Finance Committee on May 7th, 2024

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

I don't see how this is relevant. Could we get back to the motion and stay within the context of the motion so that we can continue to have conversation that is relevant and timely and important for this committee?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Thompson. Yes, so just the relevance to the subamendment—

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

This is actually exactly where I'm going with this.

Mark Carney has, in fact, presented a number of topics that I think are quite relevant. He's done a variety of podcasts that I've had an opportunity to listen to. Subamending this motion to have Mark Carney come will allow us to be able to hear his thoughts and opinions not only on the impacts of the budget, on which we desperately need to hear from him, but also on a variety of other topics. He hasn't limited his views and his sharing to just fiscal policy or monetary policy. We have some questions regarding what the housing policy would be under him. I think all Canadians deserve to understand this.

I understand that the Liberals don't necessarily want to have us go into these spaces, but it's worth noting that he is planning to attend the Senate committee tomorrow, so it is not as though he is somehow afraid of attending a committee. He's more than well versed. I believe there are very few people who have attended the finance committee more times than Mark Carney did in his former role as the Governor of the Bank of Canada. It comes back down to this being a programming motion that is trying to stifle debate.

When I look through the budget, being a northern Alberta member of Parliament, I always look at the budget forecast for West Texas Intermediate, which is the crude oil price, to see what the government expects will be their price for selling crude. This government, which has had no qualms about expressing its distaste for and absolute hatred of, in many cases, Alberta's energy industry and Canada's world-class energy industry, puts the budget forecast at $78 across the board all the way to 2028. It's worth noting, and I've noted it in speeches in the chamber, that the Government of Alberta, which is actually a proponent of oil and gas, was criticized for its rosy outlook on West Texas Intermediate when they put it at $74 a barrel. I highlight this fact because these are all questions on which we need to hear from people, and we need to hear specifically from Mark Carney. I'd love to hear his opinion on whether $78 U.S. is a good number and where he believes they would have found such forecasting or whether he, as someone who is very up and current on a variety of the monetary and fiscal policies of this country and around the world, has any publicly available information and whether he thinks that's a responsible number or that it actually means our deficit is even larger than what has been presented in this current budget. That's one of the big pieces. Frankly that is a large stake in terms of where the budget comes from.

Another thing that I think is worth highlighting in this piece of legislation is that they plan to change the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, which on the surface seems okay. However, as I read through it, I'm very curious as to whether this is just an attack on Saskatchewan for refusing to charge people in Saskatchewan the punishing carbon tax. We don't have an opportunity to even have those conversations, because the NDP-Liberal government has decided that they're going to ram through a programming motion.

I think every person in Saskatchewan deserves to have an answer as to exactly what that will mean for them and whether there will be major implications for their provincial Crown. This is a piece of legislation that is not going to have just a small impact on a few people's lives; this is going to have an impact on the life of every single Canadian.

I've had the opportunity, in the last few weeks, to talk to a number of students from right across my riding. The number one concern that was brought up by these students was the cost of living crisis. The number two concern brought to me by these students was their frustration with the fact that members of the NDP, the Liberals and the Bloc seem to attack our energy industry at every opportunity. They don't understand why they hate our region, why they hate the economic driver of not just my riding but also of Alberta's economy as well as Canada's economy.

As I've cited, the Liberal-NDP government has no problem using a very high forecast number for WTI and they have no problem taking the money from the oil industry; they just have a problem supporting the industry and allowing it to grow in any capacity.

We have seen this very clearly with the number of world leaders who have come to the Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, asking him for LNG, Canadian liquefied natural gas. The answer from this Prime Minister time and time again is that there is no business case. This allows countries like Germany, Poland, Japan and others to continue to have to buy their energy from dirty dictators, which fuels Putin's war machine.

I think this is an absolutely insane space, but that is exactly what this Liberal government has done every time it says no to a business case on this. Effectively, by opposing clean Canadian energy, we are supporting Putin. That is exactly what we are doing here. This is something that the finance committee needs to get to the bottom of, going line by line through this budget, to actually ensure that there are no unintended consequences.

However, we know that there are going to be unintended consequences because history is a good predictor of what we're going to see. We know this government has previously hidden things in its budget. This isn't a conspiracy theory or something out of the blue; this is something that has happened in the past.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the opportunity that I've had to speak on this bill. I do think that this is critically important.

I think it is also an interesting space. I understand that numbers matter when it comes to Parliament. This is Bill C-69. In my riding, most people don't understand or pay attention to bills. They don't really care about the numbers of the bills. They might possibly know the names of them, but almost every single person you talk to.... Mr. Chair, if you were to come to my riding and talk to people on the street—actively canvass people—and you said “C-69”, they would say, “No more pipelines; that is shameful”. In my area and across northeastern Alberta, they understand the punishing impacts that the bill carried. The fact that this government decided to choose that same number for this budget implementation act shows an absolute distaste for Albertans and the impact that the anti-pipeline bill had on Alberta families and on the hard-working energy workers who keep the lights on and the heat on in our -50° winters.

It is just another point of proof to the hard-working people throughout my riding and throughout Alberta that this government doesn't consider them when it's making decisions. That is quite unfortunate.

With that, I will pass my time on to my next colleague.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Goodridge.

I have MP Davies, MP Morantz and then MP Kurek.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

While I empathize with my Bloc colleague, who I think expressed a genuine attempt to move this forward, I'm finding myself a little bit concerned that I'm not really seeing a way forward. The Conservatives are filibustering and talking endlessly about all sorts of issues in an attempt to delay, without offering constructive proposals on how we move forward.

I will repeat that there seems to be either a misunderstanding or an attempt to misdescribe, I guess, what happened last week.

When we had our subcommittee meeting on the agenda, these are the exact issues we discussed. What we're trying to do here is schedule the finance committee's meetings for May and June. That's what we're trying to do, if Canadians are watching this. I haven't counted up the meetings, but it looks like we have about another 10 or 12 meetings. We're trying to use that time efficiently.

I heard references from Mr. Morantz that it was as if I was doing something nefarious by discussing with my Liberal colleagues, following that meeting last week, how we could come together and make a proposal at this committee in lieu of the fact that the Conservatives wouldn't come to an agreement last week. We put forward exactly these proposals about how we could schedule the budget meetings for the next three weeks, and then how we could move ahead on studies on green financing, on house financialization, and on inflation—studies that all three parties really want.

When we couldn't reach an agreement last week, you wouldn't have to be a parliamentarian to know that the other parties would talk to each other about how we could come to this meeting today, in lieu of no agreement, and put a motion forward to deal with it. The Conservatives can't not come to an agreement in subcommittee last week and then come here and complain when the other parties try to work productively to come up with an agenda. The agenda is not going to magically appear. It's going to take all of us working together and speaking to the issues at hand, not filibustering and not talking about the political fortunes of Mark Carney or the political ambitions or future of Mr. Trudeau or what's going on in Fort McMurray or any of the other issues that may be important in their own right but really don't have anything to do with how we schedule the budget matter before us.

There was a reference to how moving the motion to schedule the remaining meetings for May and June was “to blow up the committee”. That was a quote from my Conservative colleague. That's just nonsensical. We need to have a motion adopted by this committee to determine how we're going to move forward. I will tell you that one of the biggest difficulties of working on committee—I think we've all experienced this, if we're honest—is moving ad hoc, meeting to meeting. It's very difficult to prepare. It's very hard on the analysts. It's very hard on the clerk. It's unfair to the witnesses.

Mr. Morantz went through a number of the questions he would like to have put to the witnesses who were here today. Well, that's exactly how I felt when the Conservatives were filibustering during the fall economic statement. One of the witnesses who was testifying here about water in this country ended up leaving without any questions being asked of him. He actually wrote a letter to this committee, asking to come back, because of the time that was wasted. The Conservatives claim to want to get to the issues, but then they continue to filibuster. That's an oxymoron that I just don't think can be squared.

There have been references to this being an omnibus bill. The Harper government was the king of the creators of omnibus bills. That's all they brought in for budget bills. They were omnibus bills. In fact, they were the first major government to regularly use omnibus bills as a routine matter. I remember how they changed the way riverways and waterways in this country were regulated in a budget bill, as an example. There were hundreds and hundreds of pages that went way too far in amending legislation.

I agree that the Liberal government has brought in omnibus bills. I don't think that's appropriate either. I know that there's some reason to go a little wider in budget bills, but for the record, I agree that we should resist the temptation to use budget bills as mega bills that make all sorts of changes to legislation. I remember that in the last budget bill, there was a change to the way pharmaceuticals were regulated in this country. That didn't even come to the health committee. That's a problem, I think, because as parliamentarians, our first job is to scrutinize government bills.

While I do agree with that, I don't think it lies in the mouths of Conservatives to appear pure on objecting to omnibus bills when the last Conservative government used them every year for 10 years. I hope it will be different if and when the Conservatives are in government again.

We'll see. I think there was a reference to the Harper government being pure. I remember Senate scandals, Nigel Wright secretly writing a $90,000 cheque to pay for Mike Duffy's legal bills. I remember the G8 Muskoka scandal: Tony Clement was overspending for the—

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Go ahead on a point of order, MP Goodridge.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am very curious as to what the relevance to any of this would be, specifically when the subamendment we're supposed to be discussing is regarding Mark Carney coming to the finance committee. I would love to hear that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you.

MP Davies, be relevant and stick to the subamendment.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

The relevance is clear. I'm responding to the point made by the Conservatives about the Harper government being ethical and providing clean government. That's what was said by my opponent. I'm responding to that, so it's clearly relevant.

I remember them using Conservative logos on government cheques, giant government cheques. Talk about misusing government taxpayers' dollars for partisan purposes. I remember their tough on crime legislation. Just about every bill they ever brought in was struck down as being unconstitutional. Those are the kinds of things I remember from the Harper government's days, and I'm afraid that the current Conservatives will be even worse.

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

Point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

On a point of order, MP Goodridge.

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

Again, we are discussing a subamendment on having Mark Carney come to the finance committee. I and all of my colleagues in the Conservatives that I have had the opportunity of listening to have been quite clear in keeping to the matter of the subamendment and talking about having Mark Carney attend. Unfortunately, our colleague Don Davies from the NDP insists on bringing up the ghost of Harper from 10 years ago rather than talking about whether he supports having Mark Carney, yes or no.

I truly believe that this isn't something we should continue having to bring up. This is purely not relevant.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Goodridge.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

On a point of order, go ahead, MP Baker.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

What I'm struggling to understand is where Ms. Goodridge is coming from. Mr. Davies is responding to points that she and her colleagues made. If it's out of order for Mr. Davies to respond to her comments, then her comments were out of order in the first place. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Baker. I understand where everybody is coming from. We have given a lot of latitude in this committee. I don't know how many hours we spent on elvers, Clerk. I don't even want to count them. There's been a lot of latitude.

I do ask for people to be relevant and to be focused on whatever we are discussing. As I said, there's been a lot of latitude. MP Goodridge maybe has not been around here on our committee, but we have allowed for a lot of latitude.

MP Davies, the floor is yours.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

We are talking about Mr. Carney. Ms. Goodridge was talking about pipelines in Fort McMurray, if I recall, only five minutes ago, and I don't know what that had to do with Mark Carney either.

It's funny that Conservatives like to criticize and throw condemnations at other people, but if you bring up their record at any time, are they sensitive. Maybe there's a lesson there that if they don't like hearing about their own problems, issues or failures in government, maybe they should be a little bit more careful in how they attack others.

The points I was making are facts as opposed to things like repeatedly saying that the NDP has been in government with the Liberals for nine years, when that's just factually incorrect. I have told that to my Conservative colleagues many times, but they still say it, so they have disrespect for the truth. I don't know how far you can get into a debate if someone has that little respect.

With regard to Mark Carney, Conservatives seem to have an unhealthy obsession with this issue. I'm not quite sure. The funny thing about it, though, is this. It would be somewhat psychiatric to analyze, except that—and this is the part that I think Canadians who are watching should be concerned about—this is the finance committee, and we have a budget in front of us. Conservatives are concerned about the political future and possibilities of Mark Carney; I'm interested in the economic needs of Canadians. The funny thing about Conservatives is that they've slipped up. They have clearly revealed, on many occasions, that they want Mark Carney to come to this committee because they view him as a future leader of the Liberal Party. They view his political future and want to bring him here to this committee to question him on that.

It would have been one thing if they tried to hide it by limiting their interests to something that he might say about this budget or about the financial situation of Canadians but, of course, they can't do that because Mark Carney is a private citizen now. He was the Bank of Canada governor at one time and he was the governor of the Bank of England, but he is no longer, and they are clearly obsessed with his potential future as a leader.

I don't think that Canadians are interested in the political future of Mark Carney when we have a budget to pass that has immediate economic impacts upon them, their pain and their hurt, and I will say this: I give Conservatives credit, as do all colleagues around this table in the Liberal Party and my Bloc colleagues, because I think we all share an accurate description of many Canadians suffering and having a legitimate desire to have meaningful supports from government. We can disagree on what those supports may look like, and that's what we should be focusing on in the budget. For some reason, Conservatives want to hold that up. We've been talking for hours here. We're in extraordinary meetings at the finance committee because they insist on having Mark Carney come here instead of our being able to schedule the budget.

The pain and hurt that Canadians are feeling are not going to be ameliorated by our grilling Mark Carney on his political future. What will be of assistance to Canadians is debating the issues that arise in this budget, and there are major legitimate issues there. I want to hear from my Conservative colleagues where they think this budget gets it wrong and their suggestions for improving it. I want to hear my Bloc colleagues' suggestions in that regard, and I have my own thoughts as well, so I wonder where this filibuster by the Conservatives is going. They seem to have made a decision that they want to hold up this committee until they get Mark Carney to testify. Interestingly, there was a way to do that last week in a subcommittee when we were sitting there trying to decide on an agenda. Conservatives well know that there were different possibilities.

I've said this before, and I'll say it for the record: We have to call witnesses to this committee on the budget. We have meetings scheduled in two weeks. According to the motion, if we pass it, we'll have meetings in two weeks. Every party around this table will be able to nominate witnesses, and Conservatives can nominate Mark Carney as a witness if they want. Nothing stops them from doing that. That's how witnesses get here. They know that. Canadians should know that. If Conservatives want Mark Carney at this committee, they can have him here in two weeks if they want. They just have to put him down as their number one witness.

Of course, the reason they will deny that and the reason they're filibustering is that they're afraid Mark Carney may turn down their request, as witnesses have the right to do.

Given the way the Conservatives are speaking about Mark Carney and given that they have zero interest in hearing Mark Carney's legitimate thoughts on the budget or on finances but really want to grill him on his political aspirations, I well understand why Mark Carney wouldn't want to dignify that kind of approach by coming here, because it's subterfuge. The Conservatives are pretending to want Mr. Carney to come here on the economy, when in fact what they really want to do is a political—

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We have a point of order.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I'm talking about Mark Carney, which is the motion before us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Davies. There was a point of order.

Yes, MP Goodridge, go ahead, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Imputing false motives is not parliamentary and—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Goodridge, I think what MP Davies is speaking to is relevant.