Finance Committee on April 20th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I can open it up for debate. We are at the hour so we do have to end. I believe we have a dead stop, Mr. Clerk. I see that several people want to get into a debate on this motion.

Pat, could the clerk contact these witnesses to see if they can come in on a regular panel? If we open up another study, we have to do a separate report. That's what I'm a little worried about. I don't mind. It's up to the committee as to what they want to do.

Mr. Clerk, what's our time frame here?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Alexandre Roger]

I would have to check with the services to see what the hard stop is. I would assume 6:30, but I need to talk to them first.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay, talk to them, and we'll open it up for debate. I think we could at least invite them on this study, but I will go to Ms. Dzerowicz first, then Mr. Julian, and then go from there. Then we'll have to go to a vote. The motion is on the floor in any event.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Chair, I think the clerk was trying to give some input into this discussion. He was kind of giving a signal there. I didn't know if he had something to offer before I made my comment.

[The Clerk]

Thank you very much, Ms. Dzerowicz.

The only thing I wanted to say was that we can no longer have any extensions of our committee meetings, which means that we will not be able to have three-hour meetings in the future, just because the Senate has started sitting. I informed the chair about this. If we are waiting for a three-hour meeting for next week, next Thursday or whenever, it's not going to happen. The last three-hour meeting we have is this Thursday, in two days.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

That makes this two hours, Pat.

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

You said at the outset of this meeting that we cannot meet for three hours because of the votes. Given that the voting—

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I might have misspoke.

This Thursday, we do have a three-hour meeting scheduled, but the votes are probably going to disrupt that. Following from there, due to the Senate committees meeting and so on, I'm told that we can only have two-hour meetings. That's why the Governor of the Bank of Canada and the PBO were limited to one hour each, rather than our normal one and a half.

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

My motion is on the basis of a three-hour meeting. I think I would want two one-and-a-half-hour panels. I would be willing to spread the two one-and-a-half-hour panels over two consecutive meetings. We're going to need more than a two-hour committee meeting for this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Let's start to debate the motion, and the clerk will tell us when we have to stop. We have a dead stop for other committees, I understand. We'll go to Ms. Dzerowicz, and then Mr. Julian.

Mr. Clerk, please interrupt whenever you have the information.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Just give us a signal.

Mr. Kelly, I have no problems with any of the names that you've listed. I wonder if you would be amenable to reinviting all of them to this session that we have right now, and if, for some reason, the chair's not able to actually book them in, that we revisit your motion. Just in terms of expediency, in terms of getting them in, in terms of hearing from them and in terms of the facilitation of the report, I wonder if you would be amenable to that.

The chair tries to schedule these witnesses as part of our current study, and we'll return to the motion if for some reason that's not possible. Would you be amenable to that?

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

I would be amenable on the understanding that this be the next...within the constraints that I've just heard. I wonder if even this Thursday, within the limitations of the votes, we could somehow get to a three-hour meeting.

We don't need a 30-minute bell to get us to the chamber. We do need some time to perhaps log off the device and log on to a vote if you can't have two open at once.

I would be open to this Thursday. It sounds like the clerk has been in touch with our witnesses on this already, so they're waiting for it. If we think we can get all four of these witnesses here on Thursday, I would be amenable to trying to make this work within the time constraints we have with the vote. Maybe that's the most reasonable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

The clerk of course would have to respond to this, but I believe—

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Are we able to? Can we fit that in?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

There are a number of witnesses invited already for Thursday. I don't know how many have accepted. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers is one. I don't know how many have accepted. The clerk will have to give us that information. He can think about that for a minute and give it to us.

Mr. Julian is next, followed by Mr. Fragiskatos.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I don't think this is a problem, even if we're doing two-hour meetings. We could do an hour and a half this Thursday. We could do an hour and a half next week as well. We also have committee business. There are other things that would certainly fill that extra half-hour, including looking to the initial draft of the COVID spending report, for example.

I will be supportive of the motion, and I think it's very much doable, even with the time frame that we're talking about, even with votes on Thursday night. We can do the first hour and a half this week and the second hour and a half next week.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Fragiskatos.

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

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, colleagues.

I fail to see how a new study makes any sense here. It is not efficient. It does not lend itself to our work plan.

To Mr. Kelly, we've heard now that a three-hour meeting is not going to be possible. I want to be co-operative so I won't suggest that the chair look at the motion and determine whether or not it's in order or out of order, but I put to you the following: that we look at what's been suggested in terms of allowing the clerk to reach out to witnesses.

As we heard before, I think they would be open to coming. It was a scheduling issue that prevented them from coming. Let's invite them. Let's keep them as part of the regular study. I would support that. Otherwise, I think we have real questions, Chair, about whether or not the motion is in order because, as it's phrased, it is calling for a three-hour meeting, which, as we've seen, is not possible. I think as a compromise, Pat—I want to work with you here—let's hear from the witnesses that you want to invite, but let's have them come as part of our existing study and invite them that way.

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

That is fair enough, particularly when we have this obstacle of the votes this Thursday. I'm willing to go with the suggestion that really goes to Ms. Dzerowicz's point to hold this motion in abeyance for now in the hope that we can accommodate with our schedule and get all of these witnesses, if not in one day of two one-and-half-hour sessions, then to get them in two consecutive meetings and hear these witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Where are we in terms of this Thursday, Alexandre? Would it be possible to manage one of those? I don't know who has accepted and who hasn't, and I know you have problems getting these headsets out on time, and so on. Would it be possible to take some time to group who has accepted now in a one-and-a-half-hour session and pull who we can from these folks into the other session, if they're willing to do it?

[The Clerk]

We had a three-hour meeting with two panels, and all of the witnesses except for the Conservative witnesses have accepted. The panels are all full, except for the four spots reserved for the Conservatives. One of the spots was for the Fraser Institute, which hasn't responded yet. I know that most of the three witnesses, the organizations that are mentioned in the motion, are most likely agreeing to come on Thursday this week because I was in contact with them earlier this week. They already know that this is coming.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Then we kind of hate to break that commitment to them. Could we then agree at this point that maybe whoever is in contact with these folks from the Conservative side.... Pat, could maybe talk to them to see if they would accept coming in for a meeting next week or thereabouts to see if there is any way we can get them in?

We seem to be having witnesses declining, and I don't know what the reasons are.

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

I am a little confused though now because it sounds like the clerk has more witnesses. If you have the four witnesses from my motion, and you're in contact with them, and they're already willing to come on Thursday, but you also have other witnesses that you've invited as backup or concurrently, it sounds like we have too many people coming on Thursday.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll go to Alexandre on that, then, because I'm not sure. The list I have for Thursday has both panels here of the invited witnesses, and there were two from the Fraser Institute—Fred McMahon and Steven Globerman.

Are you saying, Alexandre, that they have declined at this stage?

Those aren't the two names you named, are they, Pat?

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

No. I'm looking for CMHC, Generation Squeeze and Watershed Partners. Those are the ones in my motion.