Finance Committee on Nov. 5th, 2020

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

The motion reads:

That, pursuant to its mandate under Standing Order 83.1, the Standing Committee on Finance begins the Pre-Budget Consultations 2021 on Thursday, November 26, 2020, and that

a) the Deputy Prime Minister and departmental officials appear before the committee;

b) the evidence and documentation received by the committee during the first session of the 43rd Parliament on pre-budget consultations be taken into consideration by the committee in the current session;

c) the committee allow witnesses to change their testimony if they feel so obliged based on the rapidly evolving situation around COVID-19;

d) each party submit a preliminary witness list no later than 6:00 p.m. on Monday, November 23, 2020;

e) each party submit a final witness list no later than 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, November 25, 2020; and

f) the committee request permission from the House to table its report on pre-budget consultations no later than the week of February 1, 2021.

That is the motion.

I'll just mention one more thing, Mr. Chair. You had very kindly mentioned at the last meeting that you had checked with the clerk about the availability of the rooms and there is a possibility for us to be meeting the week of December 11 or maybe December 14, I believe. That would allow us to conduct a certain number of pre-budget consultations and would actually force us, in terms of timelines, to push out the delivery of the report until the first week of February at the earliest.

I've encompassed what you had suggested from the last meeting in the dates I've proposed in this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

It's on the floor. I would say, though, that it's something that all parties would likely talk to their whips or House leaders about. If we were to be able to meet the week of December 14, if we could take four or five days there and meet three hours a day, we could get through 50 or 60 witnesses, but we couldn't do that, I don't believe. I'm not a hundred percent sure on this. I do think we would need a motion of the House to.... I believe committees can only meet virtually until December 11. You might be more aware of this than me, Peter. The clerk is shaking her head yes. For us to be able to meet virtually and do that the week of December 14, we would need permission of the House or the authority of the House in order to meet virtually. For everything to fall into place, that would have to happen.

Peter, do you have anything you want to add?

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

Yes, you're absolutely right, Mr. Chair. I think those discussions now about meeting virtually beyond December 11 are starting, but I'm not sure they'll be concluded in the next few days.

I do agree with you that there are a couple of motions that have to go through the House on this, so it's best for us to consult with our folks, our whips and our House leaders in each of the parties before we come back to discussions Tuesday.

I'd also say that I think it's probably worthwhile over the next half hour to talk in principle about this approach, and I have some comments I'd like to make about that aside from the technical stuff.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Yes, that's not a problem. It's on the floor. I think key at the moment is bringing forward the submissions from the previous parliament. I think any number of organizations, everything from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce to others, certainly want their submissions to be considered as part of the pre-budget consultations. Whether we get to many witnesses or not.... There are 793 of them, so we need to be able to bring them forward. We would need to hear from the Finance minister for sure. We have to get that done.

The floor is open for any concerns or ideas.

Ms. Dzerowicz, Mr. Kelly and then Mr. Julian.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to point out a few other things. One is the reason I had put it in terms of beginning November 26 is.... In addition to the fact that we just want to release the documents to the committee, that's one I thought was important, and you mentioned that. Two, the reason I mentioned that we start on Thursday, November 26 is that I want to make sure that the motion that we have just adopted formally has time to be able to.... We basically have the next meeting, which is on the 24th, taken, so that's the reason for the 26th.

In terms of the witness list, to me it's just kind of as soon as possible, but there's flexibility around those dates. I just want to point out that in f) it says “...permission from the House to table its report on pre-budget consultations no later than the week of February 1”. That means, if there's no agreement and we have to submit it before December 11.... I'm not sure if that's even possible and what we would be able to do before then, but it doesn't preclude that happening in December if it has to happen that early.

Anyway, those are my comments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Sorry, Mr. Kelly, before I get to you, I forgot to mention that we weren't able to hear from the Governor of the Bank of Canada, and he and the deputy governor can come on November 26, which just throws another little wrench into the ointment. In any event, for pre-budget consultations, we need to hear from the Governor of the Bank of Canada anyway, given the world situation.

Go ahead, Mr. Kelly.

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

The Bank of Canada will be a critical witness, as will be the Minister of Finance. Recognizing that the Minister of Finance hasn't been to committee yet, we should set aside probably a minimum of two to three hours with the Finance Minister.

As far as how we handle the rest of this meeting, I wonder...if we're operating under the rubric of debate on this motion, I don't know if it's easier if we simply pass the motion, let it come to a vote, and devote the rest of the meeting to committee business. I'm trying to figure out how to make this go smoothly.

The minister and the Bank of Canada are critical top priority witnesses we need to hear.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We can deal with the motion at any point in time, if there's agreement to do that.

What the motion sets out is for parties to have their initial list this Friday, is that correct?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

The initial list is Monday at 6 p.m.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

The initial list is Monday, and the final prioritized list is on—

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Wednesday at 6 p.m.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

The clerk can work from number one on down, based on proportionality, because if we're in a very short and tight timeframe, we're going to have to get some pretty critical witnesses in pretty fast.

Mr. Julian, go ahead.

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

There's another scenario that doesn't require a number of unanimous consent motions. We've received about 900—

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

793.

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

Sorry, 793 different submissions. To have the analyst begin to prepare the pre-budget report, that gives us over the next three weeks the chance to hear from the Finance Minister and the Bank of Canada. We'll also be hearing from the Privy Council clerk, the law clerk and the Ethics Commissioner. At the same time, we'll need a number of committee meetings to finalize the pre-budget report.

That's an alternative scenario that is legitimate, as well, that allows us to meet the original House deadline without the unanimous consent required to extend the deadline. It gets the report in from everybody who has been providing that information to us, 793 witnesses, and we could certainly remind people to provide us with their submissions.

It allows us to meet the deadline in a way that prioritizes the Finance Minister, Bank of Canada, and is compliant with the motion we've just adopted.

I certainly will consult on Ms. Dzerowicz's motion, but it's worthwhile taking a few minutes to look at alternatives. That's what I put forward as an alternative. It allows us to do everything that we have to do based on the submissions we've already received, 800 or so.

I'm not sure it's realistic for us to be.... We're going to be doing all this anyhow. I gather we will be having a week of hearings prior to Christmas, and then perhaps a week of meetings in January to finalize the report.

It's all very rushed. I'm not sure there's a value-added to that when we have a three week period where we can hear witnesses, prepare and discuss, pass the report, and meet the deadlines that the Standing Order has set.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Do I have anybody else on the list to throw into this discussion?

I don't think Ms. Dzerowicz's motion compromises the idea...if we decide to table the pre-budget report in December. I don't even know if it's possible for the Library to do that. That's another angle.

I think the other problem we have is that normally this committee...because we'd be on the road and we could meet for five days, we could meet for sometimes six and seven hours. We are limited to two meetings of two hours per week until the place adjourns on December 11, I think. That's the other problem we're up against. I've already asked the Library of Parliament, and they are working on a summary of those briefs, so that's already in progress.

I think the other thing we may need to consider is there was...although it was under a different topic—it was under the COVID-19 submissions when we did that review—we had about 300 witnesses; it was close to 270 I think. There were some good recommendations in those submissions as well, and the Library of Parliament has done a comprehensive summary of them. I guess we'll probably also need a motion to go forward on that.

We might want to think of that, because those could be considered, for us as members at least, as part of the recommendations to be considered in the final package. We don't have that in the motion. However, I think those witnesses came forward in good faith. Although it was not on pre-budget, it was on COVID-19, it very much relates to the issue of where we are. I think we probably need to add that in a motion, that the evidence for whatever the name of the subject title we were doing—COVID-19—should also be brought forward from the last Parliament and considered as part of the pre-budget consultations.

That's where we're at now.

Could we add an amendment to that effect so we deal with that as well?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

I'd suggest that we make an addition after (b). Paragraph (b) reads, “the evidence and documentation received by the committee during the first session of the 43rd Parliament on pre-budget consultations be taken into consideration”. Then paragraph (c) currently says, “the committee allow witnesses to change their testimony”, which refers to (b). I think (c) could also say “the evidence and documentation received by the committee during the first session of the 43rd Parliament on”—

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll get the right title of it.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

—“COVID-related”—I don't know how to say that—“be taken into consideration by the committee in the current session.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay, that sounds good.

The motion is on the floor. Is there any further discussion on the motion?

Ted, did you want in to speak? I see you looking hard into the camera there.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

No, I'm good. I'm just very attentive. Thank you for noticing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you very much, Mr. Falk.

Mr. Julian.

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

I'm not prepared to vote on this now. If I wanted to sort of change the perspective, I could offer an amendment that would then take the alternative timeline I've been talking about of preparing a report for the date we have in December.

I think I'm more interested in hearing from members about that alternative timeline, allowing us, as you mentioned, Mr. Chair, to table all of our COVID evidence, to build on the 793 submissions we've received in pre-budget, and to have the Bank of Canada, the finance minister...and at the same time meet with the Privy Council clerk and with the Ethics Commissioner, as we've just stipulated in our motion, without presuming that there's an acceptance in the House for both extending our deadline and also meeting virtually.

If we don't have acceptance on meeting virtually, that means we have members of Parliament coming back to Ottawa before Christmas, at a time when we have very high transmission. I'm not sure that's wise. There are so many pieces in place, I don't think it's wise for us to vote right away. I think it's more of an informal exchange to find out how people feel about an alternative pre-budget report that builds on the work we've already done and the submissions we've already received and that allows us a different road map over the next three weeks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I've got Ms. Dzerowicz next, and others might come in.

I would just say, though, I don't think Ms. Dzerowicz's motion precludes that point.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Exactly. That's what I was going to say.