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
Terry Beech Liberal Burnaby North—Seymour, BC
Mr. Chair, just for clarification, now that we're in committee business, I have submitted a motion in French and English to the clerk. Has that been distributed?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
The clerk has not received it yet.
Do we have copies that can be distributed?
Liberal
Terry Beech Liberal Burnaby North—Seymour, BC
If it pleases everyone, I can read it out while it's being distributed. Does that work?
Liberal
Terry Beech Liberal Burnaby North—Seymour, BC
Mr. Chair, I move:
That, pursuant to the motion adopted in the House on Thursday, December 2, the Standing Committee on Finance proceed to the consideration of Bill C-2, an act to provide further support in response to COVID-19, and that
a) The committee direct the chair to, resources permitting, schedule extended meetings for the purpose of studying the bill
b) The committee invite departmental officials from relevant departments to appear on Tuesday, December 7
c) That further witnesses be submitted to the Clerk in an ordered list by 10:00 AM on Tuesday, December 7
d) That the committee invite the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance to appear for two hours, in addition to the length of her opening remarks on Thursday, December 9th
e) That all amendments to the bill be submitted to the Clerk of the Committee before 3:00 PM on Thursday, December 9th
f) That the committee commence clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-2 no later than Friday, December 10th.
That is the full motion, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
I think (f) is problematic. December 10 does not leave us a lot of time to properly do our work. This is another $7 billion of expenditures. The December 10 is Friday, so we basically get less than a week.
Today is gone, so we're getting three days for $7 billion of new spending—this after it has come to light that organized criminals profited off the CERB, that wealthy executives and shareholders inadvertently profited off subsidies that were intended for wage earners, that prisoners received CERB payments, that ESDC officials got instructions from ministers to keep paying out the CERB even in cases where they suspected fraud, and also that when there are a million vacant jobs, the government has been paying people not to work. That is while there are a million jobs unfilled.
Conservatives are not prepared to simply ram through another $7 billion of expenditures. If this were such an urgent matter, then the Prime Minister wouldn't have shut down Parliament for half a year.
This is our first finance committee meeting since June. It's now December. The government's bad planning is not everyone else's emergency. They shut down Parliament for the whole summer. They didn't need to do that. They prorogued earlier on and didn't need to do that. They called an unnecessary election. They didn't need to do that. Then they waited another two months after getting back to reconvene Parliament. They didn't need to do that.
Now they say they're in a rush. Well, when you show up to work for the first time after a six-month break, say that you're behind schedule and expect all your co-workers to scramble to clean up your mess, don't be surprised if they say, “Whoa. Wait a minute here.” Let's look into the details, especially given how many mistakes this government has made with our tax dollars in the last year and a half.
I would propose that we simply remove (f) and allow the committee to decide when its study is concluded. Once we have heard enough witnesses and have done enough scrutiny and the majority of committee members are happy to proceed to a decision, then we could move to conclude testimony and begin clause-by-clause study in order to send the legislation back to the House.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Actually, let me congratulate you on your appointment to this important role.
For the time being, we are discussing the motion itself, not Mr. Poilievre's amendment, aren't we?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Mr. Poilievre, did you put that forward as an amendment, or was it just as a statement, a comment? What were you doing there?
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
It was just a statement. I would like to be back on the list to formally move the amendment.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
I did not move an amendment, yes. I want to get back on the list.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
That was my understanding. Thank you.
First, I would like to say that I am very concerned about my colleague Mr. Poilievre's arguments with respect to urgent action. Many businesses, particularly those in the tourism and cultural sectors, are depending on public support measures and wage subsidies.
At the same time, we, in our role as lawmakers, have an extremely important duty to address this and to study it in depth, as my colleague mentioned in his arguments. It is disappointing that it took two months after the election for Parliament to be reconvened and that the committee was called back only today to study Bill C‑2. I hope that the study will go smoothly.
First, I would like to admonish the government, if I may use that expression, for being so slow in dealing with the business in the House. Second, I see the urgency to act for the businesses that need the programs that are in place. So it's going to be quite a challenge for us. We will have to sort of make up for the government's laxity. I'll come back to that in more detail once the amendment is introduced.
I'd like to raise a few points and ask a few questions. Perhaps Mr. Beech can answer them.
First, would it have been possible to have the Minister of Finance appear as early as tomorrow, Tuesday, instead of just Thursday? Why would she not be available tomorrow?
Normally, when we consider a bill proposed by a minister, the minister is there right at the outset of the study to introduce their bill. This allows us to have our questions answered before we question witnesses.
I have told some members of the committee who represent the government that I would also like to meet with the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Pablo Rodriguez. The Bloc Québécois is very concerned about self‑employed workers in the cultural sector. It seems that something is on the table, so I would like to get some confirmation from Minister Rodriguez. I wonder whether he could appear before the committee. He could appear at the same time as the Minister of Finance, for example.
In addition, the list of witnesses is an important part of the committee's study. The Bloc Québécois would like to be able to propose at least two witnesses. For us, that would be the bare minimum. Clearly, if we had the opportunity to propose more, we would certainly accept it. I'd like to have that confirmed before we vote on the motion.
Let me recap. Would it be possible to have the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Canadian Heritage appear on Tuesday instead of Thursday? Can I have the guarantee that the Bloc Québécois will be able to propose at least two witnesses?
Those are the two questions I wanted to ask first; I have combined them in the same comment. I will wait for the answers to my questions.
Thank you.
Conservative
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
I haven't met many of my colleagues here face to face because we've only been in Parliament for two years, and for three-quarters of that time we've been meeting virtually. It's nice to meet all of you. Thanks for the introductions, and congratulations again.
I'm going to support some of the words said by my colleague Mr. Poilievre. Logistically what we're being asked to do here is to come up with a list of people whom we want to hear from on this matter. Some on that list we want to hear tomorrow already, and our list isn't even going to be prepared until tomorrow. The relevant departments, of course, are going to be determined in our discussions here.
I think we're really jamming this logistically in order to meet an end goal, which is too pressed. We have to go through the actual process here. The public expects us to go through this process of actually looking at this bill, hearing from people who are impacted by this bill and hearing what the minister has to say first and foremost, as my colleague Mr. Ste-Marie has said, about why we need to move on this bill as quickly as we do. There are some good reasons that we need to move quickly, but there are also some good reasons, I suppose, while we've sat and waited so long to look at it in the first place, to bring Parliament back to address what might be missing.
I do think that we are logistically pressed here. I would agree that we have to make sure that December 10 is not the end here, that we actually do look at the full spectrum of what we need to do here and stretch that so we can actually have some people come here, with the appropriate warning and with the appropriate presentation materials, so we can ask them the questions that are required to be answered here.
Thank you.
Liberal
Yvan Baker Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Congratulations on your election, and congratulations, Mr. McLean and Monsieur Ste-Marie, on your elections.
Mr. Beech's proposal is very responsible. He has proposed December 10 as the date for the start of the clause‑by‑clause consideration of the bill. I think it's important that we be ready to work on it on December 10.
I say this because if we don't set a timeline for this committee to work, to get to the clause-by-clause process, then we risk not getting this legislation passed in a timely manner or, at the very least, not getting the consideration done in a timely manner. Certainly when we get to clause-by-clause consideration, any member can choose to propose amendments and can choose to vote for or against certain clauses. That's their right, of course, but it's important that we get to that stage in time so that the committee can consider the bill and pass it, in whatever form the committee chooses to pass it, and we can get these programs out to folks who need them.
I think these benefits are critical to those who are struggling or who will be struggling in the future, whether that be individuals or businesses. As you can see from the legislation, the supports for individuals and businesses that are proposed here are for those who are really facing tremendous hardship, with significant revenue declines for business or for people who are under public health orders and the like. I think it would be unfortunate if this committee couldn't set an expeditious timeline to ensure that the legislation is considered quickly and that a decision by this committee, whatever that decision may happen to be, is made in a timeline that allows folks to get the help they need when they need it.
I would hate to go back to people in my community in Etobicoke Centre or to Canadians in other parts of the country and have to say that we weren't willing to work at the most expeditious pace reasonably possible to consider this legislation. I think December 10 is an expedited timeline—there's no question—but I think it's needed, given that there are so many folks out there who are struggling.
Those are my thoughts, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
To address Mr. Poilievre's comments, I agree it's not ideal that we pass these types of legislation in a short period of time. I don't think that anybody would prefer this type of short timeline. The reality that we've seen over the last almost two years is that we've had to do so because of the urgency and the unpredictability of this pandemic.
I also do not agree that we are trying to ram through this legislation, and with the greatest respect to my colleague from the Bloc Québécois, we are not lazy in any way.
What I think we would be willing to propose is that we take every opportunity for committee time this week to make sure we have the right witnesses, we have the time to ask the questions, we have the time to meet with officials, we have the time to meet with the minister, and we have the time to actually go through this bill in as deep a manner as possible and as quickly as possible.
I agree with my colleague Mr. Baker that it is important for us to have a timeline. It is important for us to pass this bill before we rise for the winter session. As everyone knows, or as most of us know, existing supports ended November 20. We also know that the recovery has been uneven. We know that the hardest-hit industries need our support. We also know that the public health situation remains uncertain and unpredictable, particularly now that we have omicron.
I think it's very, very important for us to be considering this excellent bill. There are a series of measures whereby, if certain parts of our country have to go into lockdown, both businesses and individuals would have access to lockdown support. It is urgent that we see if we can reach an agreement on a timeline that would allow us to properly study this bill and properly ask the questions in an expedited manner, but that would also allow us, before we rise for the winter session, to pass this bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Thank you very much.
I have just a few thoughts that I'd like to put on the record for the benefit of the committee.
Maybe I'll start by responding to Ms. Dzerowicz, who said that because of the pandemic, we've often had to pass legislation in an expedited fashion. I would submit that while that might have been true at the very beginning of the pandemic, in fact Parliament has been called to pass legislation expeditiously normally to protect the government from scrutiny. The government often has waited until the last minute to present their bills, when they could have been sharing information and having conversations with other parties well in advance of tabling the legislation. Also, in many cases, it could have been convening Parliament much earlier.
We've often heard a united cry from opposition parties to convene Parliament, whether that was in the fall of 2020, when the Prime Minister instead chose to prorogue, or whether it was this fall, when the Prime Minister chose first to have an unnecessary election and then chose to wait a long time to recall Parliament. That's not because of the pandemic. That's because of decisions made by the Prime Minister, decisions which I think the evidence suggests he made in order to account for his own personal interests and his party's political interests rather than the interests of Canadians, who have been depending on support from the government in order to make it through the pandemic and who would have been much better served if Parliament had been able to spend more time on these issues.
I would start with that as a cautionary note to Canadians who are listening, for them to understand that in fact there have been a lot of choices made at the top by the government that have limited Parliament's time to be able to deliberate these things, and for considerations that were quite separate from the exigencies of the pandemic.
Then I'd just like to offer up that I appreciate the sense of urgency that a lot of people are feeling, particularly in the hardest-hit sectors. We recognize, of course, that there are a lot of people who don't work in those sectors who have not been able to maintain their employment or get back into the workforce in ways that allow them to put food on that table and who are not considered in this legislation.
We also recognize that there are people in the industries that the government will admit are still hard hit, whether that's tourism, hospitality, or arts and culture, who also are not well served by this bill. Talk to any of them who have been getting by on the CRB as opposed to the wage subsidy, such as independent travel agents, for instance. In an association representing about 90,000 people who work in just one small part of the travel industry, only about half of them were receiving help through the wage subsidy throughout the pandemic. The other half of them, in an industry that's predominantly made up of women—I think the Independent Travel Association's membership is about 85% women—were getting help through the CRB. There's nothing in this legislation that foresees any ongoing help for them, so let's not kid ourselves that somehow swiftly passing this legislation is going to answer the legitimate needs of people in those hardest-hit sectors.
That's part of what we're called upon to discuss here at this committee. If we do it too quickly and we pass the bill in its current form, we're going to be hanging a lot of those workers out to dry.
Also, when we talk about related issues, our Conservative colleague talked earlier about issues of fraud around the CRB and the CERB, and those are of concern, of course, and there is some responsibility for Parliament to get to the bottom of what happened there. We also know that there are a lot of really financially vulnerable people who did avail themselves of those programs at the behest of government and who are now being told to pay it back with money that they simply don't have and never had. They were never in a position to be able to pay that money back.
I think, for instance, of kids who graduated out of foster care in Manitoba and were told by the provincial government that they couldn't apply for social assistance in an economic context in the summer of 2020 when there were no jobs for these 18-year-olds who were transitioning out of care and don't have a family network to support themselves. They were told that they couldn't apply for the normal provincial supports unless they applied for CERB, knowing full well that it was a no-fail application process and they would receive that money, and now the federal government is asking them to pay it back. Well, the provincial government sure isn't going to back-pay any social assistance for those kids, and it wouldn't be enough to cover the tab anyway. They're getting left behind, and they're part of why many folks are calling for a low-income CERB repayment amnesty in Canada. The NDP has been proud to support that call. That's left completely out of the bill, and it's something that I think it would behoove us to speak about here at committee.
I think of families on the Canada child benefit who have found out that in fact they weren't receiving pandemic financial assistance; they were getting an advance on next year's benefits that are part of their normal budgets. We haven't seen that the government is prepared to do anything about that yet.
I think of all the many seniors we've been hearing from across the country. It started first with seniors in my riding, and over the last number of months I've been hearing from seniors from every corner of this country. They were eligible to apply for CERB to top up their GIS, because they worked and they had lost that income, so they did what they were told to do if they needed financial help, which was to apply for CERB. They did that. Now it turns out that again they weren't actually getting pandemic financial support; they were getting an advance on their next year's guaranteed income supplement, but they weren't told that by the government. That money got spent on dental work, on car repairs, on paying late bills. They're left out of this legislation.
This is legislation that purports to support people, to leave nobody behind, but it certainly does. In fact, it's a long list of people who are getting left behind by a government and a bill that says that's not what they want to do.
There's a lot to discuss. We need to find a way to do that in a timely way, but we're only having our first meeting. We've just elected our chair. That is why I think it would make sense to hold off on setting deadlines for the conclusion of the study. It may be that we can come to an expeditious end. I think a lot will depend upon the government's willingness to acknowledge some of the real problems with its recovery plan, which I've just highlighted, and its willingness to address some of those things that so far aren't addressed in this legislation will have a lot to do with the timetable upon which we can pass this legislation.
I would encourage government members on the committee, and any members of the government who may be listening, to think hard about that and how many more people they're prepared to help in order to make sure that their legislation passes quickly. We're here to make sure that no one gets left behind. As it stands, we're not there yet.
It's premature to be setting deadlines about the passage of the bill.