Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Banking, Trade and Commerce
Issue 1 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Wednesday, March 10, 2010
The Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce met this day at 4:20 p.m., pursuant to rule 88 of the Rules of the Senate, to organize the activities of the committee.
[English]
Line Gravel, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, you have a quorum.
Please see the first item on your agenda.
[Translation]
Pursuant to rule 88, it is my honour and privilege to preside over the election of a chair.
Do I have any nominations?
[English]
Senator Harb: With your permission, I would like to nominate Senator Michael Meighen to be the chair of the committee.
Ms. Gravel: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Harb that the Honourable Senator Michael Meighen be chair of the committee.
Are there any other nominations?
Senator Moore: I move that nominations cease.
Ms. Gravel: Very well.
Are honourable senators in agreement with that nomination?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Ms. Gravel: Senator Meighen, you are now the chair of the committee.
Senator Michael Meighen (Chair) in the chair.
Senator Meighen: Thank you all very much. It is nice to be back.
[Translation]
It is a pleasure to see a number of former committee members again, as well as three new members, if I am not mistaken: Senator St. Germain, Senator Rivard and Senator Kochhar.
[English]
This is an organizational meeting and we will proceed right away.
It is nice to see that Senator Hervieux-Payette has arrived just in time.
Our second item is the election of a deputy chair. Are there any nominations?
Senator Gerstein: Mr. Chair, it is my pleasure to nominate the Honourable Senator Hervieux-Payette as the deputy chair of this committee.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Gerstein. Are there any other nominations?
Senator Moore: I move that nominations cease.
The Chair: Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: We have one nominee, Senator Hervieux-Payette.
[Translation]
Congratulations, and thank you for accepting the responsibility.
[English]
The third item is the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure.
Senator Moore: So moved.
The Chair: It is moved by Senator Moore.
Is there any discussion?
All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. It is carried.
Item 4 is a motion to publish the committee's proceedings.
Senator St. Germain: So moved.
The Chair: Is there any discussion?
There being none, all in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. That is carried.
Item 5 is authorization to hold meetings and to receive evidence when a quorum is not present.
Senator Harb: I so move.
The Chair: Is there any discussion?
There being none, the motion is carried.
Is there a mover that we adopt the first draft report, which has been prepared in accordance with rule 104 and which is in your package?
Does everyone understand what this is and what it covers? If not, the clerk is far more competent than any of us to explain it. The second item, of course, covers our debit card-credit card study.
It is moved by Senator Harb.
Is there any further discussion?
There being none, the motion is carried.
Is someone prepared to move the motion with regard to research staff?
Senator Greene: I so move.
The Chair: Is there any discussion on that item?
It is agreed and carried.
Item 8 concerns the authority to commit funds and certify accounts.
Senator Ringuette: I so move.
The Chair: Is there any discussion?
There being none, it is carried. Thank you.
Who is prepared to move the motion on travel?
[Translation]
Senator Rivard moves that motion; are there any other comments?
[English]
The motion is carried.
Item 10 is designation of members travelling on committee business.
Senator Harb: I so move.
The Chair: I think it is normal.
As there is no further discussion, it is carried.
Item 11 is with regard to travelling and living expenses of witnesses; a standard item.
Senator Oliver: I so move.
The Chair: Is there any discussion?
There being none, it is carried.
Item 12 is with regard to communications, another standard item.
Senator Massicotte: This is an outstanding issue upon which the Senate has never concluded. There have been many debates about whether our committees would be best served by internal staff versus external staff. Chairmen of many committees thought they were better served by employing outside people rather than employing internal people.
I believe there was a subcommittee of the Committee on Internal Economy to recommend whether to force committees to use internal staff rather than hiring external staff, but they have not arrived at a conclusion.
The problem I see is that if we adopt this resolution, we lose our discretion to employ our own staff. The other consequence is that the Communications Directorate of the Senate will obviously have to employ people and that will increase their operating costs. I do not know the best solution. I like to give people the flexibility to hire the best personnel at the least expensive rate as opposed to having a bureaucracy inside the Senate. I have not heard the final recommendations.
I suggest amending this resolution to simply give the committee authority to hire internally or externally, and we can debate the issue later.
The Chair: Does the clerk have a comment?
Ms. Gravel: We could say ``and/or.''
The Chair: Do you know, Senator Massicotte, when we can expect that report?
Senator Massicotte: I think the study is ongoing. I believe that there is a subcommittee composed of Senator Dawson and others. Most of us are dissatisfied with the communication performance of the Senate. The committee was going to review how to best improve it and possibly consider staffing changes and so on. I think some staff changes have recently been made, but the full debate has not occurred and may not occur for some months.
The Chair: I suspect that we will not need a great deal of that sort of professional help for a while, until we really get under way. We can do either or both, as I understand.
Senator Massicotte: I would do either/or.
[Translation]
The Chair: I hope that Francine Pressault, who served us so well during the previous session, will not be insulted by this decision. It gives us the flexibility of doing one or the other.
[English]
We have Item 12 as amended by Senator Massicotte. Is there any further discussion?
Senator Moore: Mr. Chair, I want to confirm that after the word ``director'' we are putting in the words ``and/or external services,'' is that correct?
The Chair: Yes. Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. Item 13 concerns our time slot for regular meetings. Are the time slots the same?
Ms. Gravel: They are changed by 15 minutes — 4:15 p.m. to 6:15 p.m. on Wednesday and the same on Thursday.
The Chair: To allow us 15 minutes to get over from the house.
Senator Massicotte: Is it still a fixed time or must the Senate have adjourned?
The Chair: It has to be adjourned, but no earlier than 4:15 p.m.
Ms. Gravel: The time slot is from 10:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. on Thursday.
Senator Massicotte: May I make a comment? I am not sure it is within our discretion, but I find it in poor taste to have important guests come and sit here and wait for us. On one occasion last year we had only 10 minutes with important witnesses. We had to rush back and be out by 6 p.m. or 6:10 p.m. If I was that witness, I would say no wonder our country is running so poorly; the Senate cannot even organize its meetings.
I do not mind the Tuesday, Wednesday whenever the house sits, but there should be one day we know if we have important guests, we can line them up and we will be available to hear them. I think it is so disorganized. We have to know that we can hear our witnesses with ample time to listen and ask questions. We have to have some flexibility.
Senator Ringuette: I think we all agree with what you are saying. Maybe in accordance with that, we could have witnesses to appear during our Thursday morning time slot.
The Chair: You mean no witnesses on Wednesday?
Senator Ringuette: Perhaps.
Senator Harb: You are stuck. You have to do it.
The Chair: Is there any flexibility on that time of 6 p.m.?
Ms. Gravel: No, we have to be finished by 6:15 p.m. because another committee comes in after we meet.
Senator St. Germain: I have a committee meeting right after that.
The Chair: So does Senator Gerstein, I know. Do you have a solution, Senator Hervieux-Payette?
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Yes, I believe the only solution is to obtain permission to sit at the same time as the Senate is sitting. That is the only solution.
Senator Massicotte: That is a good solution.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: That is the only solution.
Senator Massicotte: Yes, and rarely, we will break for 15 minutes or 20 minutes and vote, but it is very rare.
Senator Harb: The way to get around it is you say when witnesses are scheduled to appear before the committee, then the committee could sit while the Senate is sitting; otherwise, you can continue to sit after 4:15 p.m. Does that make sense?
Senator Massicotte: Mr. Chair, can we leave that with you?
The Chair: You can leave it with me, but I am not clear in my own mind, and maybe Senator Hervieux-Payette is, as to how that would work. Would it have to be an item motion — each time we see a problem, we make a motion? Then we have to sit before 4:15 p.m., for example.
Senator Harb: I would do a blanket motion to say that you seek permission from the Senate for the committee to sit when the Senate is sitting when there are witnesses scheduled to appear before the committee. That means if there are no witnesses appearing before the committee, and it is just a regular meeting, then you meet when the Senate is not sitting.
The Chair: I see two problems. One is someone might say cannot you manage your hearings so that all witnesses have the same time, a reasonable amount of time; what is wrong with you? Second, they might say, well, why should you be able to take off at 3:30 p.m.?
Senator Harb: You ask for Massicotte to stand up and embarrass the pants off of them.
Senator Massicotte: Remember last year we had people that did not have much money. We heard them for 10 minutes; they came and they had to leave. To me it demonstrates clearly to Canadians we are totally disorganized.
The Chair: I think the solution would be 30 minutes — there is a 30-minute break between. We finish on Wednesday at 6:15 p.m.; if we had the flexibility to sit until 6:30 p.m., but we do not.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: You do not know when the Senate chamber will adjourn. Sometimes it goes on and on because people are making speeches. It could go until 5:30 p.m., even 6 p.m., so we cannot presume that it will end at the specific time. Therefore, we have to have blanket permission that says when we have witnesses, we ask for permission to leave. If we do not have witnesses, we will sit at 4:15 p.m.
The Chair: I think that we have to do that. I agree with you.
Senator Massicotte: Yes, or we simply say we ask for permission to sit on Wednesday, come hell or high water, but with recognition that if bells ring for a vote, we will have an adjournment of half an hour for this meeting to go and vote.
Senator Oliver: The leadership is likely going to say that we will do that for ministers or for deputy ministers but not for ordinary witnesses. They will say to the committee you must make your own arrangements with them, but for ministers on a busy schedule we will do that.
Senator Ringuette: Everyone is on a busy schedule.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: We cannot have two different rules.
The Chair: I wish there was a little more flexibility, but if we sat until 6:30 p.m, we would have witnesses and want to sit until 6:45 p.m.
Senator Massicotte: Mr. Chair, what is the problem? If we say that we accept to adjourn as necessary for any vote, who cares otherwise? For us to listen to some more boring speeches, it does not matter.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: We are not there.
The Chair: Would you leave it with Senator Hervieux-Payette and me and whoever the third person is to the steering committee to take it up with the leadership and see if we can find a solution?
Senator Massicotte: As long as we get results, we have no problem.
Senator Greene: If one of us is speaking, the speech is not boring. When one of us is speaking then we all have to be there.
Senator Massicotte: We may be the only ones there.
Senator Gerstein: Do you want to be insulted there or here?
Senator St. Germain: Senator Ringuette just gave the speech of her life and now they infer that speeches are boring.
Senator Ringuette: I deal with the flow.
The Chair: She had a better one in the last session, I thought.
Senator Moore: So you will meet with the steering committee.
The Chair: I am mindful of Senator Massicotte's need for a solution.
Is it now the time to talk about our immediate schedule?
Senator Ringuette: What is on the agenda — Bill S-201 and Bill S-202? Senator Greene is going to discuss them tomorrow and we can start dealing with them.
The Chair: We are not sitting tomorrow.
Senator Moore: This committee is not sitting tomorrow.
The Chair: This committee, yes, excuse me. We are proposing that the steering committee — Senator Hervieux- Payette is out of the country on parliamentary business and will be back next week — would meet on Wednesday, if that is okay with you?
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Wednesday or Thursday is okay. I am not available on Tuesday.
The Chair: I understand. So let us, the steering committee, meet on the first opportunity, which would be Wednesday, to have a full discussion of the agenda. Does the committee wish to meet on Thursday morning to hear the fruits of the labour of the steering committee?
Senator Harb: Only if you insist.
The Chair: I like the way you take direction. I am not sure Senator Massicotte has that much faith in the steering committee to come up with an appropriate solution.
Senator Ringuette: Mr. Chair, this committee, in regard to anticipated work, had quite a lengthy discussion on targeting particular issues. I would like the steering committee to revisit those particular items.
The Chair: That is a good suggestion. What if we reversed the order and had the committee meet on Wednesday to discuss all kinds of ideas and then the steering committee to meet on Thursday and decide, having had the benefit of everybody —
Senator Massicotte: I agree with the recommendation. We had a debate on it. We have some new members and they want to contribute, but we had a discussion about subject matters on at least one or two occasions. The steering committee should do their homework, review that debate, come back with recommendations and allow everybody to make a response. Otherwise, you will be all over the map.
Senator Ringuette: We will start all over again and come to the same conclusion.
The Chair: Would you like to meet on Wednesday and put forward whatever suggestions you have?
Senator Ringuette: No. I have made my suggestion, Bill S-201 and Bill S-202.
The Chair: Those are wonderful suggestions but we cannot jump procedural laws. We have to wait until it gets through the Senate, and it needs a full and complete debate, Senator Ringuette.
Senator Oliver: Fulsome.
Senator Ringuette: On an issue that received unanimous consent from this committee.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: It is fine with me if they want to meet before to decide on our agenda.
The Chair: Why do you not send a note to members of the steering committee?
Senator St. Germain: It would be nice for those of us who have just joined the committee to understand the thought process. The only way we will know that is to meet as a full committee. It will give us some idea what to think about it. Unless there is some urgency, that there is an urgent issue, I think that would be the best way to do it.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: It is the most civilized committee and we agree, 99 per cent of the time.
Senator Massicotte: Certainly from the minutes of that meeting we discussed all these different subjects, although I do not think I saw the minutes.
The Chair: Would you like to meet on Wednesday morning, or would you like to meet after the steering committee puts forward some suggestions?
Senator Harb: We had a full debate as a committee as a whole and we have a record of that, along with the deputy chair and the steering committee. I think what would be good, if you will revisit that discussion and come back with a recommendation that you as a steering committee feel comfortable with; then we will be able to have a smart discussion.
The Chair: All right.
Senator Moore: Will you sum up?
The Chair: Yes. I am always persuaded by the last person who spoke, who was Senator Harb. He said the steering committee should meet first and review past meetings and evidence collected then, or opinions collected, and then come forward with a recommendation.
Senator Moore: Is the steering committee going to meet on Wednesday and then come to the full committee Thursday morning?
The Chair: Yes. I have not had a chance to talk to you, Senator Hervieux-Payette, and I apologize.
Ms. Gravel: Perhaps we should close this meeting first?
The Chair: All right. Can we adjourn and would you all stay for few minutes?
(The committee adjourned.)