Finance Committee on April 20th, 2023

[Christine Bergeron]

I would call it differentiation, perhaps, more than competitive advantage, but we try to respond to our membership because we're member-owned.

You're correct. It is a very different model, though, from the larger banks with shareholders.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

I think the question is around whether we should allow institutions like yours to develop their own approaches to these issues—whether it's disclosure or more restrictive lending standards, like you obviously have—as opposed to having a government pick a set of regulatory matters and force them on an industry.

What I'm really getting at is that you've developed something that differentiates you in the market, and now government is getting in that space and telling your institution and those similar to yours how they should be approaching that issue.

[Christine Bergeron]

I would say that it is difficult sometimes for people to understand that although it is a differentiation for us, we can achieve all of our goals and, ultimately, our society will not be any different in terms of emissions and effects by climate because of our size.

For us, standardization, broader transparency and more reporting are a good thing collectively. What we're seeing are guidelines to support more consistent reporting. The reporting that we do, we pull from PCAF, which is the Partnership for Carbon Accounting Financials. It's an international accounting standard.

Again, others are doing this. We're supportive of more people reporting it and being transparent.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you for that honest response.

Have you or any of your members had experience with the government's green energy rebate program? It seems like you're involved in some of the housing discussions with members about how to retrofit their homes.

[Christine Bergeron]

I'm sure that we have. I have not personally been involved in specific discussions with members on it.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

I note that you offer what sounds like a free assessment. Is that correct?

[Christine Bergeron]

That's correct.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Okay.

For the government program, you have to pay about $500 for an assessment. You get it back only if what you put in qualifies, and when you try to find out what qualifies, it's a list of a thousand different permutations. It's actually very complicated.

I was going to ask whether you think that should be simplified. It would make it easier for your members to access some of this program funding. Although you don't necessarily know that in advance, would you agree, generally, that it should be a simple program, maybe like yours, and have a free assessment?

[Christine Bergeron]

I can only speak to what we offer. The reason we are doing it that way is, again, what we've heard from our membership, and we try to respond.

We give back 30% of our profits every year through distributions to the community, to have an impact in our community. These funds come from that pool of money to support our members.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you.

Now we will go to Mr. MacDonald, please, for five minutes.

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Chair.

I will share my time with Mr. Beech. He would like to go first.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Go ahead, Mr. Beech.

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

Thank you to my colleague, and thank you, Mr. Chair.

Through you to our witness, I am happy to share that I reside in and am currently on the same traditional territory as you.

I have been appreciating your testimony so far and the work that Vancity does in our community, but I have a small piece of business that I need to address.

I'd like to thank all members who participated in the technical briefings on the BIA earlier this week. The BIA will be tabled later this afternoon, and as we've done in previous years, I think it would be beneficial to commence a prestudy, so that we can hear from officials and stakeholders on this important piece of legislation.

I have been able to discuss the motion with members from other parties, and I'm hoping we can deal with it quickly and go back to our witness. I move:

That, should a Budget Implementation Act be tabled in the House, the committee commence a prestudy of said legislation and invite officials to provide briefings on the contents of the bill, as well as the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Beech.

Members, is there any discussion?

Mr. Chambers, go ahead.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

I'll be brief. I have two quick points.

The first is that I think the committee would benefit from some more subcommittee meetings.

The second is that I will note that we had the Governor of the Bank of Canada here earlier this week, for the fourth or fifth time. The Minister of Finance has yet to appear on an invitation other than on her own legislation.

If we want the committee to work really well—and don't intend to take up time—then I would just note that we have to start thinking about how invitations to ministers from our committee work and whether those invitations are treated seriously or not.

The second point on the technical briefing—which was well done by officials—is that there was no simultaneous translation on those technical briefings. At least, I couldn't figure out how to get it. The technical briefing was offered immediately after we received the document, which was hundreds of pages long. I think we should also talk about that in one of these subcommittee meetings. I won't take up more of the time on this point.

I wanted to get that on the record when we're talking about a prestudy and trying to make it work more smoothly for the committee going forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Is there any further discussion?

Mr. Blaikie.

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

I'll just say quickly that I agree with Mr. Chambers. I think it would be a sign of goodwill for the minister to appear outside the context of studies of her own legislation and to respond to the committee's long-standing invitation to appear. That was in the context of the inflation study. I think that is the extent of the invitation. I express my support for that.

This may be part of what Mr. Chambers is driving at in terms of subcommittee meetings. I think there needs to be some discussion of the letter that we would send to other committees if we wanted to have a process that involved their areas of expertise. I'm certainly concerned to see that happen soon. Perhaps that's a conversation we could have no later than Tuesday.

Again, to the point of having briefings quickly after tabling legislation, I think it would be nice to have an opportunity closer to the back end of the process to ask questions to officials. I think we can ask better questions to officials once we've had the benefit of witness feedback.

All of that said, I'm prepared to support a prestudy. I think we've had this conversation around the table a couple of times now in this Parliament. Budget implementation acts tend to be large bills. I think Canadians are well served when we take the time to study those well. I think we should start that study sooner rather than later. That's especially as we do—I hope we will—consult other committees on some of the content of that bill. I think it's good to get it going.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Blaikie.

I have Mr. Ste-Marie.

Go ahead, please.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank Mr. Beech for his notice of motion. I am in favour of starting this study soon, given the size of the bill that we can expect to see, based on the notice of ways and means that we have already received.

Speaking of the notice of ways and means, I would like to thank Mr. Beech, as I did during the technical briefing. However, what is truly concerning to me is that we have received 500 pages’ worth of explanations, of which more than 230 are written in nearly incomprehensible legalese. This means that we weren't really able to understand everything that was mentioned during the briefing. And yet we have to vote on this notice of ways and means soon.

Personally, I don't feel I can do so, because I haven't been able to read all the pages of the briefing document. That's why I would like to take more time to study the budget implementation bill. Moreover, to go back to what Mr. Chambers stated about the invitations sent to the Minister of Finance, I have to say that I am rather disappointed that we haven't had much access to the minister.

I am therefore in favour of starting the study soon.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Ste‑Marie.

I have Mr. Morantz on the speakers list.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Well, this brings back memories of what happened last fall with the fall economic statement. My view on this is that we're still debating this in the House. There are speakers up all week—and they'll be up next week—on this legislation. It seems to be premature to be studying it in committee. We don't do that for any other legislation.

I am also concerned about the wording of the motion. Last time, the motion essentially prohibited us from asking broader questions about the budget itself. We had officials here who would not answer questions if they weren't specifically addressed in the BIA. There are also things in the budget that might not be addressed in the BIA but which we should be able to deal with if we have a prestudy, or any study of the budget implementation act. My preference would be to see the wording of the motion broadened to allow us to ask officials anything we want, as long as it pertains to the budget and the BIA.

Also, it seems to me that the finance minister needs to be here more often. We're dealing with some very serious issues around affordability and taxation, and concerns about going into an economic slowdown and perhaps a recession. We can't get the finance minister to come to the finance committee. That has to be a priority. I would urge my colleagues on the government side of this table to try to make that happen as soon as possible, so we can get her testimony on the record about serious problems this budget fails to address.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Morantz.

I'm looking at the room. Is there any further discussion? No.

We'll go to Mr. Beech's motion, members.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

I'd like the vote to be recorded.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you.

We're back to Ms. Bergeron. I guess we've gone way past the time.

We will now move to Mr. Ste-Marie, who is on next.