Finance Committee on April 2nd, 2008

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

As long as we resolve something on the timing before we finish the meeting today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

I think that's fair enough. We'll attempt to, anyway.

Let's open the floor up for debate on the main motion.

Mr. Dykstra.

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

Thank you, Chair.

We certainly, on our side, don't take issue with the motion. Mr. McCallum's intent is something that we, first, don't have a problem with, and second, actually think is a pretty good idea.

The difficulty we have rests around his comments with respect to timing. We have in good faith tried to seek some approval and at least some unanimity around the table that in fact this is a good motion and that its concept is well thought out and, as I think, will be helpful.

The difficulty is, this is a huge issue in the industry. They have gone through negotiations, they currently have Mr. Purdy crossing the country trying to explain exactly what they have come up with in terms of at least a responsible position, and they have tried to get support from shareholders. One of the difficulties we face is a dynamic whereby we and the Liberals and Bloc, if they are going to support this motion, put ourselves in the position of exerting potentially a negative influence on the outcome of a private sector debate on a private sector issue in which we, while we certainly have responsibilities with respect to resident citizens of this country, certainly should not be putting ourselves in the position of influencing, whether by accident or on purpose, the outcome of the vote on April 25.

I would respectfully submit that due consideration be given by the mover of the motion to our waiting until shortly after April 25—we're not talking that far into the future, just three weeks—to allow all of the work surrounding this issue that has taken place within the private sector, outside of the realms of the federal government, to take its proper course. Once that vote has been completed, we are in a much better position, not to put ourselves into a subjective position of potentially influencing the outcome, but in fact into an objective position of assisting the individuals who've been impacted by this issue over the last number of months.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Okay.

Mr. McKay.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

I appreciate Mr. Dykstra's concern, but I think it's poorly founded. His argument is essentially that you're assuming hearings would create a negative atmosphere prior to April 25. I frankly don't agree with that.

The issue for the retail investors who have contacted me and contacted us is that the deal around the $32 billion has largely been conducted among the large institutions that are most directly affected, and that the retail investors are, if you will, almost an afterthought.

The curiosity is that first, because it's “one man, one vote”, the retail investors actually will have a significant influence on the ultimate outcome.

The second thing that appears to be coming out in the press is that this is a very confusing presentation on the part of the people presenting to the retail investors. As I recollect one quote from one individual, he said: “I have a BComm and a PhD. I may be 78 years old, but I do understand what's going on here.” And he found the 400-page presentation quite confusing.

It seems to me that the people's representatives, the House of Commons and the finance committee, should be the ones who give the forum and opportunity prior to the vote to let those retail investors—and others, for that matter—present in a fashion that allows a more positive and informed outcome, rather than simply saying we'll just sit back until the vote.

There is a huge and significant amount of money involved here that has a considerable impact on the overall functioning of our financial system. Anything the House of Commons and the finance committee can do to create a forum to allow an informed discussion is a good thing, I think, and will in fact lead to a positive outcome rather than a negative one.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

We'll have Mr. McCallum and then Mr. Del Mastro.

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

I certainly wouldn't want to derail the private sector process. I have been in close contact with a number of the people very close to that, and I'm confident that this hearing on April 9 would not have that effect. On the other hand, my office and many other people's offices have had calls from many of these so-called stranded retail investors.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Sorry for interrupting here. I'm a little bit confused. Are you wanting just one meeting on April 8 or 9, next week sometime, on the retail sector only? Your motion is different from that. That's why I bring it up.

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

The motion doesn't speak to the timing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

It speaks to the number of meetings, though.

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

What I would like next week, on April 9, or perhaps on another date next week, is a meeting with these retail investors for perhaps three hours. That would be sufficient.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

That would satisfy your motion, then.

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

That would not satisfy the whole motion. I think there are two parts. The meeting next week, on April 9, would be for the retail investors. You can't wait until after April 25 for the retail investors--you might as well not have a meeting for them at all--because that's the decision date, the vote date. After April 25, in a less-rushed fashion, we can look at the more general question of what went wrong.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

That's clarification enough. That's fine.

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

Mr. Purdy Crawford and all those people could come later. The urgency is for the retail investors next week. They're the ones who have been clamouring to come. I delayed it two days on Monday out of deference to the process. I think the time has come to invite them to come next week.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Okay, just as clarification for the committee, and correct me if I'm wrong, you're suggesting a separate meeting next week for the retail investors. Then following the vote on April 25, or shortly after, we would pick up the rest of the motion and hold subsequent meetings on it. That's your suggestion.

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

Yes, or we can vote on the motion as a whole and also on the timing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Fair enough. It will be before we leave here today. I think it's important that we all understand exactly what you're talking about.

Go ahead, Mr. Del Mastro.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Respectfully, I actually think that Mr. McKay and Mr. McCallum have both just demonstrated exactly what our point is, which is that these hearings are going to have an impact on this vote. I don't think this committee or any of us should be having an impact on this decision. I think we run a real risk of negatively impacting small investors in this country by influencing this vote. I don't think we should be opening ourselves up to that.

I would like to move an amendment to Mr. McCallum's motion: that these hearings commence after the vote on April 25 so that we don't negatively influence the outcome.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Okay, we have an amendment to the motion. We'll debate that amendment, and then we'll vote on that amendment.

Is there any further debate on the amendment?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

I would certainly like to support this. With respect to the comments we just heard from both Mr. McKay and Mr. McCallum, I would have to question what it is we're going to provide to the investors that Mr. Purdy Crawford and those who are travelling with him can't provide to those investors at those meetings. As we've all heard, it's a very complicated issue, and I wouldn't like to be in the position of doing anything more than hearing them. For us to even hear these concerns before that point would be inappropriate. We're going to lead these individuals on by hearing from them before April 25, before they make the decision.

I would encourage a process that is a private-sector-led process. Government has not been part of this, nor should it be part of this. This is a private-sector-led process. Let's let it work its way out. They've been working on this since August. For us to interfere prematurely now I think would be a disservice to those investors. So I would certainly support Mr. Del Mastro's amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

We're going to call for a vote on the amendment if we're prepared for that at this time.

(Amendment negatived)

That takes us then to the main motion. Is there any further debate?

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

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

So now we need a motion to call for a meeting of the retail investors on April 9, or some other date next week.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Mr. Menzies.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

What about our committee meetings that are already prepared? We have witnesses coming for other--