Mr. Kmiec.
Evidence of meeting #202 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was questions.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #202 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was questions.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess I missed a thrilling morning when this was being debated.
In anticipation of this meeting, I looked at the previous motion that was passed last year. As you'll remember, eventually that motion hamstrung the committee when the issues of DPAs came up on one really late night. Then we had a lot more questions, and a lot of members around the table weren't happy. I had a kids' school group that was coming through. Late at night I went to speak to someone, and when I returned this was on the table.
I know that we're at this point again. We're dealing with a programming motion. It is slightly different. One thing I'll mention is that nothing in here says that any of this has to be televised. I would like to see that as part of this motion. In actuality, the word “televised” doesn't even appear in this motion.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Basically the reason we don't include that in our motions is that the standard procedure is that the finance committee—somewhere in the general motions, I think it says—is to be televised, unless there are—
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
—ministers before other committees and all the television rooms are taken up with that.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
It's televised unless there are ministers before too many other committees on the same day.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
Okay, well, I would hope that when the minister appears before this committee—
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
But even if it's the belt and suspenders?
No? We can't...? You're worried now; you don't want it televised.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Okay, this is going to have to be a lot longer conversation.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
I haven't finished my speaking time. It was just the first point I was trying to make.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
Don't worry, I will keep it short. I'm not into marathons today.
My next point was going to be that the budget is the minister's seminal work. This is what he or she prepares for the entire year. There are really very few other substantive pieces of legislation that are as long, as thick, as detailed as the budget. We're basically proposing to review the budget document over a one-month period, so we should be able to ask the minister all questions related to his portfolio. That should be in the motion, because if you look through this document, you see that it deals everything all across government. Every department is touched in some way. There are national park boundaries being amended in the budget. That was in a Calgary Herald article. I don't really know that that has anything to do with the budget, but it's in there.
Last year it was DPAs. The years before that it was sneaking in the same formula on equalization. There's always something in there, so as long as we can have that wording in the actual motion, I would feel much better seeing it on paper. I know that during debates or the disagreements that we have later on, we will then refer to motions when we try to stay germane to the subject being debated, or to raising a point of order at committee on the subject matter to bring us either back to order, or to have you, Mr. Chair, make a ruling. I would like as much as possible to see it in here.
I know there have been some conversations about having the minister for longer, which is great, but perhaps we can agree in writing to have him before the committee and that the subject matter be everything related to his department. I have questions about how Crown corporations are doing business and any directions that he may or may not have given either through his office or through the deputy minister's office. I'm interested. I'm interested in B-20 mortgages. The first chapter in the budget deals with housing, so that's great. I'm going to ask a lot of questions related to it, but I'm going to go beyond just the measures strictly in the budget, because they influence other policy initiatives across government, so I may want to know what the interactions are between them.
I'm just giving you an example of where I might go down a rabbit hole during questions and answers of the minister.
As my colleague Mr. Poilievre said, I don't get that opportunity all that often before committee to ask detailed questions of a minister. I think the last minister who appeared before the committee was Minister Lebouthillier in December. I know that it was a really tight vote to ensure that she could appear and explain her department's performance discussed in an Auditor General's report.
That's what I feel. If we're committed to it and there's agreement on both sides, why not just put it in the motion? These motions happen every single year. It's a programming motion. Previous governments have done it. I'm not accusing you of doing something new. I'm just saying that it's happened every single year for awhile now, as far as I can remember anyway, going back through previous committees and what they've done. To me, just put it in here. Make it as detailed as possible. Future members who come after us will then use these programming motions in the future, and as long as it's good text and everybody can agree to it, everyone coming after us can make small edits like we're trying to do today. I don't think it's all that different to ask that we make sure that we put it in the motion. As a result, you can defend yourselves when you do go down those rabbit holes, searching for the answers that our constituents have sent us here to look for.
The budget is the work of the finance minister. I know people say it's an all-of-government approach, but it is the finance minister's responsibility. His name appears in this document. It was tabled by him this time around, so we should be able to ask about everything related to his portfolio and the work he does, because this is the one opportunity when we'll get to do that.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
There was an opportunity: four days of debate in the House.
Ms. Rudd.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Kim Rudd Liberal Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Thank you.
I came to this place almost four years ago, coming from a background of having to work with people in business, and I came with an expectation—
Mr. Poilievre is reading his phone and not listening to the answer to the question he asked me.
I came expecting respectful debate. When I saw the behaviour and the complete disrespect for the Minister of Finance in the House when he stood up to read the budget, I question the motivation of Mr. Poilievre and the members on that side as to whether these comments and these requests are designed for respectful debate, real questions, or whether they are intended to have another, frankly, disgusting performance like the one we saw that day.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
April 9th, 2019 / 3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
As we continue this discussion—it's what our committee is about, and we need a robust discussion—I'll go first to Mr. Kmiec. I have a great deal of respect for him on many levels. I have worked with him on a number of things.
Tom, if I can call you that, look; I agree that we need to ask questions on the housing market. Your passion for B-20 and so forth and mortgages and stuff, I follow quite closely, and I applaud you. You'll have that opportunity if you're the member on the other side when the minister comes, which is great. There's nothing at all in this motion right now that's going to prevent you from doing that. There was mention in the budget with regard to our initiatives to make housing more affordable for literally tens of thousands of Canadian families—and over a three-year period, it's hundreds of thousands of families—so you'll be able to ask those tough questions, for sure. I'm with you on that. I think, if I were in your shoes, I would do the same thing.
With regard to Mr. Poilievre, the discussion today has centred upon your request to have the minister here in attendance for three hours, which would be an extra hour and a half from what we originally suggested. We understand that. We've chatted about it. We, on this side of the aisle, have agreed on that. You've also asked about limiting the introductory remarks to 10 minutes. We can understand that. This is a budget. It touches millions of lives in Canada—37 million of them, to be exact. It is something important that we need to discuss with Canadians. We're going to do that both with witnesses and with the minister.
The final request—and when I really think about this, Pierre, I think about setting precedence. We have a committee chair whose job it is to run the committee, and we have members on both sides whose job it is to ask questions and also point out points of order and so forth. I think on the level of setting precedence, this is one precedent about which I feel uncomfortable.
We've had a good discussion, and I think, Pierre, we can work from here.
