THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON BANKING, TRADE AND COMMERCE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 19, 2020
The Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce met by videoconference this day at 10:04 a.m. [ET], pursuant to rule 12-13 of the Rules of the Senate, to organize the activities of the committee.
[English]
Mireille Aubé, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, as clerk of your committee, it is my duty to preside over the election of the chair. I’m ready to receive a motion to that effect. Are there any nominations?
Senator C. Deacon: If I could, clerk, I would like to nominate Senator Howard Wetston as Chair of the Banking Committee in this session of Parliament.
Ms. Aubé: Are there any other nominations? Seeing none, it is moved by the Honourable Senator C. Deacon that the Honourable Senator Wetston do take the chair of this committee.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Ms. Aubé: I declare the motion carried. Senator Wetston, I invite you to take the chair.
Senator Howard Wetston (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: First, let me thank the clerk, Mireille Aubé, for all the hard work she has done in organizing this meeting. I really look forward to working with you as we move forward.
Honourable senators, this is the first Senate committee I will chair, and I wish you good luck in that regard. I want to thank you for your confidence and your support. I appreciate it very much.
It has taken us a bit longer than we would like to get together again. It has been an unusual period, obviously, but I’m enthusiastic to resume our committee-related activities.
[Translation]
I want to take a moment to acknowledge the diverse backgrounds and impressive levels of expertise of the committee members, which are reflected in its composition.
[English]
In this regard, we have four members who serve on National Finance, for example, which I think is a terrific opportunity for us to exchange important work that we will be doing in the Banking Committee and understand more clearly what is occurring in the National Finance Committee. I think it’s a great example of the diverse background and expertise that we can rely on.
I do look forward to working collaboratively with each of you to facilitate or review legislation and the development of pragmatic and vital public policy for the benefit of all Canadians.
Once again, honourable senators, I’m honoured to be Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce and to serve with you in the advancement of its important mandate.
We will now proceed to the election of two deputy chairs. I’m ready to receive a motion to that effect. Are there any nominations? May I call on someone to nominate?
Senator Marshall: Yes, please, Senator Wetston. The notes we got indicated that the two deputy chairs can be nominated together, so I would like to nominate Senator Smith and Senator Wallin.
The Chair: Is it agreed, senators, to adopt the motion?
Not hearing any opposition, I declare the motion carried.
We now have some routine motions to adopt. You are quite familiar with them, I’m sure. They are standard motions consistent with past practices.
Motion 3 deals with the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. Do I have a proposer for motion 3?
Senator Bellemare: Before we propose, Senator Wetston — I’m sure everyone will work collegially in this committee — I was wondering if the committee would agree to change the wording of the motion and to replace in the motion that the subcommittee is responsible for making recommendations. I find the wording of this motion — I never thought about it before — gives a lot of power to the steering committee. It would be interesting to have a discussion. It’s a suggestion, so I leave it to the committee to see if they think it’s a good idea.
The Chair: My only comment, Senator Bellemare, is this is a standard motion. It’s been adopted by all the committees, not changed. I don’t think it precludes what you’re describing. I think it’s a matter of how we want to work as a committee. That would be my sense of it. Other experienced senators may have a comment on that, but that would be my sense of how we would function with the steering committee.
Are there any other comments from any other senators? I think it’s a good point, Senator Bellemare.
Senator Marshall: Senator Bellemare, could you repeat what you said?
Senator Bellemare: Yes. I was suggesting that in motion 3 where it’s written that the subcommittee is empowered to make decisions on behalf of the committee be replaced with the subcommittee is responsible for making recommendations to the committee.
Senator Marshall: I have been with the Senate for 10 years. I don’t have a problem with the motion that’s there now. I have always found that the steering committees have always been very considerate of what the members would like to do and what witnesses they would like to have.
At this time, I wouldn’t like to change it without thinking about it some more.
Senator Bellemare: Okay.
The Chair: It would be my hope and expectation that we do a lot of things together in this committee, that we inform each other and keep abreast of the opportunities we experience. We’ll get to that when we have a mandate discussion, a future work discussion. My expectation is the only way to get the benefit of the expertise from all members is to be able to communicate.
I would expect the steering committee may, from time to time, have to take some decisions, but I think for the most part, we work collaboratively and together whether it be mandates or witnesses, et cetera. That would be my view, Senator Bellemare, but you raise an important point because I think it’s the way we should function.
Are there any other comments, senators? We need to adopt this motion. We haven’t done that yet.
Senator Wallin: I have a quick comment on this. This is a standard motion. Often the steering committee does have to make decisions on the spur of the moment where you can’t convene. I think that’s going to be even more difficult and more important as we work through these hybrid sessions, where even the decision about when the Senate is sitting is changing on an hourly basis. I think we should leave it as the standard motion that it is.
Senator Moncion: I have an opposing view on this. Over the years — and at some point this was something we looked at — this has been a standard motion that has come through the years, and it has never been thought of in the new setting of the Senate. Since 80% of members of the Senate are now not in a caucus, I think it’s important at some point to review old ways that have been in place for a long time — not necessarily to change them, but to think about them to see if they are still good today and if they still apply to the way we do Senate work now.
In the corporate world, they’ve abolished steering committees or executive committees. They’ve been abolished because of some very important decisions that were being taken at the executive level, and that encompassed the responsibility of every other member of that committee. So we have to look at these things.
A couple of years ago the dynamic was different, when you had the Conservatives and Liberals, and that’s when we came on. Now we have five different groups within the Senate. So if we could just think about these things and look at them at some point.
For today, I don’t have a problem saying we agree to this one, but I think some time in the future, we have to look at these things to see if they still apply to the way we should be doing business from now on.
I have heard that over time we’ve always been doing it like this. Well, it was another time and the circumstances have changed. So now that we have the Progressive Senate Group, the Canadian Senators Group, the ISG, the GRO and the opposition, I think at some point we do have to look at this.
Senator Tannas: I think, for the functioning of the committee, it would be impractical, notwithstanding change and everything else — and we’ve all played a role in that — for us not to have an agenda or to check with everybody before we determine an agenda.
The committee remains in charge of things. If they don’t like the agenda, they can change it with one vote. Simply say, “I don’t like this agenda.” And if I have enough people on the committee, I can make the change. But the idea that somehow the steering committee that is just charged with trying to organize what goes on has to check with everybody seems chaotic to me.
The point is that the committee remains in control of the agenda. If they don’t like what’s going on, they can change people on the steering committee, they can make a motion to do anything and change it. It’s a way to empower somebody to do something until we don’t like it, and then we can change it.
I take the point that it has been a long time, but I don’t think this is about something that has to do with Conservatives and Liberals. I think it has to do with just how you try to run a group.
I also disagree, being a member of a steering committee of a corporate board, that it’s been abolished. It has not been abolished.
The Chair: On balance, I’m hearing concerns with respect to this, but I don’t hear sufficient concerns to suggest we should amend this at this time. I don’t think Senator Moncion is suggesting that. I think Senator Bellemare, who raised this issue, is comfortable with proceeding but is alerting us to this issue.
Just by way of comment, I would point out only that the steering committee would consist of four groups, and we’re well represented on the steering committee, if there are concerns about that, if this motion is passed.
Also, I look at this very much as a procedural and efficiency matter that we need to address as we function. I do want to remind everyone once again that the important matters of substance that will be contained in the agenda — there will be ample opportunity to hear from you and discuss this. I do agree with Senator Tannas, if the committee is uncomfortable, amendments can be moved or procedural matters can be addressed at that time.
I understand what Senator Moncion is addressing. I have been on a couple of public boards, like Senator Tannas, and special committees are in place for special matters. They don’t function necessarily this way, but they are in place. I don’t mean to suggest that you’re incorrect, Senator Moncion. We can have that discussion as well.
At this point, I’d like to move forward and ask for a proposer for motion 3. Do I have a proposer, please?
Senator Loffreda: I can propose.
The Chair: Is it agreed, senators, to adopt motion 3, the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, otherwise known as the steering committee? Not hearing anyone opposed, I declare the motion carried. That member will be Senator Marty Klyne, the member of the PSG.
Moving on to motion 4, to publish the committee’s proceedings. Do I have a proposer for motion 4?
Senator C. Deacon: So moved.
The Chair: Senator C. Deacon moved the motion. Is it agreed, senators, to adopt the motion regarding committee proceedings? I’m not hearing any opposition. I declare the motion carried.
Motion 5, financial report. I think you’ve all received a copy of the report from a previous session, the First Session of the Forty-second Parliament. May I have a mover of the following motion regarding the draft first report, prepared in accordance with rule 12-26(2)?
Senator Smith: I move the motion.
The Chair: Is it agreed, senators, to adopt the motion? Hearing no opposition, I declare the motion carried.
The next motion is regarding research staff. Do I have a proposer for motion 6?
Senator Marshall: I so move.
Senator C. Deacon: So moved.
The Chair: I can see there’s a lot of support for the analysts. May I dispense with reading the motion? If so, is it agreed, senators, to adopt the motion? Not seeing any opposition, I declare the motion carried.
I now invite the analysts to turn their video on, Mr. Stuckey and Ms. Yong. I will mention in advance the terrific work the analysts do on behalf of the committee.
Now motion 7, which is the authority to commit funds and certify accounts. Do I have a proposer?
Senator Marshall: I so move.
The Chair: May I dispense with reading the motion? Not hearing any opposition to that, is it agreed, senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried.
Do I have a proposer for motion 8, which deals with travel? Anyone?
Senator Wallin: So moved.
The Chair: This is regarding travel. I can read the motion, but may I dispense? I think it’s a standard motion. Is it agreed, senators, to adopt motion 8 regarding travel?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I see a lot of thumbs up. I declare the motion carried.
Moving to motion 9, designation of members travelling on committee business. Do I have a proposer?
Senator Bellemare: I so move.
The Chair: May I dispense with reading the motion? Is it agreed, senators, to adopt motion 9?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I see a lot of thumbs up again. I declare the motion carried.
Moving on to motion 10, travelling and living expenses of witnesses. Do I have a proposer for motion 10?
Senator Klyne: So moved.
The Chair: Senator Klyne proposed motion 10. May I dispense with reading the motion? Is it agreed, senators, to adopt motion 10?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: All in favour. I declare the motion carried.
We now have motion 11. Do I have a proposer for motion 11, which deals with communication?
Senator C. Deacon: So moved.
The Chair: May I dispense with reading the motion? Is it agreed, senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried. I believe our communications official, Mr. Nikta, is available, and he may turn on his video at this time.
That takes care of all the procedural motions that we need to address. I appreciate your comments on a couple of the motions that we need to think about. Before we adjourn the meeting, does anyone have any other comments?
Senator Ringuette: I want to congratulate you and the deputy chairs. I was wondering if you had any idea when our next meeting will occur so we can discuss future studies. I believe some are already in line, but we have to get them approved by the Senate. I was wondering about the time frame, if you have an idea.
The Chair: I have lots of ideas, but I’m not sure that I have an idea on that, Senator Ringuette. It’s an important question.
I think there’s going to be a motion in the chamber today for not sitting next week, because I believe lockdowns are coming in Ontario, possibly Quebec. It doesn’t affect everybody — those travelling to Ontario, of course, and many of you are travelling here. We’re going to sit, I believe, if the motion is carried today in the Senate, for two weeks. It’s very difficult for me to say when, given the circumstances. As you know, a motion passed recently in the Senate regarding the priorities given to committees: legislation, national finance, et cetera. And there’s another motion in the chamber today for virtual sittings.
It’s difficult for me. Some of you, being on National Finance and other committees — and Senator Tannas, who leads the CSG, of course — may have views on that and can assist you more than I can.
I’m hopeful the steering committee can have virtual meetings. I think we will be able to do that, to at least discuss matters moving forward. I’m not saying we should do that next week, Senator Ringuette, but I think it will be important for us to at least communicate, and I’m hopeful we can do that.
May I ask if any other senators have views? Obviously, we need to do this together. I’m not privy to any particular information that might help you at this time.
Senator Stewart Olsen: I have just one. If we’re all going to be thinking about what our studies should be, I would strongly recommend we study something related to COVID-19, financial or whatever, so that the Banking Committee can contribute in a meaningful way to helping people see their way through it. That would be my biggest suggestion.
The Chair: I do believe that we have to have an in-depth discussion about future work and our mandate. I’m glad you raised it. Some of you may recall I sent out a note in the middle of the summer with 17 topics on it. That was a different time, and obviously we’re in a different place right now.
Senator C. Deacon: I’d like to build on what Senator Stewart Olsen said. One of the things I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about is that businesses coming out of this COVID period will be equity-deficient and debt-laden. At the same time, Canada’s money supply has never been higher. I suggest we examine options that would look at investment in businesses in a pre‑public market space because we are going to have to unlock the funds of individuals who have available capital to invest in the businesses that are going to grow our jobs and have the biggest opportunity for helping our economy to rebuild on the other side of this. That’s an area I’ve been spending a lot of time thinking about, and I’d be very happy to share my thoughts with the steering committee on that. Thank you very much for your consideration.
Senator Wallin: It’s an obvious one, but we should have the new Governor of the Bank of Canada come as quickly as possible. He has been very outspoken on a lot of issues, some of them in a surprising way, so we should get on that.
The Chair: Senator Wallin, I wanted to mention that the governor has reached out and wants to come to the committee, I’m told. I think that will be easy; it’s just a question of scheduling and when we might do it.
Senator Wallin: Given the circumstances, I don’t think we will be doing any of this until February because we don’t have the mandate, but certainly it doesn’t stop us from planning.
The Chair: That’s certainly a good suggestion. I just wanted to inform the committee that I’ve been told he’s very interested in coming before the Senate. He finds it a nice place to visit.
Senator Marshall: The Finance Committee is up and running. We sat up until the end of June, and we sat last week for Bill C-9. We’re fully operational, and there are a number of members on the Banking Committee who are on the Finance Committee. For myself personally, I don’t have a problem if we were to have some meetings before Christmas. I think it would complement the work we’re doing in National Finance, but I leave it up to my colleagues on the committee to decide on the timing.
The Chair: I wasn’t planning to get into mandate discussions, but I’m glad it’s being raised because we need to think about it. There will be important work to do. I’ve been giving a lot of thought to mandates as well. I’ve been attempting to get my head around what would be most beneficial, where we could really contribute, where the high-quality work we do in committees could really advance vital public policy. There are many aspects to this.
What I would suggest you think about — I’m told by Ms. Aubé we only have a half hour, otherwise they will shut us down because other committees need the time — are broad fundamental economic issues associated with not just COVID today but in the future, and our committee has a broad economic mandate. We should look towards thinking about things that reflect where we see gaps in issues that other committees may be addressing that we can then fulfill as part of our mandate, whether it’s housing or whether it’s the debt crisis we’re facing — and not just from governments; there’s huge leverage in the debt crisis occurring in the private sector as well. I believe that to be the case.
There are issues of that sort that we can address. I’m not suggesting we should do that. But I’ve been thinking a lot about it and reviewing materials internationally. There are wonderful layers that we could discuss and contribute to a pragmatic development of public policy.
As Senator Wallin indicated, starting with the Governor of the Bank of Canada is a terrific idea. It’s one meeting and a useful one.
Senator Loffreda: I don’t want to speak for Senator Bellemare, but she’s been doing some good work on the mandate of the Bank of Canada, so maybe she could speak to it. I think it’s very important because if we look at the mandate of the Bank of Canada, we look at employment and not just inflation, although inflation is always an issue because in the period of high inflation in the 1970s, as you all know, there was a transfer of wealth from savers to borrowers, and we don’t want that to happen. Employment becomes a big issue. That’s an important mandate to look at. She can speak to it.
I also like what Senator Marshall said about the Finance Committee. There are a lot of COVID-related committees that are going to study that, so we should complement all and make sure that we cover the gaps but not be too repetitive on the COVID studies because a lot of committees will be doing that.
Much of your initial email, there are some good points there. That’s my point. Maybe that should be followed up.
The Chair: I don’t think there’s any question that there are many important topics. We’re not going to have the capacity to cover a lot of different topics. We have to be very focused to determine what we think is of the highest and best value, to contribute to where we think that might be. If it’s COVID‑related, that’s one thing; if it’s more about bank policy, that’s another thing. We all know that the Bank of Canada has extensively studied the models. They have proposed five models and done a tremendous amount of work on them. One of them, of course, is the one you just mentioned, Senator Loffreda, that Senator Bellemare has been focusing on. I’m well aware of her interest and capacity in this area. It’s an important area.
But I’m encouraging us to realize that there are only so many we can undertake, and there are going to be some important ones. That’s not to suggest what you just raised is not important; these are important matters. It’s going to take some effort to ensure we focus on the ones that have perhaps the most impact, given the incredibly challenging schedules we face in getting the time to do the work and producing the kinds of reports that will make a difference.
We are probably all on the same page; we want to do policy work that will make a difference. Let’s not forget, we’re going to have legislative time as well. When we get bills, like the privacy legislation, that’s for the Banking Committee. There are important bills like that, which will be studied in the Banking Committee, so we have to be mindful that legislation will always be a priority. I think we can all agree with that.
Senator Ringuette: This is not a question but maybe to reinforce that there’s a timing issue in regard to the Bank of Canada Act. I believe that they are almost at their review period.
The Chair: Yes. They are.
Senator Ringuette: So I would like to emphasize that if we do decide — and I think we should — that there’s a timing issue in order for our study and report to have an impact on the Bank of Canada Act.
The Chair: It’s one of the reasons we need to invite the governor to come before the committee because the five-year agreement with the Finance Committee will be up in the spring. They’re negotiating it now. The question will be: Do we focus on what they agree to, or do we have some influence on what they will agree to?
Senator Bellemare: If I may just add one thing, the issue of the Bank of Canada is also COVID-related because the context is so important to defining the mandate of the bank. We have to take account of the economic context of the day.
The Chair: I can’t disagree with you there, Senator Bellemare. Are there any other comments? We’ve decided on our mandate. That’s terrific early work, just tongue in cheek.
Are there any other comments, then, before we adjourn? We’ll be in touch. I conclude our organization meeting. I’m most thankful for your comments, what you’ve just indicated for me as the new Chair of the Banking Committee, the depth and thoughtfulness of your comments in what we can achieve together going forward.
I now declare the meeting adjourned. I hope you have a good day. There’s a session this afternoon. Be well, everyone.
(The committee adjourned.)