Finance Committee on Dec. 10th, 2024

Evidence of meeting #170 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was come.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

Current state of play on green finance, green investment, transition finance and transparency, standards and taxonomy

Pre-Budget Consultations in Advance of the 2025 Budget

Meeting Requested Pursuant to Standing Order 106(4) to Discuss a Request to Undertake a Study of the Invitation to the Minister of Finance for Sharing the Status of the Government’s Finances

Committee Business

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Clerk of the Committee Mr. Alexandre Roger

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON

Thank you.

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca

You can take a look.

Next to speak is MP Ste-Marie.

5:15 p.m.

Bloc

Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC

Thank you, Chair.

I'd first like to ask my colleagues who are submitting proposals or amendments to send them in advance to the clerk, so that the interpreters can provide the fairest interpretation possible.

Having said that, I signed the request for a meeting under Standing Order 106(4), because I think it's important that the Minister of Finance appear before this committee at least once in the fall, which she hasn't done yet. We have a lot of questions for her.

I'm thinking in particular of the change made last June to the capital gains inclusion rate. We still don't have the proper ways and means notice. We didn't pass the bill, let alone the timetable for implementing this major change introduced last June. It's mid-December and we're still in the dark.

The media today are reporting that there seem to be tensions between the Prime Minister's office and the Deputy Prime Minister's office about economic action. Personally, I think those are electioneering measures. The government has proposed sending a cheque to people earning up to $150,000 a year in net income, but it isn't offering any assistance to low-income people who would need it more. As for the proposal to remove the GST on restaurant bills, alcohol and junk food, we have to wonder.

Now we've learned that there are tensions surrounding those measures. I think it's important that the minister appear before this committee to answer those kinds of questions. This is a major concern for us, as public representatives, but also for the media that are following this issue.

The minister broke a record: she'll be delivering the 2024 fall economic statement almost in the dead of winter, which is to say, on the second-last sitting day of the House, while the landscape is covered with snow. I think this isn't only a personal record, in her case, but also a record in the history of the House. So it's to be delivered next Monday, on December 16.

The House will adjourn next Tuesday. So a meeting with the minister is possible next Tuesday. I'd be quite comfortable if the minister made a commitment to come before the committee next Tuesday. She'd have to come, because she didn't appear before the committee once this fall. In fact, I think we last saw her in May. Where was the minister yesterday? She was at the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. Frankly, she's laughing at us. This shows a profound lack of respect for the Standing Committee on Finance. I want her to appear before our committee.

As for the rest, I'll look at the motion that's been moved and the amendment, and then I can speak to it.

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca

Thank you, Mr. Ste Marie.

Next I have MP Davies, MP Chambers and PS Bendayan.

5:20 p.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My perspective is maybe slightly different from that of my colleagues who have appeared.

First, by my research, the last appearance of the minister before this committee was May 2024. That's over seven months ago.

Second, this committee, on September 26, passed an omnibus motion setting out our agreed-upon, consensus schedule for the fall. We all remember the torturous negotiations and the difficulty we had in reaching that. In fairness, the Conservatives were filibustering at this committee and wasting some time, and it took a lot of effort from all parties to come up with a schedule that satisfied everybody. Everybody had to concede something. My colleagues will remember that this included agreeing on eight pre-budget meetings and proceeding with some of the CRA issues my colleagues from the Bloc and the Conservatives wanted. We talked about writing the two reports, one on green financing and a report on the financialization of housing. We remember all of that.

Included in that motion from September 26 was the following:

That the committee hold Pre-Budget Consultations for the 2025 Budget, and that:....

b. The Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister and departmental officials be invited to appear before the committee.

c. That these meetings be prioritized with the goal of tabling a Pre-Budget Consultations report by Friday, December 13th, 2024.

I can only assume, Mr. Chair, that you extended that invitation to the finance minister. This means there has been an open invitation for the minister to appear before this committee for over two months. As my colleague pointed out, the minister found time to appear before the Senate banking committee, and properly so. She also appeared before the industry committee yesterday, but has not found time to appear before what I consider to be her primary committee—the finance committee. That's why I support the 106(4) request to call her before this committee.

My Liberal colleagues have said that one of the reasons she's been late to issue the fall economic statement is that there is a filibuster in the House. That is partially true, but there's nothing stopping the Minister of Finance from issuing the fall economic statement at Château Laurier, if she wants to, or anywhere else she likes. It doesn't have to be in the House.

Now, if we really want to talk turkey here, the Minister of Finance might drop the fall economic statement on the second-last day before we break for the holidays. If rumours can be believed, we might expect the public accounts to be dropped on Tuesday next week, which is the last day. I don't know this for sure, but that's the speculation I'm hearing. Were we not to hear from the Minister of Finance before then, we're talking about reconvening in February—months later—to hold the minister accountable for two of the three most important documents she's responsible for tabling in Parliament besides the budget.

I was initially sympathetic to my Liberal colleagues' position that the Standing Order 106(4) request was filed relatively late. It left only three meetings for the minister to appear at. Generally, we know how busy ministers are. However, when I went back and researched this, I thought, “Well, she's had an open invitation for two and a half months. There's been ample time for her to find time in her busy schedule.” To me, it's a fundamental issue of accountability to Parliament.

I have a feeling there is good news in the fall economic statement and bad news. I think there might be more bad news than good news in the public accounts, if they come out. I would point out as well that the public accounts, by my research—there are people in this room who have far more experience in finance than I do—are typically filed in September or October. They're not filed on the last day. By the way, if they're not filed on Tuesday next week, they won't be filed until I don't know when—the end of the year or maybe next year.

Let's remember that the public accounts provide the final state of affairs, fiscally, of the government as of the last fiscal year, which ended March 31, 2024. I think it's a matter of primary responsibility to Parliament and to this committee that the Minister of Finance appear before this committee and that she be prepared to answer questions.

The fact that she appeared before the industry committee as well is no comfort to me because that's a different committee, which doesn't have the experience or expertise that this committee has. I was thinking to myself, “If the Minister of Industry appeared tomorrow and I had to ask questions of him, I would not be in nearly as good a position to ask questions of him as my colleagues on the industry committee would be.” This committee has been seized with financial matters for a long time—since the beginning of this Parliament—and we are best placed to put what are going to be necessary questions to the minister.

I will say that I'm attracted to Ms. Bendayan's amendment to this extent. What I find a bit heavy-handed about the Conservatives' motion is the idea of reporting to the House and then having us order the Minister of Finance back here. That is very unusual for me to see. I'm more comfortable inviting the minister. If I read Ms. Bendayan's motion, she's invited to appear “for two hours at the next available opportunity”. By the way, the two hours is also a bit of a concession. I can't remember a minister who has ever been in a committee for more than one hour. I may be mistaken, but the norm is one hour. Then it says, “with the intent that this appearance take place before the House rises for the winter recess.” It's a clear invitation to the minister from this committee that we want her to appear before Tuesday, without the heavy-handed threat of reporting back to the House and then for us to be able to order her here.

The reason I don't think the heavy-handed approach is necessarily appropriate is that, quite honestly, the Minister of Finance will have a lot of questions to answer if she doesn't appear next Tuesday. If she's dropping a fall economic statement on the nation and the public accounts come on Tuesday, and then she decides that she's not coming to the finance committee on Tuesday to answer questions and be accountable to Parliament just before it breaks until the last couple of days of January, but effectively until February, then I think that's going to be a very difficult case for her to maintain. If we do accept the Conservative motion and report it to the House, I don't think we're going to be able to call her back to this committee until February anyway, unless we reconvene, I guess, at a different time.

Those are my thoughts. I've not yet made up my mind on the amendment or the motion, but I'd like to hear what my colleagues have to say.

I'll conclude with this. One would hope that any minister of finance from any party in the House, when faced with a request by the finance committee to appear that's been outstanding for two and a half months, when important documents are being filed and given the state of the Canadian economy.... Mr. Hallan could have gone on longer about this, but I agree with him that there are serious issues across this country for many Canadians, for our businesses, for our economy and for our provinces and territories, so I would very much hope that any finance minister would take his or her responsibilities seriously, would come before this committee to face the music and would be prepared to answer the tough questions that are obviously going to come and that need to be asked.

Those are my thoughts, Mr. Chair.

5:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca

Thank you, MP Davies.

Next I have MP Chambers and then PS Bendayan.

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

Adam Chambers Conservative Simcoe North, ON

Thank you Mr. Chair.

I'll start my intervention with a question for the clerk. Maybe by the time I'm done, he'll have the answer. I'm wondering if the clerk could confirm how many invitations the minister has accepted to come to committee that are not on legislation.

While I'm talking, perhaps the clerk would provide to committee members, for the benefit of new members, that the minister has not accepted one invitation from the committee to come to committee unless she's here to motivate legislation. There is a track record of the minister ignoring invitations to come to committee based on past motions with a request to invite.

I have great sympathy for my government colleagues who have to defend a minister who has chosen multiple times to not come to committee. In fact, the only reason the minister was at the industry committee yesterday was that it was a House order. Had the industry committee just sent the minister an invitation, which they had done in the past, she would not have come.

The only reason this minister comes to committee is for two objectives—to pass legislation and to avoid a contempt of Parliament. Every other time the minister has been invited by any committee in this Parliament she has not attended.

I respect Mr. Davies's immediate positions about his concern with what he calls the “heavy-handed” language in the Conservative motion, but the facts bear out that if that part of the motion is withdrawn, we will not get the Minister of Finance. History is not on the side of the government on this. I actually think the toughest job in Parliament is being Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, because you have to constantly play defence on avoiding accountability.

The truth is that tabling the public accounts on the last day, which is the speculative rumour, is being done solely for the purpose of avoiding parliamentary scrutiny. It's being done in connection with the fall economic statement. Mr. Davies is right; they could table the public accounts any time they wish. They could also release the fall economic statement at any time or venue they choose.

There have been two ways and means motions dropped in Parliament. One was with respect to CRA rules and charities. The other was an updated version to the capital gains legislation that we have yet to receive. There are legitimate questions that I think all members believe the minister ought to be available to answer. The bottom line is that this committee has had significant challenges in the past with getting the attention of the minister and having the minister accept invitations.

I had a wonderful exchange with the minister yesterday. She is very capable of handling questions, even very tough questions. I don't expect we'll get lots of answers, but in my view, the reason that reporting to the House is in this motion is integral to ensuring that the minister shows up before Tuesday.

I would go further. I believe Ms. Bendayan, the parliamentary secretary, has made a good suggestion that the minister appear after the fall economic statement. This could have been easily solved if the minister had shown up in the last two months from the open invitation, but this is the position the minister has put herself in by waiting until the last minute.

She could have come here three weeks ago. She could have taken the opportunity to sit on the hot seat, not provide any answers and just say, “You'll have to wait for the fall economic statement.” It's the decision to not appear that is now causing us to force her to appear on basically the last day we are here. Frankly, I think it's the most reasonable path forward now.

I agree with my Liberal colleagues who would like to have the fall economic statement tabled before we hear from the minister. I support that 100%. After we dispense of the amendment one way or the other, I'll move an amendment on that, but to keep it simple, we'll deal with one at a time. I'll ask that the minister appear at the committee following the fall economic statement, but that she appear before we leave for the holidays—for Chrismukkah or whatever religious holiday people observe.

Bottom line, every invitation that has been extended to the minister in the past has been ignored. The only reason the minister showed up at the industry committee was that there was a House order. Therefore, the only way we're going to get the minister before we leave for the holidays is to have that order written into this motion.

I suspect that others may have differing views on this, but make no mistake that potentially taking the House order out of this motion will mean that we will not get the minister. A vote to do that is a vote to not get the minister. That is my basic reading of it, having been so lucky to be on the committee for three years.

This is what we've evolved to. This is the only way we're going to get the minister on the timetable that I think people would like.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

5:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca

Thank you.

PS Bendayan is next.

5:35 p.m.

Liberal

Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC

I thank my colleague. I get the points he's making, but I have a hard time understanding why opposition members seem to be waking up today when only five days are left before the break. My Conservative colleague just said that we could have addressed this issue much earlier, and I agree. However, I believe that if meeting with the Minister of Finance was a priority for the Conservatives, my colleague would have made that point before today.

Furthermore, I understand that committee members want to meet with the minister after the economic update has been tabled. As I said earlier, it will be tabled on December 16 and the House will adjourn on December 17. I'm not in a position to confirm the minister's availability during the 12 hours of December 17.