Finance Committee on May 2nd, 2023

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

—and I was hoping the minister would come.

It feels longer than that for some, I'm sure.

I know the Minister of Finance is at the convention, as are some of the Liberal colleagues, because the Minister of Finance—

[An hon. member]

She could come over after.

[An hon. member]

Yes. We'll be around.

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

I know two hours is precious in her time. It's so precious that she has allocated two hours of her time to doing panels at the Liberal convention. Yes, I know you're shocked to know that. She's doing a panel, apparently, on election readiness and election success, as I've mentioned before, with the former Democrat candidate for president, Hillary Clinton, who is still former. She didn't make it either.

I'm sure there are a lot of lessons learned, because, you know, there's that saying, “We learn a lot from our mistakes.” I'm sure Hillary has a lot of mistakes to share with the Liberals to avoid in the future, or perhaps personal discussions with the Minister of Finance. As we search for “finding Freeland”, Chrystia Freeland and Hillary Clinton, I'm sure, will have a private tête-à-tête on some of these things.

[An hon. member]

We could invite them both.

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

We could invite them both. I've never met the former first lady. It would be an interesting discussion.

Believe it or not, the second hour.... One hour is, I think, what the minister might perhaps sometime be willing to do, maybe before or after the amendments happen. It is the Minister of Finance's budget bill we're discussing, but she has a second hour at the convention, and I'm sure all my Liberal friends will be there with rapt attention to hear her presentation on the budget bill and how she is spending it.

I'm told, surprisingly, her presentation to the Liberal convention will not be on whether or not she comes to this committee. It will not be on whether or not her budget of $130 billion of more debt to our national debt will be there. It will not be about the sad legacy of the Trudeau family in contributing $1.1 trillion to Canada's debt. Unfortunately, that's not the title of the thing. The session, apparently, is every sort of mixed bag acronym thing that you can put in about how we succeed in the future world of innovation, green economy and every other sort of woke title.

I'm sure it will be fascinating. I think it's going to take 10 minutes just to read the title of that session, so be prepared.

If you go to that session as a Liberal member of Parliament, because I'm sure there will be some there, could you ask some of our questions for us? I would really appreciate it. I know we get some observers there, but I don't believe they will allow us at the microphones at that session.

Could they ask the Minister of Finance, would they please ask the Minister of Finance, if she could spare a dime...no, sorry, spare two hours for poor parliamentarians to defend her $490-billion budget this year? Could she spare a little time for us? Now, if you're not willing to ask that, then perhaps you could ask her about this budget—about how all of this spending, putting future generations into debt, works.

By the way, if the Minister of Industry is there.... I did run into him in the hall earlier today. As I've said, he's an effervescent fellow—

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible—Editor] hospitality suite.

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

Well, maybe it's true. I suspect that the minister has a hospitality suite tonight. I don't know why he would be doing that. Perhaps my Liberal friends could share with me why he would be hosting a hospitality suite. He is a hospitable fellow.

In that hospitality suite...or perhaps the Minister of Industry could ask the Minister of Finance at the session why she thinks it is good fiscal management planning to commit $13 billion of taxpayer money outside of this fiscal framework beyond the life of this government. How is that responsible? I'd like him to ask that, perhaps. Everybody wants to know.

You know, the minister likes to talk in business language. I'm talking about the Minister of Finance but also the Minister of Industry. One of the languages of budgets and ministers of finance and ministers of industry is “return on investment”. It's an important thing, ROI.

The Minister of Industry, speaking of accountability to Parliament, has stood in the House with regard to this Volkswagen deal.

I know that Andrew Coyne is listening: Listen carefully, because you seem to have missed the questions I asked in the House on Volkswagen.

I'll ask either of these ministers, if I get a chance, why the Minister of Industry stood in the House and said that the ROI on the Volkswagen $14-billion deal is a payback in five years, and I'll tell you why. He said every banker in Canada—probably not the ones in Silicon Valley, but every banker in Canada—would love to have a return on investment in five years.

To be fair to the Minister of Industry, he did show up to the industry committee last week.

[An hon. member]

Well, that's something.

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

He showed up for two hours.

[An hon. member]

So it can be done.

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

Shockingly, it can be done. It wasn't even on very much notice.

After questions on this report that he claimed to have been done on an ROI that justified this commitment beyond the fiscal framework, the Minister of Industry referred to a publicly available document, which I had had, written by a policy “think tank”, we'll call it, in Ontario about the theoretical value some decade twenty to thirty years from now of the value of an entire theoretical ecosystem supply chain for EV cars. It wasn't about this deal, as he had led the House to believe. There is no ROI document on this deal with Volkswagen. There is just a theoretical think tank publication on something that says, well, you know, if the stars align, and the fairy dust does this, and the clouds do that, and the earth moves in a certain way, and the government puts in enormous amounts of money that it can't afford in both Ottawa and Ontario, and all that subsidy happens, and we convince all the carmakers to come and create all their stuff here, there might be a 300,000-job impact in Ontario. It sounds impressive. And on the 3,000, somehow the minister created some of that Bill Morneau-Chrystia Freeland math in saying that it somehow translates into 3,000 jobs in this plant in an unknown contract and an unknown ROI.

This mythical report that the minister referred to and led Parliament to believe was done for this deal does not exist.

Let me read again from the ministerial accountability document on open and transparent government that the government put out in its early days, just to remind people of the context of what we're seeking here:

Ministers are responsible to Parliament for the exercise of the powers, duties and functions vested in them.... Ministers must be present in Parliament to respond to questions of the discharge of their responsibilities.

We referred earlier to documents, in this fine report of honest and open government and integrity in answers and truthfulness in answers. Personally, far be it from me to make a claim about the Minister of Industry, but he did say there was a report in the House, on the ROI of this deal, and, by the minister's own admission before a parliamentary committee, that does not exist.

We asked him to table that report. He basically said “It doesn't exist. You can get the public document.” That's all he has, so we're going to be very curious to see the contract on Monday. The minister claims 3,000 direct jobs. I can tell you that in a personal conversation I had with the minister he confirmed to me, when I asked him how many people, the day the plant opens, will be in that plant working, those who punch a timecard, those who are working on any assembly lines there, those who work in management full-time at that plant. I said, “Is it 3,000? Is it less than 3,000? He said “At the plant? Well, yes, less than 3,000.” He said, “It's complicated. You know, it's in the contract and it's very complicated.” I said, “Okay, is it less than 2,000?”

This was outside the washroom. Be careful what you say to people outside the washroom in the House of Commons. He said, “Well, no, it's not less than 2,000.” I said, “Is it less than 1,000 jobs at the plant?” Do you know what the Minister of Industry said? “Yes, it's less than 1,000.”

Question period was starting, and I really had to use the facilities, so I could not ask him if it was less than 500. I could not ask him if it was less than 200. Volkswagen is the most automated car manufacturer in the world. It's hard to believe, no matter how many football fields he claims this thing to be, that there is nothing in there but automation. which taxpayers are paying for, and very few direct jobs. Do you know what? Construction jobs are great. My brother works in construction. I'm sure he'd appreciate one of those fine temporary jobs building this plant, and if the minister wants to let me know, I'm sure my brother could give him a good deal on the construction.

The issue is that those jobs go away when the plant is done. They are not permanent jobs created by a $14-billion investment, so I am hoping that some day we will see a government, in the not-too-distant future, that actually gives answers to the questions when asked and doesn't sort of sprinkle fairy dust around and sort of make it up as they go along. However, because he's a likeable fellow, which he is, we all accept that as a given.

It's our duty, as the official opposition—and it will soon be his duty as the official opposition—to question us when we're in government, and I can assure you that we will be giving better questions and answers to the questions that—

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

On a point of order, thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm sorry to interrupt there, but I don't think it would be possible for you or the clerk to intervene during Mr. Perkins' comments here. As the meeting continues to go on this evening here, I'm just wondering if you or the clerk could update us. During Mr. Perkins' comments here, have we received any correspondence from the finance minister or her office confirming whether she would be attending the finance committee?

If we had that correspondence or confirmation since the meeting started, that might help facilitate some of the conversation—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

That's not a point of order, but it is part of the motion.

MP Perkins, you can continue.

Is it on a point of order?

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

On a point of order, I just noted that according to the agenda for the Liberal convention, Ms. Freeland is wrapping up right now. I'm wondering if we would like to reach out and maybe get her since Zoom is an option, I believe.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

That's not a point of order.

MP Lawrence, that's not a point of order.

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

The entire Liberal—even the rest of the members won't show up to this committee, including the chair, so I don't know how we're ever going to get the minister ever. No Liberal will show up to the committee.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Hey. I'm here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Lawrence, have some decorum, please, and respect.... All comments are to be made through the chair, MP Lawrence.

No, MP Lawrence, you do not have the floor.

We'll go back to MP Perkins. I think you're at mile six now.

MP Perkins, you can continue.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

If we end this discussion—although I must say I'm very interested—it would be great if we could pass the motion. We could probably move on and invite the deputy—

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

Mr. Chair, that's not a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

It is part of the motion, so it would be with the amendment that MP Blaikie has brought forward.

I don't know if members would like to go to it.

Is that what you're asking for?

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Was my point of order not valid?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I didn't hear a point of order. Who is that from?

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

It's Mr. Duncan again.

If that point of order was part of it.... I'm just asking about correspondence. We haven't had any. If we haven't had a response—