Finance Committee on Aug. 15th, 2011

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

If it's possible, in that spirit I'd like to move an amendment that we also include a panel of economists on Friday. I think that hearing from the finance minister and the Governor of the Bank of Canada is obviously important, given the changing realities, but to really bring Canadians into the debate, I think it would be important to have a diversity of views from some economists. There are people who have different views and ideas. Those are important, so in that spirit let's be glad that our economy is not in the state that some others are, but let's also ask if there are options we could look at.

I'd like to propose an amendment to that effect. I propose that we include some independent economists in our meeting on Friday. If we're all going to be here, it would bring more Canadians into the discussion.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Ms. Nash.

We'll go to Ms. Glover, please.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to touch very briefly on what Mr. Brison said and will explain a little better what my comments meant.

Chair, there have been two news articles released by the Liberal member of this committee over the summer. It wasn't until about an hour before this very meeting that I actually heard from that member.

This is typically a pretty collaborative committee. Ms. Nash and I have spoken a number of times. We are concerned about the economy. If we have trule concern, we talk to one another. It's in that vein that I made my earlier statement. If Mr. Brison was truly concerned and felt it was urgent, he would have spoken to me, so I was quite surprised not to have heard from him until a hour before this meeting began.

Pre-budget consultations are already being planned. People's schedules are being looked at and rooms and trips are being booked. As of Friday, we are about three to four weeks away from beginning pre-budget consultations. That is where we are going to hear from all of the folks we just talked about. I don't see the urgency of disrupting all of that. On Friday we are going to hear from people who will be able to update us immediately. Then I think this committee ought to continue, as it has done, listening not just to economists but also to hundreds of Canadians. We've apparently already received over 300 requests and written submissions to this committee. The pre-budget consultations will take all of those factors into account.

Let's not forget that economists provided projections that resulted in this invaluable document, “The Next Phase of Canada's Economic Action Plan”. It's thanks to those independent experts and economists that this document is now a living document.

Again, a proposal has been made. We'd be happy to hold the meeting on Friday to ensure that Canadians hear an update from our minister and from the Bank of Canada, but anything more, frankly, would not be acceptable at this point. I believe it's important that we stick to that agenda and continue with our pre-budget consultations. It's imperative, in my opinion, that we not do anything that might worry Canadians. I think hearing from the Minister of Finance and the Bank of Canada will help to reassure them, as they should be, that there is concern, but that we are proceeding, as parliamentarians, in their interests.

I don't want to see this committee grandstand. I don't want to see this committee play political games. Let us move to a vote. We know each other's positions; let's vote on holding a meeting on Friday, as proposed by Randy Hoback.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

I have three more people who wish to speak. I think it's becoming very clear where people are at, so I ask members to keep their comments very brief.

We have Mr. Hoback, Mr. Marston, and Mr. Brison. Go ahead, Mr. Hoback.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

I have to reiterate what the parliamentary secretary said. I won't repeat it, because she said it so well.

Regarding the recommendation of Mr. Brison and Ms. Nash, in looking at the two-hour time period, I think Canadians would really want to hear from the finance minister. We should give him the proper amount of time so that we can ask him appropriate questions. The same applies to the Bank of Canada. To water down their time would be inappropriate.

Second, I want to make sure, as the parliamentary secretary said, that we don't have people come in here and start speculating and giving their opinions and impressions, which are based on what? A crystal ball? I think it's better that we stick to the facts, and the two people who can provide the best facts are the finance minister and the Bank of Canada.

I think we need to stick to that at the proposed meeting, keeping in mind that we do have our pre-budget consultations coming up. Hopefully we have economists lined up as witnesses. I think that would be a good time to talk about options and alternatives, because they will be based on what ought to be presented in the next budget, not on a crisis that happened in the past.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Marston, please.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to go back to our original motion. We are not talking about pre-budget hearings but about addressing the situation in other countries and the potential impact on Canada going forward. These are immediate things that are happening in Greece, Italy, and other countries right now. Yes, Canada is doing well relative to them, but there are potential impacts, and Canadians are worried.

There is certainly no intention to water down the finance minister's time. I'd be thrilled to have him here for an hour, and let's set aside some more time in the afternoon to have a panel come in. Perhaps, in essence, a panel will validate what we hear in the morning, but I think it's important to have that broader voice.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Mr. Brison is next.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

With regard to Ms. Glover's point on the economists, she referred to private sector economists having provided some of the projections, the assumptions, upon which the budget numbers were based. That's the point, because the situation has changed. As such, there will be an effect on the budget numbers, and it would be helpful to hear from the economists on that.

I can understand the government's desire to turn Friday into a propaganda exercise, but Parliament has a responsibility to help provide information and clarity to Canadians, not just the government's message track from the Minister of Finance. Information should also come from respected independent economists in Canada as to what the impact would be.

If they're not going to be here at this committee, they will be speaking to journalists after the meeting and giving their views on what the minister has said. That is not as effective as actually having Parliament draw from them, in a very constructive way, their information here at a parliamentary committee. You're not going to silence Canadian bank or labour economists. They will communicate with the media on Friday, but it would be very helpful if they were able to do that by participating in a parliamentary forum.

I reiterate that we're trying to be constructive here.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Nash. Please be very brief.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

I did move an amendment suggesting that we include other voices.

We're appreciative of the fact that the committee has met this evening and of the offer of the minister to meet on Friday, along with the Bank of Canada. I think that's a positive thing, but I think it's important to hear other voices, and they don't necessarily have to be economists.

We know, for example, that Canadian corporations are sitting on about $500 billion of cash right now. Is this the best time to go ahead with more corporate tax cuts? Is there a diversity of views on this? Are we getting the private sector investment that we really need to keep the economy growing? It would be wise for us to hear a diversity of views. I don't want to belabour it, but I think it would be good to consider that idea.

I know we have pre-budget hearings in about a month, but things can change quickly, as we've seen over the last week or so. A couple of days can change everything. Canada is relatively well positioned, but we do have some weaknesses and shouldn't be afraid of looking at those with a view to seeing how we can better position ourselves for the future, keep growing our economy, and keep Canadians as economically healthy and sound as possible going forward.

It's in that spirit that I moved my amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

I have Mr. Adler. I'll ask you to be very brief, as I'd like to move to a vote on this.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

I'll be very brief, Mr. Chair. I call the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You can't really call the question, but I appreciate the suggestion.

The question will be on Ms. Nash's amendment first. I'll read the motion first:

That the Committee undertake a study on the current debt crisis and economic turmoil in the United States and Europe, and its potential impact on Canada; and that the Committee invite the Minister of Finance and the Governor of the Bank of Canada or a representative to appear before it on Friday, August 19, 2011.

The amendment by Ms. Nash is to add after the word “representative” the words, “and a panel of economists“.

The vote will be on Ms. Nash's amendment.

(Amendment negatived)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Now we will vote on the main motion.

(Motion agreed to)

Thank you.

We will see you Friday morning. If I can't make it, Mr. Mai will be the chair of the meeting.

Thank you all. I appreciate it.

The meeting is adjourned.