Finance Committee on March 23rd, 2021

[Nicolas Moreau]

We're asking for the authority to borrow and to be able to increase the debt in the future. It's important that we have that clear territory to move forward in order to be able to put together a debt program moving ahead. We need to inform the market. We need to have the capacity to increase our debt in the future. That money will still need to be approved through the budget and through the other mechanisms that we talked about before. As we know, it's mostly through appropriation acts that the money will be approved.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Just so we're clear, and I guess to go back to Mr. Ste-Marie's point, any spending would have to be approved by a vote in Parliament. That's correct, right?

Okay, Tamara. Go ahead.

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

We're asking for money that we know is planned to be spent over the next three years. We have no permission yet to spend that money, but we're going to make sure that the money is in place anyway. Is that correct?

[Nicolas Moreau]

What we want to make sure is that we will have the authority to borrow that money if the decision is taken to spend that money.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay. Thank you. Now we're going to Mr. Fast, who will be followed by Mr. Kelly.

Go ahead, Ed.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Chair, my colleague, Ms. Jansen, has put her finger on the real problem here.

First you table a budget, and then you ask for the borrowing authorities that match what your budget calls for. I've met with numerous economists since I was appointed critic, and I can tell you that they all agree that it is much more preferable to table a budget first, then match your borrowing authority to that budget. That's a big problem here.

Also—and this is my final point—respectfully, to Mr. Fragiskatos's point, this is not about debt-to-GDP ratio, because we know the finance minister has not done what her mandate letter instructs her to do, which is to implement a fiscal anchor. I know economists are all calling for there to be a fiscal anchor. They might not agree on exactly what that anchor should be, but it is absolutely critical for the minister to have some guidance, some rules, by which her spending is governed.

Here we have a minister coming forward and asking for the authority to borrow money when we don't know what her plan is. That budget should have been delivered before this debt ceiling increase was requested. That's my big problem, which is why we have the amendment on the table. I believe it's the reasonable way of approaching it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you.

I don't believe there was a question there. We are straying somewhat from the amendment, but I think that's fine. These issues need to be discussed.

Mr. Kelly.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Thanks. I'll be very specific to the debate that is taking place on the amendment.

I wanted to comment on the issue that Gabriel Ste-Marie raised, because it was also raised in an earlier panel by other witnesses, and I think by committee members on the government side. It is this false comparison to anything that has happened over the years and the long history in the United States of brinkmanship over funding the government. One of the beauties and one of the real strengths of the Westminster system is that this type of government shutdown because of gridlock among legislators just doesn't happen. The minute a government cannot get authority to fund its expenses, that is dealt with through an immediate election. That's a loss of confidence in the government, and it would be referred immediately to an election.

This isn't about brinkmanship over the ceiling. This is about setting an appropriate ceiling. If one is to suggest that now is the time to set a ceiling that is at least $220 billion higher—at least—than the broadest worst-case scenario, the highest estimate of any possible borrowing figure, and if we were to accept the argument that we ought now to set it at $1.883 trillion, then one would really say, why not $2 trillion? Why not $5 trillion? Why even have a ceiling, if the ceiling is going to far exceed any notion of spending that has yet been presented to Parliament?

For the reasons my other colleagues have mentioned, I'm going to support the amendment, but I wanted to be clear about that. There's no equivalent or comparison to be made over the long history of gridlocked government spending that has resulted in shutdowns in the United States. That's not a feature of the parliamentary system and the system we have in Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay. Thank you.

I see Mr. Fragiskatos. He is perhaps the last speaker on this amendment.

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

I won't belabour the point, Mr. Chair. It's an important debate. There's no question about it. The reason I focus on debt to GDP here is that, as we all know, it's a key economic measure. In the view of most economists, it is the key measure when we're looking at debt issues. That's why I raise it.

There's also the view of the International Monetary Fund, which I know my friends in the Conservative Party will be very fond of. They reviewed Canada's spending throughout COVID-19 and found the following. Let me put it on the record again to ease the concerns of Conservative colleagues, whom I care very much for. They said the following: Canada's response during the pandemic “provided crucial support to the economy and the functioning of financial markets, and helped protect lives and livelihoods.” The report also remarked on the importance of avoiding premature withdrawal of policy support, and it welcomed Canada's adoption of fiscal guardrails.

On the whole, the IMF is very comfortable with where Canada is in economic terms. Again, this is not The Socialist International. This is the IMF. If the IMF is good with it, then I'm pretty comfortable, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Mr. Fragiskatos.

I believe Mrs. Jansen is wanting back into the round.

Go ahead. The floors is yours, Tamara.

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

I'm just very concerned about the way this is being done. We have no budget, and we are being asked to approve a credit limit that is massively increased, without knowing really where it's going. We've been told that we're going to be “reimagining” the economy, and I assume that's why we're asking for so much money. It is a pretty serious thing to ask us to say yes to this kind of borrowing when in actual fact we have no idea what the plan is.

We have to be ensuring that Canadians and parliamentarians have the opportunity to actually debate things, rather than saying, “Okay, approve it now, and don't worry, you'll get another chance later to rubber-stamp it.” That's what I feel like this is going to do. It's just going to rubber-stamp whatever is in the budget that we're going to finally see on the 19th.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I believe Mr. Falk wants in.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to reiterate some of the things my colleagues have been saying. It seems to me that this amendment would do what the government is asking to do to meet its obligations for the commitments it's already made. What it wouldn't do is create that $300-billion cushion that the government is looking for, and it seems to me that would be like putting the cart before the horse. We were told earlier today by the Deputy Prime Minister that we can expect the budget on April 19. Once that budget is presented, if there needs to be an increase in borrowing authority at that time, it would make a lot more sense to me that the request come through the budget process and be coupled with the budget as presented on April 19.

This amendment would also actually support the concerns of both the Bloc and the NDP that the revenue aspect in our finances has not been addressed at all. If we wait until April 19, we may realize that the increase that is being asked for in this current bill is not warranted and that what we're presenting as an amendment is probably just fine and might even be excessive once the government, as Ms. Dzerowicz says, addresses the revenue side.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I believe we're ready to go to the vote. I expect you want a recorded vote on this, Mr. Fast?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

On amendment CPC-1, Mr. Clerk, could we have a recorded vote?

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

The amendment is negatived.

Shall clause 15 carry on division?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Could we have a recorded vote, please?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Clerk, could we have a recorded vote on clause 15?

(Clause 15 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

(Clauses 16 to 19 inclusive agreed to on division)

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Shall the schedule carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Shall the short title carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Shall the title carry?