Finance Committee on Jan. 17th, 2007

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

Yes, I did. I was speaking to the main motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

No. We're going to call for the question.

Mr. Pacetti, are you speaking in favour of your own amendment?

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

Yes, I am.

In reply to Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, just shortly--

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

No, I don't need you to reply. I need to follow up with the vote now.

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

It's my amendment, so we have to sell this thing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

No. That's all right.

We're going to move ahead with the vote on that now.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Now we move back to the main motion and our speaker is Madam Wasylycia-Leis.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

We are discussing the question of urgency and whether or not there is some compelling reason for us to either pre-empt our other work on the committee or take the time away from our constituency work to come here before the House reconvenes to do these studies.

Mr. Chairperson, I would suggest to you that there is no urgency. There is no crisis. There is no market instability caused by waiting until the bill comes through. In fact, I would respond to Mr. McCallum's point about the government's position and their flawed position around the instability of the markets by suggesting to him that the uncertainty in the marketplace is caused by the belief by some people that this decision--the ways and means motion--could be overturned. That belief has been fuelled by the Liberals' antics and the tactics leading up to today's discussion. So the urgency is self-fulfilling on their part.

I would suggest we look at the situation of all provinces in this country. All finance ministers from all parties gave unanimous support to the ways and means motion in December of 2006 and are now suggesting that in fact work on our part to open up this question does lead to serious problems in the marketplace and must take into account the fact that those people who actually left the field, who got rid of their income trusts, are asking now why others are suggesting we extend the grandparenting and reopen the whole question when they've lost some money already.

So we have to be very careful about how we approach this issue. I would say, Mr. Chairperson, that I've tried to be consistent on this issue from day one, and I guess Mr. Pacetti is saying we haven't had time to discuss this issue. As far as I'm concerned, we've been dealing with this for a year and a half. Since September of 2005, this issue has been before Parliament and before the finance committee. We have been dealing with it over and over and over again, and in fact we now have, despite a broken promise, a government that decided to finally do what the Liberals should have done.

So I would suggest, Mr. Chairperson, we try to get on with the task of dealing with some other urgent issues, like the Bank Act and like the fact that many people are coming out of this Christmas season with huge debts because of high interest rate charges and ATMs that double-charge, and a number of other pressing issues that touch people in the pocketbook.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you, Madam Wasylycia-Leis.

To conclude, we'll have Madam Ablonczy, and then we'll finish with Mr. Wallace.

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

Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that we clarify what is happening here.

There is a suggestion on the part of the Liberals that unless this committee hears some witnesses for a meeting or two, the perspectives of investors and trust companies are not going to be heard. That, of course, is utter nonsense. The trust companies were in Ottawa the day after the announcement. Trust companies have been meeting not only with members of Parliament—all of us have met more than once with representatives of the trust industry—but the minister has met with these individuals, and the department has had ongoing discussions with these individuals. In addition to that, there is the input process on the bill, which is posted on the website and is going through the normal process.

So there has been plenty of input--huge input, commentary, discussion, debate, perspectives--put forward on this issue directly to the minister and his department. It does not need this committee to make that happen.

The committee has a role. Generally speaking, in the ordinary course of business the role is to examine the bill after second reading. Somehow there's a suggestion that the normal course of business isn't good enough in the case of this bill, that we have to study it before we even have a bill. But how could that be true? If it's not good enough for this bill, why is it good enough on every single other bill that's ever come before Parliament? That is when the committee looks at the legislation, hears witnesses, and makes recommendations back to the House, including amendments that come back before the House. The committee has every opportunity to do this. So the suggestion that somehow it has to be done now or there's going to be panic in the streets is really quite ridiculous.

With respect to the investors, Mr. Chairman, either the investors continue to hold trust units, in which case the value of those trust units has recovered to within 10% of what they were before the announcement—this is well known by members on the Liberal side—or they have sold their trust units, in which case anything that is done by legislation is not going to change the position.

Mr. Chairman, I think there are some things we may want to discuss--and are discussing, quite frankly--with the minister, with the department, and with a number of groups about mitigation, as my friend Pierre Paquette says, but fundamentally what we're concerned about is the Liberals continuing to bring uncertainty to this situation.

I appreciate my friend from the Bloc making it clear that at the end of the day he, as well as the majority of Parliament, will be supporting the bill and the measures that are put forward and that like all of us he does want to discuss what can be done to be responsive to investors and trust concerns. But to somehow suggest that this has to be done tomorrow or something is not going to be done properly I think is really misleading. I think it's important that we put that forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

All right.

Apart from creating additional work for Hansard, I'm not sure who's convincing anyone at this point, so I'm hesitant to continue the discussion. I would much prefer to move to a vote.

Mr. Wallace.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I think it's important, since I've come all this way this morning, that I have an opportunity to speak to the motion that's in front of us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Then fill the air, sir. Fill the air.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

The taxpayer has paid for me to get here this morning and will be paying for me to get back this afternoon.

I will not be supporting the motion that's in front of us. I want to be clear that it's not because of some of the amendments that were put forward in terms of the ways and means motion that's in front of the House of Commons, because I do support the ways and means motion that is coming forward.

The fact is that this is complete political grandstanding. We all know it around here. Anybody watching at home will know this.

First of all, they tried to say we're trying to do a report, get there in advance, and so on and so forth, and then they admit we are going to have another meeting after the bill comes back. How can we debate something without seeing the wording and what's going to happen? It does not make any sense. It is completely not the way of doing things. If they have issues with how the ways and means motion is actually presented in terms of dealing with income trusts, then they'll have the wording and then they can discuss the issues properly. The witnesses could discuss the issues properly. But that does not exist. It will not exist until after that happens. So they're playing games trying to have these pre-meetings. Based on the numbers, it's likely going to pass. It's not passing because I'm supporting it.

I have quoted in the record where the Honourable John McCallum was on television nationwide, saying we're doing the right thing on income trusts. He was absolutely saying the right thing, so why doesn't he wait for the legislation to come like any other process would occur? But no, political grandstanding.

I've heard from the Bloc, I've heard from the NDP. I know from our side we agree with this in principle, with what we were doing. In principle it goes to second reading, then it comes to committee. Why are we not following that process? They're trying to fool with the process, trying to play games, get their names in the headlines. They should read the Globe and Mail today, which says to quit gnawing at the income trust issue. The editorial is clear: that this government has made a move on it, and we will bring forward legislation in writing so people will understand what's happening, and that's when it should happen. We shouldn't be screwing with the markets like we are today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thanks, Mr. Wallace.

To conclude, Mr. Dykstra.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is really just on a point of clarification. I've already spoken to the motion in terms of content, but one of the issues I raised in my amendment was the ability for a wide range of witnesses to be able to come forward and be called to present to committee.

Mr. Chair, in terms of witnesses who can be called, I'm going to assume, to show credibility to the numbers, that provincial finance ministers can be asked as witnesses to be brought forward, in particular the finance minister in Quebec, who has confirmed the leakage numbers we speak of to be between $100 million and $140 million a year for that province alone. I think it would be incumbent upon us to ensure that we're going to at least have those finance ministers to be able to come to present and show what difficulties might arise if we do not do what we have committed to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

I think we have that undertaking from all members. I haven't heard anything to the contrary, that there be broad parameters around the witnesses.

I'll go now to the question.

(Motion as amended agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Now we will move in camera. We'll just take a very brief three-minute break, and then we'll move in camera for a pertinent discussion. It shouldn't take too long.

[Proceedings continue in camera]