Evidence of meeting #142 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was budget.
A video is available from Parliament.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
MP Davies, we'll suspend, and we'll come back after question period.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
We have a quorum.
MP Davies still has the floor.
After that, I have MP Morantz, MP Dzerowicz, MP Lawrence and MP Hallan.
3:40 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
What I was talking about before we broke for question period was what I consider to be an irresponsible waste of this committee's time by the Conservatives, who are filibustering and delaying us from getting to the budget. In my view, the reasons are not justifiable. Again, there are two reasons. First, they would not let the budget proceed in the House until this committee called Mark Carney as a witness. However, today, they've shifted from that, saying that the real issue for them is when the clause-by-clause study of this bill starts. They are not staying consistent with their putative reasons for why they're holding up the budget.
I want to finish my point on diabetes. I don't think I expressed it as certainly as it should have been. This budget contains monies that will provide the federal government with the ability to sit down with provincial governments and negotiate a transfer from the federal government to the provincial governments. That would result in every person with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, in any province or territory, receiving the medications and devices they need for free.
The result of the Conservatives' action is that it will compel people with diabetes to either not get the medication they need or pay out-of-pocket for these expenses. I want to be really clear that it's rare that a budget has such direct health impacts on people, but that's a direct health impact. By the way, it will also prevent Canadians in need of contraceptive products from getting those contraception devices and medications for free. There's a real cost there, because lack of access to contraception means unwanted and unplanned pregnancies. Unplanned pregnancies lead to all sorts of family implications—social, psychological, physical, medical and economic. Every day the Conservatives delay this bill, that's what will happen.
I've done some research, and to anybody who might think that the Conservatives' reasons for delaying the budget are restricted to the finance committee, I found out that that's not the case. They're delaying the business of Parliament at multiple committees—for example, at industry. What that tells me is that this is part of a strategy—
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
MP Davies, I'm going to interject here.
The bells are ringing, members, and I need unanimous consent to go on.
3:40 p.m.
An hon. member
No.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
We are back.
MP Davies had the floor, but I have a list. On the list is MP Morantz, MP Dzerowicz, MP Lawrence, MP Jivani, MP Hallan and then MP Turnbull.
Mr. Davies, the floor is yours.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
I just want to wrap up. I'm not quite sure what the objective of the Conservatives is in holding up the budget and holding up parliamentary business at so many other committees. I can only conclude that they are trying to frustrate the business of Parliament in an endeavour to make it seem like everything is broken, which seems to be their slogan.
The thing about addressing something that's broken is it's presumed you're not doing your part to break it. What I see here is the Conservatives deliberately frustrating the work of Parliament and trying to make it look like we can't get things done, and then pointing to that as a reason, politically, to support them. I find that cynical. Certainly, there are enough broken things in our country and in this Parliament to fix without politicians deliberately doing their share to add to them.
I want to conclude by saying I think it's very unfortunate and, frankly, unacceptable to continue to delay the important business of the finance committee, because we want to hear from Canadians. As I said, what the Conservatives are holding up here, by way of an endless series of delay tactics—like reading from a podcast of The Herle Burly show and reading from books on Mark Carney—is hearing from Canadians. That, I think, is totally wrong. We need to hear Canadians' feedback on the budget. We should be doing that right now. If the Conservatives had supported the NDP amendment, we'd be doing that right now. We would probably be in our sixth hour of hearing from witnesses today, with another six hours on Thursday. Instead, we're going to hear the Conservatives talk about everything but the budget. Most importantly, we're preventing Canadians from having their say on this important document.
I hope an agreement can break out and that common sense can prevail. I hope that Conservatives, in particular, will stop their filibuster and allow us to proceed. I'm more than willing to work with them, and all members of committee, to schedule an agenda for the rest of May and June that reflects everybody's priorities.
As I said from the beginning, when I first proposed that we have a subcommittee on agenda meeting, I wanted there to be several days of hearings on the financialization of housing, which is an NDP priority. I think the Liberals wanted two days of hearings on green financing, which is really important as we deal with the environment and the important issues affecting the development of a sustainable economy and how to finance that in the proper way. As for the Conservatives, I was happy to schedule in their priority. I think they wanted anti-money laundering days, or whatever priority they had. It was so that all the parties could have some hearings in June. We're not going to be able to get to that because, again, Conservatives continue to delay getting to the substantive business of this committee by filibustering, delaying and talking about everything but the work of this committee and the budget.
This is going to come to an end. That's the one thing we know for sure. It will come to an end one way or the other. The only question is how much time we have to waste to get to that. For my part, I want it to stop now. I would like the filibuster to stop now. I'd like us to get to business. We can start scheduling witnesses for this Thursday and next week. I'm prepared to sit extra hours next week so that we can get as much feedback as possible before we get to the important business of doing clause-by-clause on this bill, and I'm willing to work collaboratively and co-operatively with all parties at this table, including the Conservatives, to try to make sure that their priorities are reflected in June.
I ask my colleagues to put down their delay tactics, get to the business of this committee and do the job Canadians sent us here to do, which is not to sit here and talk endlessly about subjects that aren't important.
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you, MP Davies.
I see a hand up.
MP Thompson, please go ahead.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Okay.
Now we will go back to the list.
I had MP Morantz, but he's not here.
MP Dzerowicz, you're next on the list.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
I'm sad to be taking part in this filibuster. I do so reluctantly because I'd rather be listening to witnesses. We have a huge budget implementation act before us, which contains a number of measures that would help address some of the top issues that Canadians are facing today. There are also a number of measures in here that would help set Canadians up for current and future economic success, and it's really important that we get to them.
I'm very sad, because this money- and time-wasting Conservative filibuster will not allow us to have many witnesses, if any. It will not allow us to delve into some very important aspects of the budget implementation act. It will not allow us to talk to officials. It will not allow us to contemplate amendments that might make this budget implementation act even better than it is.
We started off today's meeting with Mr. Chambers reading a transcript of a Herle Burly online interview that Mr. Carney did in the past. It is not uncommon—and I don't think this is a surprise to anyone around the table—for former Bank of Canada governors or, indeed, business leaders to comment on a federal budget put out by a Liberal government, a Conservative government or any government. We have had a lot of business leaders and former bank governors comment on federal budgets, but I don't think that's reason enough to include Mr. Carney as part of the programming motion we have before us.
I want to reiterate, probably for the hundredth time now, that Conservatives can add Mr. Carney to their witness list once we get through this programming motion. Nobody disagrees with Mr. Carney being added to the witness list. The Conservatives can take the liberty of doing so.
What I didn't like about Mr. Chambers' intervention this morning is that it seemed like it could leave the public with the impression that this committee doesn't want Mr. Carney on the witness list. However, that's not true at all; we would be very happy to have him speak here, again, as an invited witness. It's the prerogative of all parties and this committee to include him on our witness list.
It's important for us to continue to reiterate that it is not the finance committee's job to interview possible future politicians. I plead with our Conservative colleagues, who I know care about their constituents and this country, to stop using the finance committee for fishing expeditions, because it is stopping us from playing our important role in reviewing, improving and passing critical legislation that has come before us. Right now, we have limited time to do the work around Bill C-69, which we know we have to delve into and look at.
There are a lot of really important initiatives in Bill C-69, and it's really important for us to run through some of them. However, our Conservative friends have decided to engage in this time-wasting filibuster at the finance committee, and they are stopping us from moving forward. The faster we move forward on Bill C-69 and make sure we get it right, the faster we can get it back into the House of Commons to go through the legislative process, and the faster we can put it into action.
I'll go through some of the key components.
One key part is the doubling of the volunteer firefighter and search and rescue tax credits. We all know wildfire season is already upon us, and we know that a historic number of forests burned last year in Canada. We have to double down on our efforts and come up with a different plan to make sure we are being more preventative in fighting forest fires and are better supporting our communities, firefighters and all the different stakeholders involved in keeping Canadians safe. We're trying to tackle the direct effect of climate change. Not looking at doubling volunteer firefighter or search and rescue tax credits is a key problem.
The next thing is that we're enhancing the Canadian journalism labour tax credit. I'm a very passionate supporter of independent, fact-based Canadian journalism. Canadian journalism—I would say journalism around the world—is going through a massive transformation and transition. We have to help our Canadian media through this transition. It's about looking at the Canadian journalism labour tax credit and making sure it's right. Making sure we continue to support independent, fact-based journalism here in Canada is critical. We say this a lot, but it is true: Working from the same facts and having strong, independent, fact-based media are critical to the strength of our democracy in Canada. We are being stopped from talking about that.
There's also the Canada carbon rebate for small businesses. Often, the Conservatives—and I would probably say all of us—talk about how concerned they are about our small businesses and what they're struggling with: the high costs of inflation, how business has changed coming out of the pandemic, how buying patterns have changed and how costs have increased because we had a global pandemic and subsequent inflation. Small businesses are struggling to come up with new business models. I think part of how we as the federal government can support small businesses is through this Canada carbon rebate.
We know we have to tackle climate change. We have a responsible plan to do so. One of the key promises we made when we put a price on pollution—also called a carbon tax or carbon pricing—was making sure not only that eight out of 10 Canadians would get more money than what they pay, but also that we would provide additional funding for small businesses and rural Canadians. Small businesses have been waiting for this carbon rebate. They have been waiting, in my opinion, a little too long. I'm very anxious to get this Canada carbon rebate discussed and passed as part of this bill. Small businesses will be very happy to know they will be getting this carbon rebate back.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
While I appreciate hearing all the talking points about the budget from this member, we are discussing a subamendment about having Mark Carney come in. I question the relevance of the filibustering that's happening among the Liberals. They are complaining about filibustering, yet they are filibustering and not even talking about the subamendment at hand.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
Mr. Chair, does this mean they would like to vote on the subamendment right now? I think we're happy to do that. That would shut down debate. We're okay to do that.
Do you want to check with the Conservatives to see whether they would like to vote on it?
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
I'm only talking because I don't want to be.... Last year, we talked for 60 hours about eels.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
Would they like to vote on the subamendment right now? Is that what they're saying?
Are you ready? I heard that I'm in charge of a filibuster, but I'm not. We're only engaged in it because you're not ready to vote. I'm happy to put it on the table.
