Finance Committee on March 3rd, 2011

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Ms. Glover.

I would like to thank Mrs. Champoux-Paillé. Her presentation was in French and in English, but on page 13, I discovered something very interesting, which is only in French. Could we have that part of the brief translated into English so that all committee members can have a look at it?

Thank you.

[Louise Champoux-Paillé]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you for pointing that out.

We thank all of you. If you have anything further, please submit it to the clerk and we will ensure that members receive it. Thank you so much for being with us.

I will go, then, right to Mr. Brison. You all have a copy of his motion.

Mr. Brison, please move your motion.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Chairman, I suspect that other members have been approached as well by people involved in the property and casualty insurance business concerning the issue around demutualization. I don't believe this to be a partisan issue, but it's one that we're all being approached on. As such, it would be helpful if, as a committee, we were all to receive a briefing from Finance and from those involved in the demutualization process of property and casualty insurance companies.

You all have my motion. I move that the committee investigate as soon as possible the demutualization of property and casualty insurance companies; and that the committee convene a session to study the implications of property and casualty insurance company demutualization that includes the following: a summary on the issues by the Library of Parliament; Department of Finance officials present to give statements and answer finance committee members' questions; a variety of experts and witnesses for and against the demutualization of property and casualty insurance companies present to give statements and answer finance committee members' questions, as well as any other witnesses or materials that the committee deems relevant.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Brison.

I have Ms. Glover.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I'm generally in favour; however, I'm not sure....

Could I ask Mr. Brison a question, through the chair?

Did you include the third point that we had discussed with regard to the experts and witnesses? I was going to propose an amendment to the language—that is all—but if you're withdrawing the third point—

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

I've just received this. This is the first time I've seen this.

You're speaking about the amendment regarding issues and concerns surrounding potential....

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Just to clarify, the motion is as stated, as members have it. If you want to move an amendment, you can.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Yes. If you want to make an amendment, I'm open to that. It doesn't change the intention.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Here is the amendment. I would propose that in the third point, starting with “a variety of expert witnesses”, take out the “for and against”-—

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Sure.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

—to be replaced with “regarding issues and concerns surrounding”. Then continue with “the” and put in “potential demutualization of property and casualty insurance companies, including potential guidelines”. And in the last sentence, where it says “as well as any other witnesses or material that the committee deems relevant”, my proposed friendly amendment would be to add “and that the committee report its recommendations to the Minister of Finance”.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Sure, that's fine.

I accept that there may be a small change to the word “surrounding” and another one to the word “committee”.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

The chair's comment on the amendment is that it's in order, but “that the committee report its findings to the House of Commons” accomplishes the same thing.

Okay?

The debate is on the amendment.

I have Monsieur Paillé.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I agree with the idea of removing the words “for and against”. In any case, people will be explaining their positions on this. I would simply like to know what you suggested for the last paragraph. I didn't understand what you were saying. Did you suggest something different?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Ms. Glover.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Simply that we report on the issue.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Yes, I agree. I have no problem with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Any further discussion on the amendment?

No.

All those in favour of the amendment?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

All those in favour of the motion as amended?

Monsieur Paillé.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Can we discuss the motion before voting on it, if you don't mind?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Is there discussion on the motion as amended?

Monsieur Paillé.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I completely agree with our friend, Mr. Brison, because we have heard about this. Insurance company officials have met or will be meeting with the Minister of Finance. We do want to hear from Finance Department officials on this. We also want to look at the Library of Parliament paper and hear statements from witnesses. I am simply wondering whether one meeting will be enough. I think there may be more than one person or expert witness we will want to hear from. There may be more officials from the Finance Department. So, even though I agree with the motion, I would like the committee to retain the option of consulting other people. I think it's important to do a post mortem on the property and casual insurance companies that were demutualized several years ago and see what the implications might be of demutualization for other types of insurance companies.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Just to be helpful, as the chair, one thing we could do is say “that the committee convene a study” and then, that way, it could be one meeting or two; it's not specific in terms of how many sessions we have. That way, the committee can instruct the chair as to how many meetings the committee wishes.

Can that be a friendly amendment from the chair?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

That's fine. We trust the Chair.