Finance Committee on Dec. 6th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Ms. Dzerowicz.

We have Mr. Baker and then Mr. Blaikie.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

It's important to underline something that Mr. Beech spoke to, which is the amount of time that's available to us to meet if we so choose as a committee. It's important to remember that. I know it seems like a short period of time, because it's a week, but the reality is that the amount of sitting time and the amount of working time are the equivalent of weeks of a committee's schedule under normal circumstances. That's the first thought. There's adequate time for us to do the work we need to do, to ask the questions we need to ask and to hear from the minister for two hours, in addition to her opening remarks.

As Ms. Dzerowicz pointed out, the bill's been available for several weeks.

The other thing to point out is that from past experience in observing this committee, some of the members' work on this committee and other committees, and the legislative process here in the House of Commons on legislation that wasn't expedited, we've seen that many of the amendments are prepared, thought about, considered and drafted, in many cases, before the minister presents.

Speaking to Mr. Poilievre's point that we need to wait for the minister before amendments can be drafted, in my view and in practice, that's not how the committees typically work. Typically, the minister's input is important, of course, and it's important to consider it, but much of the work on those amendments is done well in advance. There's adequate time for the minister's input to be considered and for the final tweaks to those amendments to be made, whatever those happen to be, if there are any at all.

The other thing that I want to address is a point that Mr. Poilievre made around the fact that he appreciated that during the pandemic, we had to act with haste. I think those were his words, or something along those lines. He appreciated that we needed to act with haste then. Presumably that's because people needed supports and they needed them urgently. Where we are in the pandemic today is that a smaller group of people need those supports urgently. This legislation is meant to help that group of people. If we felt that it was important to act with haste in the past, I would suggest that it's important to act with haste now as well.

Those are my thoughts, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Baker.

Go ahead, Mr. Blaikie.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

I'll start by reassuring Mr. Baker that I don't know how things work on his side of the aisle, but typically, for New Democrats, the study that we do and the witnesses we hear do inform our work on bills. We're looking forward to the benefit of witness testimony in order to help craft the solutions that we think would be most appropriate in the case of this bill.

On the case of timing, I want to emphasize that I appreciate the sense of urgency for those who will be helped by this bill, but it's obviously a much smaller number than it should be. Even within the affected industries, the lack of any kind of CRB-style benefit for people in the hospitality and tourism industries leaves a lot of people behind.

This is also the case for people who work in the arts and culture sector. If there is no financial support for the self‑employed, there will be a real problem, because this bill will let a lot of people down.

When it comes to the Canada worker lockdown benefit, the committee should probably know that I had the opportunity to ask the associate minister of finance, when he led the debate on this bill, if there was anywhere in Canada between October 23—the date that this bill is retroactive to—and now that would meet the criteria for the Canada worker lockdown benefit. His answer was, quite clearly, no. Unless something really significant changes, the government has designed a benefit that applies to no one. No one is currently waiting for help under the criteria for the Canada worker lockdown benefit. It doesn't apply anywhere in the country at the moment. It has not applied anywhere in the country since October 23. Members of the committee ought to know that.

What I said earlier, and I maintain this, is simply that I think it's premature to set a deadline. We don't have to set one today in order to set a stringent deadline tomorrow. The extent to which the government is willing to make some changes to its approach to the recovery, as it's currently put in Bill C-2, will have a lot to do with how quickly the bill can move forward.

I'm not in favour of setting a deadline today. That's why I'll support the Conservative amendment to strike paragraphs (e) and (f) from the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I will go to Madame Chatel and then Monsieur Ste-Marie.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In fact, I don't think this bill brings a lot of new legislative provisions. It's mostly amendments to existing legislation, the structure of which should be fairly familiar to the members of this committee by now.

I think it is important to discuss the amendments as soon as possible. I am in favour of a fairly ambitious schedule. Canadians should not be allowed to suffer because we are not able to provide them with adequate assistance. Regardless of what got us to where we are today, we must act with ambition and determination.

I also understand that the objective of the bill is not at issue here. From what I have heard from my colleagues around the table, we support the objective of providing help to Canadians in need before the next parliamentary break.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mrs. Chatel.

Mr. Ste‑Marie, you have the floor.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is our first meeting and we already have some crucial choices to make. I've heard a lot of good arguments from all the members who have spoken on the motion. We all recognize the need for urgent action. Yes, the government has been dragging its feet. Yes, it took two months after the election for the House of Commons to reconvene. The Standing Committee on Finance is only now beginning to sit, yet this has to all be voted on and passed at third reading in the House by next Friday, for the sake of the businesses and the people who are depending on these subsidies.

Do we have to tie our hands today by agreeing to have clause‑by‑clause consideration completed by Friday?

My NDP colleague Mr. Blaikie made some good points. Often, we adjust our amendments or assess the bill based on what we hear from the witnesses who appear before this committee. That's what committees are for: we look at bills in more detail, we ask ourselves whether or not what they propose is good, and we assess how they will affect various groups.

I find it quite restricting to agree to a motion that says we'll wrap everything up by Friday, when we haven't even heard from witnesses or started the work.

That is why I support my colleague Mr. Poilievre's amendment. However, I want to remind the committee that it is very important that we proceed expeditiously with this bill. As my Liberal colleague Ms. Dzerowicz said, our committee has a number of hours this week that it can spend on this bill. So I am confident that we will be able to complete the bulk of the work. However, I find that imposing a time constraint on us, by setting the deadline for Friday before we start, is like writing the conclusion before the bulk of the work.

Finally, I know we are discussing the amendment, but I want to thank Mr. Beech for his answers to my questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I have Ms. Dzerowicz next, and then Mr. Baker. I'm not sure if I see any other hands after that.

Go ahead, Ms. Dzerowicz.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

You know, there's at least a desire on my part to be able to say, “Oh, let's take the time that we need.” The reality is that part of the reason we set these timelines is that the House is set to rise by the end of next week. You have to set some timelines if there are going to be some amendments so that we can bring the bill back to the House, follow the proper procedure and allow the bill to pass in the House. That is the reason that we have to set a timeline.

I want to put this on record and then I want to propose a subamendment.

Look, the emergency measures were always designed to be temporary. They were always designed to be temporary. If you look at the courses as we've been trying to move out of COVID, you see that we've been targeting our supports even more specifically as we've been moving through the different stages of COVID. We know that our economy has shown some positive progress with the number of jobs that have come back. Canada has now recovered over 100% of the jobs lost during the pandemic. GDP growth in 2021 is projected to be 5.7%. Just in the last quarter it was 5.4%. We see a lot of businesses coming back on stream. More and more Canadians are being vaccinated. We see a lot of positive signs.

I say all of this because I think the reality is that we have to pivot into more specific supports. I think we also understand the need to be prudent and to carefully manage government spending. I'd also say, though, as someone who has a large arts and culture community in my Davenport riding, that I care a lot about continuing support for them and that I am looking for that type of support, as we promised in our last election.

I do appreciate that there are some Canadians.... We've learned through the pandemic that some of our supports haven't been as supportive to some Canadians as they are to others. I do think there are a number of measures that our government is currently taking in order to address those issues, such as the EI reform that we're looking at right now. As well, the issue with the GIS and seniors being asked to pay back the CERB is very well recognized, and I think our Minister of Seniors has committed to addressing this issue.

Saying all that, I do believe it is important for us to have some sort of a timeline and a time frame so that we can pass these supports. As my colleague Ms. Chatel mentioned, we all appreciate the urgency of getting this bill passed before we rise for the winter break, due to the unpredictable nature of the current public health situation and the unpredictability of COVID.

The subamendment that I would like to propose is that we would eliminate (f) and that (e) would say that proposed amendments must be submitted to the clerk at the end of the day on Thursday, December 9.

It gives us more time than the 3 p.m. on Thursday. It gives us right to the end of the day. It provides us more flexibility.

Again, this subamendment would eliminate paragraph (f) and rewrite paragraph (e) to say that proposed amendments would be submitted to the clerk at end of day on Thursday, December 9.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Ms. Dzerowicz. This is a subamendment to the amendment.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Okay. It's an amendment to the amendment.

Next is Mr. Baker, and then Mr. Stewart.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair. I'll speak to Ms. Dzerowicz's subamendment.

I think what Ms. Dzerowicz has proposed is very thoughtful. Basically, she is incorporating part of what Mr. Poilievre proposed, which is basically eliminating the deadline for clause-by-clause study, but is still trying to make sure that we get to clause-by-clause consideration in a reasonable period of time, in an expeditious period of time. I think that gives us the flexibility as a committee to address something Mr. Poilievre raised, which is the importance of not having to rush to clause-by-clause consideration and of ensuring that we as MPs do our work as quickly as possible to prepare for that clause-by-clause study.

I think that's a reasonable ask of all of us here. It gives us enough time. It allows us to hear from the minister. It allows us to hear from other witnesses.

On that note, I would like to mention that I completely agree with Mr. Ste‑Marie on the number of witnesses. What he said is very reasonable.

However, it's important that we strike a balance in our work. It would not be reasonable for the committee to decide to work at the speed that we normally work when we are not in a pandemic. I cannot go back to Etobicoke Centre and tell my constituents that the process will take a number of weeks or months and that there will be no help for them during that time. That is not reasonable.

At the same time, I understand the arguments of my colleagues who say that they need to look at the bill and hear the views of the ministers and the witnesses affected by it. Ms. Dzerowicz's proposal is a compromise that considers what Mr. Poilievre and his colleagues have said.

Furthermore, in response to Mr. Blaikie, let me clarify one thing. I did not say that it is not important to consider what the ministers and witnesses have to say. It's just that, in the process of preparing amendments, we often start with drafts and then, after hearing from witnesses and ministers, we make small changes. I just wanted to say that there is time in the schedule to do that. The change that Ms. Dzerowicz is proposing would give us even more time. I don't want to speak for her, but I think she is taking into account what Mr. Ste‑Marie and Mr. Poilievre have said about the importance of having time to prepare amendments while working on behalf of our constituents who need that help.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Baker.

Next up are Mr. Stewart, Mr. Chambers and Mr. McLean.

[Jake Stewart, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I supported Mr. Poilievre's amendment, but the subamendment is really only adding a few extra hours.

One of the issues that has been important to my constituents and to the people of the country is that a lot of the money from these pandemic benefits bled into prisoners and criminal enterprises, which was noted at this committee in July of 2020. For some time, it was known that money potentially went into those groups, and then eventually that was basically all but proven. As an opposition, we requested in writing that the government do a full audit and investigation. There has been no agreement from the government to do that, and now they're trying to shovel this through as fast as they can, when the whole country is wondering where those pandemic benefits went.

It's not fair to Canadians to spend a few short days on billions of dollars of money when there are already potentially hundreds of millions that actually bled into criminals, and I don't think the government is very serious about finding out where that money went. The last thing we need in this country is to have criminal organizations benefiting from free money from the Government of Canada, so I don't support the subamendment. I think it's another example of the current government trying to get away from oversight. We've seen that from this government through and through for the last couple of years. This is yet another example of it. I'm not in favour of the subamendment. I am in favour of the amendment, though, from Mr. Poilievre.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Mr. Chambers is next.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to my colleagues, who acknowledged that paragraph (f) may be problematic and that we may be able to dispense with it.

However, on the subamendment, we at least must acknowledge that we're adding not a couple of hours but one hour to the opportunity to make amendments. The committee orders suggest that the end of the day is 4 p.m., so I'm not really sure that would count as much of an extension. When we're discussing amendments, it takes sometimes weeks or longer to identify challenges with pieces of legislation, so I don't think adding an extra hour would solve any of those challenges.

Also, I remain relatively unpersuaded by some of the arguments with respect to the ministers' schedules. You know what? If the ministers and the government would like to see this bill pass, I think the ministers would make themselves available at any time, not just when we seem to understand they are available this week.

I respectfully would not support the subamendment and would revert to the amendment of Mr. Poilievre. Thank you.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'm sorry to interrupt—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I was actually going to go to you, Ms. Dzerowicz, just so you can clarify “end of day” for everyone.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

End of day, for me, would be midnight. It would not be four o'clock. We would have the rest of Thursday to be able to entertain any motions, meet with any witnesses, deliberate, debate, dialogue, question, or do whatever we need to. End of day Thursday, December 9, means midnight.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

It's midnight. Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. McLean.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I've listened to all of my colleagues around the table here, particularly Ms. Dzerowicz and Mr. Baker, about why we need to move forward with what might be a slightly elongated schedule.

I'll go back to what I've repeated here. I don't think anybody has actually drawn out a schedule of what we have to go through. Nobody's actually blocked off “Here's where we do this. Here's what we go through.” In my opinion, from everything I've heard today, it should be, “Here's when we need to have this done, so forget about everything that's going to transpire in the meantime. Let's just get this done by this date. We'll fudge that as we go through the process here.”

This is not a process you just arrive at in the end. You have to go through listening to the witnesses and considering their input, and then do the clause-by-clause study once you have considered what they've said. Right now we don't even have a list of the witnesses we're going to consider, let alone any idea of what the minister is going to say. The minister has known about this, I should point out, for quite some time. The minister could have scheduled to move this very quickly a long time ago and didn't do so. This committee should have been set up quite some time ago as well.

Jamming us in because we have a sudden and self-imposed deadline when we haven't blocked off who's going to be doing what and when, I think, is a charade. With all due respect, for everything we hear in this committee, this is democracy. We're here to listen to what people say and consider what is going to happen with this bill and how this bill can be better when it comes out the other end, when we refer it to the Senate, which is also going to go through its own process with it at that point in time.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. McLean.

Is there anybody else on the speakers list? No.

We have right now, Mr. Clerk, a motion, an amendment and a subamendment.

Is there any clarification in terms of the timeline? Was it structured into the motion what was happening on what day and how long that would take? I didn't get a copy, actually, of the motion. Mr. McLean had some—

Oh, thank you very much.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Chair, perhaps I could humbly suggest that we have a vote on the subamendment while you read the motion.