Finance Committee on March 21st, 2024

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

Thank you very much, Minister.

On another front, the Bloc Québécois has made a further request, which is to avoid creating two classes of seniors. There was an increase in the Old Age Security pension for people aged 75 or over. We would like everyone 65 and over to also receive it. My colleague Ms. Andréanne Larouche introduced Bill C-319 for that purpose. It went through second reading and was adopted unanimously by a committee. All elected representatives on that committee, from every party, voted in favour of it.

Is the government currently considering Bill C-319 to increase the Old Age Security pension for those 65 and over?

Is the government likely to agree on what appears to be the unanimous view of legislators? Does it think it will be able to support the bill?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Thank you for your question and for the Bloc Québécois' work on this issue.

We all know how important it is to ensure that Canadian and Quebec seniors can enjoy a dignified and safe retirement, because these seniors are our parents and grandparents, the people who built and created our country. That's why we increased support for the oldest among them. We understand that their needs cost more. That's why I'm happy about the fact that we increased support for them.

We are also increasing dental care assistance. Ms. Thompson mentioned this earlier. We began with the oldest among us specifically because we know they need the most support.

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

Thank you.

In closing, I'm going to address another subject. What I'm going to talk about does not affect many people. It's really a minor detail compared to the economy as a whole and all the sectors, but it would really change things for craft producers of alcohol products from fruit, berries and maple syrup.

As a result of Australia's lawsuit, via the World Trade Organization, on the excise tax for producers of grape wine, and also because of Ottawa's definition of what constitutes wine, they were successful in exempting cider and mead producers from this excise tax. There were also other producers not targeted by Australia, which was only interested in producers of grape wine. I'm talking about pear cider and raspberry wine producers, for example. These craft producers, when they export their highly specialized products, have to pay the entire tariff, which reduces their competitiveness and can threaten their very survival.

Could your department look into this and try to harmonize the excise tax to accomplish the same thing for producers of cider and mead?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Ste‑Marie.

I need a very short answer, Minister, before we go to our final questioner.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

In view of what the chair just said, I'll simply say that I will follow up on this, and we can talk about it afterwards.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Minister.

Now we'll go to MP Blaikie.

I said “our final questioner”, but I'll ask members if we have unanimous consent to have a question from MP Morrice.

MP Blaikie.

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

Thank you very much.

One thing jumps out in the estimates. If you look at the voted program expenditures, you will see that in 2022-23, the expenditure was $329 million. The budgeted amount in 2023-24 was $128 million. The expenditures to date are $420 million. The budgeted amount for 2024-25 is $145 million.

It brought me back to my early days as Treasury Board critic. I suspect that part of what's going on is that the main estimates and the budget are very poorly aligned because the budget tends to come out after the main estimates. You end up with these irregularities where what ends up being spent out of the estimates and voted authorities really doesn't look a lot like what's projected when the government tables its main estimates.

When we had a fair bit of debate around the government operations and estimates committee table in the 42nd Parliament on these matters, I think there was an impression—I think even then minister Scott Brison, the president of the Treasury Board at that time, had a strong feeling about it—that until there was a fixed budget date, it would be very hard to bring the main estimates and the budget into any kind of meaningful alignment. You need that for the predictability of the budget, and of course, that doesn't have to be a particular day. It could be a window within which a budget would be presented. That would also facilitate some important—and frankly better than the current culture—collaboration between the Treasury Board and the Department of Finance on the budget. I'm not saying there isn't any, but I understand that there are nevertheless some internal barriers there. The end result is that it can be very hard to make sense of the government's financials between the estimates and the budget.

I wonder what your experience is in this regard and whether you would consider trying to move towards, if not a fixed budget day, at least a fixed budget period so that we might have better alignment between the government's budget and the government's estimates. This is so that parliamentarians can do their jobs of financial accountability better and so that Canadians can more easily and readily understand what government proposes in its financial documents.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Thank you for the very thoughtful question.

It's nice to have Scott's name evoked here. He's a friend of both of ours, and he was an excellent parliamentarian and president of the Treasury Board.

I know you didn't mean anything by this, but I have to make it very clear that we work closely with the Treasury Board. When you said that, Chris was nodding his head because he and the deputy minister for the Treasury Board spend half of their time together. I want to assure people that there's incredibly close collaboration. We're in the same building. We're constantly working closely together.

I also want to say, by way of offering some certainty to the folks back home, that we quite intentionally published those fiscal guardrails in the fall economic statement. I want to take this opportunity to say to people that we're going to stick to them.

In terms of certainty about numbers, I think better is always possible. Finding ways to do our work more collaboratively and effectively is a good idea. What I will say, though, Daniel—since this is your last day, I'll be super frank and super candid—is that this does not seem to be a moment in the political life of Canada when the focus of debate in Parliament or at parliamentary committees is principally on ensuring we have a better functioning government, a sincere search for truth and collaborative work to improve how we operate. Ritualized jousting seems to be more what is going on. Insofar as that provides bread and circuses, that's fair enough. I accept the adversarial nature of our democracy; it's how it's set up. However, I will say very sincerely that it makes me mad when that kind of ritualized jousting acts to stop Canadians from getting what they need.

I believe in these investment tax credits. I really believe we need those measures to be in place so we can get investment into Canada. When you're back in the province of Manitoba, you're going to be calling me up and yelling at me, saying, “Why are these not passed into law? Investors are talking to me and they need them to be passed so they can invest.” That's what I heard in Calgary last Friday.

By all means, yell as much as you like at the government during question period, if that is what you enjoy. However, let's pass the things people actually need.

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

One thing I was always impressed by was Minister Brison's mastery of the clock at committee.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

For all of that, I want to thank you, but I wonder if we could come back to the question of humouring me with a fixed budget date or period.

I'll give you an example. There's a lot of concern—New Democrats are very concerned, and that's why we're raising it in the House and at every available table—about cuts to Indigenous Services Canada. We've seen a lot of stories about cuts to Indigenous Services Canada coming. Part of that is based on a detailed look at the estimates. Of course, the estimates don't represent what may be coming in the budget, because we have misalignment.

To the extent that government may choose to renew some of the sunsetting funding but won't or can't announce that until the budget, it's causing considerable existential angst for organizations like the National Aboriginal Capital Commission Association, or NACCA. I hope I got the long title right. I'm thinking of some other programs as well around indigenous languages. I get that it feels a bit like navel-gazing and maybe I'm being a little indulgent on my last day, but these financial processes have real consequences for organizations that make a real difference in the lives of Canadians.

Something as relatively simple—I've used that term around Parliament Hill and in government departments—as coming to an understanding on a fixed period for when a budget is presented could make a big difference in averting the stress, anxiety and departure, in some cases, of staff that organizations experience because we can't get our financial process right.

I think this is about people. That's why I'm hoping to hear there's a meaningful openness to trying to make this process better.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Blaikie.

In the spirit of Scott Brison and time, Minister, please give a very short answer.

After that, I'll see if we have UC for MP Morrice to ask one question.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Process matters, and better is always possible. Since you specifically mentioned anxiety, reconciliation and indigenous issues, let me be really clear that reconciliation is a priority for our government and will continue to be.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Blaikie.

Do we have UC for MP Morrice?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Minister, you will have one question from MP Morrice.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, colleagues.

Thank you, Minister.

Picking up on that last question from Mr. Blaikie, the Green Party strongly supports many of the investment tax credits being proposed for clean tech, for example, with the labour requirements that are a part of it.

What we are quite concerned about and don't share your enthusiasm for, Minister, are the new subsidies for carbon capture. We know evidence from around the world shows that more often than not, this technology emits more carbon than it captures. We also know the PBO has put out a report that shows these investment tax credits for carbon capture amount to a $5.7-billion subsidy on unproven technology that in many cases is going to the oil and gas industry. I understand they've been in touch with you advocating for it. They also made $38 billion in 2022 alone. That's money we could be putting into replenishing the greener homes grants, for example, for which folks in our Ontario communities can no longer apply.

Minister, I wonder if you're open to revisiting the evidence on carbon capture and reallocating those funds toward the solutions we need to be investing in so urgently.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

First of all, thank you for being here at committee.

I want to recognize you and our friend Elizabeth May for your steadfast and pioneering championing of the environment. Now more than ever we need voices in Canada that recognize the importance of having a robust climate agenda.

As I said earlier in my testimony, it's so important for those of us who recognize how important a climate agenda is to also be clear with Canadians that it is false to tell them they have to choose between climate action and an economic plan. In fact, the opposite is the case. You cannot have an economic plan without a climate plan, and you cannot have a climate plan without an economic plan.

Today more than ever those two go together, and I know you agree with that. I want to thank you for your work and your advocacy there.

I believe those of you who agree with what I just said, including Mr. Ste‑Marie, are going to have to work harder than ever to discuss this with Canadians.

This much I think we agree on.

On CCUS, I think this is a specific area where you and I are going to have to agree to differ. Our government believes that this is an important path to reducing emissions. That's why we have proposed those tax credits.

Actually, I would say that maybe this is an area where we could conclude today's discussion by having agreement from another set of members of Parliament present here. I really hope, since I don't think I can count on Mike's support for these measures, that I can count on the support of the Conservative MPs to get them passed into law soon.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

It's not like religion, that we choose to believe in it. It's—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Morrice.

We want to thank Minister Freeland and Deputy Minister Forbes for coming before our committee for Bill C-59 and for the main estimates. We appreciate your time and your answers to the many questions that were posed here today.

We'll allow the minister to depart. Thank you very much.

I see that MP Blaikie's hand is up, and then we'll go to MP Lawrence and MP Ste-Marie.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I think there was agreement by the committee to return to Mr. Baker's motion once we had formulated the amendment in writing. I believe that's done, although I've been paying more attention to the proceedings than to my phone.

Given that it is done, I wonder if the committee would want to return to that and then return as well to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I'm just going to interject.

We would need for you to move a motion to reintroduce debate, so we could get back to those two.

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

I'm getting to it. I'm sorry I'm not quite as efficient as you would like, but I am getting there.

I move that we return to the consideration of Mr. Baker's motion now that we have those items prepared and that, subsequent to that, we return to my own motion, which we had to stop debate on in order to hear from the minister.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Blaikie.

I have MP Lawrence and then MP Ste-Marie.