Yes, it was.
Evidence of meeting #7 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.
Evidence of meeting #7 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.
2:55 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
—or if we have an amendment that's out of order. Perhaps Mr. Poilievre or the chair can clarify.
Thank you.
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Thank you for that. In my old age, my sight has gotten so bad that I just....
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Thank you. There were two handsome gentlemen over there, and I just mixed up which was which. I apologize for misattributing the original mover of the motion.
To her credit, the minister was here, but she specifically said that she couldn't answer certain questions because she didn't yet have a fall economic update. She specifically couldn't tell us how much debt we have in Canada or how much a one percentage point increase in interest payments would cost taxpayers. She said that once the fall economic update was introduced, she'd be able to answer these questions, so out of respect for her, I think the least we could do is call and ask her to testify on her update.
Now, this is conventional; when a finance minister introduces a fall update or a budget, typically they testify on it. We're scheduled to close shop for Christmas, unfortunately, as early as it is, so we would miss out on the opportunity to have the minister here to testify on her update. I know that she will be anxious to testify, so I am putting forward this amendment out of respect for her request to have a chance to speak to some of my questions after that update is introduced.
I'm furthermore open-minded to working with colleagues on all sides to make sure that the final amended motion that comes out of this place is one that everyone feels comfortable supporting.
Thank you.
3 p.m.
Conservative
Adam Chambers Conservative Simcoe North, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
You'll have to forgive me, because this is my first time on the committee, and I have a hard time with.... Perhaps Mr. Beech, who originally proposed the motion, has it is available in hard copy, or else could email it to the rest of us. It's quite difficult to manage what we're actually voting on.
I would like to make the point that when we're talking about timelines and witnesses, we are right now cutting into the witness testimony that we already decided was important to hear before we got to a vote or moved on to clause-by-clause consideration. I think it's important for this committee to feel comfortable that it's heard from all the witnesses. We know that some witnesses were unable to attend. We've heard that a few others have been invited, certainly from the labour organizations, and there were some others listed by my colleague. I think it would be imprudent to consider cutting off witness testimony or not allow relevant time for those witnesses to come and provide their feedback on this bill.
I do think we need to be careful to allow an opportunity for members of this committee, and in effect the general public, to hear from the witnesses we had anticipated to hear from before we agree to move any more forward.
3 p.m.
Conservative
Jake Stewart Conservative Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I support Mr. Poilievre's amendment. I think the main part of this committee was to bring in the witnesses. This is an astounding amount of taxpayer dollars, dollars that were never defined in terms of where they were even coming from. I think the minister would be anxious to come back in here and answer all of the questions she couldn't answer this week. She admitted herself that she'd like to have more time to give more answers. There's all of next week, and there's more time beyond that as well.
By bringing in as many witnesses as we could possibly bring in, the members of this committee would get to ask more questions. We'd get to delve into the $7.4 billion. We know the track record of the government with taxing and spending. We know the track record of the previous legislation. That's why FINTRAC was called in here this week. We know that Canadian taxpayers have footed the bill for fraudsters, criminals and potentially even terrorist organizations. I don't think some of that's been proven, but it hasn't been unproven yet either. This is something the Canadian taxpayers deserve—the scrutiny of this committee.
I think Mr. Poilievre's amendment is sufficient. As members of this caucus, we want to be here to ask these important questions. I think it's important for all Canadians that safeguards are placed in the legislation. We know they weren't last time. I think it will be extremely important for the members of this committee to have the ability to ask those important questions on behalf of our constituents, on behalf of mine in Miramichi—Grand Lake and the rest.
Therefore, I support the amendment.
3 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the amendment very much.
I recall being here earlier this week. It's our first week at the finance committee. We've had a week of meetings and we've barely scratched the surface.
The minister was quite clear when she was here earlier this week, along with a high-level finance official who couldn't answer any question put to him, about the economic situation facing Canada at this point in time. This led us very clearly to the answer she gave, which was that she will be dealing with the economic situation in her economic update. We have the right and, I think, the parliamentary privilege of asking those questions.
The amendment is clearly in order and would add value for Canadians. It would add value to the respect this House has in terms of our looking at where government is spending money, how government is spending money and what the accountability is for that money. At this point in time, many Canadians are looking at those accountability mechanisms as completely lacking.
We have a bill before us today that refuses to be tightened in terms of the applicability and the definitions around some of the applications. Think about that, because it is a very compromising amendment that allows us to move forward with the business of Parliament while we also move forward with the business of passing a bill.
That is what we're here for. Let's take our parliamentary jobs very seriously, be accountable to Canadians and move forward with more than one dot on the map at a time. Let's move forward with what we're supposed to be doing here in the finance committee, which is addressing the finances of the country.
3:05 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Thank you very much.
I just want to take a moment to say that the bill came here so quickly out of the House, with a certain collaboration in the House, that it seems like there's a plan for how this is going to happen.
I'm glad to be able to get one more of our witnesses here. I wonder if the Conservatives, who mentioned a number of witnesses, want to suggest a priority witness on that list. Sometimes the art of Parliament is to know when the jig is up and to get as much done as one can in the circumstances. If there's a suggestion from the Conservative bench for a priority witness for them who might be invited to accompany the CLC at noon, that's something I would urge them to consider while there's still time. It sounds to me like the bill is heading to clause-by-clause consideration. It would be good to hear from more people in the time we have available.
I know free advice isn't always appreciated at these tables, so take it for what it's worth. We'll see if there's anything more to say.
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
3:05 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Can I get a report from the clerk on the witnesses whose names were put forward and who have not been able to appear?
3:05 p.m.
The Clerk
In terms of the Conservative witnesses, we weren't able to have Franco Terrazzano, the federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. We didn't have Philip Cross from the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. We couldn't get the Auditor General. We couldn't get Jack Mintz from the University of Calgary. We could not get Michel Kelly-Gagnon from MEI. We couldn't get Jason Clemens from the Fraser Institute. That's it for the Conservative list.
Do you want me to continue with the other parties?
3:05 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Can you just remind me if there were any Conservative witnesses who actually did come?
3:05 p.m.
The Clerk
Yes, there were. There was FINTRAC at the first meeting, and yesterday there was Mr. Steve Saretsky.
3:05 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Yes, there was Mr. Saretsky. Thank you.
Is there anyone else on the speakers list right now?
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
3:05 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Chair and Mr. Clerk, we spoke yesterday. I know you attempted one time for some of these witnesses, but we talked about how not being available for one specific day wasn't the same as not being available to respond to this bill. Since our discussion yesterday, I understood you were going to reach out to some of the potential witnesses who could come here, particularly the Auditor General of Canada, and appear before this committee prior to having this rushed through committee and then back to Parliament.
Has that been met with any success in the last day?
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
I do know that the clerk has been working tirelessly to get witnesses in and has done a commendable job in short order in doing the work that he has done.
I believe we reached out to the Minister of Canadian Heritage for Monday.
Is there any further discussion?
3:05 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Could we ask for a 90-second break to consider Mr. Blaikie's advice? He gave some free advice. We're considering whether to take it.
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
You have 90 seconds, Mr. Poilievre.
Members, we're suspending at this time.