Finance Committee on May 7th, 2024

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I have a point of order that is a bit more appropriate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Go ahead on a point of order, MP Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I appreciate my friend's eloquence and articulacy, and I know there is a wide latitude of where we can go, but the motion under consideration is a programming motion to schedule the meetings on the budget. If he could try to keep his comments towards that, as opposed to a wide-ranging discussion of the carbon tax, which I think is beyond the scope of the motion under consideration, that would be helpful.

He has mentioned several times that he wants to be constructive, but there are others who want to speak on this as well. He's mentioned me in particular, and I'm wondering if we're going to get a chance to talk. I have not yet had a chance to speak at this meeting on this motion.

I'm wondering if his spirit of constructiveness would extend to allowing people to have a chance. I do have something to propose as well that might help.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Davies. You are next on the list.

MP Lawrence, please stick to the motion and to relevance, please.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Yes, I will, 100%. Thank you very much.

I yield the time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you.

We'll move on to MP Davies.

I then have MP Dzerowicz, MP Hallan and MP Morantz after that.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

Thank you to my colleague for that. I appreciate it.

I want to get to something constructive, because that's where I think we need to be. However, I have a few comments to make just prior to that.

Just to set the record somewhat straight, I'll say that I'm new to this committee. I've been on the committee for only three weeks. One thing that I believe is important is that in a minority parliament, as has been pointed out, we try to seek a consensus on how we get business done. No party can dominate in a situation like this. Frankly, even in majority governments, I don't think a majority can ever be used in a tyrannical way, but there has to be attention paid to other parties so that other priorities can make it to the committee's business.

I think it's important to note that we did meet last week, and I was the person who proposed that we have a subcommittee on the agenda so that we could meet in camera. I'm not going to discuss anything that was said at that meeting, but the purpose of that meeting was to try to get an agreement on the scheduling for the next two months. Many of the issues that have been canvassed here today were precisely the subjects that we intended to talk about at that meeting. Therefore, it's not quite accurate to say that where we are at this moment is a surprise to anybody, because we specifically talked about each and every meeting between now and the end of June in our subcommittee meeting and tried to arrive at an acceptable agenda that met everybody's goals to some extent.

On the motion that's been put forward today, for the record, I saw this motion for the first time last night at quite a late time, but there's no real issue of any intent to offend any of my colleagues on this committee.

I do want to say that we're sitting seven of the last eight weeks. We have one break week in there. I do want to say that in terms of the break week.... By the way, if ever there was a less apt name for a week, it's “break week”. As all of us know, the last thing we all do when we go back to our ridings is have any break at all. However, it is a critical time to meet constituents and to consult. I know we're all just as busy as always, if not more busy, when we go our constituencies.

I jealously and assiduously guard that break week. It's the only one we have, and I think it's really important for some work-life balance as well, but unfortunately, that week takes out time when we could schedule meetings.

I did some quick research, and I found that in 2023 we spent 15.5 hours of witness time on the budget. In 2022, we spent 18 hours of witness time on the budget. That's excluding clause-by-clause consideration. I didn't go back to what was done before then, but if those are representative samples, that gives me a bit of an idea.

I want to say that I empathize. I've been in opposition my entire time on the Hill. I'm sorry, but I'll say it every time I hear it: We're not in a coalition government. I wish we were, but we're not in a coalition government. We don't have any cabinet seats. We don't get to make decisions. We have the confidence and supply agreement. I know that's a nice slogan that gets thrown around, but I don't think it does our political atmosphere any good to use terms that don't accurately describe the real situation.

However, being in opposition, I empathize with my Conservative colleagues when we talk about fighting to make sure that we have enough time to properly debate bills. I want to preface my proposal by saying this: Often when a bill comes to committee—just your garden variety of bill—that we've not seen before or had any study on, it's fresh. We don't know much about it, and we really need to hear from a broad variety of stakeholders and probe new concepts in order to do our job properly at committee.

A budget, to me, is a bit of a different type of bill. First of all, you have pre-budget hearings. I haven't had the pleasure of sitting in on them, but I have commiserated with and watched many previous finance critics as they go through days and days of—and travel across the country for—pre-budget hearings to hear from stakeholders. I presume it happened with this budget too.

Then we have pre-budget major announcements. I remember a day when budgets were secret until they were announced in the House.

It started with the Conservatives, actually. It's been a slow erosion of that over the last, I'd say, 10 years. In this case here, we did see major announcements made about the budget for several weeks in advance. Then we saw the budget itself.

I think we all have to acknowledge that a 416-page document has been published that contains pretty much everything about the budget. We've had a chance to read that and to study it. We've had budget lock-ups. Then we had budget briefings. Then we had the ways and means motion that was tabled. I had briefings, as I'm sure we all did. We were offered those on the budget.

When this budget implementation act comes to this committee, it's a little disingenuous to suggest that this is brand new and that we have to probe in all sorts of interesting areas. We're well aware of what's in this budget. We're well aware of what we like and, more importantly, what we don't like. We're prepared, in a way that we're not for any other bill, to probe in those areas.

We don't need 65 meetings on this budget, given the preparatory work that goes into the preparation of this budget, in the way that we would on other things. When the issue is something like medical assistance in dying or something like that, it can take months and months to canvass, and it should.

I do note that with Bill C-59, which was my inauguration to this committee, we had 20 hours of hearings. I have to say, with that 20 hours, and I think I've said this before, that I noticed a lot of repetitive testimony. We were hearing from multiple witnesses who were saying the same thing over and over again. I think that easily could have been cut by 50% or maybe more. We still would have gotten the thrust of the testimony. There were amendments made, I think from all parties, that were well crafted and that made the bill better, so I think that was important to do.

I do have to correct a couple of things that my Conservative colleague said. I think he said that the Harper government balanced its budget. I happened to have been in the House from 2008 to 2015. I missed 2006, and the truth is that the Harper government had seven consecutive deficits in a row, and it only tabled what it claimed to be a balanced budget in year eight, which was the election year. I think that turned out to be a deficit budget when the numbers rolled in anyway.

I just have to correct that for the record. I'm not taking a shot, but whether a budget was balanced or not is a matter of numbers and facts, and that's just a fact.

I also want to say that in terms of this budget, I don't share a lot of the perspectives, reasons and policies of my Conservative colleagues, but I do agree that the budget is very important. I think we come at it from different ends. I also very much share my colleague's eloquent description of the difficulty that many Canadians are facing right now. There's no question about that. I don't know if I'd say that Canada could be in a recession, but Canadians are. I'll have to ponder that one for a while. I don't think they can be. However, I can say that millions and millions of Canadians, particularly low-income and middle-income Canadians, are struggling. I'm not sure everybody is. I think there's a sector, maybe the top quartile of this population, that's probably doing very well, maybe better than normal. However, millions of Canadians are not.

Therefore, I've come to a conclusion that is the complete opposite of that of my Conservative colleague, and it is that I think those people need assistance as fast as possible. This budget has things like pharmacare. I am biased and I'm shaped by the eight years I spent as health critic. I heard too many stories of people suffering, living with diabetes, type 1 and type 2, through no choice of their own, who were out of pocket thousands of dollars every year, and they're also struggling with the high costs of food and rent, etc. They're the same kind of people who were accurately described by my colleague.

If this pharmacare legislation passes—this money that's in the bill and the legislation in the House, which, by the way, the Conservatives are holding up and are trying to block right now—and gets royal assent by the end of June, you could have the federal government negotiating with provinces as early as July and August, and that would result in free diabetes medication. I negotiated the formulary for 11 kinds of insulin, SDG inhibitors, life-saving medication for free, including the devices, needles, syringes, test strips, pumps and continuous glucose monitors.

I heard some stories of people who have children who are five years old, of parents who have to wake their child up every hour and a half at night. Imagine waking your child up at one in the morning, then at 2:30 in the morning, then at four in the morning and then going to work—never mind the trouble to the child—because you're not sure if their blood sugar levels are going to spike in the middle of the night.

This legislation would deliver them a continuous glucose monitor and an insulin pump so that the child can sleep through the night and those parents don't have to go to work the next day sleep deprived, never mind the out-of-pocket expenses. Do you know what parents do now if they're not covered for that? They'll buy that glucose monitor for their child. Who here wouldn't? Do you know what that costs them? It's thousands of dollars, so when we talk about giving Canadians economic relief right now, what about that?

That's in this budget. There is $1.5 billion in this budget to fund those programs that we want the federal government to be negotiating—that I want them to be negotiating yesterday—and the Conservatives are blocking the legislation in the House for pharmacare and the bill that would finance it here.

There is a school nutrition program. We're talking about the high cost of food; well, my primary concern for children is that I don't want a single kid in this country in grade 3 sitting at a desk trying to learn math or trying to read when their stomach is hurting them, but in addition to that, given the health and learning issues with the children and the families struggling with high food costs, what could be better right now to relieve their budget than to know that when their child goes to school, their child is getting a hot, nutritious meal in the middle of the day, five times a week?

That's one meal taken off their budget and, if you have multiple children—if you have two or three children—that's 10 or 15 lunches that you don't have to pay for. For the families I represent in Vancouver Kingsway, which is a working-class neighbourhood, if you're struggling on a total median household income of $64,000 a year, that one measure alone might be the difference, and the Conservatives are holding this up. They want to have debate on this.

Then, we have billions of dollars of affordable housing expenditure in here.

I've said this before: There are 10,000 issues in politics. We all know that. Some are foundational. Some are existential. Housing is one of them, because housing anchors you. It anchors you in your community. It anchors you in terms of your work life, your community, your neighbours and your children's school. It anchors you. Too many Canadians can't find a decent place to rent or buy for love or money, and this has been going on for decades.

I'm going to say this. This didn't start in 2015. I've been in Vancouver for 40 years. You couldn't buy an affordable house or rent an affordable house 20 years ago—or 15 years ago, for that matter. Holy mackerel—I'll show you housing prices from 2010 that not a single person in this room could afford on our incomes. It's $4 million for a house on Vancouver's west side that people bought for $60,000 30 years ago: That's the reality. This budget has money for that.

There are critical indigenous services investments. I want to talk just for a moment about the indigenous people in this country. If there's one group of people in this country that is suffering more than any other, it has to be Canada's first peoples, and this budget has billions of dollars that ought to be flowing.

I think we have to find a balance here. The balance has to be how we can preserve our role here to do a proper dive into this bill—given that we all know what's in it and we know where we want to probe—and how to get this out. Budgets are different. No government, not a Conservative government that I've ever seen and not one that we'll see in the future, will want a budget held up for three months while it's debated. This budget was tabled earlier in April. We all know that this budget has be passed by the end of June.

I will talk for just a moment about the business community in this country. Again, if I've heard one thing more consistently from the business community over my time in politics, it's this: they want certainty. They can deal with a wide variety of policies—from the left or the right—but what they do need is certainty. In a time of economic uncertainty—and we're all aware of the problems that our business community is facing with productivity, lack of investment in machinery and equipment, technology and research—we want to hasten the transition to a more sustainable economy. We know the tax credits....

I had the opportunity to ask some questions about the hydrogen and clean-technology tax credits. We heard in the fall economic statement testimony that businesses are waiting for this.

I do think the meetings that are proposed in this motion don't give quite enough time. I'm going to put in some form of amendment, but I thought I would just share this with my colleagues first.

My calculations of the witness time for this, as has been proposed, is, in theory, two hours today and two hours on Thursday. That's four hours. Then we had the 21st and the 23rd, and this motion proposes another four hours for those. That would make a total of eight hours. I don't think that's sufficient.

What I'm thinking is that we do our two hours today and we do our two hours on Thursday. On the 21st and 23rd, I think we should schedule six hours each for those meetings. That would bring us up to 16 hours—12 hours there, and the four we have this week.

I'll go back to what I said. We had 15.5 hours last year and 18 the year before that. That puts us in the normative range for budgets—right smack in there—and it still preserves our ability to have the clause-by-clause consideration starting the week of the 27th. We can get this bill out of this committee by the end of the month and into the Senate by the beginning of June.

I know that the Conservatives really want to call Mark Carney. I think they referred to him as “governor” Carney. I don't know if it's proper to call him “governor” Carney, as he's no longer the governor. He's a private citizen. If they want to call witnesses.... Once we get this set, we'll all be able to call witnesses that we want to come to testify on the budget. I fully invite my colleagues to call Mr. Carney as a witness if they wish to. That would get him earlier.

I know this programming motion would have.... I wanted to point out as well something that's not been pointed out: It gives every party something in June that they wanted. It has two meetings on the housing study, which I think my predecessor Daniel Blaikie had started; two hours on the green financing, which I think the Liberals like; and two hours on the inflation study, which I think the Conservatives want. I also thought there's a built-in time, then, for calling Mr. Carney as well on inflation, since I think it was his remarks on inflation that spurred their interest. There are a couple of different points there when they can call Mr. Carney if they want to.

I have said before that I know there's a concern if Mr. Carney doesn't come. Well, that happens in this place, and we know what the remedy for that is. We can get to that at the time. I don't know that Mr. Carney will come, but I think there's an opportunity to call him.

I think that pretty much covers what I wanted to say. I want to thank my colleague for ceding the floor and letting me have a chance to have my say.

I don't know if you want me to put it in the form of an amendment, but I'm happy to. For pro forma purposes, I will.

I'll move to amend the motion, if I could, to make the meetings on the 21st and 23rd six hours each. I think that's all the amendment that's necessary—just add the needed hours.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Davies.

Are you proposing a friendly amendment?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

It's as friendly as it gets.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Okay. We would need to incorporate that if we have UC for that.

I see that we don't have UC at this time to do that.

Do you want to move it as an official amendment?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I do. I will move it as an official amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Okay, we have an official amendment.

I have now on our list MP Dzerowicz, then MP Hallan, then MP Morantz.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Go ahead, Mr. Albas.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm pleased to join everyone today, but usually after an amendment has been made, there's debate on the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I'm making a list right now. I'm going to ask members if we are in agreement to allow the officials to get on with their day and to leave the meeting.

I see that we are.

Officials, you may leave. Thank you very much.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Chair, wouldn't you reset the speakers list because a motion has been made?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We will suspend briefly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We're back.

We're going to the speakers list. I have a number of different lists here that have come up. I hope I have this list right.

I have MP Ste-Marie, MP Dzerowicz and then MP Albas.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I did have a point of order that when an amendment is moved, usually a new speakers list is prepared. You have not ruled on that point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

My understanding, looking at all committees, is that it is done in many different ways and it is at the discretion of the chair.

This is the list I am going with. I am going with MP Ste-Marie, MP Dzerowicz and then—

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Essentially what you're saying is that someone who put their hand up on a previous question now must answer Mr. Davies' amendment. Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

What I am saying is that when we were in the midst of the discussion, I didn't see all of the hands that were up or weren't up, etc. I have conferred with the clerks. The list that I'm going with is who I see: MP Ste-Marie, MP Dzerowicz and MP Albas.

MP Ste-Marie, go ahead, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I had actually raised my hand to respond to the amendment moved by Mr. Davies, whom I thank for his effort to have the committee reach a consensus, or at least a compromise.

I think we could manage with the number of hours proposed. However, the problem remains on the issue of deadlines. For example, the third paragraph of the original motion reads as follows:

iii. that any amendments to the bill be submitted by no later than 5:00 PM ET on Thursday, May 23rd, 2024;

However, if there are six hours of testimony on Thursday, May 23, and we have to move the written amendments the same day, that would be a problem. We often want to draft our amendments working with the law clerks of the House, based on the testimony we have heard. The law clerks must study the amendments from a legal standpoint so that they are drafted in such a way as to achieve their objective and so that their form follows the rules. In addition, they must then be translated. So there is a problem with the proposed deadline.

I understand how important the parliamentary break week is, especially since community groups often hold activities in May and June, and we are often sitting in the House, which leaves us little time to go and listen to our constituents and answer their questions. If we don't want to sit that week, then I suggest that we extend all deadlines by at least a week. Otherwise, I don't see how we can do our job properly, study the bill properly, and have the time to hear from witnesses, draft amendments and vote on them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Ste-Marie.

I'm going to MP Dzerowicz now.