Finance Committee on May 17th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Mr. McCallum, you can speak to that amendment.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

I almost wish I hadn't presented this motion. I'll accept it, though.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Yes, at this point....

Mr. Harvey has a comment.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Loubier, you have motions, but they will not be tabled today. Is that correct?

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

No, that is not correct. I tabled a motion more than 48 hours ago with the clerk's office. I could have informed the clerk yesterday, for example, that I wanted my motion to be debated today. She would then have put the title of my motion on the agenda, and we would have debated it.

In the 13 years that I have been a member of this committee, we have never operated as Mr. McCallum is suggesting, by putting on the agenda all motions tabled with the clerk's office, even if they are not examined the same day that the finance committee meets. We will be completely lost with a procedure like that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Monsieur Loubier, I appreciate your comments and all members' comments. Now I will call the vote on the motion.

Excuse me, Mr. Harvey. I'm sorry, the discussion is complete. I will call for the vote on this motion now.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

So in future we will endeavour to list all such motions, as I've been instructed today.

Now, moving on, I have already indicated that I would allow Madam Wasylycia-Leis to deal with her motion. This motion not having being passed until after I made that indication, I would invite her to make her motion now.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. I appreciate this.

This motion is almost identical to the one passed by our committee on February 17, 2005. I want to express gratitude to the clerk for ensuring that the motion was improved and is much more consistent with the proper conduct of a committee.

It is simply intended to put in place procedures that will allow us to handle the change of the rules surrounding committees being able to vet appointments, something that happened in the last Parliament and that requires some process for carrying out the review of those appointments. This is simply an attempt to put in place some guidelines and a procedure by which we can conduct business with respect to those appointments.

It seemed to work well the last time. There are a few changes to make it more specific, but it's still there in substance as we've used it in the past.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you, Madam.

I'll discourage members of the committee from interrupting one another as we proceed with our discussion. I think it'll be in all our best interests in terms of time and mutual respect. If there are any comments on this, and you would like to get the attention of the chair, I'd be happy to acknowledge your participation in the debate in due course.

Do you have any comments, Mr. Turner?

[Garth Turner, Conservative, Halton, ON]

I understand and respect the motivation behind the motion. I'm only concerned about the process, and I'm concerned about the added workload, apart from whether it's the right or wrong thing to do. I understand the motivation. I think it's certainly in the spirit of Gomery too. There are a lot of things I understand about that.

I'm not sure we're the right body right now to be taking on a whole bunch of appointment reviews, which is a lengthy process, and the criterion that Judy has recommended is certainly an exhaustive one if done properly. I don't see in the process how we can do it. We're doubling or tripling our workload.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you, Mr. Turner.

I'd encourage you, Judy, if I may, to note concerns as they're raised. I'll then give you the opportunity to respond after other members have had a chance to raise them, if that would be acceptable.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

I have a point of order.

Unless I'm mistaken, I understand that committees have been given the power to review appointments. This motion is not about whether or not we do it; it's simply a process.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

That's not a point of order. I'll encourage you to save your responses to points as they're made, until other members have the chance to make them.

Thank you.

Mr. Turner, would you like to finish your comments?

[Garth Turner, Conservative, Halton, ON]

That's fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Mr. Harvey.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Judy, I would like to know how many appointees would appear before the committee in order to estimate the time required to examine their appointments. Is that all we are going to do, or will we be in a position to do our work and to hear witnesses? Appointments should not take up all of the committee's time. If there are just a few, there is no problem, but if there are hundreds, it seems to me that that is not part of our mandate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

For clarification, you raised the issue of numbers, and I have just learned that we're potentially talking about 30 appointments.

Mr. McCallum.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

I can see the logic of it, but I'm not in favour of this.

I had a brief conversation with my colleagues. I think they are in agreement with me, for similar reasons to those mentioned by Mr. Turner. This would impose a fairly heavy level of bureaucracy and process on top of us when there are other issues to discuss.

Perhaps I'm guilty of sounding as if we're still the government. I'm aware that we're not, but I am concerned as a matter of public policy that we want to get the very best people we can to serve on boards, whether we're government or opposition. These positions pay very little money, so we're really asking people to do this as a public service. To impose additional burdens on such people, who are willing to come forward, I don't think is in the interests of getting able people to do these important jobs.

My feeling is that the amount of bureaucracy and process in the system is sufficient today, without going this extra step.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you, Mr. McCallum.

Mr. Pacetti, you had a comment.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If we recall, we tried this last session, and we did it for one particular appointment. It was an exercise in futility and everybody said they were not going to do it again.

I have no problem with this. We get the orders in council, at least I get them in my office, and I look at them. I don't think we need to be saddled with number 5, where we're obliged to have at least one full meeting, because I think that's where the problem is. But I have no problem with number 4, where if we feel there's a certain nomination we would like to have more information on, we could perhaps ask for his or her c.v.

Beyond that, I think we're saddling ourselves with a lot of paperwork here. If the motion stays as is, I'll be voting against it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Seeing no other indications, I'll give....

I'm sorry.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Maybe I'll just ask my friend a question.

Are there no criteria now? I don't know the answer to that, but surely there are some criteria. You just can't pick people out of the blue.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

That's the point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

I'll give Mr. McCallum the first opportunity to offer clarification of that, and then we'll move to Madam Wasylycia-Leis.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

There are very elaborate criteria for the more senior positions, like the CEO of a crown corporation. There are very elaborate Treasury Board-mandated criteria for search processes, head hunters. There is a very long set of arduous criteria. There are somewhat less arduous criteria for board members, but those rules and regulations are there, and I'm sure the committee could look at those in detail if it wanted. I can assure you they exist, unless they've changed since the government changed, but at least in our time there was a very definite and I would say fairly arduous set of criteria and processes for making such appointments and for the time when those individuals would come before committee or not come before committee. Those processes were all set up.