Finance Committee on Dec. 6th, 2021

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

In the spirit of a friendly amendment, one thing I would suggest, which I think would only be possible with the unanimous consent of the committee, would be to strike the wording of my original amendment, given the discussion and the advice from the clerk that we've had, and replace it by adding instead, at the end of paragraph (d), “and that the committee express its preference for the minister to appear in person.”

That way there's no question that it could be read in a way that would prevent her from appearing. Otherwise, given the content of the motion that the House has passed for a hybrid Parliament.... I think it would meet the objections of my Liberal colleagues and also allow us to have an important precedent in terms of how Parliament ought to conduct itself in this new space where circumstances are a bit different from what they were were at the beginning of the pandemic. We're still trying to navigate our way through the balance of the pandemic. We're clearly going to learn some things as we go.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Good. Thank you for that friendly amendment.

Go ahead, Mr. McLean.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Well, I have read the witness list and I appreciate Mr. Blaikie's intervention to make sure that the minister is invited to appear in person, but it does say that members may participate “either in person”, and I'm sure the Minister of Finance is a member.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

The minister is a member. My understanding from the clerk is that yes, as a member the minister would be able to appear, but as a witness, I guess once the—

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Then could we say that in this case there's some grey area, and that the minister, appearing as a member of the House of Commons, where she appears most days so far, should also be appearing here as a member, as a witness, whom we're seeing in the House of Commons on a daily basis as well?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

It's the terminology, right? The point is that members do wear different hats at different times—MP, minister, witness....

Yes, Mr. Beech?

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

I just asked that we call the question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We'll call the question. Yes.

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

Before we do that, I want to ensure that we have unanimous consent for the change to the amendment that I proposed, just so we're clear on what we're voting on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Do you want to repeat what you said about the wording at the end of paragraph (d)?

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

Yes. The initial language that I proposed would be struck. Then we would add this at the end, “and that the committee express its preference for the minister to appear in person”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Everybody's clear?

We'll call the question.

(Amendment as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

Go ahead, Monsieur Ste-Marie.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to propose another amendment to the main motion. The purpose is to have the Minister of Canadian Heritage appear before the committee, as I explained earlier.

In terms of the exact wording, I'm open to friendly suggestions, but here's what I would suggest. We could add new wording that would be preceded by the letter (e) and that would reproduce what is written in item (d), for example: “That the committee invite the Minister of Canadian Heritage to appear for two hours in addition to the length of his opening remarks”, after which we could leave the same date, “Thursday, 9 December”. He could appear at the same time as the Minister of Finance.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

The amendment is to have the heritage minister also appear.

Is there any discussion?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

What is the language? Is it that we are inviting the minister?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Monsieur Ste-Marie, what is the language?

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

It would be the same text as in item (d). After "That the committee invite", it would be “the Minister of Canadian Heritage”, and then the sentence would continue in the same way with “to appear for two hours in addition to the length of his opening remarks on Thursday, 9 December.” The wording would end there. I would add that he could appear for the same two hours as the Minister of Finance.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I have Ms. Dzerowicz, who might have some comments. Then I have Mr. Blaikie.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

I have just one comment. I hear the language. I just wonder why it would be the same amount of time as the Minister of Finance. Is it just for simplicity's sake that you're trying to do that and just get that in? It seems a little extraordinary to have two hours with the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

That's the only question I have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Go ahead, Mr. Blaikie.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm open to the idea of having the Minister of Canadian Heritage, perhaps even the Minister of Tourism as well, but I don't want it to be at the same time as the Minister of Finance's appearance. We have just had a conversation about what would be more appropriate for the Minister of Finance: a two‑hour period or a four‑hour period. If we had both ministers at the same time and the time was split evenly, we would only have one hour with the Minister of Finance. So I cannot support a motion that both ministers appear here at the same time. If the motion were that they be invited on two different occasions, it would be easier for me to support it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Is there any further discussion?

Go ahead, Mr. Baker.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to ask Mr. Ste‑Marie for clarification. If he provided it earlier, I'm sorry I missed it. Can he explain again why it is important that the Minister of Canadian Heritage appear before the committee at this time?

I would also like to ask a question about the time, as Ms. Dzerowicz did. In fact, I'm sharing my thoughts with the committee on this issue, reflecting on the discussion we just had about the importance of having time to work on the bill. I realize that the testimony of the Minister of Canadian Heritage would take some of that time.

In short, simply put, why is this so important and urgent?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Mr. Ste‑Marie, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Dzerowicz, Mr. Baker and Mr. Blaikie, for your comments.

Actually, I used the same wording as in (d), but that could be different. I'll get to that in a moment.

Why does the minister have to come and testify? Because Bill C‑2 extends the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy as well as the Canada Emergency Rent Subsidy, and provides specific support for sectors like tourism and culture. Most workers in the cultural sector are self-employed; they are freelancers. Because the Canada Recovery Benefit is not being extended, these individuals are left without support.

During the first negotiations we had with the minister, we told her that we should not forget these people. For us in Quebec, culture is paramount. We don't want cultural workers to end up taking training in other sectors and for the cultural sector to be weakened. What I understand is that the government would have a solution for these people. So I would like the Minister of Canadian Heritage to come and explain it to us here, since this falls under his department. We could then submit his suggestion to the self-employed in the cultural sector and make sure that it fits their needs.

As a friendly amendment that would suit everyone, I would be prepared to ask for a one-hour appearance rather than two hours. Then we could remove the date of December 9 to give the minister more latitude. Also, this was not in the original wording, but given Mr. Blaikie's point, I want to make it very clear that the minister should not appear at the same time as Minister Freeland, because that would take away from our discussion time with her. I would not want the committee to interpret from the wording that the appearance time would be split in half.

So I will reword it. It's still modelled on point (d), but I'll make some changes. It would say, quite simply, “That the committee invite the Minister of Canadian Heritage to appear for one hour, in addition to the length of his opening remarks.” It is understood that this would not be at the same time as the Minister of Finance and would not take away from her appearance time.

I hope I have answered everyone's questions.