One wonders what to do and what to think about the most recent news from Ottawa. So we have asked for clarification and confirmation. And we’re starting to get it.

The news is summarized in an article that appears in the Globe & Mail today entitled, “Ottawa tells the Street to speed up trust ideas. Steven Chase, Grant Robertson and Heather Scoffield report that, “Ottawa is telling key Bay Street players to submit their views on income trusts as fast as possible because it wants to move on potential tax reforms as early as January, rather than in an expected February budget...Officials are now calling on banks and major players in the trust sector to hurry up their reports to the federal trust consultation, asking for them five weeks ahead of schedule.”

The Consultation Paper included a deadline for submission of December 31.  Submissions will not be made public until after that time.

So it’s difficult to match the Department of Finance characterization and formal public statements about its intent with its actions.  We observe the basis for some confusion:

The old pre-emption problem: The Department made a move (freezing tax rulings) after it set up a Consultation process to invite ideas supposedly intended to inform any moves;

The current credibility gap: The department asked for ideas on a set schedule, but has now requested an alteration in the time frame in order to form a fast decision, mid-process.  Worse yet, the change has been requested, but not issued with explanation in a formal way.

The political dimension in the Consultation process seems to be grounded in speculation about government motivations and pre-determined outcomes. The current process triggers even more speculation.

Problematic appearances have been amplified: The government expressed desire for an open and full scope of input but then attempts to expedite the process with focus on receiving input from a select few informants;

The potential for informed policy has been made impractical: The department talked about its desire for meaningful perspective, but now rushes mid-stream to get fast responses at the expense of well thought-out insight so that the department can make a knee-jerk decision;

Credibility appears to be disappearing: Finance says that it’s not making any decisions until the end of the process, but last week Mr. Goodale said that he wants to take action fast...as if the “no-action” alternative on trusts has already been dismissed without fair consideration of all input.

The government is in an unfortunate position. And perhaps it does not need the kind of help being offered by a growing group in the form of an inclusive and in-depth Roundtable—hosted by iTrustInstitute or any other group—that promises results geared to address the stated intent and questions of the Consultation Paper.

If the Consultation process is truly, in Mr. Goodale’s current language, a “sham”, then we are all more the fools and should call off the Roundtable.

Income trust and corporate leaders, the public and academic institutions do not want to waste time and money to gather in Toronto and attempt in vain to hit a constantly moving government target in terms of consultation requirements. Too many have lost too much already as a result of the department inability to commit to its own Consultation process before making practical changes.

If the Institute called off the Roundtable now, however, a mass of people including corporate leaders would view the action as reasonable, but a reaction to growing evidence that there is little reasonable, legitimate or well-intended in the Consultation Paper and process. In other words, reasonable public action will merely show its government to be unreasonable.

We want reasonable elected officials and policy formulation.  We want to be able to provide the best possible input.

The best possible response we can design for the Consultation Paper is facilitation of the December Roundtable event. It can address the content of the Paper and questions raised by the paper. Institute commitment is focused on a revealing process that is inclusive, broad and deep in the perspective it invites, analyzes and documents, i.e. the Roundtable is offering a serious and potentially effective response.

We can only hope that sound reason prevails in Ottawa at some level, if only to stem the incoming tide of growing and serious concern about the integrity of the Department of Finance and the Government’s intent and actions.

The iTrustInstitute is asking the Department of Finance to help us help them with the Consultation process by partnering with the Institute to put on a truly round Roundtable discussion. The Institute has also asked for clarification on the real timing and agenda, given news that Ottawa appears to be giving preferential interest to corporate Canada while asking business leaders to expedite feedback on the Consultation.

Updates & addendums:

We are told that the Consultation process is being respected.  And in fact, “officials could attend the session - not present, but attend”.  We hope that registration realizes this potential.