Finance Committee on May 7th, 2024

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Erskine-Smith is getting all kinds of shout-outs today, but he seems to be at those pivotal moments. Maybe we can look forward to his intervention shortly here, before, as he said, he has to head to another commitment.

Now, to start to get into some of the political dynamics, I think it speaks to how we shouldn't be afraid of asking for some hard opinions and being able to question those who seem to be asked for their advice on significant matters. Here's where there's an intersection from Mr. Carney's resumé to where Mr. Carney seems to be at what many are suggesting....

This is not simply me as a rural Alberta member of Parliament. I'm not the only rural Alberta member of Parliament here and I'm certainly not the only Alberta member of Parliament here. It seems that there is a “draft Carney” campaign, if you will. There seems to be almost an undertone of how the Liberals are approaching the fledgling leadership of the current Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, who is down in the polls and faces frustration wherever he goes. It seems that there's even frustration from within the ranks of the Liberal Party, certainly within the backbench, and I found it really interesting.

If I could just opine on this for a moment, there have always been leadership questions. That's not specific to one party. One doesn't have to spend much time in Ottawa to know that to be the case, but what is very interesting is that over the last number of weeks—and months, rather—we have seen some very direct conversations about a post-Trudeau Liberal Party.

Now, there are, I would suggest, two dynamics to that. One is in the context of speculation from those who are probably not on the inside, so to speak. We have a scathing editorial written by, I believe, a former Liberal Party president. It talked about how Justin Trudeau is dragging the Liberal Party down to the depths of destruction. I'm paraphrasing. I don't have that article right in front of me, but I think it's a fairly accurate depiction of what was a very scathing article about Mr. Trudeau's leadership.

We have other open questions being asked by the press gallery about Mr. Trudeau's future. Certainly my constituents ask me those questions on a regular basis, and I can say confidently that my constituents are ready for a change. They're ready for a new prime minister and they're certainly not ready for another Liberal prime minister. We do have a solution to that, but I want to keep things focused, of course, on the issue at hand with Mr. Carney. What has been interesting to observe over these last number of months is how open questions about Mr. Trudeau's future and the leadership of the Liberal Party have not been slapped down, have not been refuted, and I think that I could suggest a couple of reasons for that.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Go ahead, Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I think we're still discussing a programming motion for the committee and—

[An hon. member]

Mr. Carney—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We are on the subamendment.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

We're on the subamendment. I'm sorry, Mr. Carney, but—

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

It's quite relevant.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Is the political future of Mr. Trudeau relevant to calling Mr. Carney? I fail to see that. I'd ask for a ruling from the chair as to whether or not that's relevant.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Davies.

Mr. Kurek, we want to keep it relevant to the subamendment and to Mr. Carney. If that's what you want to discuss, you could discuss Mr. Carney, and I think you should stay on topic.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Absolutely. I wouldn't want to stray too far away from the bounds of what would be relevant.

Mr. Chair, I think this context is very important, because we are talking about the future political leadership of the country. What I suggest is that there is significant political involvement. I wasn't privy to the conversations or the heads-up that the Liberals gave to the NDP when it came to this particular programming motion. I'm certainly not present in the backroom dealings of Liberals contemplating Mr. Trudeau's future, nor am I aware of what exactly the parameters are around Mr. Carney's possible coronation as future leader of the Liberal Party. However, it's so significant, because we have seen—and this is where it really intersects with the true relevance of what we're talking about here—that the leader of our government, the Prime Minister, the head of the cabinet, exerts a tremendous amount of control and influence in the context of our governmental system.

I'll spare the committee my feelings on Westminster democracy. However, Mr. Chair, what I would share simply—and then I look forward to being able to pass it over to my colleagues, as well, because I'm sure they'll have more to say about this—is the amount of influence that the leader of the government has. When we have such open questions surrounding Mr. Trudeau's future.... Minister LeBlanc not that long ago was openly saying that he was looking into it. We have Mark Carney who, although denying specific timelines for what a leadership run would look like, certainly seems to be positioning himself, as Mr. Morantz mentioned, on the lecture circuit, talking about all the challenges and how he would do things differently.

What I think, and the message that I hope we can get support from my colleague from the NDP on, since it will be called into question, I would suggest—the confidence and supply agreement that they signed with Mr. Trudeau—if there was a change in executive leadership in the Liberal Party resulting in a change in prime minister.... We certainly have a lot of questions that need to be asked. There are a host of concerns, especially with regard to how Mr. Carney seems to be very much talking about the matters that are before not just this committee but the House of Commons.

I think that it makes good sense. It would provide a valuable opportunity. Of course, Mr. Chair, as you know in stewarding these meetings, the neat thing about calling witnesses forward is that it is truly one of those few circumstances in parliamentary debate when there is equal opportunity, unlike the bringing forward of this motion.

Again, I don't want to get too much into that, because I'll speak to the motion more generally when we get to it. However, if Mr. Carney were to come, there would be opportunity for all members of this committee.... For Canadians watching, it is important to note that when a witness comes, there's agreement among the parties. Each committee passes a series of guidelines for different rounds of questions, and they're distributed among the political parties to ensure that there is that equal opportunity to ask those tough questions, to contribute to witnesses. If I could—although it's a somewhat terrifying prospect—put myself of the shoes of some Liberal members, I think I certainly would want to have the opportunity to question somebody who might be my future leader.

I would certainly suggest that there would be valuable input that could be provided in terms of the context of having not only a former Bank of Canada governor but also a former Bank of England governor. I think this is the sort of thing that would provide that opportunity among all parties to be able to get some answers to some very serious questions about where Mr. Carney is trying to lead some of these conversations in his lecture circuit.

We need to ensure that some larger questions about the future of some of these big economic arguments.... Right now it comes down to this, and I would conclude with this, Mr. Chair. The reason these questions are so important is that Canadians are hurting. I host town halls across my constituency, around 20 or so a year, representing about 60 different communities. A few of the larger centres, the communities of 1,000-plus, I get to every year, and I get to some of the smaller communities of less than 1,000 every two or three years.

What I found very tragic over the last number of years is how there is pain and hurt beyond what I've certainly seen in rural Alberta, and that's not just me talking as a Conservative MP from rural Alberta. There is pain with respect to the cost of living, the cost of housing, the challenges associated with being able to pay the carbon tax and some of the onerous regulations and red tape that exist in terms of being able to start and sustain a business. Canada used to be a country where we would hear that if you buckled down and worked hard, you could succeed and live out the Canadian dream. A lot of that has to do with that entrepreneurial spirit, and being from the west, that pioneer mentality. Much of that has been pulled away from the future of so many Canadians.

I would hope that my colleagues from all political parties, but specifically those in the Bloc and the NDP, would support calling Mr. Carney here so we could be able to ask those tough questions, because people at the very root of it are hurting. They are hurting. Why should we deprive them of this chance? What was a frustration.... I don't want to get into too much of the specifics of the motion and the context in which we're debating it, but when life gives us lemons, we're trying to make some lemonade.

Let's get Mr. Carney before this committee. Let's make sure that we can ask some of those tough questions of somebody who seems to be the incoming leader of the governing Liberal Party, although we hope that party won't be governing for too much longer. Let's have that opportunity for not just Conservatives to ask questions, but for every party represented in the House of Commons to ask those tough questions.

Mr. Chair, I would simply ask that my name be put back on the list, because there are a few more things I'd be happy to share. I look forward to being able to continue the conversation.

I'm hopeful that Mr. Morantz's subamendment to the amendment to the motion will be successful.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Kurek.

I have MP Ste-Marie, MP Goodridge, MP Davies, MP Morantz and MP Kurek.

MP Ste-Marie, go ahead, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will speak to the proposed subamendment in the context of the amendment. I will start by saying a few words about the amendment.

For me, the dates that Mr. Hallan is proposing would enable us to do a better job of studying Bill C‑69. The proposal that the deadline for sending amendments be Thursday, May 30, seems fine to me. I don't feel that the proposal that the clause-by-clause study of the bill begin on June 3 would delay the process very much, since it only adds one week, which is a minimum, in my opinion.

I would like to remind my fellow committee members that, normally, when we study the budget implementation bill, we sit throughout the May constituency week to meet with witnesses. If we don't do it this time, at a minimum we'll have to make up an extra week.

Having said that, Mr. Hallan is proposing four meetings to study proceeds of crime and money laundering. I am certainly interested in this important topic, but other matters have been raised that deserve the committee's attention. So I think we should have a discussion about that.

Concerning the subamendment proposed by Mr. Morantz, as I said at previous meetings, I would like to hear from Mark Carney, for whom I have enormous respect and who has significant political experience. It would really be worthwhile to hear from him on the issues that come under our committee's purview.

I especially hope that we will be able to come to an agreement in committee. I hope the parties negotiate to come to an agreement during this time of debate. Otherwise, we will remain at an impasse; I can tell you from experience because that's how it is every year. Until the parties talk to each other, we won't come to an agreement. Everyone has to do their part.

I am less directly interested in the topics that will be selected for study after Bill C-69. I want to remind committee members that a key measure in the budget, which would help minimize the deficit, is the changes to the tax treatment of capital gains. However, it is not in the notice of ways and means motion or in Bill C-69.

I don't know if this is the case for everyone, but my Bloc Québécois colleagues and I have been receiving tonnes of emails, phone calls, interpretations and requests for meetings on this subject. For the time being, we can respond that the details are in the budget, but that there is still no bill on the matter. Can we make sure that this other bill will be fair to everyone and that we will be able to study it and improve it? This other bill will be referred to the committee by the time Parliament rises in June. In my opinion, once the committee has studied this potential bill, in addition to Bill C‑69, we will almost be in the summer recess of Parliament.

In closing, I would like to remind my committee colleagues that this is something of a Groundhog Day situation right now. The government has appointed a lot of parliamentary secretaries to the Minister of Finance. Every time there is a new one, it seems as though everything starts over again: We proceed in a cavalier manner, and the rebuttal results in endless hours of debate, unproductive hours, as long as there is no parallel negotiation between the various parties, between the Liberals and the Conservatives. I can tell you from experience that it can go on for days and days. So I hope that the various parties will come to an agreement as quickly as possible so that we can work on Bill C-69.

On that point, we have only had one of the two hours planned with senior officials for parts 1 to 3 of the bill. I hope we can invite them back for at least another hour. For example, if we reached an agreement before Thursday, we could have the minister for an hour on Thursday and the officials we had today for the second hour. As for studying part 4 of the bill, since it contains so many provisions and raises a lot of questions, it would take at least two hours. That would be the minimum in terms of the time proposed here.

I hope my proposal has been heard. I urge the Liberals, their parliamentary secretary and the Conservatives to negotiate quickly.

Mr. Chair, I would ask that the debate be adjourned while they negotiate.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Are we going to take the vote? He's asked for adjournment of debate.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

I have a point of order, Chair, to make sure that we understand exactly what we're voting on. Was the motion for adjournment of debate on the subamendment or the motion or somewhere in between?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I'm going to suspend for one second.

Monsieur Ste-Marie, was the adjournment of debate on the subamendment?

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

I was asking for the meeting to be adjourned while the negotiations are taking place.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I didn't get the translation.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

He didn't ask for an adjournment of the meeting. He asked for an adjournment of the debate on the vote. He didn't ask for that initially.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Listen, I didn't hear it. He's asking for an adjournment of the meeting.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

Next on our list, we have MP Goodridge, and then MP Davies, MP Morantz and MP Kurek.

[A voice]

Doesn't Gabriel get to keep talking?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I think he's done.

MP Goodridge is next.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's wonderful to be back here at the finance committee today.

I think that this is an incredibly timely opportunity for us. As many of my colleagues have mentioned, this is an omnibus bill, and the budget has much wider implications, to a point that we don't quite understand what the implications of all of the changes in the budget are because we haven't had the opportunity to actually have those conversations, so then it becomes a bit of a circular conversation.

One thing I'm going to bring up that is rather concerning to me and that many Canadians have brought to me is the amount of government money that is going toward so-called safe supply contracts. We see this happening and we don't quite know exactly how much. The government hasn't been very clear or upfront with exactly how much this is. This is precisely why my colleague Garnett Genuis, from Fort Saskatchewan, brought forward a motion specifically to deal with getting to the bottom of where the government contracts are when it comes to so-called safe supply or prescribed alternatives, or whatever mot du jour the government has decided is the moniker they will use for hydromorphone, Dilaudid or any other drug that's being used in so-called safe supply programs.

We don't want it just from the Government of Canada; we would like to have the contracts with all provincial and territorial governments, because it's absolutely important that we actually be able to see these in an unredacted form so that we can get to the bottom of how much government money is actually going toward this because, effectively, it is tax dollars that are going toward this program.

Just yesterday there was a really interesting podcast. I would recommend everyone listen to it. It was with Brian Lilley and Dr. Julian Somers. Dr. Somers is an addiction physician in British Columbia. Through the course of this podcast, he talked about how not only did the B.C. government flood the streets with dangerous opioids, as I think most everyone at this point is well aware of, but it was using flawed and unproven studies to justify this in the first place, under the guise of the pandemic.

The truly alarming information that came out of the podcast was that those who were responsible for leading the charge on pushing for the so-called safe supply to be put into place in British Columbia also created businesses so they could profit from the so-called safe supply, and these same promoters of the so-called safe supply grew friendlier and friendlier with big pharma through this process. If that's not a conflict of interest, I'm not quite sure what would be considered to be more of a conflict of interest. I think this points to the need to get to the bottom of this.

On this budget, we haven't had the opportunity to have these conversations. I think it is incumbent upon us to hear from Mark Carney. He has been able to present on a number of different topics since his time as the Governor of the Bank of Canada, as he is preparing himself for what will be his Liberal Party leadership bid here, or the supposed leadership bid. He has gone on a number of podcasts. I've actually listened to him on a number of different occasions talking about—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Go ahead on a point of order, Ms. Thompson.