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.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Clerk of the Committee  Mr. David Gagnon

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON

Thank you very much.

You know, after I wholeheartedly endorsed Mr. Poilievre through a vote and helped to make him vice-chair, I would have thought that the endorsement would have led to an endorsement of the motion.

3:55 p.m.

Voices

Oh, oh!

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON

I'll remember that at a future date.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

I'm the Frankenstein created in your laboratory.

3:55 p.m.

Voices

Oh, oh!

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON

Ah, is that what it is? Okay.

Mr. Poilievre says that the concept of sustainable finance is “vague”. Admittedly, it is a relatively new concept in economic circles and other circles, including policy-making circles, but it has been defined. It's been defined by the expert panel on sustainable finance. They define it as “capital flows, risk management and financial processes that assimilate environmental and social factors as a means of promoting sustainable economic growth and the long-term stability of the financial system”.

There's a lot of policy wonk talk there, but I think we can understand it as a view that takes the economy seriously. It looks at how an economy can function in an era when sustainability has been brought up as a major concern, not just in Canada but beyond. We should embrace the policy language sometimes, because if we look at it seriously, there is a lot to it.

Beyond that, the Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada—not a very radical organization by any means—is very interested in subjects like this. The definition I read actually came from their website. They cited the expert panel on sustainable finance. I know that my friends in the Conservative Party take the CPA very seriously and take the accounting profession very seriously, and even the accountants are calling on us to look into these matters.

When the Insurance Bureau came here, they raised in their testimony some matters around risk. We can link risk to environmental risk, and we can link environmental risk to economic risk. The CPA says this: “Sustainability is a priority area for CPA Canada and CPAs in all sectors play a crucial role in integrating environmental and social factors into financial decision-making to promote sustainable long-term economic growth.”

The point is that there is a view on sustainable finance. It has been raised by environmentalists. It has been raised by the business community. It has been raised by the insurance community and even by accountants. I think we can find, as a committee here, that it engages the business community. It engages the environmental community, activists and otherwise, and those of us in the moderate middle who think to look at both sides. I think there is something to be said for looking at this in a study.

The other thing is that Mr. Poilievre wants to do a study on, as he puts it, “corporate welfare”. Well, I wonder what period he'd like to look at. I know that he has brought up points against the government and our record, or what he deems to be our record. Before I am accused of bias, the following that I'm about to read, Mr. Chair, comes from the Fraser Institute. It's an article from 2013, entitled “The Harper government's crony capitalism”. I will read this from the Fraser Institute:

You might think the federal Conservatives, who added $125-billion to the federal debt since 2008 and will add another $21-billion by the end of March, might be shy about unnecessary expenditures. Alas, that's not the case, as it appears Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his colleagues would rather hand out cash to corporate Canada instead.

In just the first two weeks of January [2013], the prime minister announced another $250-million for the Automotive Innovation Fund—a federal subsidy program that provides the auto sector with taxpayer cash for research and development.

Then the prime minister announced $400-million for venture capital, mystifying those of us who thought it was fine to let private-sector angel investors risk their own cash, not that of taxpayers, on high-risk start-ups.

I won't continue to read from the Fraser Institute report, Mr. Chair, but I think you take the point, which is that if the Conservatives want to look at what they deem to be corporate welfare, then I think we ought to put it to them that we can look at corporate welfare from a variety of perspectives in a variety of time periods.

Let's be serious as a finance committee: What are we here to do? We have a climate emergency that has galvanized discussion across the world and certainly in this country. We have a responsibility to come up with recommendations for the Government of Canada on how we can move forward meaningfully in economic terms in a way that respects the fact that sustainability is a real challenge in this country. I think this motion speaks to that very need.

4 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

I take it you're in favour of the original motion.

4 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON

That is correct.

4 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Mr. Ste-Marie is next, and then Mr. Poilievre, Ms. Dzerowicz and Mr. Julian.

4 p.m.

Bloc

Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC

I honestly find the two topics very interesting and relevant.

If the motion before us deals with the report of the Expert Panel on Sustainable Finance—one of its authors appeared during our pre-budget consultations—it would be worth the committee's attention.

However—and I'm no expert on procedure—I find Pierre Poilievre's suggestion very interesting, and I would prefer that we start with that issue. You'll understand, however, that I'm waiting to see how Mr. Poilievre will formulate his proposal. Furthermore, the reasons for my support are diametrically opposed to his.

Indeed, I believe in government support for businesses when the money is well-spent and when the assistance is well-targeted. Let's take the example of Bombardier: this assistance has supported jobs, and the government has made a lot of money from the equity investment in the company. If the committee is able to establish that, it may silence the members, Conservative and otherwise, who are rising in the House to criticize the assistance to Bombardier. Indeed, this kind of assistance is a tool that is used by the government, but it has a bad reputation because it isn't accompanied by sufficiently transparent accountability. If the committee can finally look into this issue, we will be able to get to the bottom of it.

In the words of Mr. Poilievre, does the dollar taken from the pockets of SMEs and other businesses as a subsidy generate more wealth and value than a simple tax cut? My hypothesis is that it may indeed do so if the subsidy is well-used. However, the committee will have to look at this issue to answer it. Similarly, if this money is used to give gifts to friendly companies, it is important to shed light on this possibility, which is one of the committee's responsibilities.

Mr. Chair, I don't yet know enough about the procedures surrounding the selection of the committee's future business. However, I will vote in favour of starting with the study on support for business. If we could decide today to study the report of the Expert Panel on Sustainable Finance at a later date—between government bills, budgets and other topics—I would agree.

4 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Thank you, Mr. Ste-Marie.

Just on procedure, Mr. Ste-Marie, there is a motion on the floor. This one would have to be voted on or set aside as a second option for another day.

If this motion is defeated, can we bring it back if we want to study it later or not?

4 p.m.

The Clerk

Usually when it's the same motion, you can't bring it back.

4 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

That was my thought. The motion is on the floor, and we will have to vote on it as a first step.

We would need a formal motion in order to deal with the proposal Mr. Poilievre put forward. I would suggest that if that's the way people are thinking of going, then perhaps it would be a good idea to write up a motion. That's the process.

Mr. Poilievre, you're next, and then Ms. Dzerowicz, Mr. Julian and Mr. McLean.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

I will be proposing the following motion—

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Not yet, Pierre.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

No, I know that. I'm not saying I'm doing it now; I said I will be.

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Okay.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

I'll just inform the committee of my planned motion, and we can consider it after the present sustainable finance motion is voted on.

It reads, “That the committee undertake a study on corporate welfare”.

“That the committee undertake a study on corporate welfare”.

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Ms. Dzerowicz is next, and then Mr. Fraser.

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON

I was going to vote to support this topic of sustainable finance. I'm open to it not being the exact way it's written. I think the intention was to focus on the expert panel on sustainable finance and to focus on their recommendations.

I think the report is very much about an opportunity that lies in front of us, an opportunity to shift Canada's economy in its current state into a low-carbon economy. We're currently at a crossroads as to the best way to go about doing that. This report creates an unbelievable path forward.

My colleague, Mr. Fragiskatos, had outlined a list of people who supported it. I'd add to that list—I'm forgetting his name, and I apologize for that—the gentleman who's in charge of the oil and gas sector in Calgary. He also indicated that he supported the recommendations of this report. I would say a lot of those who presented to us indicated the same thing. I think it presents an opportunity for us to really dig deeper into the details.

I suppose if we vote this down, it just means that if we bring back a similar type of recommendation, it will have to be different. I think this is a very important topic for us to be focused on and I'd support sustainable finance as a topic, whether it's in this exact language or slightly modified.

Thank you.

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Okay. Thank you.

I'm going to start to limit the list before too long. We'll have to make a decision before too long.

Next are Mr. Julian, Mr. McLean, Mr. Ste-Marie and Mr. Fraser.

4:05 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

The main clause in the motion is that the Standing Committee on Finance undertake a study. I'm going to offer an amendment: “That the Standing Committee on Finance undertake a study on corporate welfare” and strike everything—

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

We're not on that motion yet, though, Peter.

4:05 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

I'm amending the existing motion.

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Okay. That's on the existing motion.