the collaborative work achieved by this Joint Table.
Other witnesses expressed their disappointment with measures in Bill C-33 that were not dealt with by the Joint Table. For instance, Bill C-33 contains a new disbursement quota system that is meant to apply to all charitable organizations. The Committee was told that it is too complex a system for most of the smaller organizations in the voluntary sector and that the complexity of the rules themselves is likely to lead to significant non-compliance as volunteers struggle to figure out rules that even professionals have trouble understanding.
The Committee was disappointed that this new disbursement quota system was introduced without adequate discussion and consultation with the voluntary sector. The Committee believes that this legislation could have been improved if the disbursement quota system had been a subject of discussion at the Joint Regulatory Table. The Committee urges the government to pursue further on-going discussions with the voluntary sector.
The Chairman: On what?
Senator Day: On this and everything I just talked about for the last 10 minutes, plus other things. We did not want to and I do not want to limit it to this issue because we were told yesterday that they are winding down the Voluntary Sector Initiative Joint Regulatory Table and are going into an advisory capacity that clearly appeared to be inadequate from the evidence we heard yesterday.
Senator Massicotte: We listened to the witnesses yesterday. It did seem complex, but I did not spend much time on it, and I do not have much expertise in knowing whether it is complicated. It is always complicated when you have something new. Did somebody spend a lot of time, senator? Did you spend a lot of time studying the proposed legislation so that you could explain it? The department seemed to respond fairly positively.
Before we start making observations or even approving the legislation, we should have done better homework. Do people really understand the details or are we just responding to views? If that is the case maybe it is responsible for us to make the observations.
Senator Day: The essence of the observation is that there was clearly, at the end, a breakdown of the good, cooperative effort that began this process. The point we are trying to make is that the good, cooperative process should be continued. The committee did not say that these rules were difficult to understand. The committee is saying that it heard evidence to that effect.
Senator Massicotte: So what? Eventually, the Department of Finance must listen. It is like any owner, someone must decide. When you decide, someone may not agree. I am not saying it does or does not have merit, but I disagree with simply adding an observation to the effect that some people did not think the process was fair. The credibility of our committee is important. We are supposed to take these matters seriously and study them seriously. For us to comment without knowing whether there is any validity to the assertion, is simply reporting someone else's comments without knowing the substance of it. I do not know that, and I think we should.
The Chairman: Yesterday, Ms. Pearson told us that she had been handed a note indicating that clause 35 will not be invoked until 2008.
Senator Massicotte: It is optional; they have a right to reply or not to reply.
The Chairman: It is clear that there are other reasons for delaying implementation.
Senator Stratton: We have just heard the observations, and I think we should take the time to digest them as we go through the balance of the bill. We should return to this at the end of the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, and decide whether or not we incorporate. To willy-nilly try to arrive at a decision right now, I think is premature.
Senator Cools: We have to decide on the clause. What is before us is the clause, not the observation.
Senator Stratton: We can hold the clause in abeyance.
Senator Cools: In other words, I think there is consensus here.
Senator Stratton: All we are doing, Senator Cools, is making an observation. We are not suggesting an amendment. We are saying in the observation that we approve the clause, but with the observation. That is essentially what we are doing.
Senator Cools: The question that is before us right now is a yea or a nay vote on clause 35.
The Chairman: There are other senators who wish to speak.
Senator Ringuette: Mr. Chairman, is Senator Massicotte asking if we further extend our deliberations on clause 35 to determine if there was substance to the evidence given by the witnesses that we have heard? I completely subscribe to the remarks of Senator Day regarding the complexity of this proposed provision.
I would also like to see added in the observations the fact that treating charitable organizations on the same level playing field as foundations regarding the disbursement of assets does certainly not meet the intent of the majority of the 81,000 non-profit community groups in our country. That was well proven and identified yesterday. Either we include strong observations, or I cannot support clause 35.
The Chairman: Is it agreed that we postpone the decision on clause 35 and move to clause 36?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 36 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 37 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 38 carry?
Senator Cools: Mr. Chairman, perhaps you could give us the page numbers because some of these clauses are pages long. The clauses are many pages apart. Senators need time to turn pages.
The Chairman: Clause 38 is at page 42.
Senator Day: Do you want to go on to 50 now?
The Chairman: We are on clause 38. Shall clauses 38 to 50 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 51 carry?
Senator Murray: As I indicated to the committee, Mr. Chairman, my amendments are to clauses 52, 53 and 60. I am prepared to propose those to whenever I am called upon.
The Chairman: First, shall clause 51 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 52 carry?
Senator Murray: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to clause 52.
Honourable senators, the bill that you are looking at in your briefing book is the bill that got first reading on December 8, 2004. The proper document, if I may suggest, is the bill as passed by the House of Commons on February 25.
I would move:
That Bill C-33 be amended in clause 52, on page 66, by replacing lines 9 to 15 with the following:
“(4) subsections (1) to (3) apply with respect to transactions entered into after March 22, 2004.”.
Do you want me to put my proposed amendments to clauses 53 and 60 on the record now or shall I wait?
The Chairman: What is the wish of the committee?
Senator Stratton: Do them all.
Senator Murray: They are all to the same effect.
I further move:
That Bill C-33 be amended in clause 53, on page 66, by replacing lines 21 and 22, with the following:
“(2) Subsection (1) applies to taxation years and fiscal periods that begin after 2004.”.
Finally, I move:
That Bill C-33 be amended in clause 60, on page 73, by replacing lines 1 to 3, with the following:
“(2) Subsection (1) applies with respect to transactions entered into after March 22, 2004.”.
Mr. Chairman, you heard me at second reading, you heard me yesterday and today. We have heard the witnesses. I do not think I need to argue the case for these amendments. The arguments are well known.
Senator Stratton: Question.
Senator Day: Mr. Chairman, I hear some colleagues calling for the question, but I do have to speak on this. Honourable senators, this would, in effect, make the legislation effective only from 2004 forward. The minister has spoken on this and a number of witnesses have spoken on this to the effect that that would immediately create a situation from 1988 to 2004 where all of those that followed the law would be treated unfairly. Those that believed the law to be as Revenue Canada said it was, would be treated unfairly. It would automatically open up arguments for the lawyers to argue that — if you are only making it from the time of the budget forward, then it must have meant something else previously, which is totally contrary to the position of the government from the beginning. I urge honourable senators to vote against these proposed amendments.
Senator Massicotte: Is Senator Day suggesting that the solution is to remove the clause completely, given that he argues that it prejudices the status quo?
Senator Day: The Minister of Finance has said that would be a better situation than having this prospective from 2004 forward. I am suggesting that we leave it the way it has been proposed by the government. This is government policy. It is a government implementation of the budget. It goes to the heart of the government. I am asking and urging honourable senators to support the bill as proposed.
Senator Stratton: Question.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, we are proceeding clause by clause. Even though the three amendments have been moved at once for clauses 52, 53, and 60, we are now at clause 52 with a proposed amendment.
All those in favour of the amendment to clause 52, not 53 and 60, signify by saying yea.
Some Hon. Senators: Yea.
Senator Cools: Nay.
The Chairman: Those who are contrary minded, say nay.
Some Hon. Senators: Nay.
The Chairman: We need a show of hands. I cannot decide.
Senator Cools: No one answered.
Senator Stratton: Perhaps we should ask the senators by name how they voted.
Senator Comeau: For the record.
The Chairman: The yeas have it.
Senator Comeau: Call the names.
Senator Stratton: We need a recorded vote.
The Chairman: We can do it by a show of hands, or by a recorded vote.
Senator Cools: We want a role call.
Ms. Piccinin: I will call the senators in order.
Senator Biron.
The Chairman: Yea or nay.
Senator Biron: Nay.
Senator Cools: Chairman, you should read what it is for.
Hon. Senators: No, no.
Senator Rompkey: Let the clerk continue.
Ms. Piccinin: Senator Comeau.
Senator Comeau: Yea for the amendment.
Senator Cools: Yea for the amendment.
Senator Day: Against the amendment.
Senator Downe: Against.
Senator Ferretti Barth: Against.
Senator Mitchell: Against.
Senator Murray: In favour.
Senator Ringuette: Against.
Senator Rompkey: Against.
Senator Stratton: Yea.
Ms. Piccinin: Yeas, 4; nays, 7.
The Chairman: I declare the amendment defeated. Shall clause 52 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: I now turn to clause 53 as amended. Senator Murray has provided you with the amendment. We will now vote on the amendment.
All those in favour of Senator Murray's amendment to clause 53 say yea.
Some Hon. Senators: Yea.
The Chairman: All of those against say nay.
Some Hon. Senators: Nay.
The Chairman: The nays have it.
I declare that the amendment is defeated.
Shall clause 54 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 53 carry, since the amendment was defeated?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 55 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 56 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 57 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 58 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 59 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Senator Murray has proposed an amendment to clause 60, that is before you. We will now have a vote on the amendment to clause 60. All of those in favour of the amendment to clause 60 say yea.
Some Hon. Senators: Yea.
The Chairman: All of those against the amendment to clause 60 say nay.
Some Hon. Senators: Nay.
The Chairman: The nays have it.
Senator Cools: Want a role call.
The Chairman: One senator has called for a role call, so we will have a role call.
Senator Biron: Nay.
Senator Comeau: In favour.
Senator Cools: In favour.
Senator Day: Against.
Senator Downe: Against.
Senator Ferretti Barth: Against.
Senator Mitchell: Against.
Senator Murray: Yea.
Senator Ringuette: Nay.
Senator Rompkey: Nay.
Ms. Piccinin: Yeas 3; nays 7.
The Chairman: I declare that the amendment is defeated. We shall go to clause 60. Shall clause 60 carry as not amended?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Comeau: On division.
The Chairman: On division. Shall clause 61, 62, 63, 64 and 65 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the schedule carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 1, the short title, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: We now go back to clause 35.
Shall clause 35 carry?
Senator Rompkey: Agreed.
Senator Day: I was asked a question.
The Chairman: We have dealt with the schedule, clause 1, and the title. We now come to clause 35 which we postponed until we had dealt with the other clauses. Shall clause 35 carry?
Senator Day: Yes. I have already proposed an observation, but we are required to pass clause 35 and then deal with the observations. I will be proposing an observation.
Senator Comeau: It is passed.
The Chairman: Any other comments on clause 35. I will again ask: Shall clause 35 carry?
Senator Day: Agreed.
Senator Cools: On division.
Senator Biron: With observations.
The Chairman: The observations have to come at the end.
On division.
Honourable senators, shall the bill carry?
Senator Comeau: On division.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The bill shall carry, on division.
Have you circulated the observations to everyone?
Ms. Piccinin: I will do that now.
Senator Murray: The observations are not part of the bill. They should be dealt with in speeches at third reading. We have had this debate before. The chair is only permitted to table the report with or without amendments.
Senator Rompkey: It can be part of the committee report, though.
Senator Murray: No, excuse me senator, the committee is only permitted to report the bill with amendment or without amendment, then, if the chairman wishes, he can stand up and table a separate set of observations. That is the protocol. That is how it should be done.
Senator Cools: There is a lot that should be done here.
Senator Murray: The Senate does not have to pass or otherwise these editorial comments. They are just there.
Senator Cools: The observations are not supposed to be extensive prose or extensive commentary on what witnesses said. The observation is to inform the chamber that there was some concern about particular issues. There is no need to have in the observation a commentary what this witness said and what that witness said. The committee proceedings fulfil that purpose.
Senator Day: Would honourable senators be content that the chair, or I as the sponsor, made these points at third reading?
The Chairman: Senators should have an opportunity to read them. They are just being handed out now.
Senator Murray: I do have to leave. I have read this through. If you permit, there is a good narrative here about retroactive legislation. I would just add one sentence to it, at the end, to say that, notwithstanding these powerful arguments, the committee is mortified to report that it defeated three sensible amendments.
Senator Comeau: Question! Question on that motion!
The Chairman: I want to give honourable senators at least two minutes to read it, because some people have just received it. We will take a few minutes.
Senator Day: This is the first time in many years that we have even contemplated any observations in reporting back on a government bill, particularly a bill that is so essential as budget implementation. We were trying to make the point that we are left with some concern with respect to this issue. We felt this was the best way to do it. I hear the former chair of this committee, who was chair for many years, and a former deputy chair, both remark that the procedure is that we make these points before the chamber, but that they are not properly attached to our report on the bill. I am in their hands as to the best way of making our point.
The Chairman: The procedure is that the bill is reported back for third reading, either with or without amendments, and the tradition of the Senate is that these observations are attached as an appendix.
Senator Rompkey: By the Chairman.
The Chairman: That is done when the bill is reported back from committee to the chamber, at the same time, and it is an appendix to the bill.
Senator Cools: It is an appendix to the report.
Senator Rompkey: Would it not be proper to approve the observations now so that the chair can present them as being the observations of the committee?
The Chairman: That would be appropriate. I was giving honourable senators who have not seen the document a few minutes to read it to determine if we have agreement. You are correct that that is the proper procedure, but many people have not seen the words yet. I want to give them a moment.
Senator Ringuette: I have read the observations and agree with them. I would take this opportunity and I will take the opportunity again in the Senate, to express my deep concern about the process that has taken place. I have deep concern about the process whereby an omnibus bill dealing with budget legislation includes non-profit organizations and retroactive measures for big corporations that are resident or non-resident of this country. It is morally wrong. I am a people observer, and I have witnessed here for two days two key Finance officials who, when they heard testimony here contrary to their opinion, were laughing behind our backs. I find that this bill, in the current political climate, is not due process and does not pay due respect to the parliamentarians of this chamber. If the other chamber decided to blow in the wind with no regard to the witnesses that will be affected by the passage of this bill, that is their prerogative and they will face the electorate for that. However, I believe that our Senate chamber should have had more time to deal with the due process of this bill, and I feel ashamed about it all. Thank you.
Senator Cools: The record shows pretty clearly my views on the government's use of retrospective legislation, particularly on what I would call a taxing matter. Taxing issues are somewhat different. I differentiate between retrospective legislation, such as this, and the kind of retroactive legislation that is used once the minister has introduced a budget and is trying to protect a period of time from certain persons gaining advantage.
I am not prepared at this moment to support this particular document I will call “observations.” I have a terrific problem. This is not a document of the committee. This is not a document produced by the committee. This is a document produced by the government and put before us, and we are being asked to support it. I have a few problems with that.
It is far too complex to make a decision in a minute or two. If the mover of this could perhaps reduce this to one or two or three points, then perhaps I could support it.
To my mind, this document is an apology for what the government has done. It says that, in their appearance before the committee, the Minister of Finance and his officials argued that these were only clarifying amendments, but in any event, they met the criteria for retroactive legislation. Then it continues to say that the committee heard from witnesses who both agreed and disagreed. You cannot do this. It is not proper to use the method or the technique of an observation to essentially exonerate the minister from some pretty harsh and contrary testimony.
There is a proper way to proceed, if we have some respect for this institution. Maybe it does not bother some people, but what is going on and what this government is doing bothers me a lot. Unless we have some proper time to wrap our minds around this document, I would say we should leave it to Senator Day's good hands to use this in the text of his speech at third reading, wherein it could be answered by other senators. Once it is in the observations, it cannot be answered or disagreed with by senators, because it then becomes the opinion of the committee.
I am not prepared to give my approval to this. Obviously, this document was prepared even before we heard Mr. Lalonde's testimony, and that may not mean a lot to many people around this table, but it means a lot to me. I served with that man. It may mean nothing to Liberals today, but that was the day when Liberal ministers acted like ministers.
I want the opportunity to put this on the record. What we have done here today in approving this without even a proper question is scandalous, and it is typical of how this Liberal government operates. It is a scandal on us all and a shame on us all. I will not support any observations of this nature, the very purpose of which is to exonerate a minister who is wrong in his thinking.
Senator Massicotte: I will not add much. I am not a member of this committee but we are talking about due process. I am disturbed by the fact that I thought we had, obviously in my opinion, heard some strong evidence regarding the difficulty surrounding the retroactive nature of these amendments. I am disturbed that we seem to have voted in a partisan way. I am not sure that we served our role as independent senators today.
As I say, I am not a member of this committee, but I am a little distressed with how the voting took place. I am not sure we understood our role as senators versus our role, perhaps, as Liberal senators.
Senator Day: On the issue of the observations, as I indicated earlier, this is not a process with which we are familiar, particularly in this committee. I did suggest earlier, Mr. Chairman, that these points can be made by me as sponsor and by you as chair of the committee. I would be content with that.
I have a great deal of respect and admiration for Senator Cools. I would be quite prepared to follow her guidance on this issue and make sure that these points are made independently by the chair and the sponsor of the bill during the debate on third reading.
The Chairman: It is clear that we do not have this committee's support for the observations as drafted, so I think it is also clear that we do need not even vote on it. A consensus is not there.
Senator Cools: There is a consensus to reject Senator Day's proposal.
The Chairman: It is not going forward.
Honourable senators, shall I report this bill back to the Senate without amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, there will be no meeting of the committee on Wednesday of this week. We will meet next week on May 10 to continue our meetings on the issues of foundations with the officials from the Department of Finance. That is yet to be confirmed.
Our research staff is working on a number of draft reports to follow up on our work on the foundations issue and on our meetings with the officers of Parliament. Meetings will be scheduled on May 11 and May 17 to review those draft reports.
On May 18, we will follow up on our promise to hear from the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency. That is yet to be confirmed.
The committee adjourned.