Evidence of meeting #1 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Sure, Mr. Blaikie, we could do that.
We'll go to the subamendment and call the vote.
(Subamendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The subamendment is defeated. Now we will go to the amendment.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The amendment passes. Now we go to the motion. Who had their hand up first?
Go ahead, Mr. Blaikie.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I wonder if the committee has a preference as to whether or not we invite the minister to appear in person.
In the last Parliament, many of us served, prior to the vaccination campaign, in the context of a hybrid Parliament and missed the opportunity to be able to pose questions to ministers in person. We have a hybrid Parliament available again for when we need it, but the context is clearly different, as we can see just by today's in-person attendance at the meeting.
For my part, anyway, I would like to suggest that the committee express a preference that the minister appear in person by amending paragraph (d) to add, after the word “appear”, the words “in person”, so that it would read, “That the committee invite the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance to appear in person for two hours, in addition to the length of her opening remarks on Thursday, December 9th”.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
There's an amendment on the floor to change paragraph (d) to add “in person” after the words “Minister of Finance to appear”.
Is there any discussion?
Go ahead, Mr. Beech.
Liberal
Terry Beech Liberal Burnaby North—Seymour, BC
I think we can do this. My concern, of course, would be if some sort of circumstance required the minister to isolate or the like. I wouldn't want this to stop her from being able to appear at committee. Certainly if the committee prefers to have the minister in person, it's something we can put forward. We just don't want to have a case that she's not able to visit the committee.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
I think we're agreed.
Mr. Chair, if I might have the floor, I would come back to a point I made earlier, which is that it is our first day. We're having preliminary conversations. Whether it's about a deadline for amendments or a deadline for the passage of the bill, or the very good point that Mr. Beech has raised about it being absolutely impossible for the minister to appear in person but nevertheless being able to appear through the hybrid format, these are all things that we can discuss as they come up.
I don't think the onus is on the committee today to answer all of the potential possibilities that may come up. We're obviously trying to study a bill as quickly as we can. Everybody has recognized that there is some pressure, even if we may disagree on the reasons for that pressure, to get the legislation passed quickly.
We're on our first day. There are a lot of variables that have yet to be defined. For the moment, expressing a preference that the minister come in person is the beginning of that conversation. It sounds to me like we'll be meeting frequently over the course of this week and would have the opportunity to reconsider this decision in the event that the minister were completely unable to appear here in person.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you, Mr. Blaikie.
I've just been informed by the clerk that in the House rules for the business we are conducting today, witnesses are not to appear in person. Even though the minister is a member of Parliament, she would be appearing as a witness. That would not abide by the House rules.
That's my understanding.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Just to make sure that I understand clearly, the motion that was passed in the House for the hybrid Parliament would prohibit ministers from appearing in person at committee, and it's not within the power of the committee to make any alteration to that or to suggest to the minister that if she wanted to appear in person, she could do so.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
My understanding from the clerk is that it is any witness. If somebody is appearing as a witness, as the minister would be, they would be captured under those rules.
Go ahead, Mr. Poilievre.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
On a point of order, committees are their own masters. Committees can set any rule they want. As a result, I will be supporting Mr. Blaikie's motion, which is in order.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Even though committees are the masters of their own proceedings, they cannot override what has happened in the House. The House rules, the standing procedures, as the clerk has explained, do override the committees, so yes, all witnesses cannot appear before the committee in person.
Go ahead, Mr. Poilievre.
Conservative
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
It's all right. Go ahead, Pierre. I'll see if there is anything....
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
I had another consideration, and I don't know if Mr. Chambers wants to pursue this as well. It is to ask the Minister of Finance to defend the $7-billion bill that's being pushed through this committee. We're being given a compressed timeline. For her to do that in two hours, I think, is asking a lot. There are going to be many questions about this bill and its impact on inflation, the financial risks of adding another $7 billion to our already $1.2-trillion debt, and the tax increases that the minister is considering to pay for all this spending. These questions all require answers before parliamentarians can vote on it. I don't think two hours is enough time to get those answers.
I would like to open up a possibility. Perhaps Mr. Chambers, whose idea this was, would like to address it if he could have the floor.
I would just conclude my remarks by saying that from those to whom much is given, much is asked.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
We had Mr. Blaikie, and then we had a point of order. Did we have anybody else before Mr. Chambers?
Mr. Baker, were you up?
We have Mr. Chambers and then Mr. Baker.
Conservative
Adam Chambers Conservative Simcoe North, ON
Thank you, Chair.
As Mr. Poilievre rightly pointed out, I think there's a lot of material to get through and some very big questions we would like answers for. Perhaps we would move a subamendment to go from two hours to four hours for consideration of Mr. Blaikie's proposal. Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
It's a subamendment for four hours for the minister.
Now I have Mr. Baker and Ms. Dzerowicz.
Liberal
Yvan Baker Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I want to make a couple of points in response to this proposal by Mr. Poilievre and Mr. Chambers.
The first one is that I think two hours provides a significant amount of time to answer those questions and cover those topics that Mr. Poilievre spoke to. When you think about the routine motions we just passed and how much time each member of the committee will have, I think two hours is pretty substantial. I've been an MP for only two years, but I have watched and I've participated in other committees. It was felt that two hours was a significant time for the minister. I'm talking about how not just government members felt about it but how opposition members felt about it. Two hours is significant. The input that Monsieur Ste-Marie, Mr. Blaikie and others have said they would want to hear from the minister could be obtained in that two-hour period.
The second thing is that my understanding was that the time period of two hours allocated to the minister's appearance was agreed to by all parties in the House. This was passed as part of a House motion. Just correct me if I'm wrong about that. It was something that all members agreed to in the House itself. Obviously, when that motion was passed, after agreement and presumably discussion about various aspects of that motion, it was something that all parties felt was reasonable.
My question would be this: Why did we think it was reasonable then and we don't think it's reasonable now?
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
I'll just continue along with my colleague's excellent comments.
I'll also mention, as I think has been pointed out a number of times, that we have a bill before us, a piece of legislation before us, that I think we all agree is important for us to pass as expeditiously as possible and as responsibly as possible. It is important for the minister to come here. It is important for the minister to address questions related to this piece of legislation.
I would say to you that while inflation and a number of other items that we could be speaking to the minister about are super-important, I think it's important for us to stay focused on this bill for all the reasons we're talking about: the need to ensure that we are asking the right questions, taking the time for this legislation, and focusing on this legislation. Going beyond the scope of this legislation is not advisable at this moment.
I think there will be other opportunities to address some of the bigger questions around our finances and our economy in the coming weeks and months. It's important for us to stay focused on this legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
Terry Beech Liberal Burnaby North—Seymour, BC
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, colleagues, for those points.
I would just emphasize again how important it is going to be for the sake of our businesses right across this country and for people right across the country who are going to rely on these benefits. It was with haste that a unanimous motion came from the House to get this particular piece of legislation in front of this committee so that we could operate expeditiously.
It sounds like we have agreement to meet as often as necessary to get this done, but as my colleague mentioned, there is also a Senate process that the bill has to get through. I'm unwilling to go away at Christmas without having these benefits in place, given the fact that we have another variant. We don't know exactly what's going to happen between the rising of the House over Christmas and our coming back.
I think it's essential that the minister come in. If we're well organized, the two hours will be enough to get the substantive information that all colleagues around this table deserve. Then we can move on to whatever amendments are appropriate at that time.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The motion passed in the House states that the minister must appear before the Standing Committee on Finance for at least two hours. In the usual jargon, that suggests that she would be there for two hours, but depending on the wording, it could be for a longer period.
The committee and the House have two weeks left to pass Bill C‑2, so time is limited. My thanks to the Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Roger, for showing us the time slots available for the committee this week. As far as I know, the other committees will be sitting next week, so we must consider the issue of time.
I agree with my colleagues Mr. Chambers and Mr. Poilievre that there are a great deal of concerns and that we have a lot of questions for the minister. However, at this point, I would prefer that we limit ourselves to two hours for questions. If we then find that the two hours are not enough, we could invite the minister to a subsequent meeting to answer our questions.
At this point, given the limited time we have to tackle all the work we have to do, I think I'm going to vote against the proposed amendment, but leave the door open. So I would suggest that the minister appear to make her remarks and answer our questions for two hours. Afterwards, if we find that's not enough, we can discuss whether we should invite her to another two‑hour meeting.
Liberal