Finance Committee on Sept. 9th, 2016

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

I share that concern about the definition of stakeholder. For this particular amendment, I'm not so sure that the whole committee shouldn't deal with who those stakeholders are and discuss them and put them on the table, instead of having a subcommittee deal with it. I have some concerns regarding having the subcommittee deal with it. Why not have the complete committee do so? I ask that question of the mover of the amendment.

Second, Chair, you bring up a really good point. The fact is that with this committee's workload on pre-budget consultations and the things we've already planned, we're here today after offering the minister time to be here two weeks ago. We asked him to work it into his schedule and tell us the date, but we got no meaningful reply from the minister, so we're here today. Frankly, in my opinion, he should be here today or on a day of his choosing. That should have happened before now.

That said, when I look at our schedule and the workload we have, I'm not sure the 19th is a great choice. Yes, we'd be fitting him in, but frankly, we'd probably be talking about this issue superficially, because if we bring in the stakeholders that those of us on this side want, we're going to have to put together a full agenda of one meeting after another to get the consultation with the stakeholders that hasn't happened to date, obviously, because we're now debating an amendment to bring in stakeholders.

Given all of those things, this committee may want discuss this issue with the minister next week. I think probably all committee members know that the chair worked on trying to get the minister here and suggested the 15th. We could perhaps look at that as a possibility. The reality is that maybe we should be fitting this in sooner rather than later.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I think I had Mr. Sorbara first, and then Ms. O'Connell and then Mr. Grewal.

Go ahead.

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

To address what was commented on earlier with regard to the proposed meeting, I mentioned that in the second hour on the 19th, with unanimous consent, we could have the department officials remain for further questioning, so that's on the table.

The motion is quite clear in terms of having the finance minister appear on the first day we're back for the sitting of Parliament, so we would like to stick to that time frame. That works for the minister and it works for everyone on our side.

I'd like to echo some of my colleague's comments on the CPP. Obviously, we live in a day and age in which a lot of companies aren't providing or have wound up their private pension plans, whether they were defined benefit or defined contribution, so the CPP is playing an even more important role in retirement futures for Canadians.

This is a campaign commitment of ours. This is a campaign commitment we have fulfilled, and we will fulfill it legislatively in the fall, so it's important for us to make sure all Canadians understand that. One of the important steps is having the finance minister appear here before the committee. With the motion we have proposed today, that will happen on the 19th of September.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Go ahead, Ms. O'Connell.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm confused by the comments from Mr. McColeman just now. It's an urgent matter that must be dealt with, and he wants the minister here as soon as possible. We provide the first day back, and now all of a sudden the committee will be too busy with the pre-budget consultations that are coming up.

Mr. McColeman acknowledged that September 15 was an option, so which is it? Is this really important, or is this really about bringing the committee here and saying how they feel without actually hearing the details from the minister?

The minister, as per the motion we've put forward, would come here with officials, and then the subcommittee would determine the meeting availability for stakeholders, which has been the process so far for any topic, whether it's pre-budget consultations or matters such as the CRA. That has been the process for this committee as well as the subcommittee.

We're providing the date. In fact, the original motion from Mr. McColeman didn't even specify a date. It just said “as soon as possible”. We're providing literally the first possible date when we're back. I would hope that this amendment would be passed unanimously.

As far as the definition of “stakeholder” goes, we've acknowledged it in the sense that stakeholders have been part of the process throughout. The subcommittee can find the appropriate date and find a process for all three parties at the table to provide witnesses, if that's the case.

This is nothing new to this committee. I hope we don't lose sight of the fact that we're providing the first possible date, a date that the original motion didn't even speak to.

We're happy to be here. We're happy to have the minister and officials appear, because I think Canadians will be happy to hear about all the work the minister and his officials have been doing. I hope this amendment is passed unanimously so that we can deal with exactly that and talk about the CPP enhancements and all the work the minister has done on this issue.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Grewal is next.

[Raj Grewal, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to echo the sentiments of my colleague. I'm not speaking here on behalf of the Minister of Finance, but as Mr. McColeman said, the fact of the matter is that there were conversations in the background, before this meeting was even scheduled, about getting the minister here. Then he presented a motion when we got here today that did not specify a date.

There were two dates proposed in conversations—September 15, and now, today, September 19—when the minister would be prepared to come to speak to CPP enhancements at the first possible opportunity. I just don't understand why we need to go through procedural wrangling and political grandstanding when the minister was already ready to appear before this committee. We came here today—all of us, from all across the country, some from vacation—only to get a motion put in front of us by the loyal opposition without a date specifying when he should come.

Now the amendment proposes that he show up on the first day at a special committee of finance, because he understands the importance of CPP. We all understand the importance of CPP here and across the country. It's important to have the Minister of Finance and officials here to give us an update before the legislation comes to the House in October.

I encourage members of this committee to support this amendment and get it passed. Let's go back to working for Canadians, because they sent us here to do a job.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Mr. Grewal.

Could I ask the clerk to read the amendment in the proper form before we go to Mr. McColeman and then to Ms. Raitt?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Suzie Cadieux]

It is:

That the Standing Committee on Finance invite the Honourable Bill Morneau and department officials to appear before the committee on September 19, 2016, from 12:00 to 1:00 p.m., with officials staying for a second hour from 1:00 to 2:00 p.m., to answer questions about the Government's June 20, 2016 agreement with the provinces to expand the Canada Pension Plan, and that the subcommittee schedule a further meeting to hear from stakeholders.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I would say that instead of the subcommittee scheduling a meeting to hear from stakeholders, it really should be for the subcommittee to schedule further meetings with stakeholders. Are we okay with that?

[A voice]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Go ahead, Mr. McColeman.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

I appreciate the motion, and frankly, I'll be supporting it, but let's be clear. This is an extremely important issue. That's why we're here. We're here because we were not getting, from the minister, any feedback as to whether he would appear or when he would appear. That's why we're here. We sent him a letter inviting him to choose the date, and we did not hear back. Let's be clear about why we're here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Go ahead, Ms. Raitt.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Thank you very much.

I will be supporting the motion as amended. I didn't hear about the officials in the first resolution, and that's why I wasn't in favour of it.

I also want to thank Mr. MacKinnon for giving us clarity on a very important question, which has to do with the legislative path this measure will be taking. We would not have received that information, quite frankly, Mr. Chair, if we weren't here today. I think it is an important piece in order for us to understand where and when Canadians are going to have the ability to insert their comments, which they gave to us as the opposition this summer, on the topic of CPP. With that, I'm going to support the amendment as proposed.

I thank Mr. MacKinnon for being transparent on the manner in which we are going to be proceeding on these changes. We look forward to a thorough discussion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is there any further discussion on the amendment?

(Amendment agreed to)

Is there any further discussion on the motion as amended?

(Motion as amended agreed to)

That is the result of this meeting.

Before I adjourn, we have a couple of issues on pre-budget consultations that I would like to raise so that the clerk and others can start inviting witnesses. There also needs to be discussion on how we will operate in pre-budget consultations.

Go ahead, Mr. McColeman.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Again, I expressed my reservations about the subcommittee—

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Before you speak, are you on pre-budget consultations or is it another issue?

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

We're not finished this meeting. I have more motions to present to this committee.

We on this side would like to be very clear about who we would like to have as stakeholders. I've expressed my reservations about the fact that the subcommittee will decide these things. I think we as the opposition want to button down who we invite.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Phil, the motion already has in it that the subcommittee will meet. I think all of us on this committee understand that whatever the subcommittee decides—and I don't think the subcommittee has ever been restrictive—has to be voted on by the committee as a whole in any event. There will be an opportunity to add further names if the subcommittee, in your opinion, doesn't include enough witnesses.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

With all due respect, Mr. Chair, we know that this is a majority Liberal government. They hold the balance of power on the subcommittee and they hold the balance of power around this table. In the world of trying to do our due diligence as the loyal opposition, I am going to present these motions, Mr. Chair.

This is the first one:

That the Standing Committee on Finance invite the Canadian Federation of Independent Business to provide testimony on how the Government's June 20, 2016 agreement with the Provinces to expand the Canada Pension Plan will impact jobs, economic growth and business investment.

Mr. Chair, I will distribute copies of this motion for the table now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We have a point of order. Go ahead, Ms. O'Connell.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Chair, with all due respect, the motion that was just approved set out that the stakeholders would be determined at the subcommittee. Any of these motions would be out of order because of what was just approved and because these bounds, which Mr. McColeman voted to support, were set.

It's up to you, of course, but it's my understanding that the motion would be out of order because it's contradictory to the motion we just approved.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Yes, we have a bit of a complication.

In the letter that was sent to the clerk, as I'm told by the clerk, section b) says to invite key stakeholders to share their views.

I don't disagree with you, Ms. O'Connell, that it's the job of the subcommittee to do that. I'd prefer to go that way, but Mr. McColeman's motion is in order due to the second section of the letter regarding Standing Order 106(4). That motion is, again—

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Would you like me to read it again, Chair?