Finance Committee on May 22nd, 2024

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you. The Leader of the Opposition has certainly done wonders for the promotion of apples in this country, and I'm glad to see that apple fritters have even been embraced by our colleagues across the way.

I want to speak about the programming motion that is before this committee. Sadly, I will have to condense my remarks because Mr. Chambers had a great deal to say. It was very good, though. Maybe if I don't finish, I'll continue at a subsequent session.

What is before this committee is a programming motion in relation to the budget, and we are debating an amendment and a subamendment on that programming motion. This programming motion prescribes or seeks to prescribe a series of very specific things about how the study of this budget bill will unfold. The first observation I wanted to make is that it strikes me as curious that the finance committee has seemed to have this persistent practice of thinking that it needs to have a very prescriptive, specific programming motion before it begins the study of a budget bill. This has not been, in my experience, the way most committees have proceeded with the study of legislation.

Inevitably, the process of studying legislation may take you in a variety of different directions. It may be an inquiry that you think at points is going to be simple and it ends up being complex. At other points, you think it's complex and it ends up being simple. Or you hear from one witness who says we really must hear such and such a person, and there is a certain natural ebb and flow. But then there's also maybe a time when members say, okay, we've heard enough. A committee doesn't have infinite time to study a matter. We may decide we really need additional meetings, so we're going to schedule extra meetings, or we don't need the time prescribed, so we can schedule fewer meetings. The normal thing, it would seem to me, when you're undertaking any kind of inquiry, would be that you have some flexibility in the context of the inquiry.

I can't imagine a person, for instance, starting a Ph.D. thesis and saying that it will take x number of years, months, days and hours, and once time has elapsed, I will stop there, regardless of whether or not I'm finished or something. That wouldn't make much sense. We are bound by timelines to some extent, but inquiries should have some degree of flexibility to them. Yet, a number of times that I have subbed in at this committee, it has been because in advance of consideration of the subject matter at all we have this NDP-Liberal coalition wanting to prescribe the parameters of study, including in that prescription very specific draconian measures about what would happen if a timeline is not met.

I will say that I think this would be actually quite surprising to many of my constituents, that the proposed programming motion says that if after a certain point in time certain aspects of the bill have not been considered or disposed of:

all remaining amendments submitted to the Committee shall be deemed moved, the Chair shall put the question, forthwith and successively, without further debate on all remaining clauses and proposed amendments, as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill, as well as all questions necessary to report the Bill to the House and to order the Chair to report the Bill to the House as soon as possible;

What that means is that at a certain point in time—and we have seen this happen at certain committees—after that time has elapsed, the chair simply reads out amendment number 13, clause 42, and members vote yea or nay. The clause isn't read; the amendment isn't read. If members of the public or stakeholders are trying to follow what's going on, they receive no information whatsoever about what's happening. It is in my judgment, one of the most, if not the most, outrageously undemocratic things that we allow to happen in our democratic legislature, to have committees vote successively and without debate on amendments and clauses.

There may be cases where committees decide to adopt time limits for members or for amendments or for clauses.

Although those things don't exist automatically, it is within the rules to allow the adoption of such provisions by the committee. The putting of questions successively without debate or amendment, and without those questions even being read, I would say, presents a profound challenge to the way our democratic institutions should function.

By the way, how we've seen that interpreted.... For instance, in the case of the natural resources committee, which is, I think, the last place and time this occurred, the putting of those questions successively and without debate was done in a way that did not allow the movement of any subamendments. The decision not to move subamendments provided greater latitude for the moving of subamendments in the House. This led to 48 hours, or maybe 36 hours, of successive votes on motions in the House that could have been properly disposed of at the committee stage.

Even if the government's objective is to ram things through as quickly as possible, it's actually counterproductive to what seems to be its own objectives. I'm not generally in the business of giving the government advice, but that point, at least, is notable.

It's important for Canadians to understand what's happening here. We're at the finance committee, which is charged with studying the budget bill. The committee has not yet received the budget bill from the House, yet the government is putting forward—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I'm going to interject. I'm sorry, MP Genuis.

We have received the budget bill. We have.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Was that just now?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We received it today. Yes.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Okay. The committee has just received the budget bill—just today.

To Mr. Turnbull's point, the government proposed, even before the budget bill had been at this committee, that the committee would, if the preferred timelines were not met, dispose of every aspect of the bill without debate or amendment.

My preference would be, in terms of the operations of this, that the committee not try to adopt a programming motion, that it would just proceed in the usual fashion that committees operate: it invites witnesses, ministers come and present on the bill, witness lists are submitted, and the work of the committee is able to unfold. Yet, this government does persist in wanting to proceed, I think, in a way that undermines the effective functioning of our democratic institutions.

There was a lot of discussion today about trust in institutions and about potential threats to democracy. In that context, I think it's important to just reflect on the responsibility of democratic institutions to try to be trustworthy, to earn the trust of the public by being transparent, by operating in ways that allow proper public scrutiny, questioning and proper democratic debate. I would think that Canadians, who are just reflecting on how much trust they should or should not have in our democratic institutions, if they were to turn on CPAC to watch a committee, and they were to see that questions were being called and voted on not only without debate, but without those questions even being read, I think they would see that as a problem.

I hate to prevail on Mr. Chambers again after how well he's done tonight, but I do wonder if he would put some water in my glass at this point.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

I'll put some water in that wine.

[Garnet Genuis]

Thank you. No, there's no wine there, unfortunately.

The subamendment we're debating deals with the proposed invitation of Mr. Mark Carney to appear before the committee. It reads as follows:

That the week of the 28th and future meetings be dedicated to hearing from witnesses for no fewer than 12 hours and the clerk invite Mr. Mark Carney as a witness to testify with respect to Budget 2024, the economy and the environment for no fewer than two hours.

This has been something we've put forward. Conservatives are interested in hearing from Mr. Mark Carney for a number of different reasons. I will just point out that although committees do not have the power to order the appearance of a minister or a party leader or a member of Parliament or a prime minister, these are positions that Mr. Carney, according to repeated news reports, aspires to, but he doesn't currently hold, which means that the committee actually does have the power to order the appearance of Mr. Mark Carney. Yes, the committee could decide to compel his appearance.

Conservatives have taken, I think, a very measured, moderate and respectful approach in this case, and we have not put an order to appear in the subamendment. We haven't suggested consequences for non-appearance. We haven't proposed, for instance, the matter could be referred to the House as a matter of privilege if Mr. Carney did not appear. This is merely an invitation—I should say a genteel courtesy—provided to somebody who no doubt has an evident interest in participating in public debate around the matters that have been described in the motion —the budget, as well as the economy and the environment more generally.

Mr. Carney seems to actively seek platforms on which to speak about his perspectives on these issues. It can hardly be thought of as hostile or unkind for the gracious and genteel members of the Conservative caucus in this committee to offer this invitation to Mr. Carney.

This subamendment could be adopted, and Mr. Carney might write back to the committee and say, “ No, thank you. I prefer softball questions to the challenging, thoughtful and probing questions that members like Mr. Chambers might ask.” That might be his response. The motion as written does not prescribe any negative consequences if he were to provide that response.

I wonder why the Liberals have been so triggered by an invitation that might be offered to Mr. Carney. I will just note that a similar invitation has been extended by various Liberal conventions. If Liberal conventions could invite Mr. Carney to speak without objection, then why would these same members object to him appearing before this committee? We might ask him somewhat more substantial questions than the current Minister Ien did. Nonetheless, he is a public person seeking public platforms to comment on public issues, and we are providing him with an invitation to participate in that public debate.

It's not clear to me why the government in general, and I believe the NDP as well, have not warmed to this recommendation, although maybe the NDP are in favour of it. I guess we'll see.

The key point here is that it's an invitation. It may be that government members don't want Mr. Carney to appear because the Prime Minister is uncomfortable with our willingness to help Mr. Carney raise his profile. It may be that Mr. Carney does not want to receive the invitation, although surely if he didn't want to receive the invitation, he could simply decline it and that would be that. The implication of the unwillingness of government members to allow Mr. Carney to be invited suggests that maybe he would be willing to appear.

There are others who do not want him to appear. Perhaps the Liberal whip is considering a Liberal leadership run herself and would rather not provide Mr. Carney the profile and has provided corresponding instructions to committee members. They're curious, the steps that have been taken by the Liberals; therefore, it does invite these kinds of speculations about the curious machinations going on in the Liberal caucus these days.

Why do we want to hear from Mark Carney?

One thing I should mention before that is that Mr. Carney recently appeared before the Senate finance committee, I believe. It is also curious that he was happy to make himself available to that committee.

We have two chambers, the House and the Senate. A third chamber is here, Adam Chambers. We have the House, the Senate and Adam Chambers. We have three chambers in our system. Mr. Carney has appeared before one of them. We would propose that he have a chance to appear before the other two at the same time. Why is there a willingness to appear before the Senate and not the House?

There were very talented Conservative senators who did appear and did ask questions of Mr. Carney. Surely elected members of the House speaking on behalf of their constituents should have the opportunity to do the same.

Why is it that we have an interest in hearing from Mr. Carney? I think that there are a number of different reasons. The perspectives that Mr. Mark Carney has on the budget and on other topics related to the economy and the environment are an important matter of speculation, because Mr. Carney is very clearly positioning and organizing himself to contest the Liberal leadership when it becomes available.

Nobody knows the day or the hour when that will occur. It will of course occur at some point. Such is the nature of things. The expectation is, based on the positioning, on the campaigning that's happening by Mr. Carney and his team, that he will contest the leadership of the Liberal Party.

I will say as well that the Liberal Party has a history of having somewhat undemocratic leadership races. They have a history of trying to engineer coronations for chosen candidates. I think, for instance, that a previous chosen one was Michael Ignatieff, much favoured by the Liberal executive, showing their political insight in the course of engineering that leadership race at that time.

If Mr. Carney contests this and if he is the chosen one of the Liberal elites, he may even briefly serve as prime minister prior to the next election. We don't know, of course, but it is in the context of his leadership positioning that there is a great deal of speculation about what his views are on various subjects and how those views could inform the direction of our country. It is in that spirit of trying on behalf of our constituents to get clarity on the approach he would take on certain issues that members are seeking his attendance at committee.

There's another particular reason why I'm interested in hearing from Mr. Mark Carney. Before I get to that, though, Chair, I do want to make sure we have quorum because I want to make sure members hear what I have to say.

Do we have a quorum?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Yes, we do have quorum.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Excellent. I'm glad that's been clarified, Chair, and I welcome back the members who have returned to us for the purposes of quorum.

A few years ago, I read Mr. Carney's book, Value(s), because I was curious to know what he had to say. It was interesting. It probably reflects themes that the current Prime Minister would associate with himself as well, but it was expressed in a somewhat more sophisticated tone than maybe we hear from the current occupant of that position.

I do think it's an interesting read. I disagree with a lot of it, aside from the speculation about current politics and leadership positioning and specific issues that are raised by the specific measures in the budget. I would be interested in having the opportunity to engage Mr. Carney in a discussion about his thesis more broadly.

I do notice that generally, in the aftermath of the publication of that book, he gravitated towards softball-type interviews where people said, “Oh, you've written this long book. Isn't this phenomenal? Not everyone can put that many words in a row. Tell us how it felt. Where can people buy the book?” and so forth. This is the quality of journalism that you get when you subsidize it with the public purse.

However, I think there are interesting ideas in the book that should be substantially debated because they perhaps entail unseen or at least less obvious problems. He has seemed to shy away from hard-hitting debate or challenge in relation to his ideas. I think this committee, frankly, would provide that opportunity. I'm not going to promise that we will assume the same softball tone that he has experienced in certain other fora, but it will be an opportunity to have substantive debate around around those ideas.

I pulled up a Guardian article here that summarizes the book. I'm not sure if the proper way to say it is “value” or “values” because, in the title of the book, he has the “s” inside brackets, which is, I think, intended to demonstrate the question of what is a value and what are values at the same time. It is a legitimate sort of literary device, although it makes it somewhat ambiguous to know how the title should be read out. Anyway, there's a review I found in The Guardian when I was just reflecting on what I was going to say about his ideas that is a bit fawning, sadly, but I will nonetheless read it because it does at least give you that perspective. I'll read parts of it anyway. If it's too fawning, I may just have to stop.

The Guardian editorial describing the book says the following—

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

I have a point of order.

I think that's on the Internet. Is it possible for Mr. Genuis to give a link to the clerk to give to the interpreters to help them interpret that?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

All things are possible, but not all things are profitable. I think that is the—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Can you provide as much information as possible to the interpreters to help them do their job?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I was about to send it to FMO by accident. The appropriate email is FINA. That's not to suggest that I email FMO so regularly that it comes up automatically, Chair. I wouldn't want that.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Do you want us to spell it for you?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

It's a good thing this isn't the spelling committee, Chair.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

I'm just trying to help—solidarity.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you. I appreciate the solidarity shown by colleagues.

I am now sending the link to [email protected]. I hope I spelled that correctly.

I'm not sure if I'll read the entire thing, but I will at least reference it, as a kind of preface, and then I want to present some of my counter-arguments.

The Guardian says:

If 25 years ago anyone had suggested that one of the world's most prominent ex-central bankers would launch an intellectual broadside at free market fundamentalism for shredding the values on which good societies and functioning markets are based, I would have been amazed. If, in addition, it was suggested [that] he would go on to argue that stakeholder capitalism, socially motivated investing and business putting purpose before profits were the best ways to put matters right, I would have considered it a fairy story. Although writing in this vein in the mid-1990s made my book, The State We're In,—

It's sort of fawning over self as well, which is typical of certain writing. Anyway:

—one of the past century’s political bestsellers, the newly elected Labour government was terrified of going near most of it for fear of being cast as anti-business and interventionist. Now Mark Carney, governor of the Bank of England until this time last year, has turned his hand to driving ideas once considered eccentric into the mainstream.

This continues, sadly:

In a mix of rich analysis mixed with pages that read like a dry Bank of England minute—

It's not too fawning at that point. Anyway:

—he blames the three great crises of our times—the financial crash, the pandemic and the climate emergency (he is the UN's special envoy on climate action and finance)—on twisted economics, an accompanying amoral culture, and degraded institutions whose lack of accountability and integrity accelerate the system's disfunction. Thus banks lost control of reality in a fantasy world in which balance sheets could grow exponentially without risk—another market would handle that—indulged by governments and regulators who believed that markets were always right.

Then came the Covid pandemic, for which western governments were singularly unready, relying on dubious cost-benefit analysis rather than valuing what we as humans tend to—our lives and looking out for one another. The same mistake is being made with climate change.

Maybe I'll pause there, because I can only take so much of this at once.

To make one sort of general observation about this kind of critique of markets, I always find it curious when people critique markets or say that markets have failed because they don't do the things that they were actually never intended to do.

The private market has a specific purpose. It's designed to allow free people to acquire goods in exchange for other goods, for things they own. It is designed to facilitate the creation of wealth. The market has certain defined objectives. Markets are not and should not be thought of as the source of ultimate meaning and purpose, as the furnisher of all material and non-material goods for human beings. That's not the purpose of markets. Nobody thinks that's what markets do or should do.

When you have some of these arguments that present themselves as critiques of the market system because the market doesn't furnish us with perfect happiness, that's like saying I hired an economist to paint my fence and he didn't do a very good job. That doesn't mean he's a bad economist. It just means that you're trying to apply one skill set to an activity that is unrelated to that skill set.

Of course markets don't guarantee social cohesion or happiness or perfect harmony: There are other activities and institutions that have as their objective the realization of those ends. It is curious to hold markets accountable for failing to do the thing that they were never supposed to do.

This is part of Mark Carney's critique in his book. He says isn't it terrible that a market-oriented capitalist system hasn't done all of the things that it was actually never supposed to do. What free markets have done is that they have lifted people out of poverty. They've furnished societies that have used them with significantly more prosperity and flowing from that prosperity choice than would have been possible without the use of the tools associated with a free market. Well-functioning market systems lend themselves to innovation, to the development of new technology, to flexibility, to a more empowered citizenry, to a situation in which opportunity is more accessible to more people, where social relations aren't calcified based on the class people are born into, or at least not to the same extent, and a less well-off person can come up with ideas that allow them to advance their material condition.

These are all good things and are reasons why conservatives are generally supportive of market systems. The conservative tradition, though, has always emphasized the primacy of non-material values. It recognizes non-material values like a recognition of the role and importance of faith, of family and freedom, of subsidiarity and solidarity. There's a recognition of universal human dignity, responsibility and creativity, and that these non-material values are the foundation of a good society. A society that only focuses on the material and not on the realization and advancement of non-material values is not going to succeed.

It has been certain forms of left-wing thinking that actually have tended towards the extremes of materialism, and that has generally not been characteristic of the conservative tradition. In fact, if we go back several hundred years, there were times when what was called conservatism did not include the same sort of positive orientation towards the free market that we associate with conservatism today. Yet, this sense of the primacy of certain kinds of non-material values has always characterized the conservative tradition through, I would say, the entirety of its existence.

As for the critique that at first blush is advanced by this book, that markets don't solve every problem, of course they don't. That's on one level trivially obvious, but the trajectory of his sort of developing argument goes in a dangerous direction.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I'm suspending for five minutes just for a health break for myself.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We're back.

MP Genuis, go ahead, please.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I did say off-mic that since I offered some criticisms of your chairing approach, I want to balance that criticism with some affirmation. I think it was a legitimate use of the chair's discretion to call a suspension when you did, so I do want to commend you for using your powers in ways that accord with the parameters established by the history of this institution and the Standing Orders.

We are discussing a subamendment to a programming motion. The programming motion is about a 600-page budget bill that will be coming before the committee, the budget implementation act, which implements the budget and makes various changes to a substantial number of other statutes. I recall how the current Prime Minister, before he was in office, promised that there would be no more omnibus bills and that he would do away with the practice of omnibus bills. I'm not sure, and my colleagues can correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like this may be one of the longest budget implementation acts that has ever existed in the history of this great nation. It is the biggest budget bill for the biggest debt for the biggest government that we have ever seen.

Of course, Conservatives prefer a small government and big citizenship, a big society characterized by the kinds of non-material values I was speaking about before, but also by the freedom for individuals to engage in productive commerce, to make good ideas go and to test their ideas against the choice of their fellow citizens.

We have this large budget bill that has just been delivered to this committee, but prior to the presentation of that budget bill, our dear friends across the way put forward a programming motion. The nature of that programming motion is to prescribe specific time parameters around when, how and for how long this committee will hear from various people over the course of its study and to provide a kind of cliff cut-off that, after a certain point in time, not only will there be no more discussion but even no more reading out of amendments and the rapid disposal of the aspects of this legislation will occur.

As I said earlier, it's doubtful that such a programming motion is necessary at all. I think that if we were to adjourn this meeting and the chair were to proceed to invite witnesses to appear on the budget bill, the committee could quite easily proceed with its work.

In that context, by making proposals and raising objections to various aspects of this programming motion, the Conservatives are not in any way whatsoever impacting on or impeding what could be the work of the committee. It would be a simple matter for the committee to say, “Okay, we're ready to adjourn.” We're ready to then have the chair put out notices of meetings for subsequent meetings that involve witnesses appearing.

The usual manner of witnesses appearing is that we start with ministers, ideally for two hours, providing testimony on the bill that is before the committee. Subsequently, various witnesses will be called, and those witnesses will be identified through the submission of witness lists from parties. Those witnesses will be scheduled in accordance with their availability in a manner that is fair to all parties. That is the normal way committees undertake their work. The committee has the flexibility as that work proceeds to understand the appropriate timelines that should be associated with that work and, as that unfolds, to then decide that they've heard enough and are ready to proceed to clause-by-clause or that perhaps they haven't heard enough and maybe they want to hear from additional witnesses. These are normal ways that committees operate.

We're seeing this government continue to operate in a draconian and, I think, dangerously undemocratic fashion by putting forward very long budget bills that are designed in a way to minimize the public scrutiny that they're subject to. Also, in the process of putting these long budget bills, they put them forward relatively late in the budget cycle, as my colleague Mr. Chambers spoke about, and then try to prescribe a narrow and rapid timeline for these processes to unfold. I think the committee could do its work well if it simply did its work in the normal fashion.

That is the kind of general context of the debate we're having.

Conservatives have made a number of proposals that relate to at least cleaning up aspects of this programming motion to take out the worst and most draconian parts of it.

Our original amendment still involves establishing a date on which clause-by-clause consideration would begin, but it allows that clause-by-clause consideration to unfold without a kind of cliff provision, such that after a point in time had passed there would be no more reading of the questions and no more debate whatsoever.

Following that, we have also put forward a subamendment that establishes the following:

That the week of the 28th and future meetings be dedicated to hearing from witnesses for no fewer than 12 hours and the clerk invite Mr. Mark Carney as a witness to testify with respect to the Budget 2024, the economy and the environment for no fewer than two hours.

I was talking a little bit about Mr. Carney's philosophy that he's been advancing recently and what he's been talking about in the context of his recent book. I was quoting from various places that describe it.

It may be logical for me to identify his core argument in a more summative way and then talk about it.

Before I do, I want to observe that the other element of this subamendment is to state that we will hear from witnesses for “no fewer than 12 hours”. I'm not sure the exact page number, but with a budget bill of at least 600 pages—perhaps more than that—12 hours of witness testimony is 50 pages of the budget bill per hour. That doesn't seem like a lot of witness testimony in proportion to the number of hours for the content and the detail of a budget bill.

In context, that means roughly one minute of witness testimony would correspond to one page of the budget. That is a very limited amount of time, given the way each page of this budget bill goes through specific legislative changes that repeal or add certain legislative provisions. That is just overwhelmingly minimal, actually, in terms of what's been put forward. I think it's hard to argue that we're not being reasonable in terms of prescribing the amount of time.

I've been at other committees where you might have a relatively short private member's bill that's one line or a few pages, that is the subject of multiple hours of witness testimony, of very detailed negotiations among parties. We're in a minority Parliament, so you would hope aspects of this legislation could be the subject of debate around what amendments might be considered and supported. It is the normal thing. It should be the normal thing for those aspects of the legislation to be subject to consideration and negotiation in a reasonable process and over a reasonable amount of time. Also, the committee might be able to hear in the course of its witness testimony from different witnesses with expertise on different aspects of the proposed changes.

I know the budget bill contains some specific provisions that relate to my portfolio, international development, that make some technical changes with regard to how changes are made.

As I said, the failure to provide the appropriate rural top-up to the people of York—Simcoe is a primary grievance of members of our caucus. We have been fighting persistently, at the prompting of the member for York—Simcoe, for that rural top-up to be provided.

By sheer coincidence, just as I was raising that issue, the member for York—Simcoe has joined us today. I think members will affirm that I have spoken of nothing else but the top-up for the residents of York—Simcoe—

[An hon. member]

It's the soup and salad bowl of Canada.

[Garnet Genuis]

—the soup and salad bowl of Canada, as it's known in the mind of the member and perhaps other places as well.

Chair, I see there are bells going. Is that relevant to us or not? That's just signalling, I suppose, not the end of anything other than the proceedings of the chamber. Normally it signals a vote, but nobody has called a vote at this time, so I'll continue.

I do welcome a number of members who've joined us. I want to assure the new members who are entering the room that we have successfully established that Standing Order 119 applies in this committee, so you are welcome to be here and exercise your rights as members of Parliament.

We have before us an amendment and a subamendment that no doubt have some relationship to the rural top-up, but also deal with the broader aspects of the budgetary policy of the government. It proposes, as I was discussing, that no fewer than 12 hours be allotted for hearing from witnesses. I've emphasized, given the length of the budget, that that works out to roughly one page of the budget per one minute of testimony, which, I would say, is the floor, not the ceiling, in terms of the amount of testimony this committee would want to hear.

That's the aspect of the subamendment that deals with the amount of time the committee would spend hearing from witnesses. One other aspect—and the motion continues—is an invitation to Mr. Mark Carney to appear “as a witness to testify with respect to the Budget 2024, the economy and the environment for no fewer than two hours”. As members know, that is an invitation which Mr. Carney could decline. This subamendment does not propose a summons for Mr. Carney, it proposes a gracious invitation, and we shall see how he will respond to that invitation.

It may be that Mr. Mark Carney is interested and wants to appear. If he does, he might wish to send a note to his supporters in the Liberal caucus saying that he would like to have that opportunity to appear before the committee. I did make the observation that he has seemed to prefer the gentle halls of softball interviews to the substantive opportunities for discourse of a potentially sharper nature that one might find in the hallowed halls of this great institution.

Mr. Carney's core thesis in his—at least by Liberals—much-discussed book, Value(s), is what might be described as stakeholder capitalism. It's the idea of stakeholder capitalism. In that sense, his thesis is fairly similar to a book written by Klaus Schwab called Stakeholder Capitalism, which also provides that argument. Mr. Carney's book is longer, and it contains more specific and detailed discussions of certain points of history, but his thesis is essentially the same.

The defenders of stakeholder capitalism are providing, in my judgment, what is essentially a defence of plutocracy. Plutocracy is defined as a country or society governed by the wealthy. I am strongly opposed to plutocracy. I think it should be one person, one vote, not one dollar, one vote or one shareholder, one vote. It should be one person, one vote.

Defenders of stakeholder capitalism don't announce themselves as defenders of plutocracy. Substantively, that is the nature of the system that is being proposed. The idea of stakeholder capitalism is advanced as an alternative—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Genuis.

We're suspended until later today.

[The meeting was suspended at 12:06 a.m., Thursday, May 23]

[The meeting resumed at 11:04 a.m., Thursday, May 23]

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call this meeting to order. It's good to see everybody.

Welcome to meeting number 143 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 Standing Order 15.1.

Before we begin, I'd like to remind 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 use only the approved black earpiece. 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 on the middle of the sticker for this purpose, which you will find on the table, as indicated. 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 for your co-operation.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of members. 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. This is a reminder that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

We will now resume debate on the motion by Mr. Turnbull and the amendment by Mr. Hallan. We also have a subamendment from Mr. Chambers.

The list, as I have it here, has changed a few times. I have MP Morantz—I have MP Green, but I don't see MP Green here in the room—and then MP Lawrence and MP Hallan. They are on the list that I have at this time.

MP Morantz.

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

I will pass my place to Mr. Davidson.