I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
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.
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.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac, QC
Mr. Perkins says that we heard only 10 hours of testimony. However, there were 27 hours of systematic obstruction by—
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
I apologize for interrupting. I am not getting interpretation.
MP Chatel, just a moment.
I apologize. Could you just repeat your point of order?
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac, QC
Mr. Perkins mentioned that we heard only 10 hours of testimony. However, the Conservatives filibustered for 27 hours to prevent witnesses from testifying. That's the problem.
The problem is that the Conservatives opposed hearing from the witnesses, and now they are opposed to hearing from the officials who have come to testify on this. What are they going to oppose next? They just like to hear themselves talk, and we're a bit fed up.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
I will tell you, MP Chantel, who is fed up, and that is the official opposition. The reason we had 27 hours is because you couldn't make the single commitment for the minister to appear for two hours, two measly hours for a half-trillion dollar spend in an annualized budget. That is not too much to ask of a minister, who needs to be accountable, like every other minister, to parliamentary committees as part of the process.
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac, QC
On that point of order, Mr. Chair, I would point out that during the 27 hours they insisted on talking about fishing and eels, the Minister of Finance was scheduled to appear before the committee. She did appear for an hour and 40 minutes.
This is childish. I'm sorry, but there's no other way to put it.
Grow up.
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
MP Perkins, just hang on, and also MP Chatel.
First is the use of parliamentary language by everybody. I know everybody is a bit heated, and we've been at this for quite a while, but I ask for decorum and respect from everybody.
MP Perkins, as much as you can, could you be focused and relevant to your motion?
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Well, my motion is about having 19 hours of witnesses, not the 10 hours that have happened so far, and that brings us back to the original motion. I know MP Chantel asked how many motions we have put forward. Perhaps it was amendments—
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
MP Perkins, just to correct you, because you have done it a few times, and it's probably because you don't know. It's MP Chatel, not Chantel.
Thank you, MP Perkins.
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
I'm trying not to use first names, so, MP Chatel, I apologize for that.
The first original motion by MP Lawrence was the following:
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 not proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of the bill until the committee hears 20 hours of witness testimony.
After much discussion the government adjourned the debate on that original motion. Then MP Lawrence proposed another alternative in the spirit of compromise and trying to find a way through that. I'll read that one, since the government members seem to have lost track of these:
That given the committee has yet to achieve its objective of obtaining 20 hours of witness testimony on Bill C-47, notwithstanding the motion adopted by this committee on May 16, the committee allocate an additional 10 hours for witness testimony and that clause by clause begin immediately following the 20th hour of witness testimony.
I think that's an eminently reasonable motion. The government then adjourned it on that motion, being unwilling to go the full 20 hours as was originally agreed to.
In the spirit, again, of compromise, MP Morantz proposed a motion that said the following.
That in relation to the motion adopted on May 16, 2023, the committee reaffirm its intention to receive a cumulative duration of 20 hours of testimony concerning Bill C-47, also known as the Budget Implementation Act, No.1. However, irrespective of the aforementioned motion, it is ordered that the committee refrain from initiating the clause-by-clause examination of the bill until the committee has completed the full 20 hours of witness testimony and that once the committee has completed 20 hours of witness testimony, clause-by-clause consideration begin on the business day following the culmination of testimony.
Again, there was more discussion on that, and again that motion was in fact voted down today.
We've proposed three compromises already to try to get back to the original intent of the motion that the government signed off on, which was for 20 hours of witness testimony before next Monday. That has led us to the motion that's on the floor now, which I proposed:
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.
Each one of those was put forward in the spirit of trying to find a path forward, which we have been stopped from doing at any time, to get back to our original desire as a committee of Parliament to actually hear 20 hours—
1:30 p.m.
Liberal
Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac, QC
A number of Liberals are in the room, while our Conservative colleagues are participating remotely. I just want to know who is online right now. Is it just Mr. Perkins representing the Conservatives?
1:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
MP Chatel, we don't speak about the members who may or may not be online or in the room, but we're listening to MP Perkins right now. I see many of the members popping up now in front of us. They are all saying hi.
Hello, Mr. Morantz.
1:30 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Thank you.
The attendance call reminds me of school. I see Mr. Chambers waving at the Liberal members to make sure that they know he is present as well.
As I was saying, I think we've had a number of attempts to try to find a path forward to get us to the original 20 hours or something close to that, which is again not a lot to ask on a bill that amends 51 acts of Parliament and on which we have witnesses. I know some of those meetings that happened last week were robust but still challenging, because with six, seven, eight witnesses at the table at a time, it was tough to get all the breadth of viewpoints across adequately in the time. I think the witnesses provided compelling testimony as to why there are challenges and provided members of Parliament with lots of good insight to enable thoughtful amendments to this important bill.
Every finance bill is vitally important. No matter which government puts it forward, it's important. It's the most fundamental element, I think, of our duty as parliamentarians—to go to MP Blaikie's thoughts earlier.
One of the most important elements of what we do in any parliamentary tradition is to let witnesses testify on proposed government spending and to make educated judgments on how a member of Parliament should support and vote for that. It's fairly fundamental and goes back to the creation of our Westminster parliamentary system—the role and authority of members of Parliament—and back in those days, the Crown, which had spending authority. We have that responsibility here, which I think everyone takes seriously.
For those who want to know, as MP Blaikie said, what the heck is going on, it is that we're trying to ask for these modest things as the opposition, which is the attendance of the Minister of Finance for two hours—which she still hasn't done—or a modest 20 hours of testimony. To give those watching an idea, that's only 10 meetings. It's not very much on a bill that is so fundamental to our responsibility as parliamentarians to scrutinize and review and understand and ensure that the value that taxpayers expect is being delivered. It is part of the plan.
Yes, part of that role is to question when we think that spending isn't being done properly and when budget planning isn't being done properly. It's pretty hard to sort through all of the budget promises that were made every six months in the last eight years by this government when they've not met a single target. It's like the climate plan. They've never met a target on the climate plan. Now, I guess, the Minister of Environment must take the lead from Finance, which has basically made promises every six months in the last eight years with budget documents and economic statements, promising certain economic performance of this government, and has missed every single target.
I know those watching will be very shocked to know that they never undershot their projection, that they never underspent their projection, that they produced less debt than the government thought they would. They were terribly conservative, as Paul Martin used to be when he was finance minister in the Chrétien government. He was terribly conservative. He actually always underspent his budget.
This Liberal government has not prudently done that. In fact, when the minister was before the committee last week for her brief and shining appearance, she was asked about the $12 billion. Believe it or not, folks, there is $12 billion of unallocated spending, meaning that they're going to spend the $12 billion, they just haven't figured it out yet. I would have thought this government was expert at knowing how to spend the money, but it has provided itself with a large cushion of $12 billion to spend in the next year on things it hasn't even thought of yet. When asked about that, the minister said that it was for things like Volkswagen.
Wow. I can't believe that of the $12-billion spend in the next year.... I asked her—but she obfuscated on it, shockingly—why she would be spending any portion of that $12 billion in the next year on Volkswagen, since Volkswagen doesn't even have a plant here. What could she possibly be spending that money on, if it's not that? That was the best example the Minister of Finance could come up with.
These are the issues that we have to have witnesses for and it's why we need to have people before this committee to help us sort through this mess of a spending plan.
I know that officials—it's hard to tell here—from the Department of Finance are there. I would just plead with you—and I'm sure you are pleading with your ministers, this one and the one before—to provide some restraint, to actually say no once in a while, to not say that we're going to spend this record amount this year, $3.1 trillion in the next five years and add, as part of that, at least $12 billion that they have set aside just to come in on budget.
We know that the $12 billion will not cover it. That's what always happens, since this government misses every single budget target. They actually have never come in and said that they've produced less debt than they projected. They actually come in every time, every six months, and say that they're producing more debt. They promise less debt than the last one and they promise that it will only be a deficit of $44 billion, $47 billion or whatever billion they want to do this year, but it comes in higher than that. They say that it's somebody else's fault.
In fact, when asked about it, the Minister of Finance, in committee last week said that it's the banks' fault. She said that she bases her budgets on the bank projections, and the banks must have gotten it wrong.
It's the old “dog ate my homework” excuse that people used to give in school. When you guys were all in high school, you knew of students who always had some excuse for why they weren't able to produce their report. In this case, the Minister of Finance continues to use the “dog ate my homework” excuse and it's somebody else's fault. It's the fault of the war in Ukraine, it's a global recession, or they forced her to spend so much during COVID. Only half of it was on COVID. The other half was on things unrelated to COVID, but she'll use that as an excuse to blow the doors off our spending. She says that it's somebody else's fault, when it's their own fault.
They make the decisions. They propose the budget. The Liberal members of this committee and the Liberal members in the House, combined with their coalition partner, the NDP, consistently say, “That's okay. We forgive you.” Being a Liberal means always having to say you're sorry about everything, but never mind. Now we have another situation where we're trying to get people who aren't from this government with the PMO's talking points to come before the committee and discuss parts of this massive omnibus bill that is being proposed here. We're only asking about the basics of this budget. We can't get into the details.
I have more witnesses here I would like to go through, but in the spirit of compromise and in reflection of what MP Blaikie said earlier, I would like to move the following motion, Mr. Chair:
That notwithstanding the May 16th motion passed by the committee—
1:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
MP Perkins, hang on. We're going to suspend for a second.
MP Perkins, you cannot move a motion when we have not dealt with the motion that is on the floor. We need to deal with the motion on the floor that you were speaking to before you have the floor to be able to move another motion.