Finance Committee on Feb. 5th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Members are free to—

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

That's fine by me.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Not a problem? Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Members are free to suggest any witness.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Chair, I know they're looking for us to get supplementary B through fairly soon. Do you have a sense when that might happen? Has anyone talked to you about that?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I've been given no indication. No one on this committee as of yet has indicated in what forum they'd like to study the supplementary estimates.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We'll go to Mr. McKay.

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

When I first read the motion, I thought that eight meetings were going to be insufficient to cover the sector. As it gets expanded and expanded, I think eight meetings is virtually an impossibility, unless you're just wanting to do a superficial study. I don't know whether you have to name the number of meetings or not, but eight meetings won't cover it. I would suggest we move it up to a dozen meetings or more, because you are opening up a huge sector, a huge sector, and one thing will lead to another, which will lead to another. So I would not limit yourself to eight meetings by any means.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Mr. McCallum.

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

Maybe we need 88 meetings, but there are only so many weeks in the year. I certainly agree with this. I think it's hugely important, but my only small point was that I assume we're going to hear from the infrastructure for this. I think the agreement was we'd have some infrastructure witnesses. Are we going to talk about that today as well?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We can bring that up. Your proposal was to hear about infrastructure and EI prior to getting the Budget Implementation Act.

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

So I think we still have one more meeting space. We have Carney on Tuesday.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We have Carney on Tuesday for an hour. We could have an hour on something else, like infrastructure.

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

And then we have Thursday too, probably.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We have Thursday too, and then I don't know when the Budget Implementation Act will get here.

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

Anyway, I think we're all in favour of this proposition. I just want to put on the table that I hope we have time to agree on the infrastructure thing. Is it the idea to present proposed witnesses at this meeting, or do we phone in to somebody? How does that work?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

For proposal of witnesses, the preference is probably to name them at this meeting, or you could submit them by e-mail to the clerk. That would be my suggestion.

Mr. Pacetti.

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

I have my comments on the motion, but I also have my comments on the work of the committee.

I think we should address the motion, and if it gets adopted, then we should prioritize what this committee should be working on. I'll have a question for the parliamentary secretary, because I think we need to have an idea of when the budget implementation bill will come on. Then at that point, we can prioritize where we're going to place this. As John was saying, this study could go on forever. It could continue on.

The motion says, and I'll read it in English:

That the Standing Committee on Finance undertake a study on government assistance to the Canadian financial sector.

But we seem to be spinning off, so this could be a never-ending type of study. Not that I have a problem with it, but then you're looking at all kinds of other people who are involved in financial institutions, whether they be investment bankers, as Mr. Wallace was saying, institutional lenders. It would be all kinds of things. We have to have a list. Mr. Menzies was saying CDIC also, Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation. So this is something that is going to be, I think, a comprehensive study. Or is it going to be a small study? Either way, I'm supportive of it, but I think we have to sort of wrap our heads around it and see what the produit final is going to be before we go ahead with it. Then we have to prioritize what we want to do as a committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

That's a fair point. The sense I'm getting from the committee is that if we have the Governor of the Bank of Canada, if we did something on infrastructure, if we had time to do something on employment insurance, the Budget Implementation Act, then this would follow the Budget Implementation Act, if that's a fair reading. That's my sense of what members would like to do. I'm sensing strong support for this motion.

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

But we haven't read the next motion, so that next motion might be a stronger feeling than this motion. I'd just like to reserve my feelings on it. I am for it, but....

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay.

Monsieur Laforest.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

What I am hearing, Mr. Chair, is that everyone seems to be in agreement on the process and the importance that we must attach to this matter.

Mr. Wallace was talking about the banks, but he did not talk about other financial institutions. But when we are talking about “the Canadian financial sector” that is rather broad. I think that what counts here is the choice of witnesses that we invite to the committee. As Mr. Menzies said, it would be fine to add specific institutions such as the Business Development Bank.

As for the number of meetings required, we have to do a serious job of this study, but at the same time, we must not spend too much time on it. One of the objectives of these meetings is to allow people to see that there is a parliamentary committee that is looking at the issues that everyone is concerned about.

Another objective is to bring the topic down to the layman's level so that the general public can understand how the provisions in the budget will have an impact on their lives. We want them to understand what the support that the government is giving to institutions means, and how the government intends to protect the taxpayers' interests. So if we want to reach that goal as well, it must not be to long. We could add two meetings, but I think that we should not go beyond that, because then it would become too long. I think that approximately ten meetings would be sufficient, rather than eight, since we are casting our nets somewhat wider. That is what I would suggest.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

I have Mr. Menzies and then Mr. Pacetti.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Certainly I agree with the importance, but I think we have timeframes now in our reporting process. I think it's absolutely imperative that as soon as the budget implementation bill gets here we have to study it expeditiously and get it moved through. I certainly hope that's going to be the priority.

To Mr. McCallum's point, I understood we had agreement at the last meeting that we knew those two issues were going to be dealt with; they're spoken about in the budget, EI and infrastructure. So I agree, that was my understanding that we were going to pre-study, if you will, get that started and get this process rolling as quickly as we can.

I can't suggest what day the actual budget bill is going to get here, because it hasn't quite entered the House yet, let alone cleared the House. So I would go back to Mr. McCallum's point: I think that has to be our priority. We agree with this motion, but it has to be the second priority after the budget.