Finance Committee on Oct. 8th, 2020

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

We're on the amendment. My hand was raised for the original motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We are now debating the amendment to the original motion that the clerk just read.

We'll start with you, Mr. Fragiskatos, and then we'll go to the list that I see before me.

People, put your hands up so I can see them.

Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

It's unfortunate. We had what I thought was a very elegant solution on the table because of Mr. Gerretsen's initiative to put forward an amendment to the amendment. We are seemingly running around in circles. Either way, sometimes that's what you have to do to get to a good outcome. Mr. Gerretsen had put forward something that I thought was quite reasonable. I wonder why opposition colleagues have not supported it. Here we are again debating an amendment that a number of us were rightly concerned about—an amendment that comes close, if not entirely, to breaching privilege.

With that said, Mr. Chair, I still have great hesitation here. I think we have to think very carefully about the way to proceed.

Let's not forget that all of this debate is obstructing what must be the fundamental focus of this committee, especially right now. That is COVID-19, pre-budget deliberations and inviting the nearly 800 stakeholders who want to come to this committee and make their case as they see it. We are continuing to dither on that.

As I've said here before today and I'll put on the record once again, Standing Order 83.1 calls on the committee to commence pre-budget deliberations, which should take place over a number of weeks with a defined timeline. It has to end by a particular date.

Mr. Chair, perhaps you could confer with the clerk on this: What happens if that standing order is violated? The more we continue to see the opposition play politics in this way, the more likely it is that standing order is violated. What happens if the committee is in violation of 83.1? What are the consequences for the committee? I think that needs to be understood by all members.

This is not an effort to sidestep issues around WE Charity and some of the mistakes that happened on that particular issue. I've been a member of this committee for some time, including during the summer, when we had a number of hearings on the matter. These are important questions no doubt, but I can tell you, and I think every single member of this committee would echo the sentiment, that there are people in our communities who want this committee to be serious about the work that it's doing. There are any number of questions that we would look at. I would think that we examine very closely issues related to COVID-19 without any hesitation.

The more the opposition wants to put forward amendments—or motions, to begin with, and then amendments to motions—that really have nothing to do with the issue of our time....

When I get up, I'm thinking about constituents. I know that MPs around the table are thinking about constituents, too. What are those constituents thinking about, Mr. Chair? They're thinking about the challenges they're facing because of COVID-19. They're thinking about paying their rent. They're thinking about paying their mortgage. They are thinking about putting groceries on the table. We have seen government programs really provide a lifeline. They have helped in so many ways to serve as a safety net for Canadians across the country, whether as individuals or as Canadians who own businesses.

The CFIB, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, says that it wants to see this committee be serious about moving forward with thoughts on and advice to the government based on expert testimony, which it would be included within. I would love to hear from the CFIB, even though it's been critical of the government on a number of points. It has made some cogent points throughout this entire experience of COVID-19.

That is also true of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, which is another organization with an important voice that I know my Conservative colleagues certainly respect. Where is it on this? It wants to see this committee carry out very important work.

Restaurants are ailing right now. The more we debate amendments to motions and motions to do this, that and the other around the WE Charity issue, the more we are obstructed from helping those folks on the ground. I mentioned restaurants in particular. My family has great experience in restaurants. My parents recently retired from the sector, but I know that family members and friends who are still in it are facing real problems.

Take a look at what Todd Barclay recently said. He is, as you know, the president and CEO of Restaurants Canada. He said, “We appreciate the federal government acting on this critical recommendation” of stepping up to support Canadians during COVID-19, “among other new support measures announced—”

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

I have a point of order.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I'm relating it back, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I think you're anticipating the point of order.

Mr. Julian, what is your point of order?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

I have no objections to Mr. Fragiskatos's carefully prepared arguments. I just wanted to verify with the clerk that the papers for Alistair MacGregor, the MP for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, a very dedicated guy who will be taking my place, have been submitted so that he can take over for me for the next few hours. I'll be back this evening to enjoy this filibuster in its second or third round.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Yes, the clerk has them, Peter. You're okay.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

With that point, I will leave you all and see you later on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Fragiskatos, we'll go back to you.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I take a bit of issue with Mr. Julian's characterizing what's happening here as a filibuster. I think it's a spirited debate. A filibuster carries certain connotations. I don't doubt the sincerity of Mr. Julian, as he is a sincere person. I disagree with him a lot of the time, but he is someone who has added a great deal to committee deliberations. However, it's a spirited discussion that's happening here.

It's nice to see Mr. MacGregor at the committee. I also disagree with him on a number of issues, but he adds a great deal to Parliament. I know he has been the justice critic for the NDP in the past. I've sat on the justice committee in the past, though not as a formal member, and I've heard his thoughts on a number of issues relating to justice and human rights. He always adds something to the discussion, and I know he'll do that here tonight.

The point I was discussing earlier, before the intervention by Mr. Julian, was about restaurants. Again, Todd Barclay, the president and CEO of Restaurants Canada, has welcomed the various programs. Many programs that have been introduced at the federal level are benefiting restaurants, but they need ongoing support, as he has said, to help restaurants “pull through the ongoing pandemic.”

Isn't that true, Mr. Chair? If you talk to restaurant owners and their workers and hotel owners and their workers, in the tourism sector in particular, you hear these are ailing industries.

One of the sectors we all too often ignore is the meetings and events sector. As I mentioned earlier in today's meeting, yesterday I had the chance to sit down with a local business owner. It was a tour actually, a socially distanced one. He operates a meetings and events business that basically builds different stations that you would see at trade shows. Obviously trade shows are not happening right now. He employs well over 30 people—close to 40, actually—but right now his number is down to 10. He was very thankful for the wage subsidy. It's the only thing that is keeping his business going.

Those are the folks we need to hear from. We don't need to continue to go in circles in the way we have, debating issues we already talked about in the summer. It's not as if the government and the Liberal members here at committee are trying to ignore what the opposition is saying.

Again, we had a very good, reasonable solution, if not a compromise—but that's politics, isn't it?—when Mr. Gerretsen put forward something I thought really would have worked. Now here we are back to Mr. Kelly's motion, which—as we have put on the record, ad nauseam, I'll admit, but perhaps needs to be put on again so I'll do that here—is a problematic motion.

That all has to be kept in mind, Mr. Chair.

I continue to look at things that key stakeholders have raised, and I wonder what those stakeholders are thinking when they see us debating amendments to motions as we are here today and continue to do.

The YMCA, obviously a well-respected and well-recognized organization, wants to see pre-budget deliberations carried out. Nature Canada wants to see pre-budget deliberations carried out.

On the specific point of Nature Canada, let's not forget that issues of the environment have to remain front and centre. We should address the issue of the environment and make sure that it's not put on the back burner as it so often has in modern Canadian history, make sure that it is front and centre, that we do build back better and that a COVID-19 economic response plan takes into account the importance of the environment.

Take a look at what has been said at this committee previously, if not by my Conservative friends, then certainly the NDP and the Bloc Québécois, talking about the need to not ignore the environment. That's something we embrace as a committee. Liberal members feel the same way. We will disagree, perhaps, on the nuances, on the details, but I share the sentiments of Mr. Ste-Marie, who is an extraordinary member of this committee and regularly contributes. I know he has a background in economics and has taught economics. When I hear him talk passionately about the environment, I take that very seriously.

Mr. Julian has very insightful thoughts on the environment. Yes, we will disagree on particular matters relating to pipelines—and I won't get into the specifics of that—but I know I've heard Mr. MacGregor as well speak in a very passionate way in Parliament on issues relating to the environment.

When we continue to debate amendments—we're on the amendment to the motion—the point holds that it means we are not discussing the environment. It means that we are not discussing the issue of how to build back better, which is an interesting idea, this whole body of thought that has emerged that says we have a new opportunity to embrace an agenda that allows for the environment to be front and centre and to be—

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Is talking about building back better relevant to the motion? I'm confused, because I thought we were going to try to get to a vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I hear your point of order, Mrs. Jansen.

I'll hear what Mr. Gerretsen's view is also on the point of order.

I ask that members be as close to relevant on the amendment as possible. This amendment is pretty broad. Therefore, it's fairly wide-ranging.

Go ahead, Mr. Gerretsen.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

You took the words out of my mouth, Mr. Chair, in the sense that you said that it's a broad motion, in that it's asking for a whole whack of documents to come back. That's what this amendment is doing.

What Mr. Fragiskatos is doing, by talking about these other important things, is highlighting the fact that we're asking officials from Parliament to be working on this stuff when there are other, more important things he believes they should be working on. I would suggest that what he is discussing and the route he is going down is extremely germane to the discussion we're having on this particular amendment.

The opposition might not like to hear that, but it's the reality of the situation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I will allow Mr. Fragiskatos to continue to go down this road, but don't go too far down it or we'll have to pull it back.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the intervention of colleagues. It's not my intent here to obstruct the discussion, to stand in the way of what has been proposed by Mr. Kelly in the form of an amendment to a motion. Of course, we need to deal with that as a committee. I've said at length here that when we continue to debate matters that have been dealt with in so many ways, maybe not to the pure satisfaction of opposition colleagues, it obstructs us from dealing with the substantive matters at hand. Those relate, of course, to the environment. Those relate, of course, to COVID-19.

Provinces are dealing with the issue from a health perspective. I'm very happy to see the federal government step up to support provincial governments with the safe recovery announcement that we saw a number of weeks ago: $19 billion for provinces. How those provinces put to use that, admittedly, very large amount of money—but necessary amount—is up to them. However, let's continue to hear from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. We're not only mentioning provinces here but also hearing from the FCM on what cities and towns require during this time.

Notice that I'm putting on record what I'm hearing from constituents. What I'm hearing from constituents is not relating to anything that the motion and the amendment to the motion has brought up. I'm hearing from constituents about their everyday challenges, and those challenges have only been accentuated because of COVID-19. This is where the country is.

Let's not also ignore the very important issue of indigenous affairs and how the Canadian government seeks to continue to put forward an agenda that is in line with the general ethic of reconciliation in this country. We could be raising all of those matters right now at committee in pre-budget deliberations. I don't know when we'll be able to do that when we have the opposition continuing to raise, in this committee and in other committees, issues that are not really in line with the desire to advance the interests of Canadians, and that are completely in line with a desire to promote political interests to exert as much—and if I can paraphrase my learned colleague, Mr. Gerretsen, here—as much “political carnage” against the Prime Minister and the government of the day as is possible.

At no point have I heard Conservative members in the motion and in the amendment to the motion bring up how either seeks to advance the interests of Canadians. There's been no argument put forward to that effect. That's very disappointing because my constituents, all of our constituents, Canadians across the country, deserve better. They deserve a finance committee that recognizes its fundamental role. We need to be very serious about gathering ideas that will, if not binding, certainly serve as important advice for the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and the wider cabinet. Will we have our way on every single point of advice? No, we will not. That's not the expectation at all, but certainly we've seen this government listen to this finance committee in important ways. There have been a number of things.

In fact, I would.... Perhaps I'm overdoing it here, Mr. Chair—I could be accused of that—but I don't think so. If you look at the programs that have been introduced and the changes to the programs that have been introduced as we've dealt with COVID-19..... I'm thinking about CEBA. I'm thinking about the need to support Canadians with rent through CECRA. I'm thinking about the payroll subsidy that the government put forward and very thankfully renewed, as we saw in the throne speech, so that it will continue until the summer of 2021. That's another point that I continue to hear from business owners: how thankful they are for that.

This committee had a central role in suggesting a lot of those ideas. They were based on what? Not on our own musings but on the thoughts, ideas and analysis of expert witnesses, whether in the form of organizations like the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives—which I know Mr. MacGregor will sympathize with—the Chamber of Commerce or the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, not to mention a number of business owners, small business owners, and also large business owners. I think my Conservative colleagues sympathize with them, or at least I certainly hope so. They're not behaving in that way right now, though, at this committee. Certainly, we on the Liberal side have paid attention to this.

Those programs have kept the country going. There's no exaggeration there. They've kept the economy going. They've kept individuals going. What are the results? We've seen Canadians, yes, struggling, but at the same time the country, when we compare ourselves to other G7 partners, is doing rather well. We still have a very sustainable debt-to-GDP ratio at in and around 48%. I know the Conservatives—and they're free to do it—when they want to get back to the issues that genuinely matter to this committee, will bring issues of debt and deficit up. What they ignore is that at 48% we're still at a very reasonable debt-to-GDP ratio. This is something that can't be ignored. In the mid-1990s, the IMF called us an honorary—and I'm quoting here from The Wall Street Journal of the day, in 1994 I believe—member of the third world because we had a debt-to-GDP ratio of 67% at that time. We're not even close to that.

Let's debate these matters in a meaningful way at committee. I know witnesses want to come and tell us that, but here we have opposition colleagues continuing to go round and round and round on all of these particular issues. That's the challenge I have.

Let me also say that there are so many sectors that want to make the case. I've talked about the importance of the environment. I've talked about indigenous issues. I've talked about everyday people working in restaurants, hotels, meetings and events, in the tourism sector, but the building sector too, which is such an important economic driver. I remember seeing very recently the view of Canada's Building Trades Unions that they are ready to listen to the government, to work with government on infrastructure programs and shovel-ready projects that would stimulate the economy. I'd love to hear from them, but I can't do that right now. None of us can do that right now.

We are where we are on this issue, and that's the sad reality.

I'll leave it there for now. I thank the committee for indulging me. Again, we have to have pre-budget deliberations.

In the time that I've taken to speak, which I know has been some time, I wonder if you, Mr. Chair, or the clerk have an answer on what happens if the committee is found to be in violation of Standing Order 83.1? What would the consequences be? That's something that I've looked at in House of Commons Procedure and Practice. There is confusion on that point. I think I know the answer. What a book it is for new members at the committee, and I'm looking at Ms. Jansen who's smiling at me now, as I can see on the screen, in a very collegial way, and I'm sure is agreeing with me on my points. I would advise Ms. Jansen if she hasn't already done so, and other new committee members, to take a look at House of Commons Procedure and Practice by Bosc and Gagnon to familiarize themselves with the Standing Orders.

Under 83.1, as I've said, we have an obligation as a committee, but what happens when Standing Orders are broken? I know that mention is made in that book about “parliamentary agents”, which I take to be MPs. If MPs are found to be in violation of the Standing Orders, the consequences are quite serious. I was a bit confused about whether “parliamentary agents” refers to some other specific category, or whether it is referring specifically to MPs. Clarity on that point would be appreciated, but that's a related point.

The key question I started with was “What happens when we have a violation of Standing Order 83.1?” All these issues that I've raised relate to that need to begin a set of pre-budget hearings. Those deliberations are.... Well, I've made the point. You know how I feel, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Mr. Fragiskatos.

I will take a stab at that question. The only other person I have on my list coming up next would be Mr. Gerretsen, but for the benefit of the committee as a whole, 83.1 in the Standing Orders states:

Standing Committee on Finance to consider budgetary policy.

Commencing on the first...day in September of each year, the Standing Committee on Finance shall be authorized to consider and make reports upon proposals regarding the budgetary policy of the government. Any report or reports thereon may be made no later than the third sitting day before the last scheduled sitting day in December, as set forth in Standing Order 28(2).

That is the direction from the House to the Standing Committee on Finance. What would be the consequences? I don't think the penalties or consequences are really spelled out. I think it would be up to the House to decide, but it is something that we could refer to the law clerk to see if we could get an answer at some point. I don't think we need the answer tonight, but I think it would be up to the House to decide if the committee and its membership didn't meet Standing Order 83.1.

I will say that the Standing Committee on Finance is always in a problem in an election year. The hearings get rushed. We did do the hearings last year, and the analysts did a great job of putting it together and getting our work done in a fairly straightforward way.

With that, we'll go to Mr. Gerretsen. We are on the amendment to the original motion.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I believe that Annie was trying to get your attention. That's what I was trying to signal to you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay, Ms. Koutrakis, you're on.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

No, I'm fine, Mr. Chair. I'm sorry if I confused the committee.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Chair, I will take it then.

I find it very discouraging that we have been around this a few times, and we are trying to bring through a subamendment, if it hasn't become overtly obvious by this point. What we're trying to do is to bring some points back to this so that the reliability and the clarity of the information that is coming back is done in a way that people can properly understand it. What we're hearing—and through this discussion we're hearing quite a bit from the other side—is about timing, about 24 hours and needing this 24 hours.

It leads me to the conclusion that all that's really wanted is some kind of smoking gun, which the Conservatives think exists out there. I think they're going to be very disappointed when we do finally come to some kind of conclusion as to how the information will come back and in what way so as to make it as clean and clear as possible.

Some of my colleagues pointed out in their speeches earlier—Mr. Fraser and Mr. Fragiskatos—exactly why so much of the information was redacted. I know that Mr. Poilievre had the opportunity to do a little grandstanding, as I said earlier, and stand at the podium and wave around his blacked-out pages, but if you actually take the time to look and to just go in and see the notes next to that blacked-out stuff, which I look forward to sharing with the committee when we get back to the main motion because I realize we are on the amendment right now, you end up seeing that the vast majority of it is extremely disconnected to this actual issue. That's the only reason it's being blacked out.

I look forward to the opportunity to really dive into that in a little bit and to share in great detail what is in those pages, because I think that the Canadian public, quite frankly, has the right to understand that.

Mr. Poilievre wants to paint the picture that some political operative sat in a room on the top floor of West Block with a big, black, thick Sharpie marker and went through all of these documents line by line blacking everything out. In reality, it was done in a very methodical way through independent individuals who are concealing information that is just not germane to the motion that was put forward by this committee. That, ultimately, is what's there.

I realize that the members of the opposition are getting a little bit frustrated—rightfully so—that this is taking a long time, but what the Liberal members are trying to do here, if I have to make it extremely clear, is to put some parameters around how the information comes back, making sure that the information matches up perfectly, as I tried through one subamendment and then through the other subamendment, understanding that it could take a lot of time.

The other subamendment was about at least annotating and cross-correlating where the pages are so that it becomes easier for people to see that. You're routinely seeing members of the opposition completely shoot that down because there's no interest in that, because that's not their end game here. Their end game is to wave around more blacked-out pages.

I think it's extremely unfortunate because it's disingenuous to the intellect of the public. It's suggesting that the public can be easily lost in the idea—

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

I have a point of personal privilege, if I could, Mr. Chair.

I think it's unfounded for the member opposite to be giving opinions on what the opposition's mental state is, intent or general attitude, when we have not in any way, shape or form made any comments to that effect.

While this debate around the amendment may be important, I think we should stick to the facts at hand and discuss—

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

On that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Just hold on, Mr. Gerretsen.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

—the topic rather than taking personal shots at the members of the committee.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.