Finance Committee on Nov. 21st, 2022

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

We're not going to be able to do that. We have to put our amendments on the record. That's the whole point of having the proposed resolution. I do not want to get into these amendments right now, because we are in the fall economic statement. As I said previously, and will repeat now, we would guarantee getting back to your motion right away. We would provide the amendments in writing within the next 24 hours, so you have time between now and Wednesday to look at them.

I think it would set a great atmosphere for us to have those discussions—perhaps at the informal session on Wednesday—about things like private members' business, which has to be done before the end of the year; getting to Mr. Chambers' study, as required; and planning out the rest of the events we need to do after the fall economic statement, which is also important for your agenda, I think.

I would repeat my request: If we could table that for now, given that there are 36 minutes of study remaining in today's meeting, I think we could get to a resolution we can all agree on. I'm doing this in a good-faith way, and hoping that you're hearing my sincerity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Go ahead, MP Hallan.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Beech.

Respectfully, I think there was enough time to put forward those amendments between when the motion was tabled and now. This is something we wanted to see. I would ask that...perhaps you could put that on a separate motion, which we could discuss at a later time.

I would respectfully ask to go to a vote on this one.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thanks, MP Hallan.

Go ahead, MP Beech.

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

I move that we adjourn debate on this subject. If there's no debate on that, we'll have to go to amendments...if that fails.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

That is not debatable. The clerk will have to go to a vote to adjourn debate.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

Okay, we'll continue with debate.

I see MP MacDonald.

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to make an amendment to the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Okay.

I have MP MacDonald, then MP Blaikie after that.

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

The amendment I'm going to propose makes it very clear that the meetings are part of the committee's study on inflation. Overall, I think the motion by Mr. Hallan is very good.

My amendment is this: After the words “as highlighted in the Fall Economic Statement”, we add the following: “and as part of the committee study on inflation”.

I believe it's important, Mr. Chair, that we ensure that evidence is heard from the Governor of the Bank of Canada and the Minister of Finance and be included in the study—in the report on inflation. I hope we can garner enough support from all members of the committee. I believe these hearings should be part of the committee's study on inflation each and every time they meet, so they form part of our final report.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I'm sorry, MP MacDonald. Where is your amendment, exactly?

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I move that, after the words, “as highlighted in the Fall Economic Statement”, we add the following: “and as part of the committee's study on inflation”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Okay. Is there any discussion on the motion as amended?

Go ahead, MP Blaikie.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I do want to say that I think it would be better if we found a way to try to.... I appreciate my colleague's point. I mean, if they want to present amendments, I think that's fair, and I think that's where I hope there may yet be some opportunity for folks around the table to find their way to deferring the issue in a mutually agreeable way. I see that's not the case, so there's a process here, and we've got to work our way through it.

We do have officials on the line, I think 15 of them—

[An hon. member]

Twenty-four.

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

Okay, well I did the math on 15 officials, and I think, if they had an average salary of $100,000 a year, which is not a crazy assumption given the rank of folks who are waiting, and you divide that by a 2,000-hour work year, you get to about $50 an hour. You add it all up, and I think their time here today for two hours is worth about $1,500, and they continue to wait.

I'm interested in hearing what other amendments are on offer. As I said, I think for today I would encourage both larger parties at the table to find a way to figure out if we can resolve this, without folks waiting on the line, in a way that is mutually agreeable. I think doing it by vote here is not the best way, because there's clearly discussion that needs to happen in order for us to be able to find a good path forward.

I was pleased to hear that I think the first amendment on offer seems to be offered in good faith. It's quite germane to the motion that's been moved. It's not a motion that seeks to.... You know, sometimes, when other parties seek to amend motions, they use what we might call a “gutting” amendment. I don't see any gutting here. What I see is a good faith attempt to try to engage on the substantive issues in the motion, including some sincere offers of support for at least the principle behind the motion. I think that's a good sign of where conversations are.

I know we did have a suspension of the meeting to create time for conversations to happen, but, obviously, we didn't get to the result that we might like.

I'm thinking about ways that we could create time for the relevant parties to have an extended conversation so we might find some kind of mutually agreeable outcome, but I'm at a loss, given that we've already had a suspension, for ideas as to how to create time for people to have that conversation.

I think about the motion and what's in the motion and, that already being a matter of record, I'm happy to end my remarks there.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Blaikie.

Is there any further discussion?

I see MP Chambers.

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

I didn't have any choice, so....

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

People are going to wonder at home why we keep talking about socks, but I'm wearing them today.

I appreciate the amendment by my friend Mr. MacDonald. As I understand it, the inflation study is open. It does not currently have an end date. I can't speak for the rest of my colleagues, but on its face, it's kind of a good-faith amendment that doesn't really alter the principles or the genesis of the initial study.

I would simply mention that we very much enjoy having the minister at committee because it is an opportunity outside of question period to hold the executive branch accountable. It's worth noting that the original inflation study we passed did have a requirement—or a request, I should say—for the minister to appear, and that appearance hasn't occurred yet.

This is a slightly different approach to make it a little bit less onerous than a three-hour appearance, an approach that enables parliamentarians and the House to hold the executive accountable on, basically, the biggest issue affecting Canadians, which is inflation. This isn't like a once-a-month appearance. This is every quarter while we're in this inflationary period. How are we helping Canadians with inflation?

I think that's the genesis of the initial motion. I certainly appreciate the opportunity to hear other amendments. I also respect and appreciate the officials who are with us and waiting on the line. I have more questions for them as well, so I'm happy to get back to that.

However, don't worry; I will send the questions to you, Mr. Chair. I have full confidence that you will ensure that I receive written responses. We had a bit of a hiccup, or challenges, last week in committee in having this motion attached to the prestudy motion. Now it's separated, and I think it's a good-faith effort to ensure the accountability of both the executive branch and the governor—who, by the way, we have on Wednesday. I don't know if we requested that or if he requested it on his own, but I certainly appreciate having the governor and the deputy governor, Ms. Rogers, appear anytime they wish. This, at least, puts a marker in their calendar for them to, when they release their monetary policy report, have a more fulsome discussion with parliamentarians.

I note that, generally, the Senate actually has much more frequent opportunities to question the governor than we have had in the past. I think parliamentarians deserve that same amount. This isn't about questioning the governor's intentions on not appearing. It's just, kind of, as a matter of good practice as we are outside of the inflation target, which is the one thing the bank is required to focus on; it's that while we're outside of that, every quarter we hear from the governor and get to ask some questions.

I'll leave it there and yield my time to the next speaker, but I appreciate it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I have MP Lawrence next and then MP Baker.

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

Thank you.

I'm wondering if it's allowable, Mr. Chair.... I have a question for the mover, and I'm not sure whether it's permissible for him to answer that while I have the floor. I'd be even willing to yield the floor. Is that permissible?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

That's fine, Mr. Lawrence.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just so I understand the motion.... My belief is that we're adding the words “and as part of the committee study on inflation” with regard to the appearances of the Governor of the Bank of Canada and the finance minister until the inflation ends, which is currently open-ended. Is that correct, Mr. MacDonald?

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

[Inaudible—Editor].