Finance Committee on May 9th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Beech has a point of order.

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

I want to raise the idea with members.... I think there's a very clear path on the subamendment, the amendment and everything else. If we were all to agree to go to a vote, I think we could get those votes done in four minutes and see what the result is, and then we could go to our witnesses, who I know we were all hoping to hear from today.

As long as there's no obstruction, we could allow those witnesses to stay on and we could get to them today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Beech.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Would you like me to speak to it, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Beech said if members are interested—

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

I'd be happy to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

—but I have MP Fast up next.

This is on the subamendment...the amendment to the main motion.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Thank you.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To respond to Mr. Beech, this is not about obstructing. This is about doing the job we're called to do as parliamentarians, to exercise oversight over many billions of dollars of spending and many billions of dollars in taxation that is being imposed on Canadians.

I want to add a few thoughts on both the subamendment and the amendment itself.

A number of colleagues have referred to an “expedited timeline”. The whole purpose for us having the space to be able to conduct our work here at committee is to make sure we get it right. There are many things here before us in the BIA that call for more probing. These are things like the way charities are being treated and the direction and control element that is now being discussed both in the House and here at this committee.

Unfortunately, we had witnesses available here today. Our Liberal friends, supported by our NDP coalition, decided they weren't going to hear from them and would carry on with their amendments and subamendments. Quite frankly, Mr. Chair, I think it sends a terrible message to those who rely on this committee and this Parliament to do its work properly. Inconveniencing witnesses the way we just did is highly inappropriate, and they have the right to complain.

That said, I did want to note also that notwithstanding complaints that somehow the process is being slowed down, the reality is that not only did we as a Conservative opposition agree with all of the other members at this committee to conduct a prestudy to expedite the process and get the budget implementation act moving forward, we supported that process. Not only has that happened, but the Senate itself is conducting a prestudy of the budget implementation act. In both Houses of Parliament, we have an avenue whereby all the parties have co-operated to move this legislation through in an expedited manner, yet can we get even an ounce of co-operation from the parliamentary secretary and his handlers? No, we cannot, which is really sad.

There's only so much compression of timelines that should take place before you start undermining our ability to do our job properly.

I mentioned the charitable sector. How about the wine industry that is crying foul against this government?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Hear, hear.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

How about the boating sector? How about the aerospace industry? How about the car sector? They're all screaming foul because of how this government is implementing tax legislation.

It's not even the tax itself. It's how it's being implemented and the failure to do proper economic impact assessments for each industry before taxation is applied. We had the witnesses here at our committee, officials from the Department of Finance and other departments of government. They admitted that no economic impact assessment had been done for these taxes. That's a big fail, Mr. Chair. You should not be surprised that we are wanting to do this in a proper way. We want the time to do it properly.

The parliamentary secretary hasn't come forward with a realistic plan to properly do a review of this bill. If Mr. Beech can come forward with an accommodation that works for all parties at this table, we will look at it seriously and with good faith—that I can assure him, as the shadow minister for finance. We will look at it in good faith. He can't keep coming forward simply acting as a shield for the government, which wants to ram this legislation through. That's unacceptable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Fast.

I have MP Dzerowicz, MP Blaikie, MP Albas and then MP Stewart.

Go ahead, MP Dzerowicz.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thanks so much, Mr. Chair.

I just want to say, for those who might be listening at home, that the budget study is always an intensive period after the budget is introduced. There are always a number of hours that are proposed, and it's always very intensive, with additional meetings.

I'd like to reiterate this because I think it's important, and I think Mr. Beech mentioned this earlier: The number of hours that we're proposing to study the budget is equal to the highest number of hours in the last five years. It's important to say that there's no one who is trying to rush this through. Of course there's a lot that we need to study, but this committee has the capacity to do so. We want to ensure that we have an appropriate amount of time and that we do a really good job, and that is the intention of our side of the bench.

I want to thank Mr. Beech for offering that if we move right to a vote, we have the potential to be able to hear from our witnesses today. I know I wanted to hear from the witnesses today, and that was not accepted by some of our opposition members. I do lament that and I hope the witnesses come back.

Mr. Ste-Marie suggested that we move to a vote on the subamendment. I would like to see whether the committee would be willing to do so. I think we've had a sufficient amount of time to discuss the subamendment and I think it's the right time for us to move to a vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Before we move to MP Blaikie, are we open to moving to a vote on the subamendment?

I'm not hearing consensus on that.

MP Dzerowicz, are you finished? Yes.

We have MP Blaikie, then MP Albas, then MP Stewart.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to note, as I said earlier, that if the goal is to have this legislation passed before summer, which is often a reasonable goal for a budget implementation bill, we are up against a difficult timeline no matter what.

For my part, I would like to spend the time that we have in studying the bill, and I think this motion allows for an amount of study comparable to we've seen on other budget implementation acts going back some way, but we need to have a program for how we're going to study it. We need to come to some kind of decision about how we're going to study the bill.

The committee can make that decision. I respect that not everyone is going to agree with the decision of the committee, but we have to be able to have a vote in order to make that decision. Then we can proceed with the time we have, which is limited, no matter what, to June 23 at the very latest. It has to be out of the House before that in order to allow it to have the time to get through the Senate. We're talking about the difference of maybe a week or two from what is suggested in the original motion. It's not that much of a difference in time. We need to decide how we're going to study it so we can do that to the greatest possible effect in the time we have.

That's why I would certainly support moving to a vote, so we can decide one way or the other on the subamendment, the amendment and the main motion, and we can get to studying the bill in the time that we have to do that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Blaikie.

I did check some historicals, and it is in keeping with the amount of time that we've allowed for the studies in the past. The hours are in keeping with what we have done in previous years.

MP Blaikie has asked to call for a vote.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

I'm still on the list, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I have MP Albas and then MP Stewart.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Chair, I know you know the Standing Orders very well, and some members may or may not.

We have had you canvass the room twice now on whether or not we can move to the question. Members should know in this place that in committees Standing Order 116 applies, and I will read it right here, Mr. Chair:

(1) In a standing, special or legislative committee, the Standing Orders shall apply so far as may be applicable, except the standing orders as to the election of Speaker, seconding of motions, limiting the number of times speaking and the length of speeches.

Then specifically, we have subsection 2, which is regarding end of debate. Paragraph (2)(a) says,

Unless a time limit has been adopted by the committee or by the House, the Chair of a standing, special or legislative committee may not bring a debate to an end while there are members present who still wish to participate. A decision of the Chair in this regard may not be subject to an appeal to the committee.

Mr. Chair, I don't want to bring us into a process in which you are put in a position of having members who still want to say their piece, and then you go ahead and overrule that or see it go to a vote.

Now, I know you wouldn't do that, Mr. Chair, because paragraph (b) would lead to this:

A violation of paragraph (a) of this section may be brought to the attention of the Speaker by any member and the Speaker shall have the power to rule on the matter. If, in the opinion of the Speaker, such violation has occurred, the Speaker may order that all subsequent proceedings in relation to the said violation be nullified.

I don't want to put you in a situation, Mr. Chair, in which I as a member, for whatever reason—other members wanting to hurry through a process—have to raise a question of privilege in the House and have the Speaker rule on it, and we come back here and essentially nullify the point and go back to the beginning of debate. I think that would be a serious waste of everyone's time and I think it would not be conducive to your reputation, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to do my best to make sure that I raise my hand clearly so that I get your attention. When you canvassed the room, when he asked the first time, we said no because we had members on the list, and we would just simply let him continue.

Now, getting back to the motion here, Mr. Chair—

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Go ahead on a point of order, Mr. Blaikie.

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

Before Mr. Albas carries on with the rest of his remarks, I just want to say that on that point, which was a procedural point, I agree completely. I was not appealing to the chair to try to have a vote. If there are members around the table who want to continue to speak, that is their right under the rules. I will certainly support that at this table. I was appealing to other members of the committee that we might have a vote, not to the chair.

What is important to recognize is that to the extent that we take more time to debate these matters as opposed to letting the committee come to a decision—whatever is going to emerge from the vote—that's time we're spending debating how to proceed with the study rather than proceeding with the study itself.

My preference is not to spend the time debating how we study, but to spend the time studying. If other members feel that it's important to continue with this debate, that, of course, is their right. I will be happy to support that right. I will be happy to hear their arguments, or at least I will hear them.

However, I think it is important that the committee come to a decision. If we're not allowed to have the vote because members want to continue to debate the point, what that means is that a decision is effectively being made. We're deciding to have less time to study the bill than to have more time to study the bill, or, through continuous debate, we're deciding not to deal with the bill at all.

If this conversation is going to last until the end of June, then we're going to have the situation of the bill not going through committee at all. If we're going to run this debate until May 20, then we're going to have used up a lot of valuable time that we could spend studying the bill by debating how we're going to study the bill.

To me, it is worthwhile to be able to decide these questions, by which I mean have a vote. Of course, I get it that other members may disagree, and they may want to use the time in other ways. They have every right to do that. No one's questioning their right to do that. I'm questioning whether it's the right thing to do, which is, of course, a very different thing.

I just want to be clear on that point. I thank Mr. Albas, and you, Mr. Chair, for allowing me the time to be clear on that point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Blaikie. That was my interpretation.

MP Albas, you have the floor.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I always find it refreshing when someone comes to this place and wants to show deference to Parliament as an institution. Though part of me wanted to scream, “Debate, debate”, it's important for us all to be mindful of our responsibilities to make sure that this institution is left as good as possible, if not better off. I do appreciate the member's approach when it comes to this.

Mr. Chair, getting back to the subamendment, again I have to raise concerns about proper process and bad faith. While at first glance the parliamentary secretary has brought forward what appears to be a good faith effort to work with the Bloc Québécois member, MP Ste-Marie, the challenge we have here, Mr. Chair, is this: The timeline that has been given is overwhelmingly short.

Each one of these committees—and I'm a former member of INDU, for example—has its hands full with a great amount of its own business. Making the time so short means that what will legitimately happen is that a committee will say it has received a letter from the the chair here, and in it he's saying they have to respond within a very short period of time. Members on the individual committee, be it justice or industry, are going to say, “Well, we have already worked out this plan”, so one of two things will happen. Either they're going to have to abandon other important work or they will try to load up with extra resources that we know just do not exist.

Why would I say that, Mr. Chair? It's because we know that we need proper access to translators. In this area I support my colleagues from Quebec 100%. Francophones should be able to have that simultaneous translation in their first language.

As you know better than anyone, Mr. Chair, from working with the clerk, it can be very difficult. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if the clerk has had calls from resources saying that they cannot accommodate us any further. The finance committee, from my experience, has always been given a bit more deference than other ones, because it is considered one of the workhorses of this Parliament.

We might be now loading up extra resources or having these committees say that there's no way they can properly call witnesses by May 20. That's 11 days, colleagues. Let's just say that even if the clerk, on the instruction of the chair after a successful conclusion of today's committee, were to send out a letter today, and those things were put to the next meeting, you would have to call witnesses. You would have to actually have a business meeting.

Pardon me, Mr. Chair; I'm not even doing things sequentially, and you deserve better than that.

Number one, you would need to call a business meeting, and then you would have to have a call for witnesses, and all those witnesses would have to be at hearings that would happen before May 20.

There's a good question for MP Beech, or perhaps MP Ste-Marie. We've found out, through this process, that clause-by-clause consideration will not be done by these individual committees; it will be us. Again, are they supposed to write a report? Are we supposed to kind of tune in and listen to the concerns of those MPs?

The Conservatives have already planned for this. We've already said that the finance committee has decided to do a prestudy, so we'll be bringing our critics here and we've put forward a number of witnesses. I'm glad to hear that there will be flexibility granted by the chair, as confirmed by the clerk, to be able to ask questions even if a section has been designated out, but again there are going to be many coordination issues to be dealt with.

Mr. Chair, that is a summation on the subamendment, which I believe is what we're debating here. This would be Mr. Beech's amendment to the amendment. Is that correct?