Finance Committee on May 2nd, 2023

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

I'm prepared to let the parliamentary secretary test the room perhaps a bit later.

[An hon. member]

Can we suspend for a few minutes?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We'll suspend.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We're back.

We did not have unanimous consent, so we are back to the subamendment of MP Blaikie's amendment to PS Beech's motion.

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

Do I still have the floor?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

You do.

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

I would seek unanimous consent to give up the floor to Adam, and then request to be given the floor back.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Do we have agreement on that?

We do.

MP Chambers.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

What we had here with the minister is what was billed to be the hottest ticket in town, so I need to thank the Prime Minister's Office for allowing the minister to come.

I understand that this committee is not functioning very well. I think Mr. Blaikie made a very wise recommendation to the minister: that when invitations come from the committee, the minister take them seriously. I can't for the life of me understand why a minister of any portfolio would blatantly ignore an invitation from the committee.

Yes, Ms. Dzerowicz is correct, in that the minister has appeared here three or four times in the last 12 months or whatever the number is. The fact is that it's been the will of the committee to invite the minister here. Yes, we can't compel the minister, and that's completely fair under our Westminster system. The only conclusion we can draw is that the minister seems to think that this committee and Parliament are an inconvenience.

If the minister is going to continue to ignore invitations from the committee, the committee won't function, and I am going to say that we will not provide UC, because as long as I'm sitting in this seat right here, I will not provide UC to move on any piece of government legislation or study or anything until it looks like there is more respect for the will of the committee.

There is enough blame to go around here to spread it from here to Orillia, but the fact of the matter is that we're sitting in this position because a minister of the Crown feels that it's an inconvenience to appear before a committee to answer questions. Now, it's one thing to get her into the room, but even when the minister appears, to not actually answer a question such as, what the government spending is on interest on the debt.... If anyone wants to look at Secretary Yellen in the U.S. and at how they run Senate committee hearings and how their secretaries actually answer questions.... If you watch that and watch what just happened here a couple of hours ago, it was shameful. If I am ever lucky enough to be in the position on the other side of the table, I hope somebody reminds me of that when I'm answering questions.

The second point is that I feel sorry for my government colleagues, because they have to defend the minister not wishing to appear in front of committee. If the member for Malpeque could not answer or refused to answer what one of the top three spending line items in P.E.I. was if he were the minister of finance, I am pretty sure he'd be out of a job. Furthermore, there are competent parliamentary secretaries all through this government who actually try to answer questions when they're asked. They should be in cabinet.

The number one thing that I hear back from constituents in terms of feedback on what happens in this place if they stumble upon any of the hearings late at night is, why does nobody answer a question? That's for everybody. That's for all parties and not just the government: Why does everybody not answer a question? If anyone watched the committee of the whole last night and saw the Minister of Housing not even answer on what time it was, it seems like it's a game. When people wonder why we have no respect for parliamentary institutions and why the respect is going down, it's because they're being treated like a joke.

I hope that if I am ever lucky enough to be on the other side of the table I'll be reminded of this by somebody, but the fact that you have to defend a minister's right to ignore invitations from the committee, and then to be treated like “I'm gracing you with my presence”; “I'm not going to answer any questions”; and, “oh, I don't give in to bullies”.... It wasn't a bully request that the committee made when we passed a motion to have the minister, along with the bank governor, come every quarter until inflation comes down in the control range.

That is the most simple explanation. I can't understand, for the life of me, why we're in a position where the committee can't work solely on the basis of a minister not wanting to come.

Now, it's possible that maybe the conspiracy theory is true—I spent too much time with some of my friends—and that it is the Prime Minister's Office that doesn't want the minister to come. She's obviously quite capable of coming. She's trusted to sit in rooms and negotiate NAFTA or CETA and to go to G7 meetings, but can't come to a parliamentary committee.

I'm a bit frustrated with the fact that it's all of a sudden our fault, on this side of the table, for the position we're in. Sure, we could negotiate better and, sure, we maybe could go along to get along a bit more, but we were the party who agreed to prestudy the bill. We didn't last year. That was out of good faith.

And then to find out that the minister will appear, but won't tell us for how long is completely unhelpful to the functioning of this committee. There won't be a government study passed from here on in without an invitation to the minister. There won't be a motion passed at this committee without an invitation to the minister. Every single motion we pass at this committee will include an invitation to the minister until it is better received and respected.

I have the deepest respect for somebody who's been put in a position. The Prime Minister obviously has given the Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister significant responsibility. She has a very tough job, but one of those responsibilities is to face questions and to be able to tell Canadians the government's story.

It's either they're ashamed of the story or they find this place an inconvenience—it can't be both. It's unbelievably frustrating, not just for me—because nobody really cares about how we feel here—but for anybody watching. To watch somebody who cannot even list two of the top three spending items.... It's not that she doesn't know—she obviously knows where we spend our money—it's that she refuses to answer a question from a Conservative.

We're not going to have a fully functioning committee until we find ourselves in a better place and we can.... We're not going to go travel on pre-budget consultations, we're not going to go travel anywhere else and we're not going to pass any government study as long as I'm sitting here and we do not have the minister respecting invitations to the committee.

We have lots of better things to do—hearing from witnesses—than to sit here and talk out the clock for 25 hours. Unfortunately, the opposition only has one tool, and it's a pretty blunt one. If we want the committee to work better, I would implore government members, not because I said it, but to take the advice of Mr. Blaikie. The minister seemed to take it, but was a little coy about whether she would accept another invitation from this committee. The only times the minister has shown up at this committee was to pass government legislation, not because the committee invited her.

This notion that the minister was unaware that we weren't able to invite her for two hours, because the committee didn't pass the motion, is complete BS. It's not possible that that's the case.

I understand that we have resources until 12 midnight tonight, but I know that we've been sitting here for a long time. If you're not going to do it for us as parliamentarians, people deserve to know that ministers can be held accountable to the committees. If the government had a majority on parliamentary committees or had won a majority in the last election, go nuts. But the truth is we've given multiple invitations to a minister of the Crown to show up, even on the supplementary estimates. I actually understand that if a minister is invited on the supplementary estimates, you can compel them to show up for them. If we don't want to create a precedent of making it contingent on going to clause-by-clause without having the minister show up, we're not actually doing a really good job of setting a precedent, because the only precedent we've been setting is that ministers can tell committees to go fly a kite.

I don't know why any minister would show up to any committee now. The precedent is set. You don't need to. You only need to show up if you want to pass legislation, and even then.... But there are plenty of other capable members who would answer questions and show up to the committee, I'm sure. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Housing Minister last night should be the housing minister, based on her ability to answer questions from all sides of the House. But that it must be some kind of game where they decide no matter what the question is, I'm not going to answer it....

If we want a better functioning committee, you don't have to run back and say that the Conservatives are making this recommendation. All we have to do is to take the recommendation and the minister has to take and listen to the recommendation by Mr. Blaikie. We'll be in the same position in the fall, next year, the next time there's a bill, BIA 2, if we're in a position where the minister is not answering invitations to committee. It's not extortion. It's not bullying. It's asking the minister to respect the will of committee. The parliamentary secretary, Mr. Beech, has been reminding us that it's the majority position of the committee that passes motions. It's the majority position of the committee. It's also the majority position of the committee to invite the minister.

If the parliamentary secretary wants to test the room again on unanimous consent, I will leave the table so that I'm not here.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Chambers.

I'll go back to MP Beech.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would seek unanimous consent for the following motion, and there's been a small tweak to help out with the clerk on one of his timings. I'll read it again, and I'll add the tweak: "That the committee consider both the sub-amendment from Mr. Morantz and the amendment from Mr. Blaikie withdrawn

And, "that the motion be amended by adding after clause (b)(ii) a new section, which would read: iii. If the committee has not completed the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by 4:30 p.m. Monday, May 29, 2023, all remaining amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved, the Chair shall put the question forthwith and successively, without further debate on all remaining clauses and proposed amendments, as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, as well as all questions necessary to report the bill to the House and to order the Chair to report the bill to the House as soon as possible; and that clause (e), (f) and (g) be removed from the motion, and that the motion be adopted as amended on division; and that under (b)(i), where it says amendments be submitted to the clerk of the committee in both official languages no later than 4:00 p.m. on Friday, May 19, 2023, it be changed to by noon, on Friday, May 19, 2023; and if we have unanimous consent that the committee now adjourn."

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We don't have UC.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

On a point of order, I have MP Ste-Marie.

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

I may be able to get on board with Mr. Beech's motion, but I need some assurances first.

To begin with, the motion calls for clause-by‑clause consideration to start on May 29. That would leave us this Thursday and the break week. Originally, we had an agreement that the various divisions of the bill would be referred to the appropriate committees, but I realize that no longer works because we are running out of time. Nevertheless, I would like us to seriously examine the bill, which packs an astronomical amount of spending into more than 500 pages.

If the Standing Committee on Finance has to carry out the review on its own, that's fine, but let's make sure we set aside a reasonable number of meetings. In order for us to support Mr. Beech's motion, we need to know that the committee is guaranteed a certain number of meetings. I think five two-hour meetings ought to do it.

I would also like us to postpone the deadline for submitting amendments, because doing our job requires that we examine the bill, listen to what witnesses have to say and take their comments into account before proposing amendments. Ideally, then, I think we should put off the May 29 start of clause by clause by a week. If that's not possible, I need assurances that we will hold five two-hour meetings with witnesses and that we will have more time to submit amendments. Currently, the proposed deadline is May 19, this Friday. I suggest we make it Friday, May 26.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Ste-Marie.

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

Mr. Chair, could I request a three-minute suspension so that I can make a phone call?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Okay. We will suspend.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Everyone, we are back.

Was it MP Ste-Marie or PS Beech?

It's PS Beech.

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

In addition to my previous UC motion, which included the entirety of the motion plus the change for the clerk, to go from 4 p.m. to 12 p.m., we would like to add, “(e) and that the whips of recognized parties, and the clerks, be empowered to seek as many meetings as possible, with the goal of meeting for 10 hours before the end of this week”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Okay. Everybody has heard that.

MP Ste-Marie, is that a yes? Yes, okay.

PS Beech, you're asking for UC. Is that right?

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

I'm asking for UC. If we get UC, we would then adjourn.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Okay.

Do we have UC, members?

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Okay, let's take that. We have UC.

We're adjourned.