Thank you, Chair.
This is to whichever of the officials wants to take it.
The other day, as you may know, we had witnesses speak to this very issue. A number included tax experts. One was Kevin Wark from CALU, the Canadian association of life underwriters.
I asked Mr. Wark about what seems to be a gap in the bill. I think Mr. McGowan just spoke to this matter briefly a few minutes ago. It is the lack of requirement in the bill for the parent to cease to be involved after the transfer.
This is what Mr. Wark put back to me when I asked him his thoughts on that issue. I quote here from the meeting the other day, Mr. Chair.
We engaged an outside consultant who was involved in consulting primarily on arm's-length transactions of private businesses. He indicated that in the majority of those situations, the selling owner was obligated to continue in the business because of the transfer of information and relationships. To differentiate that from a family transfer doesn't seem to make sense. It would make more sense for the business owner to have some role to play longer term to ensure the business continues to be successful.
Our argument is that they should not necessarily control the business after the transfer, but they should continue to be able to play a significant role.
Maybe this is to Mr. McGowan. I'm not sure, but are there any thoughts on that perspective? Is this a reasonable rebuttal that was offered in response to this concern about the lack of requirement that I'm talking about?