Finance Committee on May 17th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Madam Wasylycia-Leis, to conclude.

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

Thank you. The first point I tried to raise as a point of order is that Parliament has agreed in fact to the right of committees to have a say in appointments. So we're not here debating whether or not we should spend time on it or whether or not it's in our purview to do so. That was a change in the last Parliament, for which all parties, I believe, expressed support.

This was seen as a move towards greater accountability, transparency. I think in fact members of the Conservative Party led the charge in getting this change in our entire parliamentary procedure. So for the very first time, in 2005, committees were granted the right to do that. In other words, we're now trying to find the way to actually execute our responsibilities in a proper, responsible way.

I have one suggestion, and it has been tried briefly by our committee. I don't think we had long enough to actually see how it would work.

There aren't many in the area of finance. The chair mentioned 30. Go back to the statistics that were given to us when we studied this last year, and of course with the new government there would be an increase, but between 2003 and 2008, the number of appointments was: 7 in 2003, 9 in 2004, 18 in 2005, 12 in 2006, 9 in 2007, and 11 in 2008. So we're not talking big numbers, and I hope we're not talking about not doing this job of reviewing appointments. We have to figure out a way to do it.

What this motion does is say let's get some criteria from the finance committee so that when appointments come along, we can look at them fairly, not based on our criteria that we make up, but something from the department to show us what kind of position they've got and why the person they're recommending should be considered for that. It actually takes it out of that realm, hopefully, of politics and partisanship and gives us a mechanism by which we can do our job.

When we discussed this in the past, there was clear support for it. In fact, I want to refer to John McKay, who I hope is going to support me this time, when he actually said:

If I understand the process, what's happening is that the government recommends criteria, they bring them to us for comment, and they then either accept or reject the criteria. But there's transparency. It's there, rather than our wondering how this person is appointed.

He goes on to suggest that as long as we don't have a veto power, which we don't, and we're not suggesting that in this, therefore he could support it.

There were Conservative members at that committee who gave it their absolute 100% support and blessing. I know, of course, that Yvon Loubier and the Bloc have always been supportive because it was consistent with their approach, except for their vote on the budget--whoops, I shouldn't have said that.

But I think it makes sense to have a process. If people don't like this process, then come up with something else, but we can't not do the work that Parliament has said we now have the right to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Mr. Dykstra is next, with a short comment.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

This is through you, Mr. Chair, to the clerk.

With reference to the procedure set in place in 2005, was that motion then overturned and thrown out, or do we already have a process in place?

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

Do we believe Parliament has to start over again?

We have the process, but we have to do the motion again.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Each committee is its own master.

Okay, thank you for the comments, colleagues.

Madam Ablonczy.

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

I want to ask my friend a question.

I regret I didn't know this motion was coming up; I've seen it for the first time. Mr. McCallum's been quite helpful, but I don't know the degree to which the criteria are public. Can someone answer that?

I'd just like a little bit of time to look into this, and that's not my friend's fault; it's mine, because I didn't realize this was coming up, but I hate to vote for something when I don't really know what the present process is. Maybe Mr. McCallum can help us here.

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

I can't remember in detail, but I do know that Reg Alcock, when he was at Treasury Board, put out what the criteria and processes were in general terms, and which kinds of appointments would come to the committee and which kinds would not. I would assume, in the absence of actions to change them, that those processes would still be in place, so that automatically, if there were a CEO or a chair of the board of a major crown corporation in the finance area, those people would come before the committee, but in the case of more minor appointments, they would not.

I can't remember exactly where the cut-off is, but it was a well-established process. I would assume it's still written down somewhere.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Just to offer further clarification, Mr. McCallum, the clerk informs me we're notified of each finance-related appointment. In fact, one of the issues we'll discuss at the steering committee here, momentarily, I hope, is the issue of how we deal with one of those nominees and whether we choose to recommend to the committee of the whole that we wish to interview or not. It's in our committee's purview to make those decisions as they come up. I hope that helps.

Yes, Madam Ablonczy.

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

Again, I apologize. I didn't know this was happening. I could have known this, but...this requirement about publishing in the Canada Gazette is not done right now, is it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Yes, it is.

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

So this motion simply validates the current process--is that what you're saying, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis?

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

In part, but at present, although we have the right to review appointments, we don't have a process. This motion tries to find an objective...this recommendation is to put in place an objective set of criteria from the finance department, criteria by which we can then carry out the work we now are entitled to conduct.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Just for clarification, the Canada Gazette requirement in the Standing Orders relates to the publication of the name, not the criteria. This motion speaks to the need to publish the criteria.

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

So it's not the criteria.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Currently, that is not in the Standing Orders.

Next is Mr. Pacetti.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

By defeating this motion, we're not giving up our right to have these people come before us. My only problem is with point 5 in the motion; we're going to be saddled with having to do more work than is necessary.

If you'd like, I can propose a friendly amendment. Your wordsmithing is probably better than mine, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, but maybe I would be for the motion if we can do something with point 5. With point number 5 I think we're saddling the committee with extra work for no reason.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

You've made that point before. Would you like to propose an amendment to facilitate the deletion of number 5?

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

Yes, I would.

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

I accept the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Now we need to vote on it. All in favour of the deletion of article 5 in the motion, please raise your hands.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Seeing no other urgent desire for participation in the debate, I will ask for the vote on the motion--

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

I have one concern about number 3, which is publishing the committee-approved criteria for each appointment. I think that's problematic. I certainly wouldn't want to have that go forward without some investigation as to its practicality. What I hear from Mr. McCallum is there's some concern about putting that extra burden on the whole process.

If there are criteria, then surely we'll have them, but to have them published in the Gazette and to require the committee to approve them...I'm not sure that's going to work very well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

I'll just make it clear that the motion reads: “That the standing committee request that the Government of Canada then publicly release it”. Arguments would then ensue back to our committee, if that wasn't practical from the government standpoint.

Madam Ablonczy, I suggest you either propose an amendment or propose the cessation of debate so that you're comfortable with voting on the motion. I suppose the only other option would be to vote against the motion as it reads. Other than that, I'm at the mercy of the committee.

I think we've had lots of discussion on this. I'd like us to move to a vote.

(Motion as amended negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Steering committee members, I'd invite you to stay for what I hope will be a worthwhile and short discussion. For those who are leaving, I wish you the best in the break week and look forward to seeing you back here for a very busy first week back.

This meeting is adjourned.