Evidence of meeting #43 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Excuse me, MP Stewart.
MP Dzerowicz, did you just put your hand up to be on the list? Okay. I didn't see if that was a legacy on MP Stewart.
Continue, please.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Jake Stewart Conservative Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB
I guess with respect to the subamendment, I think the Liberals certainly need a distraction from the many investigations, particularly the one on the trip paid by the lobbyist—
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Jake Stewart Conservative Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB
Mr. Chair, I just think it was like a billionaire on an island, and it was a lobbyist. It's quite a juicy story for the Canadian public. I have to believe that having a nice deflection is a pretty sweet deal for the Prime Minister right now.
Here at committee we're dealing with $57 billion of new spending with no economic impact assessment, and several groups are clearly at odds with the government's economic plan. We know there's no monetary policy with this government.There never has been.
I just can't support the subamendment the way it is because it's too soon. May 20 is just too soon for us to put proper oversight onto this.
I'd be glad to answer any questions anybody else has, but that's all from me for today, Mr. Chair.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Okay.
I have MP Ste-Marie, then MP Chambers, then MP Fast.
Go ahead, MP Ste-Marie.
12:45 p.m.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
To answer the question raised by Mr. Albas, if the bill is divided among the committees, each committee will have to report back to the Standing Committee on Finance before it goes to clause-by-clause. Yes, this means that it will be even more difficult to meet the already tight deadlines.
Also, I want to thank him for his intervention, because I also use the paper version, since it is difficult to consult so many pages on the screen. So my version too stops at page 421, whereas the electronic document has 440 pages. This is the first time I have seen that the two versions of a bill do not match, and that is very serious.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Adam Chambers Conservative Simcoe North, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I think, in their initial purpose, the motion and subamendment.... My biggest challenge is the timeline they're imposing. We're being asked as a committee to hold ourselves to a timeline before we've even had the opportunity to hear from any witnesses. All we have is what some people—stakeholders—are sending in. We know there's no economic study. That point has been raised here as well.
Mr. Chair, I'm always short, but I'll try to be brief in my comments.
Previously, when the House was asked to push through legislation quickly, we had some mistakes—fairly significant mistakes. Things went a bit unnoticed for some time, including the SNC issue that was raised, because it was put into a budget bill and not really combed through as properly as it could have been, since that Parliament was on a tight timeline. We've spent time in the main chamber debating and fixing legislation that came out of the pandemic. A good example is GIS benefits. That mistake was not caught by the committee or by any stakeholders before it was passed. It wasn't until the NDP, to their credit, realized there was a problem after the budget bill passed.
I'm wondering what it's going to be this time. I suspect there will be some issues around the competition law policy. I mentioned earlier that typically what you would see is a consultation, and then a consultation on the proposed amendments, but we're just skipping right through it.
I will quote a law firm that has some experience in competition policy. It says:
Despite the significance of the proposed amendments and the deliberate policy choices they entail, it is notable that these proposals have not been developed through public consultation with stakeholders—a process that has been used before and has been requested again by members of the Canadian competition law bar.
Just last week, representatives from Industry Canada indicated that the competition law bar or the CBA was not consulted on these draft rules.
Now, I am interested in—
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. Were you trying to get in?
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
It looks like the bells have started, so I am going to ask members for unanimous consent to continue.
12:50 p.m.
Some hon. members
No.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Adam Chambers Conservative Simcoe North, ON
I was just getting started, but I was going to be brief, I promise.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
We will suspend.
[The meeting was suspended at 12:53 p.m., Monday, May 9]
[The meeting resumed at 4:13 p.m., Thursday, May 12]
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
I call this meeting to order.
Welcome to the continuation of meeting 43 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee is meeting today to discuss committee business.
Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely, using the Zoom application. Per the directive of the Board of Internal Economy on March 10, 2022, all those attending the meeting in person must wear a mask, except for members who are at their place during proceedings.
I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of witnesses and members.
Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike. Please mute it when you are not speaking. For interpretation for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.
I would remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. 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 patience and understanding in this regard.
I request that members and witnesses mutually treat each other with respect and decorum.
We are on the subamendment. We'll start with Mr. Chambers, who I believe had the floor at the end of the last meeting.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Adam Chambers Conservative Simcoe North, ON
You have an excellent memory, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Adam Chambers Conservative Simcoe North, ON
Since I'm new to this, I have a couple of questions, or maybe points of order.
I cannot move an amendment to a subamendment, correct? It's not like the movie Inception. You can't keep going down and down. Okay.
Next, there are no motions. If I do have an amendment, I can do that after I get back on the speaking list. Okay.
As we start, I'd like to mention that I did pass an orange drink to my NDP colleague. If I'm unpersuasive in my comments, perhaps a bribe will work here this afternoon.
I miss a lot of my Liberal colleagues across the way. It reminds me of a joke my former boss used to make. There are all these people in an auditorium, and as you're giving a speech they all start slowly going out, one by one, until there's one person left in the auditorium. You say to him, “Thank you very much for staying.” The gentleman replies, “Don't thank me. I'm the next speaker.”
4:15 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
May 12th, 2022 / 4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Adam Chambers Conservative Simcoe North, ON
Hopefully, we keep a relatively full room here this afternoon.
Mr. Chair, I did say last time that I am always short but I will be brief. Today I'll be at least one of those, and hopefully maybe two.
The political climate we're in isn't really lending itself well to some collaboration. I don't think that's a surprise to anybody. There are obviously things happening outside of this committee room that are affecting our ability to get some work done. I do find that regrettable, because I think we've actually done some really nice work together as a committee. If you think back to Bill C-2, we did have an amendment that was passed. Although it was on recorded division, it was an amendment that was agreed to in principle by all members of this committee. Frankly, I thought it was a success that we were able to collaborate to get that done.
On Bill C-8 we talked about a potential amendment on banning non-resident purchasers of real estate. Again, there was a recorded division and it was unsuccessful, but I believe it was that discussion that led to its being included in the budget. As I understand it, it was a late amendment to the budget. That was work that this committee did.
It does look like we're on a bit of a collision course now, which makes it a bit of an unfortunate situation where we may look to a House instruction to have this committee report the bill back to the House. I'd like to avoid that.
This is also some of my favourite work in Ottawa. Of course, I enjoy very much being in my constituency speaking to my constituents, but as work in Ottawa goes, this is my favourite part of the job—and seeing you, Mr. Chair, all the time. You might say, “Gee, Adam, life is short. You'd better get one,” but I do truly enjoy being here.
On the amendment and the subamendment, I think Mr. Ste-Marie was on the right path with respect to engaging other committees. They should be bearing some of the brunt of review of the legislation, because it does touch on a lot of other committee work, potentially, or other committee legislation. I'd like to thank him for his suggestion. Perhaps it was inspired by, or maybe it inspired, the Senate committee, because they are also doing a similar proposal with respect to separating out the bill and sending it to other committees.
On May 4 the Senate committee adopted a resolution. I won't read it word for word, but I will go through some of the highlights. The Senate committee adopted to engage the committee on aboriginal peoples to look at divisions 2 and 3 in part 5; the banking trade and commerce committee to look at divisions 5, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17 and 30 of part 5; foreign affairs and international trade to look at divisions 9, 18 and 31; legal and constitutional affairs to look at divisions 1, 21 and 22 of part 5; national security and defence to look at divisions 19 and 20; and the standing committee on social affairs, science and technology to look at divisions 23, 24, 26, 27, 29 and 32.
This is clearly a fairly substantive bill. We all know that. It's one of the larger bills we've seen. It's not the largest ever, but it is very large. I do think it would be worthy for us to continue to consider that.
The point I would make on the Senate committee motion is that the reports from the other committees need to respond by “no later than June 10”. June 10 is far later than the date that is proposed in the subamendment of, I think, May 20, which is substantially less time than June 10.
I'm not obviously permitted to move an amendment to the subamendment but June 10 sounds like a great day to me, Mr. Chair, for perhaps consideration by my government colleagues. That's where we are with respect to some of the dates. I do think June 10 would give us plenty of time to have the House review the legislation. By the way, the government still holds, in its power, some additional options with respect to House instruction and closure, etc.
I just think I have some challenges in accepting May 20 as the date, in addition to the date of May 30 in the main motion. The issue is that I just feel uncomfortable about agreeing to a set timetable before we've had the benefit of listening to some witnesses. Yes, I know we are delaying getting to some witnesses now, but I don't think we can agree to set a timeline before we hear some of the concerns.
Just in case we don't hear from witnesses, I heard from a few already, stakeholders who are concerned about the bill.
Today representatives from the charity sector visited me. I know we have MP Lawrence here, who is instrumental in a private member's bill, and I'm sure he will speak to that later, so I won't steal much of his thunder other than to say the budget indicated that the budget implementation bill would include the spirit and substance of the private member's bill that had been considered in the House. The view of the charitable sector is that it does not, and in fact it creates some additional concerns that they have. I hope these stakeholders have the ear of our government colleagues and can make some representations to them about how the budget bill would need to be changed. We have some proposed amendments, which, of course, we would be happy to bring forward, but I don't believe the timeline that we've set for ourselves would enable some of these changes to be fully considered, and even put on the floor to amend the budget bill. I think we all know what happens when we get into a situation where we pass legislation very quickly.
I'll let MP Lawrence speak to maybe some other issues in the charitable sector later.
There are proposed amendments with the Competition Act and I did speak about this last meeting, but we're paraphrasing or just summing up that there's a wide view within the competition bar and those impacted by the Competition Act that they were not consulted. In fact, the Senate committee heard from some of them yesterday. Professor Quaid from the University of Ottawa, I believe, said, “It is important to modernize the act. But if we do it poorly and without consideration of the bigger picture as well as the technical issues, we risk simply changing the law without making competition policy any better”.
Benjamin Dachis from the C.D. Howe Institute, a very reputable organization and a reputable fellow, says, “I would say that the government skipped a couple of key steps when the consultation the senator conducted went right to legislation.” That's the consultation that Senator Wetston completed.
There's a lot in between in terms of talking to potentially affected stakeholders, stakeholders who knew they would be affected, but also others who are only going to find out when they start getting class action lawsuits sent their way. There are a lot of implications across the overall economy in areas we know and in areas that we don't have a clue about in the future, and I think many of us agree that the Competition Act, at its base level, needs to be changed.
Oligopolies affect our daily life in many key industries. I think it's welcome to consider how we can change our competition policy to make it better, but those proposed amendments, I think, ought to be consulted on. The benefit is that we have a budget implementation bill coming in the fall. We should consider consulting on those in the summer—not this committee, of course, because we have much other great work to do—but industry, led by Minister Champagne, should be leading a consultation on those proposed amendments before they become law.
Because I'm an equal opportunity offender, it is not the first time that the Competition Act was changed in omnibus legislation without consultation. It happened in 2009 under the previous government. However, there were some slight differences in the context. At the time, that was the largest budget deficit ever brought forward, but that was in the midst of the global economic recession. It was also in the midst of the coalition crisis in 2009. Some may not call it a crisis, but at the time it felt that way. The budget bill was the only opportunity to pass legislation because it was clear that almost no legislation was going to pass the House.
Now we have a little bit of additional time and some certainty. We have a supply and confidence agreement between two parties in the House, which almost guarantees the passing of certain pieces of legislation. It would also guarantee a House instruction.
With respect to the luxury tax, we've already heard witnesses both publicly and privately express some concerns about no economic impact study. The government's admitted it hasn't done as much. It will affect jobs and have some lost revenues. I think we need to figure out how that balances off against what the projected revenue savings are or increase in revenues for the government.
As it goes back to the subamendment of this date of May 20 and also the amendment of the date of May 30, we went back and checked the report stages from previous budget bills. Last year, the budget bill was reported back to the House on June 21. That didn't leave very many days to pass the budget bill, but it did get passed before the House rose. In 2019, the budget bill was reported back on June 5. In 2018, it was reported back on June 4. In 2017, it was reported back on June 6. That's not much longer, but a little bit longer than what we're proposing here.
We're agreeing to a programming motion that's just going to set us on autopilot, regardless of being able to uncover some challenges. It also raises for me that what we are proposing to do is probably not the most efficient way. I think we're probably failing stakeholders and Canadians to some degree.
I don't think it's a surprise to most people, but the pre-budget process that we do has little influence on the actual budget. I mean, we got the pre-budget submission to the Minister of Finance maybe a few weeks before the budget. Most budgets are kind of done and in the can well into January, so I'm not sure much changes then.
Perhaps over the summer, a team-building event would be to figure out how the calendar could work next year, where we perhaps shorten our pre-budget consultation period and figure out how we can devote a significant amount of time to the study of the budget bill, if we're not going to be able to get away from omnibus budget bills. I don't think we are. That's just not the climate we're in now.
I think it was the good suggestion of, I believe, the NDP to support a pre-budget study. I think maybe that should become the norm. We know that these bills are not getting any smaller despite the fact that it was a direct promise of this government not to do omnibus legislation. Maybe we should consider making that commonplace and devote a set amount of time to studying the budget bill, which could be extended on the consent of the committee or by passing an amendment.
There's probably some meeting organization and hygiene we could do to make this place run a little bit better. I'd be in favour of that. I'm not necessarily in favour of fettering all kinds of discretion, but I do think we could come together to do that, perhaps on a consensus basis.
I would point out a quote on omnibus bills: “I'd like to say that I wouldn't use [omnibus bills], period. There will always be big bills, but they need to be thematically and substantively linked in all their different pieces so that they form a piece of legislation. The kitchen-sink approach here is a real worry to me.” For those of you following at home, that was then-member of Parliament for Papineau, Mr. Trudeau, who said he would not use omnibus bills.
In another quote, we have, “This is yet another massive omnibus budget bill, which is 414 pages in length with 516 separate clauses”. Well, this budget bill is 500 pages in length. I don't know how many different clauses there are, but it's significantly larger. It continues, “It is simply too big for Parliament to consider properly in just a short period of time. The [government's] counting on us rushing this through at record speed and they are trying to avoid real scrutiny in this Parliament.” That, my friends, was Scott Brison, excellent member of Parliament Scott Brison. He was responsible for—I see I'm losing some people already, but I think they will return because it's going so well—the SNC scandal, as I understand, but he was right on the money with respect to omnibus legislation.
You know, if we can't get away from omnibus budget bills—and it doesn't look like we can—then maybe we should have more of a rigorous process, or a set agreed-upon process, that would allow committee members to fully scrutinize the bill, to bring forward reasonable amendments and to work with technical stakeholders, especially with respect to some of the tax laws, competition laws—those who live this stuff every day—to help educate us in making sure there are no mistakes.
In fact, this current budget bill we're looking at is fixing some mistakes from previous budget bills, especially with respect to some of the issues around CERB. That's a significant challenge for us. We're being asked to rush something through. At the same time, we know what happens when we don't give ourselves enough time; we end up with some mistakes.
It wasn't until July, from the good work of the NDP in the summer, that we realized we made a mistake with respect to GIS clawbacks. However, it was too late. I submit that had we had a longer time to review that budget legislation last year, the NDP probably would have been able to bring forward their concern sooner. The result and the consequence of that rushed legislation meant we had to spend time, in this committee and in the House of Commons, debating a separate piece of legislation to fix that inequity.
Those are my primary concerns with the dates in the motion. I know there will be some objections to my intervention that will come, obviously, that we are delaying hearing from witnesses. However, we moved last meeting, and I would offer to do so again if it is appropriate, to adjourn this debate to a later time. We can have this discussion later. The government, which has a lot more tools at its disposal, can bring forward other motions at any time or an instruction from the House, if they feel we're not moving it along.
We would welcome moving into witness testimony. I believe it's restrictive on rights of parliamentarians to have such an aggressive timeline without seeing any witnesses and hearing some testimony first.
I know that some will say that a delay will result in a harm to taxpayers because the carbon tax or climate-incentive payments will be delayed. I would caution my government members before they make that assertion, as they did, along with CRA, on the delaying of Bill C-8 as it related to teachers receiving rebates on their taxes. There was a significant amount of misinformation, and dare I say disinformation, because it was knowingly false for government members, and even the CRA, to tell Canadians that they could not administer their taxes because they were waiting for the bill to pass Parliament.
As evidence of that, I would like to point out a couple of points from the CRA directly in recent years.
In 2017, the government made some changes to GST treatment of supplies of naloxone. The CRA responded, “suppliers [could] stop charging GST/HST on supplies of naloxone in accordance with the proposed amendment as of March 22, 2017”, and that the proposed measure was subject to parliamentary approval.
It further advised that “consistent with its standard practice,” it would administer “this measure on the basis of the proposed amendment.” That is, they would administer the tax code on the basis that it was proposed and not passed by Parliament.
Even further, just last year, CRA, I believe in a response to a question in the Senate, responded that, for their part, taxpayers usually chose to self-assess tax and claim benefits on proposed legislation because it might offer more favourable treatment, avoid negative consequences such as liability for interest, ease their compliance burden or any number of other reasons.
In any other words, even though there is no legal requirement to do so, there are good reasons why both taxpayers and the CRA choose to act on the assumption that proposed legislation will eventually be enacted. Any assertion that any delay of either this bill or even C-8 delays the ability for taxpayers to get their money isn't just false. It's intentionally misleading, and there is significant precedent for CRA to administer tax changes before they receive royal assent.
Mr. Chair, as I come to nearing a close, some items I hope the government considers or some things that I would find persuasive would be to align the dates with the Senate study of June 10. Since we have significant changes to the CBCA and the Competition Act, we should invite Minister Champagne to appear before this committee just for an hour. I know he's a busy man, but these are significant changes. I think we should test with him, either at this committee or perhaps at the industry committee, as to why consultation wasn't done, why they feel comfortable this is the right approach, so that he may be held accountable for any of these changes if there are challenges with them in the future.
Finally, I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister would return to this committee and fulfill the inflation study requirement for her to come for three hours to talk about inflation. It is one of the most important issues facing Canadians today. Certainly as a domestic issue it is the most important.
I respect the minister very much. I think we all benefit from having her here at committee. Her presence is always welcome, as well as that of ministers from other departments. I think it helps us do our jobs appropriately. It says lots of great things about ministerial accountability. I will not move a motion, but as inflation is well outside the control range, it might be appropriate to have the minister and the governor return to committee on a very regular basis until we get inflation back under control.
These are some of the concerns I have with the subamendment. If we're open to moving the May 20 date, which is less than two weeks away, to June 10, I could be persuaded to feel comfortable, or more comfortable. The clause-by-clause ending by May 30 is just too aggressive in my view.
Mr. Chair, I am an eternal optimist. Hope springs eternal. I'm hoping for a miracle. I think we can do some great work here. Just in case, I was prepared. My socks have flying pigs on them, so it can happen.
I think we can get to a collaborative approach. I think we could punt this discussion on the timing to a future date. We can hear some witnesses now, and then we can all decide with a little bit more information whether we feel the timeline is too aggressive. I think the government has within its power a lot more flexibility and optionality, especially with the supply and confidence agreement. If it felt that we were not doing proper work or that we were intentionally delaying a bill leaving committee, it could figure out a way to get the bill out of committee. The kind of collision course we're on now is that we're not going to hear from any witnesses despite our liking, at least on this side, to move to that now.
I welcome some of the comments from the government members. I've had a wonderful experience so far in collaboration with them, and we have done some great work.
Even on the Emergencies Act, where other committees got significantly more heated and tense, I thought we kept to the facts very well. I think we could do some great work with stakeholders here.
Mr. Chair, I've gone on almost as long as it seems. Perhaps if the folks outside of this committee could work and collaborate, like we have done in the past, this place might be a bit better for everybody. I have full faith that we can make some progress, and I'm waiting for that to happen. We're here to move on, and hopefully, hear from some witnesses.
I understand these games sometimes get played from time to time. Hearing from some witnesses, doing this right and maybe punting this more difficult discussion for a week for two, might be the best thing for everybody.
Mr. Chair, I'll yield my time to the next speaker on the list. I see a couple of hands up there. I appreciate your allowing me to start again here. That was very kind of you.
If you want to adjourn the debate, we'd be open to that, of course. If not, I'll yield to the next speaker.
Thank you.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you, MP Chambers.
We have MP Dzerowicz, MP Albas and MP Lawrence. I had MP Fast, but I think he has exited the room.
MP Dzerowicz, please go ahead.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I want to make a few short points.
During the last meeting, and this one, thus far, we're hearing very clearly from our Conservative colleagues who have expressed their concerns over the amount of time we have to study this BIA. Unfortunately, as my colleague, Mr. Chambers, just mentioned, we had to cancel our witnesses during the last session, many of whom we were very much looking forward to hearing. We've also had to cancel any witnesses that might have been able to be booked in for this meeting. That's very sad, because we could have already been moving on this BIA study.
We have put forward a proposal that would have seen us have 20 hours of witness testimony. This is in line with our previous study of the BIA, and it's also in line with the amount of time we've spent in the last five years on a BIA study. It allows us for a sufficient amount of time for us to conduct a very full clause-by-clause review.
Monsieur Ste-Marie, our Bloc Québécois colleague, has put forward a really great and thoughtful amendment to give other committees the opportunity to study certain sections of the bill, and we have agreed to it. I believe someone said in our last meeting that politics is the art of compromise. It was a wonderful and thoughtful proposal. It was a much-needed one, given the timing impacts that we have for May and June every single year.
So far, our committee is not able to study this important legislation. These other committees that might already get going, studying different parts of the budget implementation act, are also delayed in getting started in terms of studying the different key sections.
We've made our points. We don't want to keep repeating them. I also believe that the Bloc and the NDP have done an excellent job in making their points.
I really love hearing some of the wonderful suggestions that are coming out. I love the team building event over the summer that Mr. Chambers proposed. I would really like to encourage Conservatives to make their points and to allow this to go to a vote.
We have to vote on a subamendment and a motion. I would encourage us, if we could adjourn debate, to go straight to a vote, so we can get started on this BIA study.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
