Finance Committee on May 7th, 2024

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

That wasn't the intention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

It's been withdrawn.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Good. Great. Thank you.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I'm happy to withdraw that word.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

I appreciate it.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

What I was getting at is that I think it's not appropriate to call a particular witness for, in my opinion, clearly political purposes and to hold up the work of this committee any longer.

I'm also a little concerned that once we run out of time at this committee, we also have the Minister of Finance, who's scheduled to come on Thursday. If this continues, then we're going to lose that time as well. At some point, we're going to have to come to an agreement about how we schedule our time. Our time is limited.

I haven't heard the Conservatives dispute, in any real way, the need for the government to get this budget passed by the end of June, before the Senate rises in the summer. I think we all realize as parliamentarians that this what the norm is, and that's what we've done. After 15 years of being in Parliament, I know that is what has happened every year. It has to be done then for all sorts of reasons.

Reasoning backwards, we have only a limited number of meetings between now and then. I'm going to exhort my colleagues to be creative. I did amend the motion was put forward by Mr. Turnbull to give us an extra two meetings of six hours. That's 12 hours of meetings. Altogether, that comes to 16 hours of meeting on the budget. If we don't come to an agreement on that quickly, we're going to lose the next two meetings. We already lost one today. Mr. Morantz, I think, was right to point out that we lost an hour today.

I don't think I've ever filibustered at a committee in 15 years. I think I can honestly say I've never caused any of my colleagues the disappointment that Mr. Morantz felt by not being able to ask questions. I've been in many meetings where the Conservatives have filibustered, while witnesses are sitting there, so that the rest of us have not been able to ask questions, and it's not pleasant. I don't think it's fair to the witnesses. I don't think it's fair to us as colleagues. I feel his pain, but I also want to point out that it was the Conservatives filibustering in the second hour on this motion that caused us to not be able to ask the questions for the last hour. We could have voted on that motion quickly.

My final point is that this is a minority Parliament, but we still live in a democracy, and in a democracy, the majority rules. That doesn't mean you get your way all the time; it means you have voice.

The question I would ask my Conservative colleagues is this: If you don't like this motion, why not move to amend it? Let's vote on it and let's live with the result of the motion. You may not like the result. I've been in opposition 15 years, and if I had a dollar for every vote I lost, I'd be retired. It's important that we do come to a conclusion on this as soon as we can.

I think the motion by Mr. Turnbull is reasonable. It gets us everything that we need to do to move forward. We could be grilling the finance minister of this country on this budget in two days. We could be putting forth witnesses, probably dozens of witnesses, by the end of this week, and we can have them scheduled two weeks from now, and then we could put those important questions to them.

We could also be working on the amendments. I think this motion would give us a minimum of 12 hours to debate amendments. That's lots of time to debate amendments. We just did it with the FES, the fall economic statement, which is a document similar to what we have here.

I don't know what we're fighting over at this point. Is it an extra meeting or two? I'm not sure. However, I think the Conservatives, if I'm not mistaken, put forth a motion to call Mr. Carney, and I think it failed. If it didn't, I would invite them to put forth a motion, and we'll let democracy rule. If the majority of people in this committee want to call Mark Carney, then we will, and if they don't, we won't. That's the way it works. Holding up the process because you hold a minority opinion and don't get your way is not appropriate.

I'll conclude by saying that I want to bring it back to Canadians, some of whom may be watching, although most will not be. We are all here as finance committee members to try to pass a federal budget that brings the best possible benefits to Canadians and to Canadian businesses. The only way to do that is to call the witnesses to move this forward, to ask the penetrating questions that need to be asked and that I know my colleagues on all sides will ask, and to move the amendments that we think need to be proposed, if that's the case.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Davies.

I have MP Morantz and then MP Kurek and MP Hallan.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to take a moment to thank Mr. Davies for withdrawing his unparliamentary language. Obviously, referring to honourable members as deceitful is inappropriate, and most competent chairs would agree with that sentiment—

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Morantz, I'm just going to—

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

That's unparliamentary. I would ask Mr. Morantz to withdraw the implication that Mr. Fonseca is not competent.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Davies.

MP Morantz, as I said, I would look into it to see if that word was unparliamentary, but I did not want to stop the conversation from happening. MP Davies had the floor. What I was going to do was look into that word.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

I appreciate that, Mr. Chair.

Now, since—

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I'm sorry. I'd like a ruling on on my request.

I'm calling Mr. Morantz to account for what I consider to be unparliamentary language in the implication that the current chair is incompetent. I think that should be withdrawn. It's unparliamentary.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Go ahead, MP Morantz.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

I withdraw it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Many people tune in to these meetings, and this meeting's been going on for quite some time. Some people tune in and then tune out. Some members come to sub in for other members. They come and then they leave, so it's a bit of a turnstile. A lot of people are coming and going, so I think it's important that from time to time we recap what we're actually talking about.

Earlier today, we had a regularly scheduled finance committee meeting. In the middle of the meeting, the Liberal member, Mr. Turnbull, tabled a motion on which there had been no consultation with our members. Apparently he had provided it to the NDP member of this committee. They were, I guess, collaborating to try to schedule meetings for this committee until the end of June.

The problem is that the Liberals got fewer votes than the Conservatives in both the 2019 and 2021 elections. They don't have a majority of members in the House of Commons, so for these committees to function properly, they need to collaborate with all members. They can't just be heavy-handed in their approach.

Therefore, Conservative members quite rightly protested. We said, “What is this?” They can't just hammer us with a motion that's going to program the next two months of meetings without consulting.

Because so many people are probably getting off work now, getting home, turning on their computers or looking at their phones, and logging into ParlVu in droves, I think we should remind them or at least bring them up to speed on what we're talking about.

This motion basically blew up the meeting. We had eight or 10 finance officials here to answer questions about the budget, which is massive. I don't know if people realize that it's a huge document. It has 659 pages and 468 clauses, so there are a lot of questions to ask that people want the answers to.

This motion that really derailed the democratic right of elected members of this committee to ask public officials about the budget was this: It starts with the words, “As relates to the committee's future business”.

What they're referring to there is the next couple of months of meetings, through to the end of June. That's the future business that this motion is specifically addressing, Mr. Chair.

It continues, “it be agreed that”. In other words, it's asking that all members agree—or at least the majority of members on this committee—and vote in favour of this motion that would program all of these meetings.

It's to agree that:

i. the committee dedicate its meeting on Thursday May 9th, 2024, to hearing from the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, and officials, on the subject matter of Bill C-69.

That's fair enough. Of course, the finance minister should come to the committee. This is her budget, and she would certainly be able to answer a lot of questions for Canadians, particularly around the affordability crisis, the fact that housing prices have doubled under their watch, that inflation went up to 8% at one point under their watch, that the dream of home ownership has been destroyed by her government's policies and all that stuff. All those questions we could ask, as well as about whether she understands—well, I know she understands, but whether she appreciates—the fact that many economists have said that exorbitant government spending has clearly led to inflation, which has jacked up interest rates in this country.

There are many questions like that around monetary policy. I think she probably likes to think about monetary policy—I think she's a thoughtful person—and I know the Prime Minister doesn't, so somebody in cabinet better be thinking about monetary policy, and I think it's likely the Minister of Finance.

I think that paragraph i is reasonable.

By the way, as I go through this motion, Mr. Chair, I'm going to be incorporating the various amendments and subamendments, because people who have just tuned in after work need to understand exactly where we are in the story of this motion.

That brings me to paragraph ii. It says, “the committee dedicate its regular meetings on May 9th, 21st, 23rd, 28th, and 30th, 2024, to consideration of the subject matter study of Bill C-69”. Fair enough; that's the bill we're talking about here. It's the budget bill.

Then there's the subamendment that I added probably 45 minutes or an hour ago. We'll call it the Carney subamendment. It says that in the week of May 28, one meeting be dedicated to hearing from the Minister of Finance for two hours and one meeting be dedicated to hearing from Mark Carney for three hours.

Speaking about the subamendment for a second, what's really fascinating about this is that I know Mr. Davies is okay with this. He said it last week: “I look forward to Mr. Carney's coming to this committee at the appropriate time in the appropriate study, which can happen in the next two months.”

It's the words “in the appropriate study” that I find interesting, because Mr. Carney is going to be at a Senate committee tomorrow testifying on green finance, which is actually one of the subjects that is in the initial iteration of this motion. There we have what would be a great opportunity for my colleagues on this committee to ask Mr. Carney about green finance, and I don't see why they would object to that. I mean, their colleagues in the Senate will be asking questions about that tomorrow.

There are all kinds of reasons for Mr. Carney to appear before the committee, not the least of which is the fact that the Liberals and the New Democrats are trying to program a meeting on green finance, which Mr. Carney is an expert in, and he's going to be speaking at the Senate finance committee tomorrow. There you have it. It's hard for me to understand why that would be objectionable at all.

It goes on to say, “barring referral of the bill to committee”. I think it's somewhat awkwardly worded. It's probably not how I would have written it, but fair enough. It continues, “and that all evidence gathered as part of the pre-study be considered as evidence in the committee's full study of the bill, once referred to committee.” It's a bit jargonic. It has a bit of legalistic jargon there, but the bottom line is that the idea is to basically tell Conservatives, “We're going to program out these meetings and we don't really care what you think.”

I want to back up for one second to what I also find interesting. I really appreciate the fact, by the way, because I made a big deal of this last year, that Mr. Davies doesn't like omnibus bills either. I made the point earlier in this meeting that I think the classic example of why they're bad is the SNC-Lavalin affair. In this case, a clause was inserted in an omnibus bill just like this one for the specific purpose of giving one company a special deal for a deferred prosecution. I don't know whether such a clause exists in this bill. I would like to know, because it has happened before. The Liberals did it before. Mr. Davies doesn't like omnibus bills, and I don't either.

There used to be a time when the NDP was actually an opposition party in this country. Tom Mulcair would cross-examine the prime minister. He was very effective in question period. Jack Layton was an incredible opposition leader. May he rest in peace. I know he is sorely missed.

However, this iteration of the NDP will talk a big game. The New Democrats will talk about not liking omnibus budget bills. You know, I think the New Democrats make a good point when they say they didn't like the amount of the disability payments, but then they'll vote for the budget. They're going to vote for it, despite the fact that they don't like it.

It's a bit rich. I have a bit of trouble getting my head around that. People expect their elected officials to stand on principle. If you don't like something, don't vote for it. If you like something, vote for it. The worst of both worlds is to say that you don't like something and then go vote for it. It's kind of a weird situation, Mr. Chair.

Anyway, for those tuning in right now to this meeting to know what we're talking about, I'm going to go on to item iii of the motion, which says “that any amendments to the bill be submitted no later than 5:00 PM EST on Thursday, May 30th, 2024”. For those watching, what that means and what we're talking about is that the budget was introduced, but the budget isn't legislation. The government then tables a piece of legislation called a ways and means motion for the budget implementation act, which has, in this case, 468 clauses.

Members of this committee have the right to suggest changes or amendments. Every member of this committee has the right to do that, and then the committee will vote at some point on whether those changes are acceptable or not. At the end of the day, the committee fashions a bill that gets referred back to the House of Commons for more debates and more votes.

When it says “that any amendments to the bill be submitted no later than 5:00 PM EST on Thursday, May 30th”, what it's saying is that members like me; Mr. Hallan; my colleagues from the Liberal Party, Mr. Baker and Mr. Turnbull; and of course Mr. Davies can all draft amendments and submit them to the clerk. We will discuss those amendments and debate them.

I think I have that right, Mr. Clerk, don't I? Thank you.

For those watching, that's a very important aspect of this motion. The ability of elected members to actually have an input on the content of the budget bill is fundamentally important to the democratic process. I really appreciate that part as well.

Then it says, under item iv, “clause-by-clause consideration of the bill start no later than 12:00 PM EST on June 3rd, 2024, and that the chair be empowered to set up extended hours and request additional House resources on that day”.

What does clause-by-clause consideration mean? If you're just tuning in.... I'm sure that people aren't really familiar with all of our jargon and what actually goes on. Even though it's a 468-clause bill, we're going to go through every one of them, every single clause. That's why it's called clause-by-clause consideration. We're going to vote. We're all going to have the opportunity to vote. It's part of the democratic process to vote on every single clause. Just like we did last year—and I'm hoping that we will do it again this year—we will actually vote on every single clause, one by one.

I think that's really the most democratic way that we can do it, because that's what we're sent here to do. We're sent here to vote and to represent our constituents. It's the most important thing that we're sent here to do: to vote and to represent our constituents and bring their concerns to the table. The budget is obviously the signature piece of legislation of any government throughout the year. It's a prime time to meet our constituents where they are, to bring their concerns to the budget. Clause-by-clause consideration is a very, very important part.

I think we're going to need a lot of time for it, Mr. Chair, because it will take quite a bit of time to debate and vote on 468 clauses. I'm really looking forward to it, I have to say. I know it's long hours, but I know Conservatives aren't afraid of long hours. We'll stay here morning, noon and night to talk about every single clause to make sure that Canadians are getting the best representation that they can possibly get through the clause-by-clause process.

This brings me to item v, which says that following the completion of the study of Bill C-69, there will be no fewer than two meetings on the study of proceeds of crime and money laundering, a very important study.

I guess it has been proposed to be amended out. We haven't voted on all of this yet, but there's the possibility of a continuation of an existing study we're doing—I think it was Daniel Blaikie's study—on what they call the “financialization of housing”. This is the idea that somehow people are trading houses like they trade stocks on the stock market, but we know that's not true. The vast majority of homes are used for people's residences. They're not trading homes like they are shares in bank stocks. It's a woke approach to the whole real estate market to call it “financialization of housing”, but we'll entertain them and let them talk about their little financialization thing.

Then there's this other issue I talked about earlier. The former governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Carney, is going to be in the Senate tomorrow to talk about the state of play on green finance. As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Davies said last week, “I look forward to Mr. Carney's coming to this committee at the appropriate time in the appropriate study”, which can happen in the next two months. If he's talking about the state of play on green finance at the Senate and if the committee decides we're going to have meetings on the state of play on green finance, I don't see any reason that Mr. Davies would object to his coming for that meeting.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

There's a point of order.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I think we've gone around on this particular motion, amendment and subamendment quite a number of times. I think members have expressed their points of view. I don't think we're getting anywhere on this tonight. I would respectfully ask to suspend for this evening.

[An hon. member]

You can't do that on a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

No, you can't.

It's up to the chair to suspend, but I agree that we're not getting anywhere here, from what I've seen. I think we need to come back to this, because members—with a bit of time to think this through—may come back with a different perspective.

We will suspend at this time. We'll get back to this on Thursday.

[The meeting was suspended at 5:41 p.m., Tuesday, May 7]

[The meeting resumed at 11:04 a.m., Thursday, May 9]

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Welcome to the continuation of meeting number 142 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee is meeting to discuss the subject matter of Bill C-69, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the Standing Orders.

Before we begin, I'd like to remind all members and other meeting participants in the room of the following important preventative measures.

To prevent disruptive and potentially harmful audio feedback incidents that can cause injuries, all in-person participants are reminded to keep their earpieces away from all microphones at all times. As indicated in the communiqué from the Speaker to all members on Monday, April 29, the following measures have been taken to help prevent audio feedback incidents.

All earpieces have been replaced by a model that greatly reduces the probability of audio feedback. The new earpieces are black in colour, whereas the former earpieces were grey. Please only use the approved black earpieces. By default, all unused earpieces will be unplugged at the start of a meeting. When you're not using your earpiece, please place it face down in the middle of the sticker for this purpose, which you will find on the table. Please consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents.

The room layout has been adjusted to increase the distance between microphones and reduce the chance of feedback from an ambient earpiece.

These measures are in place so that we can conduct our business without interruption and to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters. Thank you all for your co-operation.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of members and witnesses. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For members in the room, please raise your hand if you wish to speak. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. We appreciate your understanding in this regard. Also, all comments should be addressed through the chair.

We are resuming debate on the motion of Mr. Turnbull, the amendment of Mr. Hallan and the subamendment of Mr. Morantz. Going back to my speaking order, MP Morantz is not here, so I have MP Hallan next to speak.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I will cede the floor to my friend Philip Lawrence, who will talk about this very common-sense subamendment to a very common-sense amendment.