Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I find myself squished here, because I totally agree with the intent of Mr. Blaikie's motion, and Mr. McGowan's explanation of why we need to tighten this up is very succinct. Preferred shares are not shares to common equity, and we are looking at distribution of common equity shares. We can probably tighten that language so it is about dividends payable on common equity—that is, dividends that corporations choose to pay to shareholders.
Let's recall that what happened here throughout CERB was a transfer of wealth from certain parts of society to certain other parts of society. It is a gross imbalance between asset holders, who are getting incredibly wealthy through this process, and people without assets. To not continue to fund the transfer of wealth from regular Canadians to rich Canadians is exactly what the intent of this motion should be, and we need to find the wording to make sure that it applies.
Mr. McGowan, I'd say we will talk about common equity, because we know that preferred equity is actually required at that point, like a debt instrument, if you will. We also understand that some of these dividends are transferred between different arms of the same corporation and there's no payout. It is only a transfer mechanism; it is not a distribution from the corporation to its shareholders.
We can tighten up that language, and I would encourage Mr. McGowan, because he understands the intent here, to submit something that would tighten it accordingly, so we don't continue with this wealth transfer, which is exactly what Canadians are tired of seeing. We're paying attention to their wealth here, to their taxes. We're not just flushing it into the system—I'm sorry, Mr. Baker, for using that word again—and pushing up inflation, pushing up the wealth of Canadians and the asset inflation that has occurred over the last year and a half here without anybody minding the store.