The existing motion is amendable—
Evidence of meeting #12 for Finance in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was finance.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #12 for Finance in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was finance.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
—because it's undertaking a study.
Then it would be “undertaking a study on corporate welfare”, and then striking all the words on sustainable finance right to the word “and”, and at that point, I would say, “that the committee dedicate up to eight meetings to the hearing of witnesses in Ottawa”.
The full amendment would read, “That the Standing Committee on Finance undertake a study on corporate welfare and that the committee dedicate up to eight meetings to hearing of witnesses in Ottawa”.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I can't allow that amendment. It completely changes the intent of the motion. You'll have to go with a new one.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I think, Mr. Chair, the main motion is undertaking a study. What's amendable is after that.
4:05 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
4:05 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
You can always challenge the chair, if you like. I'm not offended by that at all—
4:10 p.m.
An hon. member
Uh-oh.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
—but it does change the intent of the motion. The intent of the motion is to have a study of sustainable finance. You're talking about an entirely different study.
It's not in order, and that's how I rule.
Mr. McLean is next.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Thank you.
I'll just address a couple of things here.
I don't think the Canadian professional accountants association is in fact a partisan body; I think they are a money-making body, and they collect fees. If you put something in front of them that says, “Here's a way we would like you to define something”, they'll find a way to be in the middle of it to make some funds. That's the nature of most of the intermediaries in the finance business. Likewise the people who will put together what you will call “sustainable funds”. They will be all things to all people.
Mr. Fragiskatos, you read out the definition, and I will say that the definition could be open to a different interpretation from everybody around this table. It means nothing. The whole “social” end of it depends on where you fit with what you think “social” means.
At the end of the day, sustainable finance is about taking money from a market return and giving it to chosen projects in one form or another. If you want to do that under the guise of climate emergency and climate change, then I beg you to do so openly. Tell Canadians what it costs. Tell them what we're doing to the economy and explain that this is our approach to it. That's easy and it's transparent. If you continue to shovel money in one door and out the other and make what we're doing with the economy look very opaque, Canadians are going to continue to think you're picking winners and losers throughout the economy, and that's what has Canadians upset right now.
Let's get back, then, to a level playing field where everybody can see exactly what is happening with this government's decisions around finances.
As for the Fraser Institute, I love it, Mr. Fragiskatos. I would challenge you to go back to the Fraser Institute and ask which government they would prefer to have in power at this point in time: one that is aiming to actually end the deficit and get back to balanced budgets, or one that has no concept of the deficits it wants to run for the foreseeable future.
Thank you.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
4:10 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
Mr. Chair, thank you for your clarification on the order of proposals.
As I understand it, in order to keep the study on sustainable finance, but to do it after the study on corporate subsidies, the ideal situation would be for the mover of the motion on sustainable finance—if he believes that it could be defeated and therefore impossible to reintroduce it as it is—to withdraw it now and only introduce it after the motion on corporate subsidies has been introduced and passed. I think that would be the best way to proceed so that the motion proposing the study on sustainable finance would not be ruled out of order.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
You could also agree to take on sustainable finance as a second study at a future date, or something like that, if you wanted to do it that way.
Go ahead, Mr. Fraser.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
I wonder whether we can have a quick caucus discussion and suspend for maybe five minutes and return to the debate, if that's all right, Mr. Chair.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
That's not a problem.
Let me suggest, concerning Pierre's proposal, that I liked Mr. Ste-Marie's words—something along the lines of Canadians getting value for money from certain government programs.
I don't know whether you can.... What is corporate welfare? You see corporate welfare in one way; I see it in another, and other people see it in yet another way. I know Loblaws and others have been mentioned, but are we basically saying as a committee that we want to look into the monies that are going to the corporate sector—big business, small business—and asking whether Canadians are really getting value for the money governments are spending that way?
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think that makes a little more sense.
All right, we'll suspend for five minutes.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate your indulgence of our request for a quick suspension.
It appears there are a few different ideas on the table. The advice we received from the clerk is that, if we vote down the motion that's on the floor for sustainable finance, we can't revisit this. Is that for the entirety of this Parliament, Mr. Chair?
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
If it's the same. You could bring it. To be honest, it's not hard to bring that back in a little different way and still study sustainable finance.
