INDY Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRY

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'INDUSTRIE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, May 7, 1998

• 1530

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order.

We have a notice of motion before us. I shall let Mr. Solomon move his motion.

Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Madam Chair, I move that the industry committee immediately convene a series of public hearings into the impact of the proposed bank mergers on small business, consumers and rural Canada; and that the witnesses include, among others: representatives of the chartered banks in Canada; the Canadian Federation of Independent Business; the Canadian Chamber of Commerce; the Credit Union Central of Canada; the Consumers' Association of Canada; academics who specialize in small business finance; the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities; the Canadian Federation of Agriculture; and so on.

So moved.

The Chair: Thank you.

Is there any discussion, anyone?

Mr. John Solomon: May I just make some comments on it, Madam Chair, as the mover of the motion?

The Chair: Briefly, please. We have a very long report to go through.

Mr. John Solomon: Thank you very much.

First of all, I want to ask members to consider the importance and the impact of the mergers taking place in Canada right now. They're important in the sense that all the evidence that's been provided to the U.S. congressional hearings on their bank mergers show that the larger the banks, the less capital there is for small business. The larger banks charge at least 15% or more on bank service charges to their clients, and of course a smaller portfolio for the small business community in terms of loans and other financing. This is evidence that's been checked and provided by the Federal Reserve of the United States.

More importantly, in Canada we've had a significant number of small businesses, consumers, farmers, and people in other parts of the country, particularly in rural Canada, who are very concerned about the mergers of the banks. We're going to go from about seven to about five, and in communities where there are three or four banks, it could mean there will be two banks, which means less competition and a lot of consideration and concern for increased costs to these individuals.

This is probably one of the more important financial initiatives this country has seen in this last decade with respect to what's going to be happening in terms of impact on people's financial lives and ultimately jobs. We also, I think, require some evidence that the mergers will be good for our country. If the banks can provide evidence that these mergers are going to benefit Canadians, that the level of jobs now existing in the industry will remain consistent, that there's going to be competition among banks for clients' business, and legitimate competition, and that there will be no adverse effects with respect to impacts on consumers, then I think that will be very important.

The final point I want to make is that the large national organization, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, has made a presentation to many individuals and groups, in particular the NDP caucus. In the presentation to the caucus, they outlined that 64% of their membership of 89,000 small businesses in Canada oppose the merging of the large financial institutions in the Canadian banking system. They oppose the merging of the banks. And this was taken before the merger was even announced.

• 1535

But to reflect a more serious number, a recent survey, actually two weeks ago, in southern Saskatchewan showed that 93%—that's 93%—of those surveyed said they would oppose the mergers. They oppose the mergers because of the indications of possible lack of competition, loss of jobs, and increased service charges for consumers, farmers, rural Canadians, and business people. So there's a significant amount of evidence out there.

Keep in mind the CFIB is not a supporter of the NDP. They are a big supporter of the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, and the Reform Party in general ways—not specific, obviously; I'm not making accusations here. They support government policies that promote and facilitate small business making a profit.

I'm a business person by profession. I believe in profit; I believe in making a fair profit. But when you get fewer instruments in the economy, fewer financial institutions controlling the finances, you can't have better competition with fewer numbers. There's no evidence anywhere in the world to substantiate that. I would ask members to please consider this.

Perhaps if we undertook an investigation of the mergers and had some public hearings, we'd get a far more balanced view than just the CFIB, me, the Reform Party, and others around this table. We have to always keep in mind that we have to be inclusive. We should try to include as many people as possible in a decision that affects their lives.

So I'd ask Madam Chair and members to please consider supporting this motion. I'm told verbally, indirectly, nothing in writing—again, no evidence has been provided to us—that the finance committee is apparently going to be doing some inquiring. Well, if we made a decision to go and they made a decision subsequent to ours, we could revisit our decision and withdraw, but the motion is on the table and we should consider it.

The Chair: Just before we move on, with all due respect, Mr. Solomon—

An hon. member: —

[Inaudible—Editor]—

Mr. John Solomon: Well, the finance committee rumours don't make sense.

The Chair: With all due respect, it's been stated quite clearly on the public record twice now in Question Period, first by the Minister of Finance, that the finance committee would be reviewing the task force and holding public hearings, as well as the Senate. I believe that in response to your question earlier today in the House, the Secretary of State for Financial Institutions also stated very clearly that the finance committee and the Senate committee would be holding hearings on this very issue. So I do believe—

Mr. John Solomon: But there is no indication as to when. It could be 1999.

The Chair: I do believe it is a matter of public record, and I believe the finance minister in his response to a question about three weeks ago—

Mr. John Solomon: Are you entering into debate, Madam Chair?

The Chair: No, I just want to clarify the record. I'm clarifying the record.

Mr. John Solomon: Okay.

The Chair: The record is that the finance minister said very clearly when the task force came out that they would be holding hearings in the fall.

Mr. Lastewka.

Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Madam Chair, you have summarized what I was going to say. That's on the record. I don't see any reason we should duplicate.

The honourable member has the opportunity to participate at any of the finance meetings. He can write himself in at any time—something we can't do. That's a privilege he has that the rest of this committee doesn't have. He can participate on it. And I welcome his remarks on that.

It's going to happen. It's on the record. He can negotiate with the House leaders to get more votes and so forth, but it's a finance item. Finance have already committed on it. I see no reason we should pass this vote at all.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lastewka.

Mr. Keyes and then Mr. Schmidt.

Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): On the eloquent heels of the remarks made by the chair and the parliamentary secretary—

By his own admission, Mr. Solomon is at best a casual member of the committee. He may not be aware of the extremely busy agenda of this particular committee. Given that fact and given the fact that, as you've already mentioned, Madam Chair, the proposed bank merger task force result will be on the agenda of the all-party finance committee of the House, I could not possibly support this motion.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Keyes.

Mr. Schmidt.

Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Thank you.

I have one observation to make. The intent of this motion is a good one. The industry committee has an interest, a very strong interest, in the bank mergers. I certainly have a very strong interest too. So I wonder if the intent here is that there be an intensive study of this, and maybe there ought to be representatives of the industry committee on that study. Maybe there ought to be some sort of combination here.

• 1540

I wonder if the hon. member would entertain some kind of a joint industry-finance committee, or some representation there, because I think the subject is very significant and does significantly affect the work of this committee, or at least the people who we represent here.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Schmidt. Are you making an amendment completely right now? Is that what's happened? Are you moving an amendment, Mr. Schmidt?

You should be aware that I have already discussed with the chair of the finance committee the very fact that there are certain realms that do fall within this committee, and he's aware that the Competition Act and small and medium-sized business are areas this committee has under study. When the time comes, we've discussed the fact that the finance committee's intention is to hold full hearings.

I'm not sure, because of the way the witnesses will be, whether you can really have two different sets of hearings. I really believe one full set of hearings would be worth while and we may want to consider other aspects. But my understanding is that the finance committee is intending to hold full hearings, and the Senate committee is intending to hold full hearings as well.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: That's precisely why I think it would be a good idea to have representatives— I agree with you that it would be inefficient to have two sets of hearings, an industry set of hearings and a finance set of hearings. We're going to see the same people here, the same— But I think the intent here is to force an open discussion. That I agree with, and I think we all have an interest there.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Schmidt.

Mr. Jones.

Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Yes, I support the open discussion too.

One of the things that was interesting this morning, in listening to all the bankers, was that they were saying how competitive the industry was, especially in the small business area. You said we couldn't ask questions in relation to mergers; questions such as how, by cutting the banks from six down to three, that is more competitive.

So I think we should be looking at this in the open, and if it means joint venturing with the finance committee, I could support that. But I think we have to look not only at the banks merging but at how big should big be. I can foresee the day not too far in the distant future that if we continue allowing all these things to happen, we might have 400 to 500 corporations running this world, and I don't know if that's healthy for any country.

So I think it's important that we get this out of the task force on banking, and that we really are looking at this whole issue of these mega-mergers that are going on, especially in Canada, but around the world. We should be looking not only at the aspects of the merger, but the whole food chain. If you control the whole food chain, then really you're starving competition.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Jim Jones: So I think we should be doing this in the open.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Jones.

Madame Lalonde.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): I support the motion and I think it's important that it pass, whatever other debates may have occurred in other committees. I talked about this with the members from the Bloc and I maintain that the terms of reference of the Department of Industry and the committee require them to pursue the interest of the consumer and small and medium-sized business especially in the area of loans for the latter.

There are rural regions in Canada and I understand the problems of the small business and consumers. Our colleagues from the finance committee will hear a lot about those problems, but I think we could develop a strategy while waiting for the debates to occur within the parties. There will be debates in the House and I think we should get all the information available on that. I know very well that in our party, not everyone is of the same opinion and I'm sure it's the same for the other parties. So we should gather information and it seems to me this makes the passage of this motion even more desirable.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Madame Lalonde.

Mr. Schmidt is making an amendment.

• 1545

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Yes. I'd like to move, Madam Chair, that after the word “industry committee” we insert the words: ask the finance committee to include representatives of the industry committee in its hearings on bank mergers.

Mr. John Solomon: Would that be to immediately convene a series of meeting or at their leisure?

Mr. Werner Schmidt: I don't think we are in the position to tell them when to start. I think the issue here is to get going on this thing, and I'm sure they will. They're not immune to what's happening out there.

The Chair: So just for clarification, Mr. Schmidt, it will read “that the industry committee ask the finance committee to include representatives of the industry committee in its hearings into the impact of the proposed bank mergers”.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Right.

The Chair: So you're taking out part?

Mr. Tony Ianno (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.): Can I add, “when the finance committee studies the McKay task force report”.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Sure. That's fine.

Mr. Tony Ianno: Because that's what the finance minister stated.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Fine. That's no problem.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Could I ask a question, Madam Chair?

[English]

The Chair: Wait a second. Just so I understand, we have an amendment and we have a subamendment.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: I'll accept either one.

The Chair: You'll accept that as part of your amendment?

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Yes.

The Chair: So what is it, just so I have clarification before I move on?

Mr. Tony Ianno: It's just everything that you've said before, except instead of the words “immediately convene” have “when the finance committee studies the MacKay task force report”, which is what the finance minister stated.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Is that going to be this summer, Tony?

Mr. Tony Ianno: No. They're reporting in September, the MacKay task force.

Mr. John Solomon: The chair indicated that the finance committee were going to study it this summer.

Mr. Tony Ianno: That's not my understanding.

The Chair: I did not. I very clearly said the finance minister said that when the task force reported this fall they would be holding hearings then. It's very clearly what I said. You can check the record.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I know they've scheduled work sessions for the preceding week to be ready to examine the MacKay Report. That's what my colleagues have told me.

Could I ask my question, Madam Chair?

[English]

The Chair: I'm sorry. I didn't hear you, Madame Lalonde.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I have a question for Mr. Schmidt. How many members would leave the finance committee and, at that point, what would happen with the work done by the industry committee? We know that the work will take a while because it will not deal only with the small business and consumer aspects.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Schmidt.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Not more than that. Not less than three.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: —

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]—

[English]

Mr. Walt Lastewka: I find it very difficult for us to be telling the finance committee how they should be restructuring their committee. All the members of the House, including everybody in the industry committee, has the opportunity to be there at the finance committee meetings. I, for one, am going to attend as many meetings as possible, and I think everybody else should have that opportunity. But for us to start to decide how the committee is going to be structured—first of all, I question whether that's in order, because when joint committees are structured that's done with the House leaders and the whips of the parties.

So I'm not sure, Madam Chair, whether that amendment is in order, because we're now restructuring the procedures of the House.

The Chair: The clerk has informed me that we can simply make this request. However, we could do it simply by letter, without a formal motion as well, asking that the finance committee consider that the industry committee look at certain avenues.

I just put that out there for your comments.

Mr. Jones.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: I have no problem with that, but to get muddled up in the motion I have difficulty with. If the member would want to put a motion to say that we send a letter that some members of the industry committee be attached to— or whatever, that's another matter. I could support that. But—

The Chair: Mr. Jones.

Mr. Jim Jones: This has puzzled me. My question, through the chair but to Tony Ianno, is whether the funding for the task force that he has set up through the Liberal caucus is coming out of each member's budget or has there been money specially—

Mr. Stan Keyes: That's not relevant to the motion.

• 1550

Mr. Jim Jones: It is relevant. The fact is that the Liberals went out and had their own hearings on this. I wondered why the industry committee didn't think it was relevant enough to include all the parties on this. This is not just a Liberal issue; everyone is interested in it. I think we should be going out and having hearings on it.

Mr. Tony Ianno: I agree totally with that.

Mr. Jim Jones: We should have been sitting there. If I had been told when the meetings were, I would have joined in on these meetings. It's not just a Liberal issue.

The Chair: Mr. Ianno.

Mr. Tony Ianno: First of all, we set up our task force in December before any mergers were announced. It's a Liberal caucus task force. It was given by Joe Fontana, our caucus chair. Even before any merger was announced, that didn't prevent the Conservative Party or the NDP or the Bloc or the Reform from being interested in the financial services sector.

The MacKay task force was set up in 1996. You were all aware of that. It was not a hidden agenda; it was said in public. We had the foresight of understanding that at some point some of these issues would be turbulent. In January, unbeknownst to anyone, the banks decided they were going to merge. All of a sudden our task force got attention. The money is coming from members, as we do with all our task forces, such as those on gasoline and on many other issues that are of interest to the Liberal caucus and the Liberal Party.

All members of Parliament can travel anywhere on their own points. We are doing that. That is where the money is coming from. We are contributing individually on that basis to ensure that we have the witnesses, and we go to their locations, if possible, all across this country. We're going to Fredericton tomorrow and Halifax on Saturday.

The NDP three or four months ago did a big foofaraw in setting up their task force. Four months later, they're complaining that it's not all-party. They're members of Parliament; they have the same ability as anyone else in this Parliament to go and inquire and speak to Canadians. You've chosen not to do it as a caucus, and that's fine.

The finance minister has stated all the way through that when the MacKay task force reports, the finance committee, a committee where you have representatives from all of your parties, will go across the country or use whatever method the finance committee decides. At that point they will make recommendations to the minister.

When the minister has all of that information, he will then deal with his cabinet and his caucus and make a government decision. At that point they have to defend whatever decision is made. That doesn't mean it's not all-party; your opportunity is there. Mr. Solomon can sit on the finance committee if his party chooses that he is the spokesperson they want. If they don't think he is the person they want, they will appoint someone else to the finance committee to represent them.

Mr. Stan Keyes: He can still go.

Mr. Tony Ianno: But he can still go, as all members can go. And our meetings are open to the public.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ianno, for that clarification on the Liberal task force.

Does anyone have anything new to add to this discussion? Madame Lalonde.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Ianno, there's a question being overlooked with that way of seeing things. Actually, the Committee on Industry has a responsibility to SMBs and the consumers. Who can say here that this merger won't have a major impact? If we don't make any efforts, on the Committee on Industry, to hear these people and get information from them, it seems to me we won't be doing our work. That's why I support John Solomon's motion. I think that I could have and that we all could have thought about that also.

The Liberal Party is one thing, and the same goes for all parties. But we are the Committee on Industry and we can't say that we don't care about the consumers and small and medium-sized businesses. We can't, because our responsibility is to care about them.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Solomon first, then Mr. Ianno.

• 1555

Mr. John Solomon: I'm not supportive of the amendment, because the finance committee is not going to deal with this until probably late fall, which is five or six months away. I find it passing strange that it's okay for the Liberal caucus committee to immediately deal with the issue and then discourage anybody else, in particular the Standing Committee on Industry, which has the responsibility for the small business portfolio and other industries in this country, every one of which deals with a financial institution.

So I find it passing strange that the Liberal members on the committee won't support this motion to now have a look at this as an all-party committee. We can do our political party functions for political reasons. The Liberals are doing theirs for their political reasons, but it's not a generic, open-ended kind of process.

I'm not criticizing the committee, I'm just saying that you're under way. You've been under way since the mergers were announced.

Is this not a conflict of interest, Madam Chair? The chair and other members of the committee are here now making a decision saying that you're going to stop an all-party parliamentary committee from reviewing this issue with the authority of a quasi-judicial power that we have to call witnesses and get reliable testimony.

Is it passing strange? I'd like to know what the position is. I think we have to deal with this issue right away, Madam Chair, and not six months hence. That will happen.

The Chair: I just want to clarify for the record that what you are comparing as the same thing is not the same thing. We have a Liberal Party caucus task force. You have your own task force within your own little groups in your caucus that make caucus decisions or recommendations to their own caucus. That is separate and apart from all committee work.

We know there is a task force set up right now, the MacKay task force. The way this committee has operated so far today is that when there is a report that is relevant to this committee, we review it and then we hold hearings on it. We do not have the MacKay task force before us. It has not been permanently decided that only the finance committee will hold hearings. It has been stated very clearly that the finance committee will hold full hearings.

If there's an issue on the Competition Act or consumers that the finance committee is not going to delve into that this committee sees as part of its responsibility, then we will take that when the MacKay task force has completed its study.

This committee takes its work very seriously. We do not have that report in front of us right now. We are waiting for that report, as a committee, to see where that report is going to be. Again, the House leaders will make a decision. I'm assuming you'll have some say, as the NDP whip, as to where it's going to go.

Mr. John Solomon: I have a point of order, if I might. The committee has the power to do whatever we want to do. If we want to deal with this issue, we can deal with it.

The Chair: But, Mr. Solomon—

Mr. John Solomon: If we want to look at reports and just talk about reports, we can do that. That's the independence of the committee.

That may have been the process—

The Chair: Well, Mr. Solomon, we have a process in place.

Mr. John Solomon: —but I'm suggesting an alternative process that's more transparent.

The Chair: No, Mr. Solomon, I'm trying to explain to you what the procedure of this committee is.

You have a representative who comes to the steering committee. We set out a mandate for this committee at the steering committee. We decided which issues we were going to study through the steering committee, so we have a process.

Now, if your party doesn't like the process of this committee, you can raise it whenever you wish. However, we have set out a mandate for this committee and we do take our job very seriously. You're comparing two different things.

We have a number of people who want to speak on this debate. I will continue on the list, but I will remind committee members we have a long report to discuss today, and I hope we will get to that shortly.

Mr. Keyes.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Given your remarks on what has to be accomplished by this committee today, may I make a suggestion, Madam Chair? It might well be that we're rushing too quickly on any decision that's made on this issue. This is a bigger picture kind of thing.

Quite frankly, I'm sure Reform would probably like to check with their House leader and whip first. I'm pretty sure the Tories and the NDP, and even the Bloc, would like to check with their whips and House leaders first to ensure that they have the manpower that will be needed to not only carry on the work of the industry committee but also make representation from the industry committee on a possible joint committee of finance and industry to carry out its work.

So maybe what you really want to do here is delay this decision by one week.

Mr. John Solomon: I'm the whip for the NDP.

Mr. Stan Keyes: But in the interests of possibly getting your motion turned down, Mr. Solomon, maybe it would be wiser to wait just one week and let the different parties speak to their whips and House leaders to see if an accommodation can be made. If it can, you win the day. Next week you pass it and it's done. If you don't, there'll be a good reason why we can't, and we'll explain that next week.

• 1600

So you might want to table this until next week so that there can be discussions first.

The Chair: Mr. Lastewka.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Madam Chair, I was going to ask that we vote on the amendment and the motion and proceed. I think we've had enough of dialogue.

The Chair: Mr. Solomon, a response? Do you move that we defer this until next week?

Mr. John Solomon: On the basis, Madam Chair, that I think the suggestion is good. If the whips of the opposition parties can person the committee with respect to this issue—if that satisfies this committee, we can get this determined by Tuesday morning, if you wish.

Mr. Tony Ianno: Tuesday afternoon.

Mr. John Solomon: Just for the record, the NDP will be able to person the committee.

The Chair: Mr. Solomon, we have a motion in front of us from Mr. Jones that is a procedural motion and takes precedence over other motions before us.

The motion is to defer this matter for a week, to next Tuesday afternoon's meeting. Is that agreed?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: The motion is carried. We will discuss it next Tuesday afternoon, and hopefully we can find agreement among all parties.

We have another motion before us from Mr. Schmidt.

Mr. Schmidt.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Madam Chair, on the motion I gave you notice of the day before yesterday, I propose deleting the words “and March 31, 1998” and changing the word “are” to “was”. And other than that, have the motion proceed as it was presented.

The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr. Schmidt. You want me to delete the words—

Mr. Werner Schmidt: After the “1997” in line 3 of the first paragraph, delete the words “and March 31, 1998 are” and replace them with “was”.

The Chair: So you want to change it to quarter—

Mr. Werner Schmidt: That's right.

The Chair: “for the quarter ending December 31, 1997, was not available to the committee as of May 6, 1998”.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: That's correct.

The Chair: Then we need to change the next part to “the committee requests that the above-named report for the last quarter be made available to the committee no later than May 13”.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Thank you.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I have a question, Madam Chair.

This motion does not prejudge the recommendations we're going to be making on the next data transmission. It's just to point out to them that we're unhappy that we didn't get the most recent data. That is it?

[English]

Mr. Werner Schmidt: That they be on time.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Fine. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Lastewka.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: I did not get my previous question answered on this. An arrangement was made with the industry committee of the past and the CBA on how they were to report. I want to make sure we are in line with what was committed to earlier by the CBA and the industry committee. I have a feeling that we might not be in line with what we agreed upon.

Nobody has been able to answer that question for me. Maybe the clerk needs to go back and tell us what we agreed on two years or two and a half years ago.

The Chair: Do you mean the timeframe, Mr. Lastewka?

Mr. Walt Lastewka: That's right. I wasn't at those meetings when the discussion was about how they were to appear and how old the statistics would be. In fairness—

Mr. Werner Schmidt: To answer Mr. Lastewka's question, this morning Kelly Shaughnessy, on behalf of the CBA, said they had 90 days. That's the time period we talked about when this was originally done—90 days—and we are well past the 90-day period here. This gives them a full six months. May 15 from December 31, 1997, is very close to a full six months. It is well beyond 90 days.

• 1605

The Chair: Mr. Schmidt, on a point of clarification, I believe Mr. Shaughnessy said the banks had 90 days to supply the information to the CBA, and the CBA then assembles it and coordinates it into the statistics that we receive.

The researcher has just informed me that it was “as soon as possible”, so maybe we should think about rewording this.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: I agree with Mr. Schmidt's intention, which I believe is that as soon as it's available from the CBA, we want it sent to us. We don't want it to be sitting over there and then sent to us two months later. That's why I agreed earlier that I thought it would be good to remind him that we want the statistics immediately after they have them available, rather than what happened this last time where they held it.

The Chair: As a point of clarification, Mr. Lastewka, they did not hold it. I spoke to Mr. Shaughnessy yesterday, after we discussed this on Tuesday. There was one bank—I don't know the bank or I'd tell you which one it was—that did not submit its statistics within the 90-day time limit, which has delayed the report. It was not intentional that they didn't have the report. It's not that they held the information at the CBA. They were waiting for one bank to compile the statistics. I'm not sure if there was a computer problem or a change in computers. I didn't get into all the details. I thought we may have gone into that this morning, but we didn't, so I apologize for that.

Mr. Ianno.

Mr. Tony Ianno: I think there are two parts to this. I think we should immediately ask for the December 31 dates of whatever they have available. That is number one. So if it's only six banks versus seven, we'll know which is the seventh that didn't provide it.

Second, in terms of the May 15 date, if we give them 90 days for the March 30 time, that would be the end of June, I assume, and we would expect it by then.

Along with that, we could also ask that if they have it earlier than that date, we'd appreciate it before the House recesses, if possible. So we can break up that motion. We can also add another part that says from now on we want it within the 90 days as stated, and if it's not complete, those that are ready—they come in book form—we want them together. For whoever is left out, too bad. It's up to them to discuss with us why they weren't able to do it because of some unexpected glitch or difficulty, and then of course we'll act accordingly.

But if it becomes a trend, because really we're talking May 1 now and we should have had it March 30 or even earlier, then we have to look at ways of rectifying the situation through a public announcement of some sort—that's another story—if we have to revisit this once again in four or five quarters' time, which I hope we don't. I hope they realize we're serious about it and that we're not sleeping at the switch, because that's what I suspect they may be thinking—that, look, we don't supply it; if it doesn't come, it doesn't come, and we'll see if they wake up to it.

I'd also like to add, on your motion, the request that we had between us the last two days in terms of loan loss ratio on an annual basis, and an updating so that we get it every quarter. They just change the last quarter from the first quarter, so it's always an ongoing, changing result. Is that okay?

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Madam Chair, what the honourable member just said makes the motion so complicated as to be unworkable, and I would be prepared—

Mr. Tony Ianno: —

[Inaudible—Editor] —motions.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: We could do that. But, Madam Chair, the intent here is to alert the bank that we want the stuff. We want it on time, we want it complete, and we want to add a little more information.

It may be in the best interests of the committee and the banks to write them a letter detailing those four points, and if they don't comply, then pass the motion. Maybe that's a better way to go. I'm quite amenable to that. The thing is that we want the banks to know we're in business and that we mean business.

The Chair: Mr. Solomon.

• 1610

Mr. John Solomon: With respect to the request for information, would it be possible to just make reference to the fact that we'd like, if it's statistically feasible, to have the information broken down—separate Manitoba, separate Saskatchewan?

The Chair: You actually had to leave a few minutes early, before I made mention that I'm going to approach Statistics Canada to ensure that we're not violating any statistical rules. I agree with you.

Mr. John Solomon: At least for the loans. If it's loans of $500,000, fine, but if it's smaller loans, okay.

The Chair: I undertook that as chair, with the researchers, to do that already on your behalf today.

Mr. John Solomon: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: I know you think I'm very difficult, but I try to be reasonable.

Mr. John Solomon: I appreciate that very much.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: The fact that he left early—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: No, just a couple of minutes.

Mr. John Solomon: Why would you want me here all the time?

The Chair: I didn't even know he wasn't there.

At any rate, Mr. Schmidt, can we stand down your motion, and we'll write a letter?

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Yes, we'll stand down the motion. I'm sure the clerk has all the points there, does she?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Okay. So if they're all there, well, then, that's good. Let's do that.

(Motion allowed to stand)

The Chair: That being said, we will now move in camera to consider the report.

[Editor's Note: Proceedings continue in camera]