Evidence of meeting #156 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was extension.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Conservative
Tracy Gray Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Thank you very much, Chair.
My understanding is that we're debating something here today that was literally dropped within the last minute of this committee's sitting. I was packing up my purse and my bag. It is a little irregular for this to be happening.
I know that committees do committee business. I know that the different committees I've sat on will have committee business and decide on committee business. It sounds like there's a desire to change that in a public forum like this, as opposed to when you're normally doing committee business.
There really hasn't been a lot of explanation given for to what the ask is. Quite often, there will be.... For other chairs I've worked with, they'll sort of have their intention as “we're going to do this and then I'm going to put aside five minutes at the end because there's some committee business that we need to make a quick decision on”. That hasn't happened at this meeting. I'm not normally a member of this committee, but this sounds like something that doesn't normally happen. It sounds like there's a lot of confusion here. There needs to be more discussion and thought.
I'm a little bit unclear.... I still haven't seen anything in writing. I'll just check my inbox here. I haven't seen a motion circulated in both official languages, unless something has come through. I'll look to my colleagues to see. The motion that was brought forth wasn't specific to the business of the committee. Therefore, there should be something that we should have in writing, in both official languages, and that doesn't exist. It sounds like it wasn't just a sort of friendly motion, where it's a matter of “we're going to make this one smaller amendment”. It sounds like something that needs a little more thought.
Chair, I'm not sure if the mover of the motion has put that together and has that in writing and it's being circulated.
I'll look to the clerk to see if anything has been received and is being translated. Not that you're aware of...?
The mover of the motion.... I'm not sure if it's being circulated, but I would think that we should suspend this until we have the motion in writing in both official languages, because it's not on the business of the committee that we're dealing with right now. It's not like it's just a three-word motion. It's more substantive than that. I think it's normal protocol, if we have motions that are out of the committee business, to have them in writing.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you, MP Gray.
Before I go to the next member, I'll say that MP Davies' motion was to ask for the extension for 30 days, and I guess that in the Standing Orders, MP Chambers, to your question, it has to be 30 days. In the Standing Orders, that is what it says.
On that, MP Gray is not a sitting member of this committee. Neither is MP Bezan. That's just a little background.
There has been significant discussion already around this, and we knew we were coming to a decision point that has to be made because this has to be reported back to the House.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
That's just to give everybody a little background on that. There has been discussion prior to this meeting.
On a point of order, I have MP Chambers.
Conservative
Adam Chambers Conservative Simcoe North, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Could the clerk confirm whether it would be in the committee's ability to change the length of time from a 30-day extension to a one-week extension? Are we not able to do whatever we like as the committee about giving an extension?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
I'll suspend for a second.
Clerk, if you could, just explain, please.
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Alexandre Roger
The extension of private members' business for the bills is specified in the Standing Orders. The committee cannot request something that goes beyond or is different from the Standing Orders. It's not among the committee's possibilities to do that at all.
Liberal
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a question before I continue with some remarks.
My question is through you, Mr. Chair, maybe to the clerk. What is the deadline we have to make a decision as a committee on an extension before it's deemed reported back to the House?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you for that, MP Davies.
It does have to be reported back to the House by next Wednesday. The challenge, of course, is that we have PBC. We have witnesses already lined up for next week, etc.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
I'm going to assume that all of my colleagues around the table are proceeding in good faith, and we're not just going to be entering back into something that has been a problem, historically, with this committee, which is delaying and filibustering and throwing up procedural roadblocks in order not to get to just regular business, but here is how this actually went down.
First of all, committee business is always in order. It's always in order.
Second, you don't need a written motion to bring up something that's already been discussed. It's already part of the existing fabric of the business of the committee. You need 48 hours' notice for a new motion that has not been brought to anybody's attention.
Third, we discussed this issue and raised the issue at our last committee business meeting, and I appreciate, in fairness to Mrs. Gray, Mr. Bezan and anybody else I can't see who wasn't there, that they weren't there at it. Mr. Chair, you've pointed that out.
When we were discussing the fall schedule, we specifically mentioned that this bill was sitting on our docket and that it would be reported back to the House, unamended, unless we asked for an extension. We put a pin in that, recognizing that we were going to have to come back to this.
The next thing is that, in terms of those who don't want to deal with it today, we either deal with it today or we deal with it on Tuesday. Both days are identical days. They are days when we're scheduled for pre-budget hearings—today or on Tuesday.
This is not a substantive issue. This is an issue of whether we want to give ourselves an extra 30 days so that we can actually look at the bill.
I understand that this is a Conservative bill. If we don't do this, the bill will likely go back to the House, and it could very well be defeated. If we don't have a chance to actually hear some evidence on it and to consider the bill, then I don't see how that does any service or is of any assistance to the drafter of the bill, who I believe has worked hard to get it to this point. We all know that it's rare to get a PMB past second reading to committee. If it's at committee, that person deserves to have this committee take a look at the bill.
All we're asking for here is to give this committee a little more time in which to consider the bill. There's nothing untoward. There's nothing procedurally incorrect. There's nothing by surprise. There's nothing substantive. This is, frankly, a garden-variety housekeeping measure that we had identified as needing to be taken care of.
Frankly, Mr. Chair, I think it was wise and deft of you to leave it to the end of this meeting so that we got to hear from the witnesses. Nobody anticipated that there would be any opposition to this, and so far, I haven't heard a substantive reason. Do any of my Conservative colleagues not want to consider the bill?
Do you think it's better to have the bill reported back to the House with no examination by the committee? That's what will happen. What is the advantage of waiting until Tuesday when we would have the exact same conversation as here today? Mr. Chambers is making veiled attempts to bring in the bullpen. Are they suggesting a midnight filibuster over this profoundly insignificant issue of whether we grant ourselves a 30-day extension today or on Tuesday? Seriously...? That's not serious. Those aren't serious parliamentary intentions, I don't think.
Let's go to a vote. If you don't want to give the 30-day extension, then vote against the motion. If you do, then vote for it. We'll let the will of the committee prevail, but this is not an issue that should be holding up....
My last point is that none of this bears, in any way, on the good faith that we all brought to bear last week or the week before that in coming to the fall schedule. We specifically identified this issue as one that could be dealt with. There's no subterfuge. There's no sneakiness. There's no resiling on any agreement. There's no backsliding. We're dealing with a piece of business that we said we were going to deal with, frankly, at almost the last possible moment.
Whether we do it today or whether we do it Tuesday, the committee members are going to have to make a decision on whether we want this bill to be reported back to the House without examination or whether we want to give ourselves a little bit of time so that we can actually schedule a day or two to bring in the sponsor of the bill, who I think probably wants to come to the committee and have a chance to speak to the bill. That would also give us a chance to actually have a little sober thought.
My last point is this: If we have one duty as parliamentarians, it is to examine legislation that comes before us.
I think it's the height of irresponsibility to take a position that would see a bill that we want a chance to take a look at and to hear a bit of evidence on in the only part of the legislative process that actually allows for some evidence.... For anybody here to say, “No, we don't want that,” and to let the bill go back without any of that scrutiny, examination, evidence or consideration, that, to me, is a dereliction of our duty as parliamentarians.
This is much ado about nothing, and I think we should just get on with the vote. If people want to vote against it, vote against it, but let's not hold up the committee business and all the important things that we're going to do.
My final final point is this. Mr. Chambers is correct. I did not burden the process by demanding that any particular issue of mine be put forward. I deferred so that the Conservatives got two of their priorities folded into the fall agenda. The pre-budget hearings, notionally, I guess, it could be argued, are something of an advantage to the government, since it will be their budget, and my Bloc Québécois colleague also got something, because we're folding in his study as well.
Nobody's trying to go backwards on anything. There's no benefit to anybody by pushing this motion. It's just good committee management. Let's put the swords down. Let's all catch our planes tonight—those who need them—and let's make a sound democratic decision on this and move forward.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you, MP Davies.
MP Davies is correct in the sense that we did have a discussion on this, and we knew that the decision needed to be made. We're coming up to the end of the time that we have to make that decision, members.
I have MP Bezan, and then MPs Dzerowicz, Chambers and Kelly.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
I'll just say this as a long-time member on the Hill and a long-time person in chair positions on the Hill, with over eight years as a chair. These committees are created through the House of Commons. Our membership is approved by the House of Commons, and work that is referred to a committee by the House is supposed to take precedence over all other work.
My understanding is that in the 60 days you've had this bill, there hasn't been a single meeting on this private member's bill, which I believe is not taking that reference from the House seriously. The reason that extensions are provided by the House.... Again, it's the House that will provide the extension. They have to agree to it, and it won't be agreed to until next Wednesday, according to the rules. If you want to go to page 1161 on rules and procedure in Bosc and Gagnon, at chapter 21, the only reason they'll grant an extension is that the committee couldn't complete its work within 60 days.
The committee decided not to do the work in 60 days. That, to me, is egregious and a violation of the privilege of the member on the PMB, the sponsor of the bill.
Yes, this bill should have been brought forward and considered in a justified time. If we couldn't hear all the witnesses who were required, or if it was an in-depth and technical bill, that's why extensions are granted, but to ask for an extension just because we didn't prioritize studying this bill, didn't call a single witness and didn't even allow the sponsor of the bill to appear before committee is egregious.
I would suggest that we let this bill, if it wasn't of interest to this committee up until this point in time to be reported back to the House or it failed and missed the deadline so it was deemed reported back to the House...but to request the extension of the House, which may not grant that extension because of the lack of seriousness shown by this committee in getting the work done in a timely manner, is a violation of parliamentary privilege.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
First, Mr. Chair, I'm going to request that I never speak after Mr. Davies, because he steals all my lines and it's becoming very annoying. I want to repeat everything Mr. Davies has said.
There's no fooling, you guys. There's like no “whoa, you waited until the very last second”. It's because we want to honour our witnesses. You wait until the end.
Just to let you know, I had our team member look over the last 30 times we actually did extension requests. There were no issues. They passed with unanimous consent on this committee. We've had no issues. It's pretty typical.
Mr. Bezan, with all due respect, you're not part of this committee. We've actually been studying all Conservative—
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
I'm here as a substitute. I am a member of the committee today.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
No, you haven't been, as I indicated.
We have actually been studying Conservative motions. All of the studies we've been doing have been based on Conservative motions, which is okay, and the Conservatives haven't prioritized this particular PMB.
What is typically done.... We have asked for an extension. I don't know why you guys are wasting time. There are times to filibuster. There are times to say, “Oh my gosh. This is awful. You guys are not organized”. This is a very typical thing to do. We've been doing Conservative studies. This has not been prioritized by the Conservatives, so that's why we're asking for an extension.
It is your colleague who put forward this PMB, and what we're trying to do is honour their work by bringing them here to present, so we can ask some questions.
I don't know why you guys would not want us to do this. There's no trickery here. We thought this would be a very easy thing because it is something we have been doing consistently. Nobody's fooling anybody, and for you guys to be wasting time on this, honestly, it should be an embarrassment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you, MP Dzerowicz.
I have MP Chambers, MP Kelly, MP Gray and then MP Ste-Marie.
Conservative
Liberal
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
Thank you.
Listening to lengthy interventions about the importance of not repeating arguments or about trying to get straight to a vote is interesting.
This is a bill about competitiveness in banking. We have, in Canada, a nice, cozy inside club of six large banks with 95% of the business, and we are delaying with the help of the NDP. The NDP moved the motion to delay this bill in this place instead of reporting it back to the House of Commons where we could quickly—in the last stages, while we still have a chance in this Parliament before the government finally runs its course—get this thing approved.
I would just as soon go straight to a carbon tax election and have no more business approved in the House, but if this Parliament is still going to continue to operate, getting this bill passed would actually be a positive step forward in helping Canadians save—what is believed by the mover and what we believe to be—$400 a year.
The lack of competition in financial services is a real affordability problem in this country. We have a concrete measure that can be reported back to the House next week and that can take it one step closer to becoming law. I'm disappointed that the NDP members seem so uninterested in expediting this bill, which will actually do something about the power of the existing financial institutions and about the lack of competition they have there.
I'm disappointed. I think it's important that this bill gets reported back.
To those who asked why we are making a big deal about something that just happened to be moved in the last dying seconds of this meeting and who said that this wasn't done with malice or anything like that, we have the ability to communicate with each other. If the Liberals had a concern about this bill and were keen to ensure that it would be studied at committee, given the discussion we had about the business of this committee, and if there was consensus on a work plan, which it certainly seemed that there was, then the parliamentary secretary could have picked up the phone, talked to the Conservative vice-chair and shadow minister for finance, raised the concern, discussed a work plan and achieved consensus, but that didn't happen.
We had the surprise, the ambush, in the final seconds of this committee, wherein the parliamentary secretary—not even well enough prepared for this meeting to come with a proper headset—sprung a delay that had not been discussed. I am disappointed, and I'm not prepared to go without these points being made and without argument in favour of this bill as well. This is a good bill. This is a bill that should be reported back to the House and that should be given its best chance to expeditiously pass in this Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you, MP Kelly.
I have MP Gray up next and then MP Ste-Marie and MP Goodridge.
Conservative
Tracy Gray Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just so we're clear here, obviously the Liberal and NDP coalition is really strong. It continues on. They're trying to delay this Conservative private member's bill, on which it was agreed to move forward. Why do they want this bill to be delayed? It's really interesting, because we know that the Liberals and their NDP partners are big fans of big business.
What will this bill do? We know that this Conservative private member's bill will address a lot of the banking challenges in Canada that are due to a lack of competition. Competition is a major issue, and the banking sector in Canada is like an oligopoly. There's very little competition, and we've seen this even with recent mergers. We know that the contents of this Conservative private member's bill were promised by the government probably up to seven years ago, and now they want to delay this Conservative private member's legislation.
This is at a time right now as well when unemployment continues to rise in Canada.
We heard damning testimony earlier today, while working on the study that is happening at this committee right now in pre-budget consultations, on competition and how the tech sector is being crushed by the policies of this current Liberal government. It was testimony on how GDP per capita is down in Canada, productivity is down and investment is leaving Canada. We heard that just moments ago.
Here we have this Conservative private member's bill that has an opportunity to address issues in one particular industry, and the Liberals and NDP want to delay it. It's actually quite unbelievable. This private member's bill should have been fast-tracked, if anything, because it would save the average Canadian family $400, as has happened in the United Kingdom.
Right now we have this strong, continued coalition between the NDP and Liberals. They're teaming up. It's like they want to support the big banks and they want to support a lack of competition. We know they've already supported mergers in this country that have left less choice for Canadians. We've already seen cost increases for Canadians. The lack of competition is a huge issue. The private member's bill we're discussing here, which the Liberals and NDP want to delay, is in an industry where there is a real lack of competition. We have it in the aerospace sector and the banking sector.
This government, supported by the NDP, continues to create policies that are not helpful. Productivity is down in this country. We know that people's paycheques aren't going as far. We have some of the most expensive services in Canada, including in the banking sector.
You have to wonder why the Liberals and NDP want to delay this Conservative private member's bill that would address some of the issues and at least open up opportunities in the financial services sector and in the banking sector. It's really odd, considering there are timelines that Parliament sets out, that the government hasn't dealt with this and now they want to delay this private member's bill.
It just doesn't seem to make any sense. Wanting the biggest companies that have very little competition.... It just doesn't make sense. Why would they want to prevent this Conservative private member's bill from moving forward? That's a question that Canadians should be asking.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you, MP Gray.
I have MP Ste-Marie on next.
MP Ste-Marie, the floor is yours.