Finance Committee on May 2nd, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, PS Beech.

Guys, given the resources...we're going to suspend now.

[The meeting was suspended at 13:14 p.m., Thursday, May 11]

[The meeting resumed at 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, May 16]

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call this meeting to order.

We are resuming meeting number 87 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance and the debate on the motion by PS Beech, the amendment by MP Blaikie and the subamendment by MP Morantz in relation to the study of Bill C-47.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of members. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike. Please mute yourself when you are not speaking. With regard to interpretation, for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of either the floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpieces and select the desired channel.

As a reminder, all comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. We appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

Members, before we commence, you should have received the budgets for our PBC travel as well as for the potential Paris travel.

I just want to see if we can adopt those budgets at this time. That is for the clerk.

(Motion agreed to)

Thank you, members. That is done.

On another note, a very important one, there have been some injuries to interpreters because of devices. There are popping sounds, etc., that happen. Try to keep the earpiece and the mike a little distance away...and make sure that your devices are a little bit away from the mikes. It has caused some injuries to our interpreters. We want to ensure that we do everything we can to stop that from happening.

When we last left off, MP Perkins had the floor. We're going to MP Dzerowicz after that.

MP Perkins, the floor is yours.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members.

I understand at some point that MP Beech may have something he wants to talk about.

Until then, I'll maybe just continue.

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

I'm on the list as well.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

You're on the list as well. That's great.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We have to go through the list, as I understand it. It's MP Perkins and then I have Dzerowicz, and then it can go to Beech.

MP Ste-Marie has a point of order.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My apologies. I'm participating virtually, and I thought the Minister of Finance would be here for today's committee meeting. Since I'm not there in person, I can't tell whether she is actually in the room. Can you tell me?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Ste-Marie, thank you for that.

Minister Freeland said that she would come before our committee today and make herself available. She has now, through her office, corresponded with the clerk. It's 12 o'clock when the minister will arrive.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We'll go back to MP Perkins.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you.

If I could do a quick summary, I will then pass on my time to the next person on the list.

From the opposition's perspective, we've been having a discussion about ministerial accountability in this committee, in our effort to get Minister Freeland to attend and answer questions for two hours, not one hour, for her 2023 budget. It lays out a fiscal framework of spending $3.1 trillion in the next five years.

We have been unable to get that commitment. I appreciate that the minister is now coming at noon, so we'll look forward to posing questions there.

I guess the skepticism we were pushing forward has obviously had some impact. On the three previous occasions in the last six months that the committee has invited the minister to attend, including on estimates, she was unable to attend. My understanding is that, under the Standing Orders, it's generally mandatory for ministers to attend estimates. The Minister of Finance did not.

We're happy that she's chosen to be here today.

In the 48 days, I think it's been since January, that the House has been sitting, the minister had, as of yesterday, attended seven times in question period. Hopefully today will be the eighth time in 49 days—if you include today—that she attends to answer questions about the impacts of this spending on the cost of living for Canadians.

With regard to the cost of living, as we know, we have record and persistent food inflation, which is hurting many families. It poses a lot of questions. We need to ask the minister about why, in spending this amount of money and adding $130 billion to the national debt, she believes it will reduce inflation to make life more affordable for Canadians.

Mr. Chair, at that, I'll conclude my time.

Maybe I'll be put back on the speakers list, if I can, at the bottom. I'll pass it on to the others.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Perkins.

I have MP Dzerowicz and then MP Beech.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'm happy to pass along my time to the next speaker on the list, who is Mr. Beech.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We're at PS Beech.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a unanimous consent motion that I would like to feel out the room on, although having had some discussions, I think I know what the answer is. I'd like to try anyway.

I move “That the subamendment to Mr. Blaikie's amendment be withdrawn, that Mr. Blaikie's amendment be adopted on division, that Mr. Baker's previously circulated amendment be adopted on division and the motion as amended be adopted on division.”

Would that be acceptable to everyone?

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

That would not be acceptable, but we thank the member for his efforts.

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

That is not to be unexpected.

I also believe we may be able to come to an agreement on an alternative unanimous consent motion. I'd seek a few minutes to talk to my colleagues opposite, if we could suspend, Mr. Chair.

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

With our agreement....

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Okay. We'll suspend.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We're back.

Go ahead, PS Beech.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all colleagues, including those opposite.

Thank you, Mr. Lawrence, for the discussion.

Thank you, Mr. Chambers, for your contribution in both clothing and discussion.

I want to give a brief statement, and then I have another motion I'd like to test for unanimous consent.

On April 19, which was not quite a month ago, we began discussions with all parties on a path forward to study the BIA, and we really, truly focused on trying to find a consensus position. We also tried to focus on improving our study from the year previous.

We did this in three ways. We allocated more time for witnesses. We agreed to send parts of the bill to committees, and we gave those committees more time to be able to do those studies. We also included the various aspects of the bill and which committees they would go to, which was also done by consensus, with everybody contributing to the process—the Bloc, the Conservatives and the NDP, as well as the Liberals.

We excluded a controversial part of that motion, which included an end date, because, given goodwill, if we agreed upon a study plan, no end date would be necessary and we would have more than enough time to study the budget implementation act.

This resolution was designed to be a consensus resolution, but it is our feeling that the Conservatives changed the goalposts consistently to justify never actually starting the study. This is, of course, unfortunate, especially since this is similar to what happened last year.

Recently—as they did at the meeting today—they claimed that the minister would be unwilling to appear for two hours. This was despite assuring the committee that she would appear prior to May 18 in response to Gabriel Ste-Marie's question more than two weeks ago.

Since that assurance, we have faced more than 23 hours of Conservative filibustering. That is time that should have been given to food banks, the Chamber of Commerce and other Canadian stakeholders who could have helped us during all of that time to improve the budget implementation act.

Prior to all of this, we unanimously passed a prestudy motion. We were able to hear from departmental staff, and we sent an invite to the minister. It is that original invite that the minister responded to and it is the reason she is available here today.

What have the Conservatives been filibustering? It is an amendment to the original motion by Daniel Blaikie to invite the minister to appear for two hours. It is unfortunate—and somewhat confusing on our side—that they would filibuster this motion, given that it provides exactly what they were asking for. More importantly, however, it is unfortunate that we are in a position where the Conservatives have held up the study, despite the will of the majority of people who sit around this committee who wanted to proceed with the study.

However, I believe we should not waste this opportunity to hear from the Deputy Prime Minister. I believe that everyone around this table believes we should not waste this opportunity to meet with the Deputy Prime Minister.

In that spirit, and following a very productive discussion with my colleagues opposite, I would seek unanimous consent for the following motion: “That the committee temporarily and immediately suspend debate on the motion on the floor for the purposes of hearing testimony from the Deputy Prime Minister, starting at 12 p.m. on May 16; that during this appearance, no other motion be considered in order and we immediately suspend until her appearance; and that, following the Deputy Prime Minister's appearance, the committee resume debate on the current motion."

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you.

PS Beech, I do have a speaking order here. I've got—

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

I'm sorry, it's a unanimous consent motion. I'm going to keep the floor unless that's passed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Okay. What's being ask for is UC—

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

I have just a quick clarification. I know it's dilatory.

I think we're actually debating the subamendment to the motion. As long as everyone is fine with that, I'm good.