Finance Committee on Feb. 17th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I see MP Dzerowicz's hand up.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you so much.

We can't force a vote here. We are agreeing to offer an official motion to start the study on the Emergencies Act on Tuesday with the list that's been provided, and then we can discuss the actual motion details at subcommittee.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Can we go back to Mr. Beech so he can give us the substance of what might not be acceptable here?

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

I am happy to get into the amendments, but I don't want us to get cut off in the middle of my amendments and have the study delayed.

I'm happy to start getting into the amendments. I need to seek guidance from the clerk to make sure we're not going to get cut off and kicked out of this meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Mr. Clerk, go ahead.

[The Clerk]

The reality is that we have stretched resources tonight. The House is sitting late, and there are more meetings tonight. The whips will have to decide whether finance keeps meeting and, if so, which other meetings are cancelled. It's really the whips' decision.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Understood.

I see Mrs. Chatel, and I saw Mr. Blaikie put his hand up instead of his virtual hand, but that's all good.

We have Mrs. Chatel, and then MP Blaikie.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you.

In case there is a lack of trust here, MP Beech could go quickly with the amendments. I feel that myself. To advance this, I am agreeing that we can discuss those amendments and have the short version for now. I'm trying to read the English version. We just got it.

We could, at a high level, explain the changes that we want to put forward and then agree that we'll discuss those changes and agree with the text of the motion, and in the meantime we can have the short version so that we can start on Tuesday. It's constituency week, so we'll have to agree to the time now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We have MP Blaikie.

[The Clerk]

Mr. Baker also wants to speak.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Okay.

We'll have MP Baker after MP Blaikie.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you very much.

I have a couple of thoughts. One, I do hope that the whips are talking in the event that we do need extra time. I've endeavoured to reach out on that front, to make sure that my people, at least, are aware of the need for some discussion outside or around this table in order to get us more time, if that's what we need.

I'm not sure I like the precedent, but I also recognize that we are in an extraordinary time. I think the proceedings of the House today affirm that in no uncertain terms. One other option I would want to proceed with—only if everyone, and I mean everyone, at the table is comfortable with it—would be to empower the subcommittee to adopt a study motion in respect of the financial aspect of the emergency measures act.

This would mean that if we did have a subcommittee meeting tomorrow, representatives from each party would be able to discuss, negotiate and determine the scope of that study. Any amendments that members from any side have could be considered at that time. We could vote on it. The study could be approved before the end of the day tomorrow if the committee is willing to delegate its authority to the subcommittee.

I don't think that would make sense as a best practice or a precedent, but given that it pertains to emergency measures, given the pandemic, and given that the hybrid format necessitated by the pandemic is creating some artificial time constraints, I think this is one way of trying to get around those.

I would look to Mr. McLean, Mr. Beech and Monsieur Ste-Marie to see if that might be acceptable to them. I'm prepared to stay as long as the whips will let us in order to deal with amendments, if that's what it takes in order to get a study motion approved that will provide the proper authority for the clerk to invite witnesses and to set up a meeting early next week on this matter.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you for that, MP Blaikie.

I don't know if anybody on the floor has their hand up, but I have MP Beech next.

Please go ahead, MP Beech.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Like my friend, I am willing to stay here to go through amendments if we get the time from the whips. I'm also willing to accept his proposal. I'm also a little nervous about the precedent of that, but these are extraordinary times. I'm also willing to continue to go forward with our initial proposal.

I would leave this in the hands of our colleague from the Conservatives and our colleague from the Bloc to see what their preference is. I think either of those solutions would work for us—the one just proposed by Mr. Blaikie or the one we previously proposed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Beech.

I apologize, MP Baker. You had your hand up. I was alerted to it by the clerk. My apologies.

You have the floor.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I'll allow Mr. McLean to respond. It's easier to continue the discussion if Mr. McLean responds.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Thank you.

There's a spirit that you see in the motion that does look at what we're supposed to be doing here, and I don't want to lose any of that in our discussions at the subcommittee. It is what I think Canadians are expecting us to look at here, and the impact on their financial system. I think nothing in here detracts from what we should be looking at, as Canada's House of Commons finance committee, in terms of the impacts of something that's never been done before.

I think it's wide open. I would go back to my proposition to you to add “subject to”. That's the spirit of this motion: Let's look at this very quickly, please, and if there's something that we're missing or some detail that needs to be changed, then let's please put in an amendment at the bottom that says it's subject to changes that will be agreed upon between parties at a subcommittee meeting on February 18.

I think we're covering it all. I haven't heard what the substantial, principal concerns are about the words that are on the page here. It is really about examining what this means to the Canadian financial system and to Canadians going forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Next is MP Baker.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thanks very much.

I think we have a couple of options. We can go with what Mr. Blaikie suggested, which I thought was practical. The goal that we all share is to move forward on this expeditiously. We all share that goal, I think.

One way to do that, from my perspective, that makes sense is what Mr. Blaikie suggested. It allows us to move forward by Tuesday and it allows the subcommittee to iron out all the details, the scheduling issues, prioritization issues, amendment issues and that sort of thing.

The other approach would be to do it here in committee now and work through the amendments now. I think there are a few problems with that for us. One is, in general, I just don't think that's the most efficient way to work through what we're going to have to work through. Let's be honest. There's a schedule that we need to look at and figure out how this jives together. I don't think having all of us sit here doing that is the most efficient way to begin with. A subcommittee would be a great way to approach that, I think, practically speaking. It would, by happenstance, also allow another committee that's supposed to be meeting with other colleagues to meet as well.

I prefer Mr. Blaikie's proposal on how we move forward on it. If we have to start moving amendments, we can do that. I'm happy to do that.

Mr. McLean, I would ask for your understanding that it's hard for us to vote on the language of a motion that we haven't had a chance to amend yet. The spirit here, what you're hearing from Mr. Beech and myself and all of us, we want to do the study. There's not opposition to doing the study. That's not the issue, but I think the specific language.... It's difficult for us to approve something that we know we want to amend.

Let's move forward with the study, but let's find a way to amend it as we move forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you very much.

I see MP Ste-Marie and I also see MP McLean's hand is up.

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

I'll keep it brief, Mr. Chair.

For goodness' sakes, let's figure out a way to start the study as soon as possible.

I agree with what Mr. Blaikie is suggesting, provided the clerk can confirm it would be possible. This would be an exception to the rule in light of the extraordinary circumstances.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Ste‑Marie.

Next is MP McLean and then MP Lawrence after him, I believe.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will go back to Mr. Beech, because I think the issues of substance are his to raise at this point in time, as you can see that the rest....

Mr. Baker, we've already talked about when this meeting would start, but the issues of substance are (a)(i) to (vi), about what we're trying to accomplish here.

If there's something in the spirit of that motion that needs to change immediately, I would entertain that right now, but if there's something you don't like with the spirit of that, then I think you should put that on the floor, because this is what we're trying to get at here: how does this work; how does it impact the financial system of Canada going forward.

I'm opening the floor to you to tell me what principle you think needs to change in the first six points of language after (a).

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

I'm happy to address that. I'm just very concerned about time and I don't want to get cut off.

Mr. Clerk, where are we currently with the time? I don't want to get into discussing amendments and then get cut off.

We've had all members from every party, except the Conservatives, agree to Mr. Blaikie's proposition. What we could do is move to table debate on this motion and then move a new motion to take on Mr. Blaikie's proposition. I assume that motion would pass, because we have a majority to be able to do that.

Mr. Clerk, I want to get the timing, and I want to do this in a way that everybody agrees, because I want people leaving this meeting feeling good about the way we're moving forward on this motion that we all want to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Blaikie.