Finance Committee on June 15th, 2023

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I want to start off by saying I agree with the comments of my colleagues, Sophie, Terry and Yvan. I also want to say thanks to Mr. Blaikie for putting forward this motion, because I, too, feel that I largely agree with many of the points he mentioned, but I also think it's important for us to discuss what's happened over the last few weeks in the hopes that we can get to a better place. I, too, found that what happened was unacceptable. It was a waste of time for you. It was a waste of time for me, for us, and it was a waste of money for Canadians.

We have made a mockery of the work that this committee is meant to do. We've made a mockery of what the House of Commons stands for and the work it's supposed to do, and we did not honour what Canadians have elected us to do, which is to work together, to address the issues of the day and to create a better country.

To be honest, I asked my colleagues how many hours the filibuster was. We have no clue. It's anywhere between 40 and 60 hours. In any case, it was a colossal waste of time.

The main crux of the initial part of the filibuster was about having the Minister of Finance come. Even after she had agreed to come, even after she was on record to come and she was scheduled to come, the filibuster still continued.

There was incorrect information that kept on being portrayed that she had not come before no matter how many times we had invited her. She had already come three times before, and her coming that time for this BIA made it a fourth time. There is no minister who comes every single time a committee asks. It doesn't matter whether it's the finance minister or any minister.

Then the filibuster continued in order to have witnesses come, but the filibuster took so long that it literally eliminated all opportunities for witnesses to actually come before us to talk to us about the BIA—what was good, what was bad and what could be improved—so that did not make it possible.

I would also like to suggest that we have to stop with the performance politics, which we see is very prevalent and, I would say, most specifically from our Conservative colleagues. We saw it two minutes ago.

There is a lot of invention that goes on. There is a mortgage time bomb apparently, which is not the case. We heard very clearly today that the delinquency rate for mortgages remains very low. It's below what we saw prepandemic. It's at 0.12%.

We heard that household finances are relatively healthy. We heard that all the tools are in place that protect Canadians, including the mortgage stress test that was put into place in February 2020. We've heard that a big portion of the high level of debt that Canadians have is mortgage debt, so it is a complete invention that there is a mortgage time bomb.

It is also complete invention that we are in the worst economy. There is literally no economist in the world who would agree with that. We consistently are among the top in terms of growth rates. We are consistently in the top in terms of debt-to-GDP ratio, in terms of employment rates, in terms of outlook and in terms of projections moving forward, so it's complete nonsense.

I'm going to end by saying let's do better. Let's find a way to work together to do what it is that Canadians have asked us to do.

With that, Mr. Chair, I move that the debate be now adjourned.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

No.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

I think there's a vote. Is there not?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

There is a vote. We do have to go to vote.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

We will continue.

MP Dzerowicz.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

I'm finished. Let's go to the next one.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Okay. We'll move along.

I have MP Ste-Marie next.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I want to emphasize that I'm not opposed to the motion to adjourn now because there are few people left on the speakers list, and most of the members have spoken. When Mr. Blaikie's motion was first introduced, I thought I would have preferred that we put our questions to the witnesses rather than debate it. However, since everyone is speaking, I would consider it unfair to interrupt debate without resolving the matter. Furthermore, that motion would have enabled us to discuss the frustration in this committee.

First I want to say, from the bottom of my heart, that I have the greatest respect for every one of the members of this committee, by which I mean the chair and all the members of every party.

I have profound respect for you. You do a remarkable job. Together we can have true, constructive discussions where that's possible. Consequently, there's nothing in what I'm going to say that is aimed at any member personally. I bear no grudge against anyone. I very much appreciate the committee, even though there are moments when we quarrel, as we have recently seen.

That brings me to the topic of the filibuster. I understand Mr. Blaikie, and I understand Ms. Chatel and my Liberal colleagues and why they are so frustrated with these many hours of filibustering, during which we could have studied this mammoth 500- or 600-page bill and really improved it. Instead, we heard talk about baby eels on numerous occasions. I was frustrated with that too.

It is frustrating, but I want to remind my colleagues that the filibuster is a tool that, as far as I know, is used in all the parliaments of democratic countries. That tool may come in different forms, but it's used and there's a reason for that.

I understand that it's frustrating. The purpose of dilatory measures and filibustering is to annoy others. It's to tell the government and the other parties that, if we aren't respected, we'll wreck the machine. That's its purpose. So it's normal for it to be unpleasant and cause this much frustration.

I don't know a lot about the history of the Parliament of Canada or the parliaments of other anglophone countries, but, to my knowledge, all the parties engage in filibustering when they're in opposition. The Liberals did it from 2011 and 2015, and even the NDP too. Mr. Julian often boasts about it. It was very unpleasant for the government of the time. The Liberals are also capable of doing it when they're in opposition.

I'm frustrated when I experience filibustering, I don't like it, and I feel we could be doing something else. Despite that fact, I respect the filibuster because I believe that's the way to challenge and slow down parliamentary business; It's the way to annoy the government and others. If it weren't possible to do it that way, I wonder how it would be done. Would we come to blows? What would happen then? So it's the way to express one's opposition in a defined and standardized manner.

During the filibuster a moment ago, when I was really angry, a member who had come to replace another member took out his telephone and played the parliamentary television feed into the microphone. I thought that showed a disregard for the rules established to protect the interpreters, who can suffer hearing injuries. That made me very angry. As for everything else, I think that filibustering, in all parliaments and by all opposition parties, is a tool that will be used.

There are always two sides to the same coin. The Conservatives said they wanted to have the minister for two hours. Was that justified or not? Personally, when she came to visit us, I wasn't satisfied with her answers, and I didn't feel she had a very good grasp of her enormous bill. I was disappointed. Personally, I would've filibustered for half an hour, more or less. However, I nevertheless congratulate Daniel for getting that additional time.

I don't think every member or every party should tell other members and parties what to do or how to conduct themselves. That's the meaning of democracy. We're accountable to our fellow citizens. If people in Joliette tell me that I filibustered too much and then vote me out in the next election, that'll be the effect of democracy. My work is to represent those people.

What do I, someone from Joliette, have in common with the member from Calgary? We have common points, but we represent very different realities. We will often vote against each other on many bills, but I have great respect for him because I know he represents his people and that he's voting accordingly. When he filibusters, I know that he's being accountable to his people, not to his committee colleagues.

So that's what I had to say about the filibuster. It's frustrating, and that's it's purpose. All parties use it when they're in opposition. If we manage to find a way to work together, so much the better. Otherwise there are the standing orders of the House of Commons.

So that brings me to the standing orders of the House of Commons. As far as I know, it is customary for the official opposition party to decide who will be the first vice-chair. If the members of the other parties now want to tell that party how to make its choice, that will set a dangerous precedent that I would prefer to prevent. I understand that, given the frustration it may arise, people might think that it would encourage debate and that it might be positive. If the clerk told us that this had never been done and that no such decision had ever been made, that would set a precedent. However, precedents trouble me greatly.

For example, currently in the House, we are debating a motion to amend the standing orders on which there is no consensus. It would result in profound changes to the rules of the House of Commons, and this is one of the first times when it will not be done on a consensual basis. That really troubles me because I think that, when a future government wants to make new changes, it will be able to do so.

The next time, when another party is in the majority on the committee and wants to gag the opposition, I'm afraid it will want to change vice-chairs, among other things. So I fear these precedents, and I wouldn't really want the rules changed in that regard here.

I have two final points to make. I'll try to be brief.

As I said, we're in the process of changing the rules in the House of Commons in a non-consensual way. This is a dangerous precedent. If this motion were adopted, it would be a first, as the clerk has said. It would also set a precedent that very much troubles me. I understand that we can have a substantive discussion on how to operate here, but I wouldn't want us to set a precedent.

I also want to mention that Mr. Fonseca is doing a superb job. He is never replaced; he is always here. I haven't yet chaired the committee one single time. He once called to tell me to be ready to do so, if ever a problem arose when Mr. Singh Hallan replaced him. He had planned everything. Mr. Singh Hallan did a remarkable job on the occasion when he chaired a meeting. I understand that it's fair game to play political games and say that he's less present than he should be, and so on. However, it's important that the Conservatives, who constitute the official opposition, continue to appoint the person who occupies the vice-chair.

I will conclude with an extremely uncomfortable point. Mr. Blaikie, for whom I have the greatest respect, recalled who the vice-chairs are.

I look at us all around the table here, and I see only one racialized person. However, that's the person who is concerned here. That makes me very uncomfortable.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Ste-Marie.

I have MP Blaikie, MP Hallan and PS Beech.

MP Blaikie.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would just weigh in to say that I appreciate folks sounding off about the filibuster and the nature of it. As I say, during that process, I commented on what I thought about the objectives of the filibuster and in fact agreed with some of them.

That's not what this is about. What this is about is the role of vice-chair on committee and the fact that we went through a long process, and the person who is paid $6,600 every year to be here to relieve the chair—and I think also performs some other important informal duties—left it to somebody else to do those informal duties and wasn't present during those proceedings. That's really what is at issue. I shared some information about that.

I do think that, when we talk about larger context, we have an official opposition right now whose leader has held a number of press conferences to say that he wants to make how much MPs show up to work an issue, that he wants Parliament to sit through the summer and that he wants committees to sit through the summer, yet his right-hand man on the finance committee isn't showing up in the regular season. It's the leader of the official opposition who has made this such a relevant issue by insisting on the idea that MPs, instead of doing the work that we all have to do during the summer in our ridings, should be showing up here in Ottawa to do more kinds of work here, although we've seen that sometimes that work can end up actually just meaning listening to Conservatives sound off.

If the relevant political issue of the day, as per the leader of the official opposition, is MPs showing up to work, and we just went through an over 40-hour study of the budget implementation act, where his main person on the file, despite having a paid obligation to the committee, wasn't coming, how serious should we really take those things? I'm hearing from the committee that there's a lot of goodwill around the table and a willingness to put this debate aside, I think, but I want Conservatives to know that, if they want to continue to make issues like this an issue, a number of us are going to have a lot to say and they're not going to like everything that they have to hear, or, rather, they're not going to like to hear everything that I have to say, certainly, and that others may.

There are different ways of going about our business here, but if the Conservatives want to have their cake and eat it too—to accuse folks of not showing up to work while they themselves are not doing that and accepting a paycheque for it—then we're going to have words about it. If we want to conduct our business otherwise, in a more understanding way, with parties trying to figure that out and not playing the politics of calling out, so be it, but I'm tired of being the reasonable person in the room and having that be taken advantage of for people to try to score political points against me as I watch them do the very thing that they themselves criticize.

I'm not prepared to tolerate that kind of hypocrisy anymore. That's a warning for folks who want to continue to carry on in that way themselves: If we want to have a race to the bottom, we will get there. That's not the way I prefer to do politics. I think I've demonstrated that many times around this table, but I think that if that's the way it's going to go, then that's where I'll end up along with everybody else.

Why don't we find a different way of doing things? In order to do that, we need some leadership, and that should come from the people who are paid to do that job of leadership on this committee.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Blaikie.

I have MP Hallan and then PS Beech.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Thanks, Chair.

Since this motion is about me, I thought it would be fair for me to get my own thoughts on the record as well. We talk about things not being personal, but I don't see anyone else's name on the motion. I'd just like to say my piece.

I'll start off by saying first that there are no hard feelings after this whole thing. I think we all understand the business. We understand that we can move forward after this. There will be no hard feelings, especially on my end, after this whole ordeal comes to an end.

I did want to touch on a few points that Mr. Blaikie brought up. Maybe I'll start off with some of the points that Mr. Baker brought up first about why I'm here.

Someone with my past should, honestly, not even be in this position today. I didn't come here to this country knowing that I would be here in this position today. With the way that I grew up, this is not something that I even would have had a chance to do, especially in my riding. I get to represent a lot of people who are low income, a lot of new immigrants who try to live that Canadian dream, which is what my parents came here to do—a better future for me—but it wasn't easy.

I look around the room, and I don't see anyone who looks like me. This position that I was given the responsibility of is not an opportunity many people get. For me that's a big deal. When I'm travelling the country, which obviously I'm doing a lot—we're doing a lot of outreach—I do hear from different ethnic communities that there's a sense of pride to see someone who doesn't normally fit the description of a politician in this role. People take that as a sense of pride.

I recently was in Brampton, talking to those international students, trying to stop their deportations. I put myself in their shoes. We were successful in helping to stop those deportations. That is another part of my role. I represent not just my own community. I represent many different communities. There are almost 108 languages spoken in my riding alone. When I come to this job, when I wake up, I remember who I represent every single day, whether I'm here or travelling the country.

One thing I did learn growing up was the importance of a team and leadership. What I want to address to Mr. Blaikie straight, looking at you right now, is that what I learned was that the best form of leadership is to empower people. We work as a team on this side. I didn't give up my obligations. Rather, I split them up because I love to see other people in a leadership role. Those are the values I learned growing up.

I was very fortunate. I grew up as an at-risk youth myself. Growing up, I was fortunate enough with the opportunities this country gave me and my family, and with the blessings of God, to be able to help other at-risk youth.

We opened up an after-school program for at-risk youth. There, especially for the young women who came to us, we would hold sports tournaments every month, whether it was basketball, dodge ball, volleyball, whatever the sport. The whole point of running those wasn't to raise money. It's not hard for a couple of us to get together and raise $5,000 for a charity. That wasn't the point. The whole point of those tournaments was to put those young women, who may not have had the opportunity otherwise, into leadership roles, to put encouragement inside of them and to build the confidence inside of them that it's not just us who can do this job. They can do it too.

I carry that same principle when I come to this Parliament and outside. I want others to know that, if I can do this, anyone can do this. Your background doesn't matter. The thing that really bothers me—and this is something that I don't think Conservatives would ever do—is to equate someone's work ethic with how much they're being paid. I don't find that particularly....

Putting politics aside, to accuse someone of not being able to earn their paycheque, we wouldn't do that normally outside. It's not something we do in business. It's none of our business, actually, because there are other roles we play and other responsibilities.

I'll give you an example of what happens on my end. I do casework and not just in my own community of Calgary Forest Lawn. Eighty per cent of my casework is from outside of my community. It's from outside of my riding. I do it with a smile on my face.

I want to thank my team, which steps up every single day and never asks, “Where are you from? You should go to that MP.” We say, “Okay, we'll do it.” When the whole process started with the BIA, we had a huge lineup of people from our team who said, “We want to get on the record and represent our constituents.” I was the first one to say, “You can take my spot.” That was the whole point.

I think we're setting a really bad precedent in here. You want to get rid of me, and I'm sure there are a lot of people in Parliament who want to get rid of me, and I'm fine with that. I'm not here to make friends. I'm not here to be that nice guy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Hallan, I apologize for interrupting.

I just want to let members know that we're adding some extra resources to see if we can keep the time going.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

I'm going to wrap up in one minute.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

It's just so you know you have time.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

I'm going to wrap up quickly. I don't want this to drag on.

I just want to make sure that I get on record saying that we all know we have more than the responsibility of just being on this hill. I want to see more people like me and others who come to this country doing this. For me to be handed this role—and obviously we know that our leader was known for this role—was a big deal for me, for my family and for many people across the country, because that's what I hear about.

Honestly, I come from a family that was neither political nor even successful. We lived through poverty. I remember standing in line in my riding for low-income bus passes. I remember, when I was growing up, the first bout of racism—and I'm not going to say that's what this is about, but I want to put on record how important being here is for me. My first experience of racism was when I was on a bus with my mom and my brother. She was spat on because she covered her head. There were many other incidents as well, whether they were when I was going through school, playing sports or even being in business. I would look around the table and there would be exactly the same dynamic: I would be the person who looked very different from everybody else, but I knew I had a role to play.

I'm not going to play the victim card. This isn't about racism. I'm just saying that when I travel, people of other ethnicities tell me how proud they are that I get to be in this position. I don't take it lightly, but the precedent I think this is setting is that if you come here and you do your job, whether you do it well or not is very subjective. It depends on the person looking at it. At the end of the day, it just goes to show that you can be your best and try your best, but there will always be someone who wants to get rid of you.

That's the precedent I'm afraid we're setting here when we go down this line.

That's my heartfelt plea to the committee. There are no bad feelings after this.

I just wish, Daniel, that instead of bringing it onto this floor, you would have had the decency to maybe have this conversation once, at least, outside of here. I'm not hard to get a hold of. People call me all the time.

Going forward, however the committee wants to do this, I'm game, but I don't think I'll back down from doing the job that I was sent here to do. I don't think that would be the point of my being here.

I just want to thank the committee. Thank you for everyone's input. I'll leave my piece there.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Hallan.

We do have limited resources, but we'll have PS Beech and then we'll have to wrap up.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

I need only 30 seconds, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank everyone for having a very frank conversation.

I want to thank individuals, especially the last speaker, who spoke from a point of vulnerability, which I think is good.

I would suggest, given that we have a planning meeting in camera on Tuesday, that all members think about the points they agree with that were discussed today, from all members. Don't go looking for the things you disagree with.

I would suggest that all of us leave our swords and our shields at the door on Tuesday. It's an opportunity for us to get some good productive work done.

With that, Mr. Chair, I would move that we adjourn debate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

A motion has been moved to adjourn debate.

Go ahead, Clerk.

[The Clerk]

Is it a motion to adjourn debate or a motion to adjourn the meeting, Mr. Beech?

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

I move to adjourn debate, and then I hope we will adjourn the meeting.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1)

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Members, we've exhausted our resources.

Thank you, members. We are now adjourned.