Evidence of meeting #93 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was testimony.
A video is available from Parliament.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
I didn't see your hand raised. I'm sorry. It didn't come up on our screen.
MP Perkins is speaking to clause 7.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Yes, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
On the budget implementation bill, I'd like to move the following motion:
That the committee reiterate its desire to hear a total of 20 hours of testimony in relation to Bill C-47, Budget Implementation Act No.1, as agreed to on May 16, 2023, and notwithstanding that motion, the committee maintain its goal of receiving 20 hours of witness testimony but not proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of the bill until the committee hears a minimum of 19 hours of witness testimony.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
Mr. Chair, isn't this more or less the same motion we have been debating and voting down?
What I'd like to do is move to adjourn debate.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
MP Dzerowicz, it is in order. It's 19 hours, not 20, so it is in order.
Go ahead, MP Perkins.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
She can't move adjournment. She doesn't have the floor.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
She did have the floor, MP Perkins.
Mr. Clerk, could you poll the members, please?
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
We're going to poll the members. MP Dzerowicz asked for adjournment of debate. She did have the floor.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
I'd like to challenge the chair on the ruling that I didn't have the floor. I moved the motion, and immediately after that I had the floor to speak to the motion.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
We'll have the vote on the adjournment of debate.
Mr. Clerk, go ahead, please.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
I'd like to challenge the chair on his ability to do that. That motion is out of order.
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
We're back.
After conferring with the clerk.... MP Dzerowicz did get the floor, but she got it on a point of order, so she would not be able to look to adjourn debate.
We'll go back to MP Perkins.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
There's been a lot of discussion in the last hour or so by MP Blaikie and MP Beech, which I found interesting. As they say, there are usually at least two sides to every story. In this case, it is probably three.
Those watching need to understand how we got to this place and why we're asking for 19 hours of witnesses, as opposed to the 10 that have happened today. It goes back to the original motion MP Beech spoke quite extensively about a few moments ago. It was negotiated in good faith. We certainly believe it was negotiated in good faith that we would get 20 hours of witnesses. This is an issue about how we got here, which both MP Blaikie and MP Beech may have a different view on.
Our view is that we negotiated that in good faith. The government decided not to have 19 or 20 hours of debate or witness testimony. They decided to have only 10 hours on a spending bill of half a trillion dollars for the budget implementation act. We negotiated that in good faith and believe that good faith is not being upheld by the government and its supply arrangement partner, the NDP, in saying that it's okay to have only 10 hours of witnesses on a piece of legislation that has record spending and will have impacts on generations to come.
MP Beech talked about arbitrary filibusters. Well, I'm sorry he thinks democratic tools are arbitrary. They're not arbitrary. As the chair points out, the 27 hours of discussion held on the minister's appearing for two hours at this committee to defend her bill, Bill C-47—which amends 51 acts of Parliament and spends half a trillion dollars—was not arbitrary. It was a specific democratic, institutional accountability issue.
The minister has built up a level of distrust in this committee and in the House because she has refused to accept three invitations by this committee in the last six months, the first being to appear on the issue of inflation with the Governor of the Bank of Canada and the second being on estimates. While these are invitations and it's up to the minister to come, generally, even the Treasury Board guidelines I referred to in my earlier discussion about her appearance say that an estimates appearance is a must for a minister. It's not really optional. You have to come, as a minister. It's part of the accountability element of Parliament to do it, yet she was unwilling and we were unable to secure a guaranteed commitment from the minister that she would appear for two hours. That's all we were asking for. I don't think it's a lot to ask.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I guess. The fact is that the minister ignored three invitations, the third being on the actual pre-budget consultation for this budget delivered in Parliament. It was one of the five days between May and January when the minister appeared in Parliament. That was about—
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac, QC
Mr. Chair, I'd like my Conservative colleague to focus on his motion. He seems to be discussing another motion that we were debating before, which had to do with the presence of the minister. The motion before us right now deals with the presence of witnesses.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you, Mrs. Chatel.
To MP Perkins, I think I mentioned this before, but please keep it relevant.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
You gave the latitude to MP Blaikie and MP Beech to speak to this issue for almost an hour, so we have a right to respond to that issue in the same context and with the latitude they were given.
The Liberal members may not like to hear the fact that there is actually an alternative view to the long, half-hour presentation by MP Beech on his view of whether what's been going on here is arbitrary or obstructionist. That was allowed to go on without interruption. We didn't interrupt that, even though it was not pertinent to the motion he was discussing, so I would expect the same courtesy from government members.
Therefore, I will continue on that.
Doing something of an arbitrary nature, as Mr. Beech accuses the opposition of doing, reflects a basic fundamental principle, which is the issue of whether or not this committee has been ignored by government members and whether this committee is now imposing a version of closure—
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
Terry Beech Liberal Burnaby North—Seymour, BC
On a point of order, I'll apologize if my half-hour presentation was off topic, but I can't take it back.
What we can do is follow the procedures according to the rules. I know Mr. Perkins doesn't actually think that a presentation of half an hour is very long. For him that is extremely.... You can barely say his name in 30 minutes. I think he's put something like 15 to 20 hours down in his time, but he just admitted on the record, just now, that what he's talking about is not relevant to the motion. I think we agree; therefore, he should be ruled out of order and we should get to a vote.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
PS Beech, whenever any of our members is speaking and a point of order on relevance comes up, I try to refocus members and bring them back to the topic at hand, be it the motion or the clause or whatever we are discussing.
I'll allow MP Perkins to continue.
