Finance Committee on April 9th, 2019

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

I challenge the chair then.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay.

Mr. Clerk, there's been a challenge to the chair. There's no debate.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. David Gagnon]

Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?

(Ruling of the chair sustained)

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

The subamendment is ruled out of order.

I'm certain you'll have the opportunity to bring it in at an appropriate time later; it's just not appropriate at this time.

Can we turn to Mr. Deltell?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I am happy to return to this committee as a “guest artist” of this very prestigious Standing Committee on Finance, as everyone knows.

Mr. Chair, I commend your work, even though I challenged you, just a few moments ago, during the vote. I know you don't feel personally targeted. We believe that, in this amendment submitted by my colleague from Sherbrooke, there are positives and negatives, just like in photography. Just because we extract items does not mean that the remaining ones are not part of the debate. From our perspective, they are part of the debate, and we challenged your decision. The parliamentary majority on this committee expressed its will, of course. We respect the laws and we will govern ourselves accordingly.

In his comments before introducing his amendment, the honourable member for Sherbrooke indicated that this was an omnibus motion dealing with an omnibus bill.

As you will well recall, just like every Canadian in fact, almost four years ago, the current government tabled a platform that was intended to be the bible for its actions if it became a majority government. The people democratically elected the governing party with a majority. Canadians are therefore entitled to expect the government to implement the content of its election platform.

Let's talk about these so-called omnibus bills, which, at the time, were the subject of much debate. The current government was very harsh on the previous government about its alleged misuse of that legislative process.

On page 30 of the election platform, it says, “We will not resort to legislative tricks to avoid scrutiny.” The document reminds us that the former prime minister “has used prorogation to avoid difficult political circumstances. We will not.” As an argument, it is stated that the former prime minister “also used omnibus bills to prevent Parliament from properly reviewing and debating his proposals. We will change the House of Commons Standing Orders to bring an end to this undemocratic practice.”

Those who have followed the news over the past two months will have noticed that this promise, on page 30 of the current government's platform, has not been kept to the letter, to say the least. In fact, exactly the opposite happened.

The document also goes on to say that the current government will not introduce any bills like that.

That is what is at the heart of the amendment introduced by the honourable member for Sherbrooke. An omnibus bill that deals with the budget is one thing, but incorporating separate items into it is another. When parliamentary work is done in a parliamentary committee, the least we expect is to let things take their course, as they say. We must ensure that everyone has the right to speak and that we can do a thorough review, to avoid abuses that may become contentious later on.

Let me remind my friends opposite that the past two and a half months could have been avoided if, last year, the fundamental principle of appropriate democratic debate had been applied in parliamentary committee.

We can never take too much time to properly consider such important bills.

Let's come back to this particular case. We can see that this budget is, in a way, a balance sheet budget, since it is the fourth budget introduced by the current Minister of Finance. Consequently, it is time to look at this administration's track record. Each of the items presented here—the time allowed to study this or that part of the bill with this or that person—is not insignificant in itself, but we need to have a shot at studying those aspects.

We believe that, after three and a half years of management, after the tabling of a fourth budget, after everything that has been said over the past four years and, above all, after the actions that have been taken, the time has come for a review. What better opportunity to do so than in the context of parliamentary work that is meant to be intelligent and shared.

Government members should not see the review by a parliamentary committee as an intrusion and a painful ordeal for them. On the contrary, it is an opportunity to present their views. It is an opportunity to present what they believe their successes are. This is a golden opportunity to respond directly to the oblique and sometimes negative comments that the official opposition and opposition groups may make. This is what democracy is. This is what an intelligent debate is. This is what an exchange of ideas is all about. As the saying goes, enlightenment comes when ideas collide. So this is a golden opportunity that every parliamentarian must have and must seize.

Clearly, we are not opposed to the Minister of Finance appearing before the committee. This minister, who is responsible for the more than $330 billion budget of a G7 country, who has led this department for more than three and a half years, who has just tabled and signed his fourth budget, must have the latitude he needs to clearly present his ideas, his viewpoint and his record, as well as to answer the relevant and legitimate questions of all parliamentarians, regardless of political party.

I'm not going after his personality, but he is a person duly elected by the Canadian people, chosen by the head of the Canadian government to assume the very high and prestigious position of Minister of Finance and to manage, as I was saying, the more than $330 billion budget of a G7 country. From our viewpoint, the least he can do is to give us a little more than 90 minutes to talk about it.

This is not about blasting the Minister of Finance and his administration, but it is rather an opportunity for him to explain to Canadians his vision for the future, to outline his achievements, to talk about deficits and to recall some past commitments that have not been honoured. This would allow for a debate. However, the debate is limited to a paltry 90-minute period, when this person is at the heart of the debate and must have every conceivable opportunity to explain his point of view. Let's take this exceptional opportunity to have a proper debate in parliamentary committee.

In terms of the motion of the honourable member for Sherbrooke, we fully understand that he too has some particularly serious reservations about the way things are done and the time available. There is one aspect where our views may differ: in our opinion, when the Minister of Finance comes forward, he must have the time to explain himself, to praise what he thinks is good and to respond to the work of the opposition members.

Let me remind my colleagues on the government side that a minister's testimony is not a test for him. On the contrary, it is a golden opportunity for him to highlight his achievements. Let me also remind government colleagues that they too have the right to speak, even more so than opposition members, which is quite legitimate in a democracy, since they obtained the majority vote of the people. That is not what we wanted, but that is what we got. We cannot be democrats on a sliding scale, that is, we cannot embrace people's opinions when it suits us and not embrace parliamentary and democratic rules when we are not on the winning side. We are democrats and we respect that.

We also note that government members can ask the minister questions. He is from the same political family. They can lob softballs, so to speak, which is fine, as long as what is said is based on facts and the truth. That's not a problem, but the person who manages the finances of the Canadian government, the person who controls a $330 billion budget, the person who is tabling his fourth budget, the person who has been managing the public finances of a G7 country for three and a half years, must have all the time and latitude he needs to present his point of view, while answering relevant and considered questions from both government and official opposition members, as well as from opposition groups.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay. We'll vote on the amendment by Mr. Dusseault to delete sections 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11.

[An hon. member]

Can we have a recorded vote, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

That's defeated, so we're on the original motion and back to my original list.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

I want my name added to that list.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay.

I don't believe you spoke on the original list, did you, Mr. Deltell?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

I didn't, unfortunately.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay, then we're starting with you. You're first up.

It will be Mr. Deltell, Mr. Sorbara, Mr. Richards and then Mr. Poilievre.

Mr. Deltell, the floor is yours, sir, on the original motion.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

It's a real honour and privilege for me to attend this prestigious committee, led by someone who is very prestigious, who has served his country so well, with dignity since 1988, I think, the first time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

It was 1993. I'm not that old, Gérald.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Was it 1993? I thought you were there.

It's a great honour for me to see you back, Wayne.

What we have before us today is a way of looking at the analysis of the recent budget, which, in our view, does not get to the bottom of things enough.

Mr. Chair, I would like to draw your attention right away to point 7 of the motion before us. Let me take the time to read it:

7. the Committee invite the Minister of Finance to appear on Bill C-97 on Wednesday, May 1, 2019, from 3:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., and that officials appear from 5:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., if necessary;

This is an important point, but in our opinion it is not mindful of the tremendous burden on the Minister of Finance. That is why we want to extend the hours, and I will table an amendment to that effect a little later.

The Minister of Finance has an incredible burden. This person manages the finances of a G7 country. This person is at the helm of a department and must manage Canada's $330 billion or so in a budget that serves 37 million Canadians. This person must see to every detail of the proposed measures and options suggested to Canadians. Trying to limit the golden opportunity to get to the bottom of things, to ask relevant questions and, most importantly, to have answers to those questions, in our opinion, does not respect the parliamentary system, since everyone has the right to express themselves. It is above all a lack of respect for the Minister of Finance.

This is no small matter, though. When the government tables such thick documents and measures that have a direct impact on the lives of thousands of Canadians, the least we can do is to provide the time for him to explain them and answer the relevant questions. When we limit the minister's testimony to just 90 minutes, minus the 15 or 20 minutes he will take to give his presentation, unfortunately, not much time is left to discuss in detail the commitments made and the impact they can have on the lives of Canadians, on our entrepreneurs, our businesses, our families, our institutions and our partners, whether at the municipal or federal level.

In short, it is a missed opportunity to get to the bottom of things. That is basically why we are here in the House of Commons. We have the extraordinary and signal privilege of sitting on behalf of the 100,000 constituents, in general, who live in our ridings, whether they voted for us or not. We represent all Canadians in our ridings.

The appearance of the Minister of Finance before the Standing Committee on Finance is, in our view, a key moment of transparency, a key moment of accountability, a key moment in parliamentary work and a key moment also for the person who has the extraordinary privilege—deserved, let us not forget—of being at the helm of the Department of Finance. When I say “deserved,” it is simply to remind everyone that, if we have the privilege of sitting in the House, we also have related obligations, including the obligation to respect and honour the mandate entrusted to us all.

We cannot be democrats on a sliding scale, that is, we cannot be happy when victory smiles on us and not happy when we face defeat. Democracy being what it is, we respect the will of the people. Every member in the House deserves to be here.

The government party governs, and the responsibility of the leader of the Canadian government is to choose the people he considers to be best suited for ministerial roles, for the executive. I do not want to favour one over another, but everyone knows that the Department of Finance is one of the largest departments, if not the largest, in any government.

Anyone who has the opportunity, the good fortune and the great honour to sit around the executive table, whether a so-called junior minister or a so-called senior minister, enjoys an invaluable privilege that must be fully appreciated. Around the table, everyone is equal. That is, of course, what we want.

To limit the Minister of Finance's testimony to just 90 minutes is unfortunately to deny him privileged access to speak directly to Canadians, to say exactly what drives him in this budget presentation, what his policy objectives are, and also to report on his achievements.

This is the fourth budget tabled by the Minister of Finance. This minister has been in charge of the Canadian government's public finances for three and a half years, and the time has come for a review, especially since there will be a general election in just over six months. The public will then be able to make a judgment on the current government's economic record and its management of public funds. Views may differ, but the fact remains that, after four budgets and three and a half years of government management, the time has come to take stock.

That is why this presentation to the parliamentary committee gives the minister a unique opportunity to brag, which I say in a positive way. He has a unique opportunity to highlight what he considers to be his successes and to respond to any specific or even rough attack or question from opposition members.

There's nothing personal about this. Indeed, we are here because we are the official opposition, because we are Her Majesty's—in the person of the Minister of Finance in this case—loyal opposition. Let's give the minister an opportunity to respond to attacks or relevant questions from the official opposition and other opposition parties. This is a golden opportunity. I don't see why the minister, given his high responsibilities, would not have this exceptional opportunity to answer questions directly. Certainly, he may not like some of the comments, but we are giving him the opportunity to answer them.

That is the mandate of a parliamentary committee. The minister has the privilege, but above all the duty, to answer the committee's questions.

It is also important to remember that questions will come from both sides. As we just saw in the vote a few moments ago, members of the government party hold the majority around this table and they too can ask witnesses questions. In this case, the Minister of Finance is their ally and their questions should not be expected to be particularly brutal, harsh or painful. Rather, it is an opportunity for the minister to justify his or her various policies. As they say in hockey, the minister will be able to receive passes right on his stick. However, it will be up to him to decide how to handle the puck that will end up there.

We therefore believe it is important for the Minister of Finance to appear before a parliamentary committee to have an opportunity to take stock and to answer members' questions directly about his achievements and what we consider to be measures that have not contributed to economic growth.

That is why I propose the following amendment, which makes a change to the second line of point 7 of the motion. I will therefore read point 7 in its entirety with the amendment I'm proposing:

7. the Committee invite the Minister of Finance to appear on Bill C-97 on Wednesday, May 1, 2019, from 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.;

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

The amendment is in order.

Is there any discussion on the amendment? The amendment is basically that the Minister of Finance appear from 3:30 to 6:30, changing section 7 to that effect. Is there any discussion—not on the motion, on the amendment?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Chair, can I get clarification on the amendment on point 7?

Mr. Deltell, you'd like to have the minister appear from 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., but then you want to delete the time that the officials would appear also, from 5:00 to 6:30. Is that correct?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

My point is to be sure that the Minister of Finance will have the chance, the opportunity, the privilege and the honour to answer questions for three full hours, not an hour and a half.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

There would have to be another time for officials to appear. Anyway, the amendment is strictly that the minister appear from 3:30 to 6:30, with some officials with him, no doubt.

All right. The amendment's on the floor.

Mr. Richards.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I guess this is kind of similar to what I had tried to move earlier as a subamendment, so obviously I'm in favour of it. I want to take just a little bit of time to explain why. First, I'd like to just get to the question that was raised about the officials.

It is my understanding that the minister is able to bring along with him whomever he would like; it's within his right to do that. The expectation, I think, is that he would answer questions and maybe if he needed some reference he could turn to them to get some reference or something. If members of the committee feel it's necessary to have them, I'm certainly not opposed to having them come at another time. My understanding, though, is that also, in the motion, on point 2, we would have department officials here for three hours on April 29, if that is what the committee chooses. I don't think I would be opposed to having them here again, but the bottom line is that, at the end of the day, the person responsible, the person who is accountable for this act, on behalf of the government, is the Minister of Finance. It's not the officials; it's not the parliamentary secretary, as they tried one other time. It is the Minister of Finance. He's the one who is responsible. The buck stops there, so to speak—or in this case, the bucks all kind of get thrown out from there.

The bottom line is that he's the one who should be here, and I don't really think that an expectation that he would come for the entire period of time, rather than just half of the period of time, is something that is unreasonable in any kind of way. It certainly seems to me as though that's the appropriate thing. I already mentioned earlier—I don't have to get into it in great detail again—that we've seen things slid into these omnibus bills by this government that are intended to be of sole benefit to some of their elite Liberal friends. We've seen things here that certainly in no way should relate to a budget. I mentioned the one example earlier from this current budget of something that would affect the size and area of ski hills in one particular location in the country, in my riding. These kinds of things are pretty odd things to place in budgets, so there are a lot of questions to be asked about things like that.

Of course, there are also a lot of questions to be asked about broad budgetary policy. We have a government here that had promised it was going to balance the budget by 2019—remember? Here we are, and deficits continue to grow and debt continues to be piled on. There are a lot of legitimate questions about what kind of legacy that leaves for our children and our grandchildren. Those are the kinds of questions that need to be asked too.

To expect that in just half that time, in one and a half hours, we could get to some of these things oddly placed in an omnibus bill and also have a chance to actually ask about the broad budgetary policy of the government, with the limited time.... We have seen in the past—Mr. Poilievre mentioned it earlier—how this finance minister has come in and tried to talk the clock out and hasn't given a lot of opportunity for the actual questions. Certainly there isn't much in the way of answers, so let's have a little more time to be able to get those questions in and, hopefully, maybe even get some answers. Who the heck knows—maybe it'll actually happen this time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I'm going to have to interrupt you there due to a matter of time, Mr. Richards. There is another committee that is to be in here at one o'clock. I was looking at the possibility of continuing this meeting if we had consent to do so, but they need a third language for that committee, which is to be translated in this room, so we can't do that.

The clerk will put out a notice. At the call of the chair, we will continue with the business meeting at 3:30 this afternoon in the Wellington Building. The clerk will send out a notice to tell you what that room will be. We will continue dealing with the original motion and the amendment proposed by Mr. Deltell when we start at 3:30.

For those witnesses who are here from CRA, my apologies. We will not ask you back to the meeting at 3:30, but I do understand that you have a written submission. I will ask you to leave that with the clerk of the committee. We'll deal with that at the appropriate time.

With that, we'll adjourn this meeting and there will be a meeting at the call of the chair at 3:30 this afternoon in the Wellington Building. The clerk will give notice for that meeting.

The meeting is adjourned.