Finance Committee on Dec. 9th, 2021

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Yes.

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

I certainly agree. We want jobs for Canadians to be able to work, but we also want to remember that there are Canadians who, for reasons beyond their control, are not able to work, or they've taken their retirement because they worked all their lives. We need to make sure that they're able to continue to live with dignity, whether it's in their retirement or in their adult life when they're not able to have a job.

When we talk about the financially vulnerable, some of those folks are being pursued despite reassurances from government that, if they had applied for the CERB in good faith, they wouldn't be punished. The clawback is one way that's happening.

For instance, I think of the example of kids in Manitoba who were in the foster system and who graduated out of foster care. They were told by the provincial government in Manitoba—I mean, there were no jobs available that summer—“You can't apply for social assistance until you've applied for every other possible form of financial relief and, by the way, here's the website to CERB.” They went, they did what they were told and they applied for that. They weren't eligible, but they were being told that was what they had to do, on pain of not being able to receive any other benefits. Now they're being asked to pay back up to $14,000 to $16,000.

That's why people like those in Campaign 2000 have been calling for a low-income CERB repayment amnesty. It's not something the government has indicated they're prepared to move on, although we believe you should. How much money does the government expect to get back from these financially vulnerable Canadians who clearly don't have the means to pay it back? What is the value in pursuing them if the government isn't going to realize any significant revenue from that?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Look, it's a very good question, and the specific case in Manitoba is a very particular one that I think deserves particular attention.

What I will say about these programs is that they were designed to provide massive broad-based support to millions of people very quickly in an emergency. In delivering the programs, we had to balance two things, and by “we”, I actually mean “we collectively”, because we all did debate them and think about them a lot. We knew we needed to get the support out there really fast, because people were vulnerable, and we couldn't let people lose their homes and we couldn't let people go hungry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Minister, thank you.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Okay. I'll say more next time if you want to talk about it more. I have more to say there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Blaikie.

We are moving into our second round of questions. You will have further opportunities.

We now have the Conservatives and Mr. Poilievre for five minutes.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Thank you.

Minister, will Canada face a housing crash?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

I don't think that it is wise for anyone with economic responsibility to make predictions about what's going to happen, but what I do want to say is that what is very imprudent, and actually very irresponsible, is to speculate—

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

On a point of order, I just want clarification: Is there not a conventional agreement that the length of the answer will be equivalent to the length of the question?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We have to allow the minister the opportunity to answer the question. The minister was answering the question.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

But I had a five-second....

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

I'd like some clarity on that just so that we're all aware of what the conventional agreement would be.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

On a point of order on the point of order, there is usually not a conventional agreement.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

In my years.... I've been here for over 13 years and there actually is a conventional understanding.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

The minister has all the right to answer the question.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

On a point of order, just to be clear on that point, there is a convention. I can quote the great Liberal chair Wayne Easter on that point, who said the following:

...each member is allocated so much time. We will stick to six minutes for the first round and five for the second [round], for questions and answers. As for the process, if there's an eight-second question, we expect the answer to be eight seconds.

That is a convention. It is practised in all committees, including committee of the whole yesterday. Witnesses are entitled to make opening speeches, and then we move to questions.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Chair, can we ask the clerk whether there is a convention here, and whether you can weigh in?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

It is to the chair's discretion.

I would say, Minister, that you have the right to answer the question.

A question could be asked in two seconds or three seconds, and that will not give sufficient time to answer the question. Allow the minister to answer the question.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

The minister, I guess, has given her answer.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

I actually wasn't finished. I was cut off, in fact.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

All right.

The question was whether she thinks there will be a housing crash.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Let me just say that I think it is really incumbent on everyone in this committee.... We're all members of Parliament. We have a higher responsibility as members of the finance committee. To speculate irresponsibly and to make assertions that could damage confidence in the Canadian economy is highly irresponsible.

Let me just assure Canadians that our banks are very, very stable. Our government took measures last summer to further stabilize the housing market and to ensure that Canadians were not taking undue risk. OSFI did the same thing.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Is our housing market stable today?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

As I said, I have great confidence in Canada's regulators. I have great confidence in OSFI.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Is it stable?