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

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS

Okay. In any event, we have a motion on the floor that I expect there will be a vote for. I'd encourage my Bloc and NDP colleagues to vote in support of the idea of studying sustainable finance. If they choose not to, that will be their choice.

I think it's an important issue for some of the reasons that have been flagged. I won't beat a dead horse on this issue. For the sake of making sure the committee has an understanding of some of the other options that are proceeding, which might inform how we vote on the various motions that might be brought forward today, there were three others that our caucus had been considering. One was on open banking; one was a flood insurance program, on which we heard significant testimony from, in particular, the Insurance Bureau of Canada; and an additional one was the CRA informant program, which I think would be of serious benefit to the entire Parliament.

Perhaps I'll leave it there, but I'll flag your suggestion. I think it accords with the suggestion made by my colleague Mr. Ste-Marie, around revisiting the language. To Mr. Poilievre's point regarding sustainable finance, I think there's at least as much ambiguity in the phrase “corporate welfare” as there is in “sustainable finance”. If we're talking about direct federal investments in Canadian business, then I think that would be a more appropriate way to describe such a study.

We may end up revisiting the motion, which is not yet on the floor from Mr. Poilievre.

In any event, we remain in the debate of the motion regarding a study on sustainable finance. I hope that my colleagues will consider supporting this motion.

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Mr. Julian will be the last speaker, and we'll vote on this and go to whatever comes next.

4:25 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

I appreciate Mr. Fraser's comments. I think we can work together on a new motion, as Mr. Ste-Marie said. I'll be voting against this particular motion, but we will be able to develop a new one. That's not a problem procedurally.

Then, I think, we'll put on the floor Mr. Poilievre's motion and we can get moving on our first study. I think we're actually coming to a bit of a consensus, so that's good.

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

We will call the question on the sustainable finance recommendation as the study that we start with.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

We now go to Mr. Poilievre's motion.

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

I so move.

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

The motion reads:

That the committee undertake a study on corporate welfare.

Do you want to expand on that, or are you open to other suggestions, as I think Mr. Fraser suggested, or as I suggested as well, such as value for Canadian dollars?

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

If someone moves an amendment, I would consider it, but I'd like to keep it simple.

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Mr. Fraser.

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS

I propose an amendment to the motion, such that it would read, “That the committee undertake a study on the impact of federal investments in Canadian businesses”.

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

I can be challenged on this, but I would suggest that the amendment is in order.

Mr. McLean.

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB

I would be against the language, because as we have seen in the House of Commons recently in the tabling of reports, the words “investments” and “expenditures” often get confused in the government's mind.

I would like it to say that we have all those, not just investments, but every expense the government actually incurs with each of the corporations, not just government investments.

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Perhaps we can think about that a little more. I understand what you're saying. You're not just talking about investments; you are talking about expenditures. I think that's what you mean by “corporate welfare”, but let's find the wording for it.

Mr. Julian.

4:30 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

I like the wording as Mr. Poilievre has put it forward. We, as a committee, in the pre-budget recommendations have used similar language. We have a recommendation that actually refers specifically to corporate welfare in the case of Loblaws and Mastercard.

I think we're being consistent with the language that Mr. Poilievre has offered for this motion, and that consistency will be important. It also allows for the scope that Mr. Ste-Marie and others have spoken to.

We have a good motion. It would be helpful for us to take some time just to talk about when the deadline would be, if this passes, for witness lists and the committee's schedule around this. I hope we don't take too much time in debating the motion itself.

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

There is an amendment on the floor. Perhaps you can give me that amendment again. I think it's in order. You have to treat the amendment to go back to the original.

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS

I think the proposed amendment was “That the committee undertake a study on federal investments in businesses in Canada.” I forget the precise wording, but that would be fine for me.

I'm not married to the precise language, but for the sake of having a proposed amendment—

(Amendment negatived)

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

We're back to the original motion, “That the committee undertake a study on corporate welfare.”

Peter.

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON

If Mr. McLean doesn't like “investments”, would “federal grants and financing” work?

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Mr. McLean.

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB

The issue with government always spending might work as well: expenditures, tax incentives, tax breaks or whatever we want.

What we would like here is to make sure that it's exhaustive about what is actually being subsidized by the government at this point in time, in all forms.

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Mr. Sorbara.

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's great to be on the committee replacing my colleague Mr. McLeod. Hopefully, he has made it safely back to his riding up north of Nunavut, I believe, if I'm not mistaken.

In terms of the motion that Mr. Poilievre has put forward, and on what I've heard from the opposition parties in terms of investments that take place in the Canadian economy and how our government is helping Canadian businesses to grow, this is a very important discussion.

We think of terms like optionality, which means where a business can locate its place of doing business and where it can hire its employees. Around the world, we know, capital is fungible. We know that capital travels, and it travels to the destination where it can represent and earn a good return, hire Canadians and hire people around the world.

We can look at the case of Mastercard. It had undertaken an investment in a Canadian company. It purchased a small cybersecurity company in Vancouver and decided that it was going to grow that business. It could have chosen to grow this business in other parts of the world—the United States, for example. We know that Mastercard is a world company, along with Visa and other finance-related entities. It chose Vancouver. It chose Canada. I think that's important.

When we're looking at how Canadian companies or global companies invest around the world and we think about optionality, it's important for the Government of Canada to keep in mind why we put in place certain programs to help companies locate in Canada. In the automotive sector, the U.S. states do this very frequently to attract business in those areas. I applaud them for doing it. They create thousands of jobs.

In this case here, our government, through an investment, has guaranteed an investment of over $500 million in Vancouver and will be hiring individuals here in Canada, including Canadians, permanent residents and maybe more people who will have to move to Canada to fulfill that skill set. I think that's important. That can't be lost on this committee. I know that it's certainly not lost on our government how important it is that firms are wanting to invest in Canada.

That's why we have Invest in Canada. We created an agency to help entities locate in Canada and to grow Canada. That's why we created a global talent stream to make it easier for businesses like Mastercard to bring individuals here to Canada to work. We know how important immigration is. We know how important it is to attract high-skilled workers.

When we think of the Mastercard example and the 100 spots for students that will be created from this investment in British Columbia—the province where I was born and was raised before I moved to Ontario—that is very important to consider. Consider the 200- or 300-odd jobs that are going to be created by this investment of $500 million by Mastercard and a few million more from the Canadian government in order to roll out this investment.

I think it's very important to consider that when we look at the world and the global economy. As someone who has worked in the financial markets globally, in Toronto, England and, for the most part, in New York City, I know that countries all over the world are trying to attract and retain individuals. They're trying to attract and retain investment. That's not lost upon me.

If you look at our record over this session of Parliament and into our first term of governing, job growth attributed to investment has been very strong. Yes, I would agree that there has been some pullback in the energy sector due to the drop in oil prices, but we've witnessed this before in Canada, and we are seeing investments. When I think of Alberta, I look at Inter Pipeline and their multi-billion dollar investment that I got to visit, the industrial heartland for the conference that took place.

Look at the petrochemical sector. I'm a big proponent of the energy sector from coast to coast to coast, because it takes place not only in Alberta but in every province in this country. Even Nova Scotia has a robust gas sector. In Newfoundland, you have a robust oil and gas sector.

I think of our investment in Inter Pipeline, which the government undertook to help them undertake an investment of $3 billion plus. If Inter Pipeline wants to come and talk about its investment here at committee, that sounds good to me, because I'm sure it's going to talk about the contributions that the Alberta NDP government made to it and that we helped to fund.

When we're thinking about investments in the Canadian economy that create jobs and how government can partner with that.... I think of other companies that I would love to speak with. Linamar, that we've invested in and partnered with to help grow the automotive parts sector. I think about that and see those good, middle-class jobs that are being created from coast to coast to coast. Yes, we want the private sector to thrive. I'm much like Pierre on the other side; I believe in the free markets, obviously with regulation. I don't believe in crony capitalism. I detest that, if I can use that word. I don't believe in the race to the lowest common denominator, through corporate tax rates or anything to that extent.

I believe in ensuring that we, as a country, adopt policies that attract investment from all over the world. That is exactly what we are doing. We need to ensure when Mastercard, Visa and American Express are thinking about where to invest globally, that they do it in Canada.

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I think these are all interesting points that would potentially be made in the lead-up to the final report after we've heard witnesses. The member does not seem to be debating whether or not we should proceed with the study proposed on the motion. He seems to be acting as though the motion has already been adopted and begun debating the substance of the study.

I remind him that none of his words are going to enter the report anyway, because they're being uttered before the motion's even passed. To my knowledge, there's no media here so these are words that might, unfortunately, leave his mouth and die a death and that would be a tragedy.

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

I don't believe you have a point of order there, Pierre.

The meeting is public.

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

It is public, but I'm not sure anyone other than us is listening here.

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

The floor is Francesco's.