Evidence of meeting #13 for Finance in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was communities.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
Michael McLeod Liberal Northwest Territories, NT
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My question is for Jeff from CHRA.
First of all, I really appreciated hearing his comments on housing and the piece on urban, rural and northern housing.
I was involved in making a request to the HUMA committee to study the issue of urban and rural indigenous housing in northern communities. I represent the Northwest Territories, and over half the people I represent are indigenous. However, the indigenous housing announcements don't apply to us in the Northwest Territories for the most part because we don't have national indigenous organizations that represent us, so we don't fit anywhere. It was certainly a missing piece, as you stated.
Even though we are looking at urban, rural and northern funding, we're still a little bit nervous because we're packaged up with a lot of the big municipalities or a lot of the big cities. We think we probably would still need a carve-out to ensure that we get a share of the money.
Mr. Morrison, I want you to talk about the urban, rural and northern program we need, and I also want you to talk a bit about the SGIGs, the self-governing indigenous governments, that also didn't fit anywhere in the funding for indigenous housing.
3:10 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Housing and Renewal Association
Of course, as you know, in the national housing strategy there was money set aside for what is called “on reserve”, which was essentially agreements made between the Assembly of First Nations, ITK and the Métis National Council. In that respect, there was some solid governance and input from those three groups. However, what was left out, as you point out correctly, were the roughly 80% of indigenous peoples living in urban, rural and, of course, as you know, northern settings.
We have within our organization an indigenous caucus made up of approximately 100 indigenous housing providers. They have decades of expertise in delivering housing to indigenous peoples in those settings. We've developed a framework, which we call our “for indigenous by indigenous strategy”, or FIBI strategy. We've talked to your colleagues on the HUMA committee about that. It is absolutely crucial that there be a component, a set-aside, for northern indigenous communities and housing providers, because, Mr. McLeod, as you know much better than I do, housing in the north is in an absolutely deplorable state.
I heard in your last panel a mayor from, I believe, Nunavut or the NWT talk about housing in her communities. I can tell you that today I learned the board member from the Northwest Territories on my board, who lives in Arviat, just came down with COVID, and sadly, because she lives in a very overcrowded housing unit in Arviat, most of the members of her family have also come down with COVID.
It's a very sad situation, and we hope that through a dedicated urban-rural northern strategy, indigenous peoples in these regions not only will have access to the funding and supports, but can play a key role in the governance and oversight of those funds.
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay, we will have to end it at that.
I ask committee members to hang around for a few minutes after we release the witnesses, because we have to figure out the path forward for the committee so we can table a report in early February.
On behalf of the committee, I want to sincerely thank all the witnesses for bringing forward their presentations today, for their remarks and for answering our questions. To those who submitted briefs earlier for the August deadline, thank you for that as well.
We wish you a merry Christmas and a happy new year. Stay healthy, and all the best moving forward.
The witnesses are released.
3:15 p.m.
Director, Government Relations, Équiterre
Mr. Chair, I also want to thank all the members.
December 11th, 2020 / 3:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
If I could come back to committee members for a minute, as both Gabriel and Peter mentioned, there was no agreement reached. There was no agreement on the motion in the House for this committee, or other committees, to meet next week in a virtual Parliament.
Basically, we had to figure out how to finalize a report for early February.
Normally we have a motion with briefing instructions, which basically sets out the instructions for the analysts, deadlines for recommendations and how they go out to members, and dissenting reports, etc.
As well, I should also mention that we had already invited witnesses for Monday. The clerk had a number of witnesses on an agenda for Monday. We will have to call them. A number of them—I'm not sure if it's all of them—have already sent in speaking points on what they would have said when appearing before the committee. We may want to consider if those remarks can still be taken in and be translated and forwarded to committee members.
I will basically ask people where they think we should go. My suggestion would be that we basically ask the analysts to pull up the documentation along the lines that we talked about before, from the submissions prior to August 15, from the COVID-19 witnesses whom we've heard from—a lot of them—and from the witnesses who appeared before committee, and put that in a report along the lines we talked about earlier and feed it out to committee members.
I believe the House meets on January 25, and we could meet as early as possible then and get to recommendations and come to some conclusions on that, and table a report.
In any event, we'll go to Mr. Julian, first. For whomever wants to be on the list, I'll go to the “participants” section of Zoom and you can either raise your hand or raise it like this. There aren't many of us here.
Mr. Julian.
3:15 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Chair, I would like to propose that we direct our excellent analysts to start preparing the pre-budget report using the testimony on COVID-19, the briefings that we received over the course of the last few months, the submissions—I think there were 800—as well as testimony received during the pre-budget hearings, and any speaking notes or additional information that was provided, including speaking notes from cancelled witnesses.
It's a little inelegant, how I phrased it, but I would like to move that.
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Do we need to move it, or can we just go to an agreement? I think we can just go to an agreement on that.
3:20 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
In speaking to it, it is what it is. It's unfortunate. I assume that we'll be able to meet virtually once we get past the week of January 25, but there's no mechanism in place, now that the House has adjourned, to do it prior to that. We certainly can't meet physically, because we would have to fall back to the old physical meetings. We can't have 12 people in any room on Parliament Hill with the appropriate social distancing.
Directing the analysts to do that, and coming back to this in the week of January 25 would mean that we would already have a report, and potentially even be able to provide feedback so that when we get together, hopefully, we can submit our dissenting or complementary opinions as well, and hopefully get it to the House in a pretty forthright way.
3:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I would suggest that maybe in the meantime, once they get the report, the various parties think about what kind of recommendations they might want to get in writing fairly rapidly. We really do need to have this report tabled prior to February 15, I would think, for it to have input.
Do any others want to speak or agree or disagree?
We'll go to Mr. Poilievre and then Ms. Jansen.
3:20 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
As part of the budget process, we need as much information as humanly possible, including the sources of funding the government is receiving.
I have therefore proposed a motion that I know will not be controversial because, in fact, the finance minister asked me to bring it forward. When I asked her about the bond purchases of the Bank of Canada, she said that I should direct those questions to the Bank of Canada. That's why I am bringing forward this motion, which I have given appropriate notice for. The committee has had it in its possession now for 72 hours.
It simply asks for information on the costs of the purchases and sales of government bonds to bring transparency to that. This is a $400-billion program and we have very few details. When I asked the minister, she told me to ask the Bank of Canada, so this motion does exactly that.
I know I will get unanimous support for this motion from Liberals, given that I am doing precisely what the minister asked.
I wonder if I can move that motion now?
3:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We don't have a motion on the floor. We're working on an agreement, so you do have the right to move a motion.
3:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I'm told Gabriel Ste-Marie was on our original speaking list for the agreement discussion.
Your motion has been given notice. It is on the floor.
Mr. Ste-Marie are wanting to talk on this motion or on the agreement?
3:20 p.m.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
I just want to say that I agree with both your proposals and with Mr. Julian's proposals.
If there's a debate on the motion, I'll speak later.
3:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay.
I have on my list Ms. Jansen and then Mr. Fraser.
Mrs. Jansen, is this on the motion?
3:20 p.m.
Conservative
3:20 p.m.
Liberal
3:20 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
First, generally, on the agreement that Peter has proposed, I think we can work with that.
On Pierre's motion, I'd be opposed to adopting it. There are a number of reasons. A lot of the information that has been asked for is actually publicly available already. I do think there would be some sensitivities potentially about details of any commercial arrangements involving the bank itself.
If committee members, when we return, want to invite the bank back to ask what questions they may have of this nature, I'm not confident that the motion, as it's been put, would not interfere with the ability of the bank to do its work.
For that reason, I'd be inclined to vote against the motion, but I'm happy to discuss what options for the pre-budget consultations other members may want to entertain.
3:25 p.m.
Liberal
3:25 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
I'll just add a couple of quick comments to Mr. Fraser's.
One is that there's nothing stopping Mr. Poilievre from actually going directly to the Bank of Canada and asking these questions. I don't think there's anyone stopping him from doing that. I also think that any time we're putting something forward at this point it's going to further delay any other prebudget consultations we might be engaging in.
I'm particularly sad that we're not having some additional sessions between now and the end of January. That's the reason I don't support this motion as well.
Thank you.
3:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Next I have Mr. Poilievre.
Mr. Poilievre, I'd ask you a question myself.
In preparing the motion and deciding what to include in it, have you already checked with your sources? I'm supposed to be neutral, but I am worried about.... The Bank of Canada is our central bank. It is recognized as one of the best in the world. Is there anything in your motion that could undermine the credibility of our banking system and the central bank if we go too far at committee?
3:25 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
The only way that this motion could undermine the credibility of the Bank of Canada is if the bank has done something wrong. If it has acted above board, then these transactions, being, I might add, in public markets, should be unspectacular. We should find that there's nothing unusual about them, that nobody has been improperly enriched and that Canadian taxpayers and holders of Canadian legal tender have been protected. If, on the other hand, those things are not true, then you're right: It could impact the credibility of the bank, and rightly so. I find the objections from my Liberal colleagues bizarre and rather surprising.
First of all, it was the finance minister who told me to make this request of the Bank of Canada, so I did. To Ms. Julie Dzerowicz' point, I actually contacted the bank and asked these questions. They did not provide answers and did not give me the information. The minister has said that the committee should ask the Bank of Canada. I am honouring the minister's request. If she actually meant it, then the Liberals who are representing her here today will vote in favour of this motion.
Mr. Fraser's objections are self-defeating. On the one hand, he says, “Well, all of this information is public” and then seconds later, he said, “No, all of this information is so sensitive it can't be made public”. You've got to wonder which it is. If it's too sensitive to be made public, then how is it that it's all public? Well, the answer is neither. It's not too sensitive to be made public for any legitimate reason, and yet it's not being made public because I suspect the Bank of Canada doesn't want any scrutiny for the way it has deployed $400 billion of our money.
I note that the Federal Reserve south of the border, which is not known for its transparency, has provided more detail, according to the CBC, than our own central bank has. The CBC was able to get more information on the corporate bonds that the Federal Reserve has purchased than it was able to get on the corporate bonds that the Bank of Canada has purchased. When I asked the minister which companies got this money, she said to ask the Bank of Canada, which is what I have done in this motion. This is exactly as she asked.
Let me just talk about the magnitude of this. This is an unprecedented action by the Bank of Canada. It is not some run-of-the-mill, normal activity that we expect from a central bank.
