Finance Committee on Feb. 5th, 2009

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

We talked for a bit about 36 hours or 48 hours, but you can bypass that rule by just showing up and having them deal with stuff that's current. Is that the issue? How would we deal with this if I didn't give him 36 hours in advance?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I requested members to bring forward ideas for future business. These are actually motions, as I understand it. Monsieur Laforest can correct me, but this is for future business.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I understand. Thank you very much for that clarification.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Monsieur Laforest.

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

You said that one of the motions posed a problem. I would like to know which one, before continuing.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

The motion that's posing difficulty is the one that the finance committee invite the Minister of Finance, the President of the Treasury Board, the Parliamentary Librarian, and the Parliamentary Budget Officer to appear regarding the decision to reduce funding for the Parliamentary Budget Officer by 30%, and that at least two meetings be devoted to this study.

The reason is that the Parliamentary Budget Officer's mandate, as defined in section 79.1(1) of the Parliament of Canada Act, is to establish “the position of Parliamentary Budget Officer, the holder of which is an officer of the Library of Parliament”. Therefore, it would be the Library of Parliament committee that would study his mandate. He can report to us on economic forecasting, but in terms of his mandate he would report to the Library of Parliament committee.

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

Really then, you were saying that the decision to cut 30% was made by other people not mentioned in the motion. Is that right?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

No, it says his mandate is under the Library of Parliament. If we're going to be discussing his mandate or his allocation of resources, that would be done by the Library of Parliament committee and not the finance committee.

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

We will reword it and resubmit it.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

The other two motions you can certainly present.

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

I have tabled two other motions that deal with the future business of this committee. Both motions are equally significant; allow me to read the first one: “That the Finance Committee undertake a study on government assistance to the Canadian financial sector.”

People know that the government has approved significant measures for the financial sector, specifically targeted to banks. It is important to guarantee a certain level of transparency that will allow us to see how banks are responding to this assistance, and how people are able to benefit from this. It is therefore important for parliamentarians to make sure that there is a follow-up and to ask questions of those directly concerned.

We also have to measure the impact of the implementation of these measures on public finances. Are there accountability indicators? What is the scope of these indicators and how are we going to make sure that individuals and businesses are indeed getting access to credit? The budget holds significant support measures that will ease access to credit for the automobile sector, among other sectors. Savings are also being affected by these measures.

It's important that we be able to discuss the stability of the Canadian system in an open and public way. As so we are suggesting eight meetings to hear from officials from the Department of Finance, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, and industry representatives. This committee must endorses measures that would promote transparency and accountability the part of the financial sector, while minimizing risks for public finance, because it is taxpayers' money at stake.

I suggest that we hold two meetings to examine and present recommendations to the minister. Those are the terms of the first motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, thank you.

I have Mr. Menzies, Mr. Wallace, Mr. McKay, and Mr. McCallum.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

We're going to use the hour up, aren't we?

Monsieur Laforest has some good ideas. I would like to support this and add to it, if that's acceptable, just for clarification on timing. Once we get the Budget Implementation Act through, the estimates.... We have that to deal with, do we not?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We have estimates to deal with, and the budget implementation bill would take precedence, but we don't know the exact timing of that yet.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

This will be after that, then, depending....

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Depending on when we get the budget bill.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

We'll find that out sometime soon.

I like where Mr. Laforest is going with this. I think it is very timely that we take a look at this, part of it being because of the non-bank asset-backed commercial paper issue that we didn't finish studying because we finally sorted it out. But we do need to look at the root of that problem, at why that happened, and I think we can fold it into this.

I would like to add, for the review, Business Development Canada and EDC, what we've added to those. Are they able to get the money out? Do we need to take a serious look? I've had constituents say that it's not working yet. We need to get the legislation through, but we should bring them in to talk about how they're getting money out, talk about regulations for federal financial institutions, look at banking regulations, and at OSFI's role in all of this. We never did get much of a chance to talk to OSFI about this, so that we, as parliamentarians, understand what OSFI's role is. Maybe it's getting too broad, I don't know. But I would like to suggest that.

And then the rating agencies--we all wanted to hear Dominion Bond Rating Service. Do we include that in our discussions as well?

And while we're having this discussion, can we expand it to financial literacy? We've talked about that in the budget. How do we approach that? How do we educate Canadians that there actually is an interest charge on their Visa cards? Is that our role? Whose role is it? How do we help with that?

I'd like to add those to Monsieur Laforest's motion, if I could.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

OSFI is in the second paragraph, but you would add BDC.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Yes, BDC, EDC.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

And rating agencies.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Rating agencies, and the federal financial institutions that oversee that, and a component on financial literacy. One witness may be able to address two or three of those issues.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Wallace, please.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you.

I'll just go through to the mover, if I can, for a clarification. I am certainly supportive of studying the financial sector. In his presentation he talked about the banks quite a bit, and now we've added a few others. I'm assuming we'll be able to call the financial sectors made up of a lot of other lenders, creditors, and other people who are in the business. I'm assuming we'd be able to have them come and talk to us about the role of government with their businesses, or their ability to provide credit, and so on. I just want a clarification from the mover that that was also part of his intention, if that's fine through Mr. Chair.

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

Among other things, are you talking about insurance companies?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Leasing companies. There's automotive leasing that happens that isn't bank-related.