Finance Committee on May 23rd, 2013

[Kenneth V. Georgetti]

So it's not just one side. It's them and there's an issue of how the government—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I accept that.

[Kenneth V. Georgetti]

But in terms of the crown corporations, they are accountable to Parliament already through the minister responsible. They get their mandate from the minister. The Treasury Board or your internal structures can give a mandate or the minister can give a wage mandate to the crown corporation already. That's the way it happens now.

What confuses us is that it looks like there's a third party coming in called Treasury Board. Does that take away the role of the minister responsible? Because that used to be where the mandate was given through the government, through the taxpayer right now.

Crowns have to undergo annual audits. Most have to submit corporate plans, operating budgets, and capital budgets for approval by their minister. That already exists. What confuses us is if there is now a third stage called Treasury Board that can overrule the minister or the mandate the minister gives. It's really confusing to us that happens.

The second and most relevant question to that, Mr. Rajotte, is this. What's the problem now? If everyone is going to second-guess the collective agreements that sit there—sure you can invent all sorts of problems like Mr. Charette does—but the fact of the matter is that all of those settlements were made with the representative of the taxpayer at the table through their crown corporation.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

My time is running out, but the problem is that you've had bailout contributions of $2.4 billion, and eight plans shortfall $4.7 billion. In the case of company A, they can't go to the taxpayer whereas the crown corporation is there backstopped by the taxpayer.

[Kenneth V. Georgetti]

They go to the bank. If they can't go to the government, then the crown corporation should go to the bank. If they were a private employer for all intents and purposes.... Some of my employers I've negotiated with have had to go to the bank to get some backstopping. General Motors had to come to the people of Canada for a while. There are all sorts of things happening. That wasn't because of pension deficits. It's because the market failed the system.

Now we have to go and look at ways to accommodate short term.... Canada pension returned 10% last year, a crown corporation, I might add, Mr. Jean. That's 10% from investing the people's money in pension reform.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

My time's up, unfortunately. I'd love to continue this debate, but I thank you for your responses. I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today, responding to our questions. If you have anything further for the committee, please submit it to the clerk.

Colleagues, before you get up and wander around, we are moving immediately to three motions from the NDP and two budgets that I'd like to deal with. During that time, we are going to bring in the next panel.

Does everyone have a copy of the three motions?

[Some voices]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. We'll start with the motion by Ms. Nash, and I will give the floor to Ms. Nash, please.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll read the motion first:

That the Standing Committee on Finance immediately undertake a study on the impact of Part 3 Division 17 of Bill C-60 on the independence of the Bank of Canada with respect to its setting of the nation’s monetary policy and its economic research activities.

In light of the discussion we've had today, Mr. Chair, our concern is that part 3, division 17 of Bill C-60 could undermine the independence of the Bank of Canada—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Order, please.

Could all conversations please be taken outside? We are dealing with three motions. If you have conversations, please take them outside the room. Thank you.

Ms. Nash, you have the floor again.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you.

Our concern, as we have discussed today, is that division 17 of part 3 of Bill C-60 could undermine the independence of the Bank of Canada through the involvement of the Treasury Board. As a fundamental plank in all of our crown corporations, but especially in our monetary policy and our economic research activities, we want to make sure that the independence of the Bank of Canada is assured. We believe that it will be valuable for the finance committee to undertake such a study.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Ms. Nash.

I will go to Ms. McLeod, please.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll make a general comment. I believe one of my colleagues would like to talk to this motion specifically. My general comment is that of course all members here recognize what a busy committee we have. I know that we go into our subcommittees. We work very hard to establish the agenda, and as we look we plan right into the fall, so I'm very surprised to see that the NDP continually puts forward a myriad of motions. These are issues that haven't come up within subcommittee, and we have planned our schedule. It's very busy.

I'll let my colleague speak specifically to the motion, but I guess I'm a little disappointed. I think within our subcommittee structure we try to be reasonable and fair and accommodate in a fair way the interests of all the different parties as we look at the studies we're going to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

I have Monsieur Caron, then Mr. Adler.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The motions that have been put forward—such as the one introduced earlier—are requests for studies that are important when it comes to potentially significant consequences.

There are two motions. We are talking about the possibility of a government bill affecting or unduly influencing the independence of the Bank of Canada and the policies of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. Those are extremely important issues that should also be important to the government, since the independence of those organizations is a crucial parameter in the operations of the government and of those organizations. When important topics are proposed, saying that we are always too busy because we have a hectic schedule indicates a lack of seriousness to my mind.

If we have an important issue pertaining to good governance, we should prioritize it in our discussions. That is why we are introducing these motions. They are not dilatory motions; they are substantial motions that call for important studies and inquiries. So I would like the government to recognize the importance of getting to the bottom of this. We are not asking for eight meetings. We just want to ensure that we will study that specific aspect of Bill C-60. We are not alone in saying that. Many organizations want the same thing, whether we are talking about the CBC—which is currently not even affected by those motions—or the Bank of Canada.

Based on their comments, the economists who have seen what kind of an impact this could have are worried. The comments made by public and economic policy experts indicate that they are also worried. So I think it would be worthwhile for the committee to look into this issue. Since the budget implementation bill was introduced not too long ago, this is our opportunity to put these motions forward.

In short, I hope that the government will be able to see how important and relevant this issue is when it comes to good governance.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Merci.

Mr. Adler, please go ahead.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

It never ceases to amaze me. The NDP comes forward with these spurious motions consistently. They know how tight our timetable is, yet they consistently bring forward these motions.

This one really takes the cake because they're asking us to look at part 3, division 17 of Bill C-60 on the independence of the Bank of Canada when it comes to setting monetary policy and doing economic research. That's exactly what we are studying right now. We're doing it right now.

What they're asking us to do is, yes, study it now, but then study it again. Not only are they asking us to study it for a second time, but the first time around, they didn't even invite any witnesses to speak to their side.

We're going to reject this motion because it's redundant. I would suggest that in bringing motions forward in the future, the NDP take a closer look at what they're proposing because in this instance, we're clearly studying this right now. For the sake of not wasting any more of the committee's time, let's reject this motion and move on, and hope that the NDP does not put forward any kind of fatuous motion in the future. It's ridiculous.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I have two more speakers. I'll just remind members that we have two more motions.

I'll go to Ms. Nash, please.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Let me address the objections raised by the Conservative members of the committee who have used some interesting words. I believe “spurious” and “fatuous” were two of the adjectives. Back at you, team.

I guess one could make that case with division 17 of part 3 in Bill C-60 where certainly I've had many constituents come to me expressing concern about the independence and the integrity of our crown corporations. Surely, a government that pretends to desire competence and expertise on economic matters would want to be assured that there is complete independence and integrity for our bank, the Bank of Canada. We didn't ask them to include these intrusions on crown corporations in their budget. Of course, it was unanticipated when we set the schedule for the finance committee. We are reacting to the inclusion of these provisions in Bill C-60, their latest omnibus budget bill.

We're also reacting to the fact that there is so little time given to this committee or any other committee to study the provisions of this bill. We believe that this is something that is fundamentally important to the integrity of our economic system and that we should make sure that our Bank of Canada is fully independent. We need to reassure ourselves of that. I would argue that if you look at our schedule carefully, which we have done, we have nothing planned for either June 11 or June 13, and we could in fact very well accommodate a further examination of these very important issues.

I submit that we do take the time and study this carefully because I'm sure Canadians would not be happy if they found that their government had in some way compromised the integrity or independence of their bank, especially during these insecure economic times.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

I have two more speakers and then I'd like to go to the vote if I could.

Mr. Caron.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I will be very quick.

We have time to study these issues. We have Bill C-60 before us. Some parts of the bill have been referred to other committees and will be studied very superficially. We will then receive recommendations without having a debate. We are in charge of studying part 1, part 2 and several divisions of part 3. We have been given about two and a half committee meetings to study amendments that will affect at least 15 to 20 pieces of legislation. So don't try to tell me that we have had enough time to discuss this matter. This is a fundamental issue for Canada's financial and monetary system, and it will be taken off the table because the committee is apparently too busy.

These matters will have to be taken seriously at some point. That is why I encourage the government to accept this motion, as well as the following motion. My colleague was perfectly right in pointing out that we do have two available days—June 11 and 13. So we do have some time on the schedule available to discuss some extremely important issues.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Adler, please.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

I'm glad we're moving to the vote after I speak.

The NDP, through their flummery, just love to waste time. Time is the most valuable commodity we have as MPs around here because we're involved here in the people's business. We've also invited witnesses to be here today. Now not only is the NDP proposing to waste the committee's time but they're proposing to waste the witnesses' time. They came here at great expense of their own time and resources. I would suggest that we move to the vote so we can dispense with this as quickly as possible and not waste any more time.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay.

This is on Ms. Nash's motion.

On Ms. Nash's motion, all in favour? All those opposed?

(Motion negatived)

We will then move to Mr. Caron's motion, the second one I have.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

This motion is very similar. I will read it out. It says the following:

That the Standing Committee on Finance immediately undertake a study on the impact of Part 3 Division 17 of Bill C-60 on the independence of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board with respect to its mandate of achieving a “maximum rate of return, without undue risk of loss” for the Canada Pension Plan.

I will not discuss the motion any further. The arguments are the same, and they are as relevant as those that have been raised so far. I do not understand why the government wants to avoid this issue. As the Standing Committee on Finance, we have a mandate to examine any significant impact a piece of legislation may have on the Canadian financial system. Avoiding the issue by saying that it is not important—as the government seems to be doing—absolutely astounds me.