Evidence of meeting #33 for Finance in the 39th Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was income.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
That's the case.
Usually Mr. McCallum listens intently to every word I say at finance committee. Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I should have been this afternoon, but certainly that is the case, Mr. Chairman.
Bloc
Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
I share the concerns of the members of the Liberal Party, but I want to ensure that we will not consider this matter next week. There are many other important things to do.
I remember writing to the Minister of Finance in 1997 to ask him to eliminate the penny. I can wait another week.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
I'll put it this way, because I think there's a consensus. It's worthy of consideration, but not a priority. Is that fair?
Bloc
Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
I think these points need clarifying, to avoid any misinterpretations by either side. That issue is relevant and warrants study. Under the rules, we have to deal with legislation first. Once that is done, the issue of bank paper will take priority over that, in my view.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
Okay, so I think everyone understands this one.
We're going to ask for a motion to pass this one, but it's clear that it's not a priority and that other things would be much more important than this issue.
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
Now we'll move to another motion, which I question a little bit, because we had another motion last week, and I assumed that we were going to carry through with this. But we'll ask Mr. McCallum why this motion is here and if he's interested in moving it.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
Mr. Chair, you and I had a brief discussion on this. If you're willing to proceed with the meetings on Thursday, April 10, then I guess we don't need a motion. But it wasn't clear to me at the last meeting whether that was your position.
If there's a consensus that we go ahead with meeting these retail investors on April 10, and if we can do that without a vote, that's fine with me.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
Okay, I assumed we were going to have the meetings this week, but the motion is here, so if you want to speak to it, go ahead.
My concern or recommendation, as chair of the committee, is that we not wade into this before the vote is taken. But the motion last week directed us to have the meetings this week. I would still caution the committee very carefully that this has danger signs written all over it, from my perspective. If we are going to go into this, I think we should offer both sides an opportunity to come before the committee.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
But I go back to my original caution to the committee that this is fairly serious, and I really would prefer not to get into it; but if it's the will of the committee to do this, I will accede to it.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
Well, if it's your proposal to have meetings on Thursday and to invite both sides, and if that's the consensus, then I would be happy to proceed without a vote on the motion.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
Let's assume that we can do this on Thursday morning. Let's assume that we can offer it to both sides. Let's make another assumption, that you have a list of those who have asked to come forward on it.
What I would recommend is that we accept two witnesses from the Conservatives, two from the Liberals, one from the Bloc, and one from NDP, so that we don't get a bias from the witnesses coming forward.
Is that fair?
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
I'm not sure if they are enough. Maybe we can have three, and....
From my point of view, this is more a matter of our listening than asking questions. You just named six, but I think we could maybe have three, three, two, two, or something like that.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
Well, let's go with three, three, two, two, as far as our recommendation is concerned. But we will try it in order so that we can have a dispersion among the entire committee on the recommendation of who should come forward. I think that's fair.
If we're good with that, then let's proceed with Thursday morning, and we will schedule for--
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Would you just clarify what you meant by three, two, two?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
No, I'm sorry, it was three, three, two, two as far as the recommendations are concerned.
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
Yes, but that doesn't mean we're going to have that many witnesses. It means that we will proceed on a fair basis, having a limit, I would suggest, of six, because if you have any more than that in an hour-and-a-half meeting, we're not being fair. So let's try to get six. I think that number will give us a snapshot of what's going on, and we'll use that as a priority for whom we will ask.
Is that fair?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
Well, we could go for two hours, but my recommendation would be for an hour and a half for one side and an hour and a half for the other side. But if you want to have two hours for one side and an hour for the other side....
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
I don't know if there are different sides. I don't understand.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
What do you mean by “other sides”? Aren't they all coming together?
Conservative