Finance Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2022

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

We can talk about process and about the subamendment. We are being asked as a committee to set aside the regular process that we typically follow with legislation and do the government a favour by allowing a prestudy. That's what the motion's about and that's what this subamendment is about.

The point that some of us are making on this side is that if the government would like a favour from the committee, it should be willing to compromise on a few points. It seemed like we were making some progress for a brief period of time, but not enough to avoid the situation we're currently in.

If the government would like a favour, it should be prepared to compromise. I think it's completely on the same point to outline what that compromise is, but maybe the government doesn't want Canadians to know the compromise that it's not willing to accept. That's okay.

We can do this until the bill gets referred to the committee and go along with the regular process. It seems like that's the path we're on now, but if the government's looking to fast-track the legislation, it's not accomplishing its goal. It could easily accomplish the goal. We have a reasonable deal to get this done.

Again, the government is expecting this committee to set aside the way it generally deals with legislation to advance its legislative agenda. That's fair enough, but if it's asking for a favour, it should be prepared to do one in return. I think it's completely reasonable.

I will likely have more to say afterward, but I appreciate the opportunity to start this meeting. I would probably recommend that at some point during the meeting, we allow members to convene for a moment to see if there's any movement. If not, that's okay, but we should at least provide the opportunity for the parliamentary secretary and others to get together. Unfortunately, they didn't have a subcommittee meeting this week.

I appreciate the interventions on my colleague's point, but I think it drives this bigger issue home, which is that we're debating a motion in which the government is asking us to set aside the typical protocol. On that basis, we're asking for something in return, or a couple of things or even something small. If you don't like the compromise, come up with another solution, but if you say you're not going to compromise on anything, I guess we could stay here for a while.

Maybe I'll return and Zoom in, so that I can be comfortable at home.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Chambers.

I have MP Lawrence, MP Morantz, MP Beech and MP Chatel.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Perfect.

Mr. Chair, could you tell us how long we can run this meeting until tonight?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I believe we have two hours of resources.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

For the folks at home—of course in the House of Commons I can't do this, but in committee I am more than within my rights to do this—there are no Liberals other than the chair in this room right now. We, as Conservatives, stand ready to negotiate, but it's impossible to negotiate with someone who won't even get in the same room with you.

This is an embarrassment for democracy. Really, shame on you. Shame on you for not coming into the room with us.

We stand here ready to negotiate. We're ready to talk about the amendments. We're even willing to perhaps go forward with a prestudy, but we need a partner. We need someone who is willing to talk to us and who's willing to be in the same room as us.

When we look at this, it appears to me that without.... I don't think this is telling any tales out of school. I think this has been pretty open. With regard to going forward with a prestudy, this government's—these Liberals'—main objection is accountability. They don't want transparency. The deputy leader doesn't want to appear in front of the finance committee. Let's call a spade a spade. This is more hiding.

It doesn't matter to me personally or to parliamentarians, but we represent the Canadian people. Democracy, at its very heart, is about being transparent. This government was supposed to be open by default.

Now, when it comes to the legislation they put forward, they literally will not even get in the same room as us. We stand here more than willing and ready to negotiate; they stand here as obstructionists. In fact, they don't even stand here. I don't know where they are. I suspect they are in their offices in Parliament. They could walk down right now and be here in the next ten minutes, willing to negotiate and talk to us, but instead they stand hiding in their offices, unwilling to come down, negotiate and talk with us.

While Conservatives continue to stand for Canadians and are willing to talk, really with arms open, they are holed up in their offices literally five minutes from here. I think the Justice Building—

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Go ahead on the point of order.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

If we were willing to move, I would be very happy to indeed start to work as Canadians want us to work. Why don't we vote on the motion and get the work done?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

It is not a point of order, MP Chatel.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Chair, that was a little harsh.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

[Inaudible—Editor] into the record. I did see within the motion that the deputy prime minister is asked to appear in this motion.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

I don't want to go too far in negotiations because I don't want to breach any confidence we have with other bills or with the NDP, but as I said, I don't think it would be telling tales out of school, and I don't think Mr. Beech or Mr. Blaikie would disagree with me, that a large part of the reason why we can't go ahead right now is a question of the availability of the deputy leader over and above what is in that particular motion.

As I said, I do not want to go too much...I want to maintain that confidence with the Liberals and with the NDP, but to say I'm disappointed is more or less.... Also, I don't think I'd be truthful and honest if I didn't thank the NDP for some excellent efforts in trying to broker a deal here, but here we stand in the room with the wonderful member from the Bloc Québécois and the terrific member from the NDP and without a Liberal in the room. I think many things can be taken from their lack of presence here as to the type of meeting they were intending on having.

I can tell you that in all good faith and reason, Conservatives stand ready to negotiate, to move forward and to work on the people's business, but that is extremely challenging to do without your negotiating partner even bothering to walk the 10 minutes from the Justice or Confederation buildings.

Let's look at the fall economic statement. Let's look at why we want the Governor of the Bank of Canada here and why we want the deputy leader in charge of finance here. We'll go back seven years, to when this government came to power and told us a couple of things.

One, they told us that they—the Liberals—would be “open by default”. They also told us that they were going to be there to help the middle class and those attempting to join it.

Here's where we are with that right now. We have seen a government that has been plagued by scandal. Hardly a year, if not a month, goes by without some type of scandal involving this government, whether it be the SNC-Lavalin affair....

The SNC-Lavalin affair is actually very instructive as to why Conservatives might want to do their democratic duty and their due diligence and review this document, because hidden in what I believe was budget omnibus legislation was the deferred prosecution agreement. Not one parliamentarian, including anyone from our party—to take full responsibility—was able to uncover that. It wasn't until Jody Wilson-Raybould courageously stood up to the Prime Minister against his efforts to potentially direct an investigation, of course, that it really came to light. That's why it's absolutely critical that these documents.... I mean, these documents are billions of dollars, and they have tremendous impact.

I've never really understood why we need to rush these documents down, because they can often cause much harm. We've actually seen this quite a bit with Liberal legislation that has been poorly drafted. They've had to go back and redraft and reset it because it doesn't work.

Of course, the other scandal, a major scandal, was with respect to WE Charity. We saw a company where the government attempted to give them $800 million, nearly a billion dollars, and the reality was that this company actually gave the Trudeau family hundreds of thousands of dollars. We still really haven't gotten to the bottom of that.

Then we look at—

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I have a point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I see a point of order.

Is that MP Baker?

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

It is.

Once again, I believe that the rules of the committee require members to debate the issue at hand. Just as a reminder, the issue at hand is the motion by Mr. Beech, amended by me, which you read out earlier. I don't believe the member opposite is speaking to the issue at hand.

If they're not willing to debate the issue at hand, then we should put it to a vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Okay. Thank you, MP Baker.

Yes, if we could, let's stick to the motion as amended, Mr. Lawrence.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Thank you very much. I'll continue to do that.

With regard to the WE scandal, the challenge is that we saw a lack of transparency. Then we, of course, saw the numerous other scandals along the way that have really impeded the credibility and trust of the Liberals as we go forward.

I take your point, Mr. Chair and Mr. Baker, with respect to what we want, of course. However, I think the critical part of what I'm trying to say is that we're trying to put this all in context as to why we might want to have the deputy leader, the finance minister, and the Governor of the Bank of Canada in to talk about inflation.

Seven years ago, this government came in saying, “We're here. Canada is back. We're going to be fighting for the middle class.” Well, let's look at what has happened since then.

We had $100 billion of deficit spending before COVID ever hit our shores. That's $100 billion. At the time, the Prime Minister said that there would be a tiny, tiny, small deficit that you would barely even notice was there. I think the max was to be $10 billion. Of course, that blew up to over $100 billion in deficit spending.

Because of that, they had fiscal fireworks. Their then Minister of Finance, who was taken down over the WE scandal, which I talked about earlier, didn't have his much-proclaimed fiscal firepower.

As I said, the government really only has, then, three ways of raising money.

One way of raising money is with direct taxation. It goes out there, and it taxes people. Well, Canadians are already heavily taxed. Some of the highest taxes in the world are paid here in Canada. It was limited then, during the break of COVID, of course. Everyone was in a difficult time. The economy was in a slowdown. That wasn't really a realistic option for the government.

The other option it could go with is to borrow the money. I don't know if that was explored or not. I sort of assume it wasn't—or not to any great extent—because what it chose to do was the third path, which is quantitative easing. It is the sale and purchase of bonds by the government. It really equates to the printing of money. The more you print money.... The reality is that we get inflation.

We're going back now to the fall economic statement and to discussions about having the finance minister and the deputy leader, Ms. Freeland, be here. It's critical to understand where the inflation came from.

It's clear. Mark Carney and Tiff Macklem agree that the inflation came from these Liberals. It is a Canadian-made phenomenon.

We just had inflation, again, staying stubbornly high. That inflation hits the middle class and, even more than that, the people who are attempting to join the middle class. Those who are at the lower end of the economic spectrum are getting obliterated. They are getting absolutely hurt by inflation. We had a record high number of Canadians attend food banks in March 2022. It hit 1.5 million Canadians, a third of whom were children. That's 500,000 kids. That's the impact.

To this day, it boggles my mind. I don't believe the Prime Minister has ever apologized for these comments when he said, “I don't think about monetary policy.” He said that right before we came into one of the worst monetary crises of my lifetime. In at least 40 years, it hasn't been that high.

Here we have the leader of a G7 country, one who's trying to cast himself as the dean of the G7. In one of the most significant economic issues of our times, he says right before it happens that he doesn't think about monetary policy.

Well, as I said in the House, that is relatively obvious.

However, the monetary policy is having a real impact on Canadians. It's not just numbers, spreadsheets or things that are studied at the finance committee. It is children who go hungry at night. It is kids. It is parents who can't afford winter clothes for their kids. It has a huge, huge impact.

Quite frankly, it is so crocodile-tears and disingenuousness when the Liberals get up and say, well, the Conservatives didn't support this program; they don't have a heart. Do you know what doesn't have a heart? It's sitting there and watching inflation get higher and higher and higher. It's watching young adults be unable to afford a house. It's watching parents be unable to feed their children, and not doing anything.

When it comes to the fall economic statement, I've been in the discussions and have heard some of the debate, but I have not heard how it's going to combat inflation. What part of that combats inflation? What part of that is going to bring down inflation? The cause or the disease is inflation, but the symptoms are the affordability crisis. I don't see how this is possibly going to impact the affordability of this.

As I've said before with respect to the fall economic statement, not one of my constituents was saying, “You know what we really need, Phil? What we need, Mr. Lawrence, is a 2% tax on share buybacks.” The idea of that, of course, is that corporations won't release as much money, they'll invest more money in capital, and that will affect the affordability crisis sometime in maybe 2070. As I said before, I wait to hear from the economists on the actual impact. I have some skepticism as to whether a 2% tax will really make that dramatic an impact on the capital.

I do have some ideas, while my colleagues are attentive and listening, about how we could do that. What could have been included in the fall economic statement is a responsible industrial strategy that would have promoted innovation and productivity. These Liberals have driven down productivity and innovation. They also came into office saying “we believe in science” and “we believe in innovation and productivity”. I remember that the early-edition Liberals, the Paul Martin Liberals, had some pretty aggressive policies on driving innovation and productivity. Unfortunately, these Liberals seem not to be interested in economic growth.

I actually asked the deputy finance minister whether he thought economic growth was important. He agreed with me 110% that it is important. But with these Liberals, you don't get the idea that.... Like, what's the big idea that came from this fall economic statement? What is this idea that's going to drive the Canadian economy into the next century? We have real problems, because these Liberals have hurt our productivity. We have the average Canadian earning per hour of GDP about $50. In the U.S. it's $65. In Ireland it's around $80. In Switzerland it's even higher than that. There's a direct correlation there with how people live, because wages are directly impacted. In fact, if you look at all those countries, they rank in the same place with respect to real wages.

This fall economic statement could have been a real opportunity to grow the economy, not just for the short term but for the long term. We have so many out-of-date income tax and regulatory provisions that this fall economic statement could have addressed. Just on this committee alone, we have some great minds and some folks who have incredible history with tax policies. Why were they not put to work during this fall economic statement? Why were some of their ideas not captured on that? We would take a big swing at taking Canada into owning the next century.

It used to be that we would have leaders who would really carry that torch forward. People like Wilfrid Laurier and others had brave and bold pronouncements on what the future of Canada would be, not just half measures or measures that don't affect the near term and that don't affect the long term. Instead, we just have more of the same.

Here are a couple of other things that we could have put in the fall economic statement that I think would have made life better for Canada.

We could have affected the cost of gas, home heating and groceries. How could we have done that? Well, we could have reduced the taxation of fuel, because whether it be fossil fuels or otherwise, they are driving the costs in all of our economy.

Even if you don't want to access the tax, even if you don't want to get rid of the carbon tax, for whatever ideological purpose.... Clearly, it hasn't accomplished its objective. We were number 58 out of 63 in the recent COP report. This tax policy is a failure as an environmental policy, I think, and clearly, if we've been driven down to 58 out of 63.... Candidly, the Harper government had a much better record on emissions than the Trudeau government. That's just the fact. Without the carbon tax, we did better fighting emissions than we have done with the carbon tax.

Even if you were a diehard believer in the carbon tax and your ideology trumped all common sense and pragmatism, we would have thought there maybe could have been an opportunity to pause the carbon tax just until inflation returned to within the 1% to 3% target range. We just give Canadians that little bit of break. It's going to cost Canadians who have oil heating, just in my riding, $5,000 to $10,000 to heat their homes—and I hear from my east coast fellows and women that it will be even more. This is a huge amount of money. If they have a mortgage, their interest rates have gone up. If they're renting, if they can even find a rental, because the occupancy rate is about 99.5% or so in my riding.... That basically means there are no rental properties available. If they were able to get a mortgage, that means they're now paying more if they had a variable rate, or they will at some point when they renew. Life is getting much tougher for Canadians because of this.

Then we see in this fall economic statement that they basically predict a recession. In talking to the officials, they gave us a quarterly breakdown. In that breakdown, there were not two negative quarters. That much is true. There was one negative quarter and one at 0.0%. That's cutting it pretty fine. It's almost like they engineered that, so there wasn't a forecasted recession.

We have this recession on the horizon. We have high interest rates. We have high inflation. I think a reasonable option would have been to at least pause the carbon tax, if they didn't want to eliminate the carbon tax altogether.

Let's see if we can take a further step back there and say that this carbon tax, this tax policy, is a signature piece; that, and legalizing marijuana of the last seven years; that, and high inflation and high deficits. They could have said, “We as Liberals don't want to give that piece up. We're going to be blinded by our ideology. Maybe we could just reduce the HST on home heating fuel”. Would that not be a reasonable solution to give Canadians a break?

They could have included that—a very small amount that wouldn't have cost the treasury a very large amount, but would have provided some really meaningful relief to Canadians. I can tell you why they didn't do it. They want power. They want the money to come to Ottawa so that they can control it, so they can give it out and take credit for it. Quite frankly, it's so sad watching the Liberals pat themselves on the back for taking Canadians' money and giving it to other Canadians. They didn't earn that money. They didn't make that money. That was earned in Orono. That was earned in Brighton. That was earned in Campbellford. When that money comes back, it's never the same amount that was given in. I'll give you an example of that.

There was over $200 billion in non-COVID-19-related deficit spending. That equates to about $5,000 for every woman, man and child in Canada—or $20,000 for a family. I defy any of these members of the committee to point to someone in their riding who had twenty thousand dollars' worth of non-COVID-19-related benefit from this federal government over the last couple of years. That don't exist. The government is inefficient at allocating those resources.

It makes more sense, instead of taking money, giving it to Ottawa bureaucrats and then having it redistributed in accordance with Liberal ideology, to just leave that money in the pockets of Canadians.

We said okay, we won't cut the carbon tax. We won't pause the carbon tax. We won't cut the GST. We won't pause the GST on home heating as we did in the winter. How about this, then? We would stretch that compromise even further. How about you just remove the GST on the carbon tax? Just the GST on the carbon tax. Why could we not have put that in the fall economic statement?

It was amazing to me. At the agriculture committee I was asking a Finance department official about the GST on the carbon tax. He said to me that no, the GST wasn't on the carbon tax. He didn't even know the fact that they charge a tax on a tax. Of course, some weeks or months later, we got a letter in a very wordy [Inaudible—Editor] type of style saying, absolutely, you were right—but never an apology. It's not for an apology to me—I've got broad shoulders—but how about to the Canadians who were watching or the Canadians they misled? They should give an apology that perhaps a Finance official should know whether tax is charged on tax or not—whether the GST is charged on carbon tax.

It can be small amounts. If you live in downtown Toronto, people like the finance minister and you all have access to a chauffeur and all of that good stuff, or public transit, it may be a small amount. Now, if you're a farmer living in Saskatchewan or in [Inaudible—Editor] Ontario, it actually can be quite a large amount.

When my PMB, which has now moved on to Ben Lobb's PMB, which I believe just got through committee.... I was getting receipts all the time for thousands of dollars, not just for the carbon tax but actually the GST on the carbon tax, a tax on a tax.

The wild part about that is when I asked the officials why they charge GST on the carbon tax, their only answer was that it's easier to do it that way. I don't think that's a good enough answer. In a digital era, where we can make huge and difficult calculations of millions of different transactions in splits of a second, I think the federal government should be more than capable of being able to not charge the GST on the carbon tax if they chose not to.

Now we've got the carbon tax, we've got inflation, we've got interest rates, all of these things are piling up on Canadians. I think one of the critical pieces that we're also facing right now is a labour shortage in our economy. It would make sense to me—and I'm just a simple guy from rural Ontario—that if you want more of something, you incentivize it. You encourage it. You don't disincentivize it.

We need more labour, so part of that is, of course, about having a fully functional and well-working, well-oiled immigration system so that we can bring newcomers over and get them into our economy and working at a high rate. We definitely need newcomers to add that extra labour to our economy. Anyone who has a constituency office—I'm sure all 338 of us—has struggled with the immigration office as people are desperately trying to be reunified with family members they haven't seen for years. I have gone through boxes of Kleenex hearing the horrible stories of families being disunited. Also, there's the economic impact of people who want nothing more, and they have tremendous skills.

I was talking to one individual and he's an IT gentleman from another country and he wants to come to our country. He's working on technology that could be worth millions and billions to the Canadian economy, that could be worth thousands of jobs, but do you think the immigration system can get him in to Canada? No.

I have another individual who is a great doctor in one of our communities. His only request, so he can continue to be a doctor, is his wife being allowed to come to his country. He's been waiting two years for his wife to be given permission to come to Canada. He's now threatening...saying, “I can't do this anymore. I can't live without my wife and children for this long”, all because the immigration system is breaking.

The other part of this is, we need to encourage folks who already live in our country to be as productive as they can and, quite frankly, reward them. I am particularly thinking about seniors. Many seniors, because of inflation and other reasons, are being forced back into the labour market, even if they don't want to be, because they can't afford it. If they are at the lower end of the economic spectrum, perhaps they aren't receiving a huge CPP cheque and only have OAS and GIS. They are facing a nearly dollar-for-dollar clawback on their return to work.

I don't think any Canadian should ever be in the position of being worse off for going to work. I believe that workers should be celebrated, venerated and rewarded, and that no Canadian should be disincentivized to go to work. I know Canadians. We're hard-working people. Even if we are disincentivized, we'll still go to work, because we know it's the right thing to do. The fact that the government would disincentivize that.... The Prime Minister once famously said something to the effect that people lower on the economic spectrum don't pay taxes, and that's just untrue.

Mr. Chair, I'll raise this rhetorically; you can't answer, because I have the floor. I suppose you could, but no one else could, I guess. The personal exemption is $14,000 in Canada. That means if you earn more than $14,000, you start paying federal income tax. When we talk about all these great benefits for Canadians.... Why don't we just stop taking as much money as we do from Canadians? Why do we start taxing people at $14,000? Does that not seem a bit low to people here? We then add the GIS clawback for seniors. Very modest-income Canadians can be facing tax rates of 40% or 50%.

I get it. If you were found guilty of tax evasion in the Panama papers, we should throw the book at you. There's no doubt that every Canadian should pay their fair share of taxes. I'm sure there's some reason why—it has to be going on close to a decade, now, since the Panama papers came out—we haven't charged one individual. We haven't collected one dollar from the folks who were called out in the Panama papers. I'm sure there's some reason why we're taxing the single mom starting at $14,000, but the billionaire or trillionaire who has offshore assets, and who was called out in the Panama papers, is still not facing any type of prosecution.

The CRA was, I remember, quite ably questioned by Mr. Peter Julian of the NDP. The CRA was asked numerous times how many dollars...how many people have been charged, and the answer was, over and over again, none. We would then hear some more word salad from the CRA, saying, “Well, it's complicated. It's difficult. There are different things we're looking at. You don't necessarily understand that.” Well, I do understand and, to me, it's incredibly inequitable.

Like I said, we start taxing hard-working Canadians at $14,000 for federal income tax. That's not even taking into account HST and other environmental fees and taxes. There's the carbon tax, as well, which Canadians are facing. It seems so hypocritical when I hear the Liberals get up in the House and other places and say, “We have Canadians' backs.” No, you have Canadians' wallets and you're giving a bit of that money back and expecting to be patted on the shoulder while you, all the while, take more power and get ready to sprinkle the money you collected from other Canadians right before an election.

I think I might take a brief rest, but my colleagues can rest assured. I know they're eager to hear more. I have.... I could talk for days about this, I guess. I am more than willing to talk this out, but maybe, if they wanted to be in the room with us, perhaps we could have some productive negotiation, get on with this and move forward. It's clear that all the Conservatives are in the room, ready to negotiate, ready to talk, and all the Liberals aren't here. You can judge from that.

I'll just take a brief respite, and I look forward to hearing my colleagues talk.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Lawrence.

I have MP Morantz, MP Beech and MP Chatel.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The motion that we are debating in this meeting.... By the way, I have to say it is kind of surreal. I'm looking across the room—for all those who might be watching the live feed—and there are nine empty chairs where the Liberals normally sit. It is too bad that they're not here so that we could try to get on with the important study of the fall economic statement.

Having said that, the motion that's before us, I want to read it into the record again in case some people might have just tuned in since it was read in last time and did not have the opportunity to hear what it is that we're discussing. The motion says:

That the Chair schedule meetings to initiate a pre-study on the Act to implement certain provisions of the fall Economic Statement and that the first meeting takes place on Monday, November 14, 2022, should legislation be presented in the House by that time and, that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance be invited to appear with her officials on the bill; that all evidence gathered as part of the pre-study be considered as evidence in the committee's full study of the bill; and, should the bill be referred to the committee by Thursday, November 24, 2022: a. Clause-by-clause study of the bill commence no later than Wednesday, November 30, 2022; b. Amendments to the bill be submitted by 5:00 p.m. EST Thursday, November 24, 2022; c. and that the committee immediately proceed to this study and hear from officials from the Department of Finance.

There are really two parts to this motion, from what I can see. The first part relates a prestudy. I think I'll talk about that part first.

The very first line says “That the Chair schedule meetings”. One of the pet peeves I have with the motion is how imprecise it is. This is a bill that, by all accounts from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, increases spending by at least $50 billion over the next five years, and yet it just says “meetings”. It's very open-ended. It doesn't say how many meetings. Is it one meeting? Is it five meetings? When are the meetings going to be? It just doesn't tell us. It's hard to vote for something when you don't know what you're voting for, Mr. Chair.

It goes on to say, “should the legislation be presented in the House by that time, and that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance”. Just so those who are watching understand, that is one person. It's Minister Freeland, and she holds both of those positions. She is both the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance. I'm just saying that, because I don't want anyone who happens to be watching to think that we're talking about two separate people. It's only one person we're inviting to come before the committee.

It goes on to say “with her officials”, but it does not say for how long the minister is invited to appear or even how many times, how many meetings she will attend. Will she be here for 15 minutes, 60 minutes, an hour or maybe a couple of different meetings for an hour or more? There's lack of clarity in the motion. It's just astounding.

It even goes further. It says she's invited to appear “with her officials”, but, again, it doesn't tell us which officials. We have no idea who is going to be appearing before the committee, because the motion just says “her officials”. We don't know who they're going to be or who she might bring. When I'm voting for something, I certainly would like to know what it is that I'm voting for, but I can't tell, because the motion doesn't give that information.

Just on the face of it, the first part of the motion around the prestudy is so vague and imprecise that it would be hard to support under any circumstances.

The second part deals with a situation where we're out of the prestudy. What's supposed to happen, just to clarify it for those people who are watching, the normal process, is that a bill is debated in the House of Commons and as many MPs as want to get up to speak to it. In fact, there are people speaking on the bill all this week.

I spoke on Monday night about Bill C-32, but once that's done, there's a vote in the House. If it passes in the House, then it is referred to committee. The second part of the motion that we're talking about right now talks about that event: “should the bill be referred to the committee by Thursday, November 24”.

By the way, I just want to backtrack to the first part of the motion. I forgot to mention something.

I also find it interesting that we're not inviting other ministers. For example, given the increases in revenue that are set forth in the tables of the fall economic statement and the commensurate increases in spending and the increase in our debt, which is now $1.2 trillion, I thought it would have been a nice idea if the motion had actually included an invitation to the Minister of National Revenue.

Certainly, the Minister of National Revenue is an important piece to this study, I believe, but it would be easier to discuss this if our Liberal colleagues were actually in the room. They're on a TV monitor right now. They're not really available. In any event, hopefully, in the next meeting they will actually be here.

Why not the Minister of National Revenue? We could ask her all kinds of questions. How much additional personal income tax revenue is she anticipating on an annualized basis, year over year, between 2022-23 and 2027-28? We could ask her how much of an increase in corporate tax revenue the agency is considering over that period of time.

We could ask her how much additional revenue—this would be very interesting information to have—if she were invited to appear, as to, for example, how much additional revenue the tripling of the carbon tax is going to generate and whether or not, as the government says, Canadians will in fact be made whole. There's obviously a big question as to whether the amount of carbon tax Canadians are paying is actually commensurate with the rebates they're getting. We could ask her about the GST as well and what the forecasts are around GST revenues.

At the end of the day, whatever you want to call it, the fall economic statement or a mini-budget, it's a spending bill. It's a money bill. I think it's just insufficient to have just the Minister of Finance. In fact, you could have other ministers appear. For example, the fall economic statement talks about the creation of a Canadian innovation and investment agency. I'm not sure which minister would be overseeing that particular agency, but it would be interesting to hear from those ministers.

Again, the motion itself is just so vague and ambiguous it's impossible to vote for, because we just don't know exactly what it is that we're voting for.

Going to the second part of the motion, again, this is the part that the House has now debated. Every member of Parliament has done their duty in the House. If they wanted to speak to the bill, they've done so, and the House actually voted. The House voted to refer it to committee. That's not a sure thing either. I realize the NDP is propping up the Liberals right now, but stranger things have happened. I remember very well—I was 17 years old—when Joe Clark's government fell on a budget bill, in I think November of 1979, and they didn't expect it.

I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that this fall economic statement would pass the House. I don't want to prejudge the will of Parliament, but that's what this motion does as well. It prejudges the will of Parliament by asking for a prestudy. In any event, as Conservatives, we're willing to consider a prestudy, but again, the motion is so ambiguous it's hard to know exactly what that prestudy would entail.

Again, this bill assumes a lot. It's assuming that the House has now passed it, but okay, so be it. The bill is now before the committee.

Then the motion goes on to say in point a. that “Clause-by-clause study of the bill commence no later than Wednesday, November 30”. Well, this is November 16, and this is a massive spending bill at a time.... The point has already been made. We asked the government not to increase spending and not to increase taxes, and they did both of those things.

Given the magnitude of spending, the increases in tax, the share buyback tax and all these things, I'm not sure that November 30 gives us enough time.

As I said, there are a number of ministers who really ought to come before the committee so that we can ask questions of them. There are other expert witnesses who can testify to the economic considerations around the passage of the fall economic statement by this committee and what amendments we might consider.

I am not really convinced that November 30 gives us enough time.

As I said, there is at least $50 billion in new spending. The fall economic statement bumps up the deficit to over $1.2 trillion, so this is not a matter to be taken lightly.

I don't know why this motion wants to.... I fear that in its haste, we might miss important information that would inform us on how we should vote on such an important matter.

We then have b., which says that “Amendments to the bill be submitted by 5:00 p.m....Thursday, November 24, 2022”. That's even sooner. Again, I'll say—and I want to make sure that I am speaking directly to the motion—this is the 16th. I don't know how we could possibly hear from all the different ministers and witnesses we would need to hear from before that time to have well-considered amendments proposed to the bill, which hasn't even passed the House yet.

It then says, “and that the committee immediately proceed to this study and hear from officials from the Department of Finance.” Again, I get back to the same point I made earlier on the first part of the motion, which is, which officials? Who are they sending? It would be helpful to know, so that we could prepare our questions in advance and we could potentially ask for other officials, for example, from the CRA.

Why is it just officials from the Department of Finance? Why wouldn't the Minister of National Revenue come with her officials as well? Given the magnitude of the spending and taxation in the bill, I am dumbfounded, frankly, as to why the Minister of National Revenue is not being invited.

There are a number of problems with the bill.

The fall economic statement was just introduced by the minister on November 3. I think it's important, because a lot of times, people don't realize that there is correspondence that goes back and forth between the leader of our party and the Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister.

Our leader sent a letter to the Minister of Finance on October 30, which was four days before the introduction of the fall economic statement. In that letter, he set out some very important concepts.

I'm going to take just a minute. It's not very long. It's about a page and a half. I'm going to read it into the record, Mr. Chair, because I think it's going to be very important to have this information on the record, so that we can properly consider how we might move forward with this matter.

It's dated October 30 and it's addressed to the Honourable Chrystia Freeland, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance of the House of Commons.

It says:

Dear Minister Freeland,

Canadians are struggling. Many are barely hanging on. This week's fall economic statement comes at a critical moment. As leader of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition, I write to make clear our expectations from the statement.

But first, let's assess the situation we're in, and how we got here.

Inflation is at a 40-year high. Interest rates are increasing at the fastest rate in decades. The cost of government is driving up the cost of living. Justin Trudeau's inflationary deficits, to the tune of half a trillion dollars, have sent more dollars chasing fewer goods. This bids up the goods we buy and the interest we pay. Inflationary taxes increase the cost of making those goods. The more government spends the more things cost. Justin Trudeau has doubled Canada's debt and added more debt than all other Canadian Prime Ministers combined.

Paycheques don’t go as far as they used to. Canadians are cutting their diets. We recently learned that Canadians visited food banks 1.5 million times in a single month. That’s a 35% increase since 2019. Mothers are putting water in their children’s milk because they cannot afford 10% yearly food inflation. Seniors can’t afford to heat their homes, and winter is coming. Home prices have doubled, so 35-year-olds live in parents’ basements. According to Bloomberg, Canada has the second most inflated housing bubble in the world. Monthly payments on mortgages are rising even as house prices are dropping. Canadians are out of money. Consumer debt has skyrocketed. Rising interest rates caused by inflationary deficits means that this debt costs even more now.

The bubble is finally bursting and the bill is finally coming due. For years my warnings that out-of-control spending would balloon inflation, and then interest rates, were ignored. Now in a leaked letter the government seems to agree with me. Even the Prime Minister now talks of “fiscal responsibility.”

If the reversal is sincere, there is one way to prove it: stop.

...Stop the taxes: No new taxes. This includes canceling all planned tax hikes. Cancel the tripling of the carbon tax.

...Any new spending by ministers must be matched by an equivalent saving.

I look forward to reading the fall economic statement this week, Minister Freeland.

It's signed by the Honourable Pierre Poilievre, Leader of the Official Opposition.

What's interesting, now that I think about it, is that there was never a letter sent in reply from the Minister of Finance to the Leader of the Opposition, which would have been a nice courtesy.

Now, the reason I read the letter into the record is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying is that, basically, it was increasing the money supply and massive deficit spending that really caused inflation. Taxes just make things even more expensive. That was the medicine he prescribed to the Minister of Finance. They're very reasonable suggestions. Most average Canadians, average middle-class Canadians and those working hard to join the middle class, I think would agree that those are very reasonable suggestions. Of course, it's the middle class and those who are working hard to join it who are the most disappointed people in this country right now because of how this government has managed their hard-earned tax dollars.

Mr. Chair, there is so much to say about this. I would like to say more, but I think I will cede the floor at this time. I'll ask to be put back on the speaking list so that I'll have the opportunity to revisit this issue and bring forward sofme other important revelations with respect to Bill C-32 that I really believe need to be put on the record at this very important time.

Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chair. I cede the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Morantz.

Now we will hear from Parliamentary Secretary Beech, and from MP Chatel after that.

Parliamentary Secretary Beech, please go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's good to see everyone. I do want to thank all members involved for many conversations that have happened over the last number of days.

The motion on the floor with regard to the FES and the amendment is an original motion that was brought out almost two weeks ago. All the Liberal members of course are here at committee and are ready to work. I understand that the Conservatives would like an audience for their current acts of obstruction of the democratic process. I mean, this is the third day...or two days and a partial day of Conservative filibuster on this.

We've had consistent discussions on a path forward. I think my colleagues will recognize that my response time has been generally within minutes, if not seconds, for people reaching out to me during this particular discussion.

We did actually get to a solution and then it was reneged upon. For any objective observer of the discussion, when the government side has moved, I would say, 99% of the way, the Conservatives have not moved at all—not an inch. This mirrors the obstructive behaviour we've seen in the House of Commons.

In fact, we got to a point where we agreed with all of the Conservative priorities all the way through Christmas, including the minister arriving and testifying, the governor of the Bank of Canada, other legislative priorities, private member's bills and the like.

I don't think any objective observer of the discussion.... I don't want to get into more details of that and I hope that members feel that this synopsis is respectful of our discussions, without me getting into too many details.

I do want to assure my colleagues on the other side who may not have been directly involved every step of the way that we continue to be open and reasonable. We do have a need to continue with government business. There is the important legislation, which has been talked about briefly although not thoroughly summarized. There are time-sensitive measures in there like the recovery dividend and interest on student loans. Those will have a tremendous impact if the Conservatives are successful at continuing to obstruct and to hold up study. They will also be the first ones, if we ever get to study the fall economic statement, to talk about how there isn't enough time to study it despite the fact that we've lost at least two full days and a partial day and potentially other time during the constituency week that we could have worked.

I just wanted to take this time to get our defence on the record. I still have all of my communication devices in front of me. I'm still available for any discussions they want to continue, but every notion that I have seen thus far is that there doesn't appear to be a path forward.

I look forward to continuing to hear from my Conservative colleagues.... I don't look forward to.... I do look genuinely look forward to hearing all their thoughts on the fall economic statement, but not under the current pretenses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I have MP Chatel.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm new to politics, and this is the first time I've experienced this type of filibustering. I was ready to work with my fellow members on the 2022 fall economic statement, so it's very disappointing that I can't do that.

I know that my fellow member Mr. Beech has worked incredibly hard to find a solution that would satisfy the Conservative members. Being new to the world of politics, I'd like to speak from the standpoint of ordinary Canadians, if I may. I'm not like the new Conservative leader, who has been politicking since he hit puberty and is well versed in political games. I am here to stand up for Canadians who are struggling right now, and I genuinely believe that many of my fellow members, including in the Conservative Party and the Bloc Québécois, feel the same way. We've all spoken to a lot of people in our ridings, so we know what a hard time they are having.

The 2022 fall economic statement contains very important measures, so the committee needs to be able to study the implementation bill, speak with department officials and pass the bill.

This filibustering is wasting the committee's time. I should point out that this tactic goes back to ancient Rome. It was used in Julius Caesar's day. Naturally, I understand the Conservatives' dissatisfaction. They wish they were in power, but they lost the election, so they're frustrated. I appreciate their frustration, but we all need to be able to work together for the sake of Canadians.

The 2022 fall economic statement contains many very important measures, and that's what we're here to discuss. For example, we want to talk about the waiving of interest on student loans. I represent a riding in Quebec, and I want to know what the government is going to do to eliminate the interest on loans for students in Quebec, as well, because Quebec has a different process for student loans. That's something I want to talk about. I also want to talk about the housing benefit and the elimination of transaction fees for small and medium-sized businesses. That's an important measure for businesses in rural communities. My riding is home to many small and medium-sized businesses, and credit card transaction fees are very costly to them. That's why I want to talk about when the measure is coming into force. I want to help pass all of those important measures.

I also want to talk about what we're doing to help Canadians succeed in the economy of tomorrow. I want to talk about the Canada growth fund, which is going to help a whole lot of businesses begin the green transition. A slew of measures have been announced to support the economy of tomorrow.

Being there for Canadians is one of our core values. We are here to discuss all of this with the members of the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP. We are here to serve Canadians, and filibustering does not serve Canadians.

I genuinely hope we will be able to work together in earnest. We were elected to represent the same people, so it's important that we work together, get down to business and examine the 2022 fall economic statement.

I would very much like for the committee to be able to vote on Mr. Beech's motion, as amended by Mr. Baker's amendment, so that we can finally have a discussion with the Deputy Prime Minister, not to mention the experts and department officials who will be able to answer our technical questions about the measures that have been announced. That will be useful to Canadians. I really want us to be able to work together.

I am therefore asking that the committee proceed to the vote now, so that we can meet with the witnesses and discuss all of these measures with them. It's not that I don't like to hear Mr. Lawrence speak, but he's not the expert on all of these measures. We are here to hear what the experts have to say. Once we've done that, we can all grab a drink and listen to Mr. Lawrence speak his mind. I would be glad to do that. The committee, however, has to talk to experts and hear their answers to members' economic questions—not waste its time and, by extension, taxpayers' money. We were elected to work hard for them, not to hold meetings like the one on Monday and again today.

This is my heartfelt plea to the committee, on behalf of the Canadians we all represent, Canadians who want us to work together. Please, can we move forward and adopt the motion so we can discuss the 2022 fall economic statement?

That's all I have to say, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mrs. Chatel.

Is there any further discussion?

I have MP Hallan.