Finance Committee on May 2nd, 2023

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

Before you rule, I'd like the opportunity—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I have ruled it captured the Minister of Finance, so we would go to a vote on MP Blaikie's amendment.

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

I would like the opportunity to discuss it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

That was my ruling, MP Lawrence.

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

You're not giving an opportunity to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

No. That is my ruling. I have conferred with the clerk and others, and that is my ruling.

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

I challenge the chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Okay, there's a challenge of the chair.

[An hon. member]

A recorded vote, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5)

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Do we go now to the vote on the amendment?

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

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, but I'd like to speak to the amendment. We're on Mr. Blaikie's amendment.

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

I have a quick point of order.

I believe now that we've dealt with the question of the subamendment debate, we go back to debate on the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Yes, we are back to debating MP Blaikie's amendment.

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

Incidentally, Mr. Chair, I think that means a fresh speaking list.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Okay. Would you like to be on that?

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

I asked for it before we started that discussion and after the ruling.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Blaikie had the floor.

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

I'm happy to leave that to the discretion of the chair. I was just reminding you that it is a new discussion, so typically it's a new list.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Were you starting that discussion, MP Blaikie?

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

No. I was just having a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Okay. We have MP Morantz, MP Blaikie and then MP Perkins.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Finding Freeland is what we are talking about, Mr. Chair. Specifically, we're speaking to member Blaikie's amendment that the Minister of Finance be invited to appear for two hours on or before May 18, 2023.

Why are we so concerned with having the Minister of Finance here? Well, after how the Prime Minister treated the prior minister of finance, Mr. Morneau, by completely ignoring his recommendations during the pandemic, I'm not so sure. But, here we are.

The thing is, we're trying to find Freeland because she hasn't appeared here at this committee in almost six months. During that time, we've invited her three times. She just has not come here.

On February 2, we invited Minister Freeland in the same meeting as Bank of Canada governor, Tiff Macklem, to discuss inflation. On March 7, the committee invited Freeland to appear to defend her main estimates. On April 20, the committee invited Freeland in relation to the prestudy of the budget bill. We respect that the finance minister is very busy, but she should respect the will of this committee.

I'm not the only one who feels this way, Mr. Chair. In fact, there was a document that was signed by the Prime Minister, dated November 27, 2015 and entitled “Open and Accountable Government”. I thought we could take some time to discuss this document because it sets out the Prime Minister's expectations of his ministers. I presume that his expectations of his ministers are the same today as they were on November 27, 2015.

Part III is entitled “Ministerial Relations with Parliament”. It reads:

In our system of government, Parliament is both the legislative branch and the pre-eminent institution of democratic accountability. Clear ministerial accountability to Parliament is fundamental to responsible government, and requires that Ministers provide Parliament with the information it needs to fulfill its roles of legislating, approving the appropriation of funds and holding the government to account.

It then goes on to say, “The Prime Minister expects”—he expects—“Ministers to demonstrate respect and support for the parliamentary process.”

In particular, it says:

They should place a high priority on ensuring that Parliament and its committees are informed of departmental policy priorities, spending plans and management challenges, including by appearing before parliamentary committees whenever appropriate.

I can think of no more appropriate a time for the finance minister to appear before the finance committee than to discuss her budget. I think this is the time.

It goes on to say:

Ministers are expected to seek the views of parliamentarians and parliamentary committees on future plans and priorities, and to dedicate time to consulting and engaging their colleagues in Parliament in order to earn their support.

Under responsible government, Ministers exercise executive authority on the basis that they have the confidence of Parliament (more specifically, the House of Commons as the confidence chamber), which requires that they, and through them the officials under their management and direction, be accountable to Parliament for their actions.

Parliamentary review of spending is a key element of this accountability. The Constitution Act, 1867 sets out the principles underlying the sovereignty of Parliament in the raising and spending of public money. Revenue can only be raised and moneys spent by the government with the authority of Parliament. Ministers must be prepared to respond to questions on spending for which they are responsible, and to regular parliamentary review of departmental expenditures.

It goes on to talk about “Ministerial House Duties”, noting that “The Prime Minister expects Ministers to place a very high priority on their House duties.”

Now, I noted earlier that the Minister of Finance has only actually been in the House for five days in 2023. That's just 11% of the sitting days this year. She was in the House on January 30, February 13, March 10, April 25 and May 1. That's five days.

That doesn't seem to be the minister placing a very high priority on her House duties.

It gets a little more specific, Mr. Chair. It actually says “Daily attendance at Question Period”. I can't remember the last time I saw the finance minister, except I think a couple of days ago. I went through the dates she was in the House. Five days this year is not daily attendance, and yet this is what the Prime Minister expects of her.

It says:

Any proposed absences must be cleared with the Prime Minister's Office before other commitments are made. When a Minister is absent, a designated Minister or Parliamentary Secretary answers for him or her.

Attendance. Attendance at other specified times is required according to a mandatory schedule of House duties prepared....

I haven't seen that happen either. I have not seen the Minister of Finance in the House on House duty all year.

Ministers are personally responsible for arranging replacements if they have to be absent and for notifying the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the Chief Government Whip of the arrangements.

Piloting legislation.

This is key, Mr. Chair, and it actually says:

The Prime Minister expects Ministers to pilot their own legislation through the House and to appear before parliamentary committees of both Houses...

This really gets interesting. Let me read that again. It says, “The Prime Minister expects Ministers to pilot their own legislation”—which this bill is, legislation of the finance minister—“through the House”.

Before we get to the committee part, I want to draw your attention to the fact that just a couple of days ago the government decided to shut down debate, essentially by bringing a time allocation motion to kill debate on this bill, Bill C-47.

Normally the finance minister would be in the House to defend the legislation for the required 30 minutes. That is the customary way we do things. In fact, I've never seen it done any other way in my three and a half years here, Mr. Chair, but again, they couldn't find Freeland. She didn't show up to defend her own legislation, to pilot, as the Prime Minister expects, her own legislation through the House. She wasn't there, and, you know, the associate minister, Mr. Boissonnault, wasn't there. Ironically, we would end up with Minister Wilkinson, the Minister of Natural Resources—who actually has nothing to do with piloting the budget—defending Minister Freeland in the House on her motion to shut down debate.

I'm getting concerned, Mr. Chair, about the well-being of the finance minister. I hope she's okay. I sincerely do, but she is not here. We need to see her presence to know that she is ready, willing and available to do what the Prime Minister expects of her, which is to pilot her legislation through the House. It says very specifically on page 9, “to appear before parliamentary committees of both Houses”, here and the other place, the Senate, “as required.”

The government will pursue its legislative agenda by requiring that all government Members of Parliament vote with the government on matters of confidence, which include matters of fundamental importance to the government such as the Main and Supplementary Estimates, the Budget, the implementation of electoral commitments, and matters that address shared values and the protections guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights....

“Committee relations” is a very important section. On page 10 of the same document, it says:

Ministers are expected to ensure that policy [initiatives] and legislative issues are brought forward so as to enable meaningful discussion at—

Do you know where, Mr. Chair? This was the Prime Minister talking: “meaningful discussion [of legislative issues] at parliamentary committees.”

Ministers should also place a high priority on developing good relationships with parliamentary committee chairs and members, and supporting the essential work of the committee. This includes appearing before committees whenever appropriate.

I think we have a pretty strong case here that the minister should appear on her own budget. In fact, it's hard to imagine that we really even have to argue for it. I think the sooner she comes to this committee to answer a few questions, the better.

Page 48 of the document says:

Supporting Ministerial Accountability to Parliament

Appearances before House and Senate committees by Ministers and their officials are an essential part—

This isn't me talking. This is from a document posted on the Prime Minister's website.

It states:

Appearances before House and Senate committees by Ministers and their officials are an essential part of informing Parliament, [which enables] parliamentarians to represent the views of their constituents...and to hold the government to account for its management and policies. Ministers should promote an ongoing dialogue with parliamentary committees on their department’s policy priorities, legislative and spending issues, and management challenges. Ministers, supported by the public service, should appear regularly before their respective parliamentary committee to seek the committee’s input into policy and spending priorities, and to discuss departmental performance and results. Ministers are expected to provide, consistent with Treasury Board guidelines, informative and balanced reports to Parliament, most importantly the Estimates, the Report on Plans and Priorities, and Departmental Performance Reports. Ministers and their officials must cooperate with the committees in their work....

Let me read that last part again: “Ministers and their officials must cooperate with the committees in their work”. I have to reiterate this. We invited the minister here three times this year. On February 2 we invited her to appear with the bank governor. On March 7 we invited her to appear to defend the main estimates. She didn't come on the main estimates. That's hard to believe. The committee invited Minister Freeland in relation to the prestudy of the budget bill.

Here we have a section in the document, tabled by the Prime Minister, that “Ministers and their officials must cooperate with the committees in their work and seek the views”, and that's not happening. We have a dysfunctional situation. That's why we are so adamant that we have a motion passed by this committee that calls on the finance minister to appear before we get into the....

Now, we'd like to see, as Conservatives, that the minister appears before we get to clause-by-clause. It will be easier to consider each clause once we have the input and perspective of the minister herself and once we have the chance to ask her questions directly related to those clauses. We have no guarantee that this will happen.

The principles of ministerial accountability guide ministers and their officials appearing before parliamentary committees, including when officials appear in their capacity as accounting officers. Ministers are responsible for providing answers to Parliament on questions regarding government policies, programs and activities and for providing as much information as possible about the use of their powers, including those delegated to them by others. This is the Prime Minister talking. This isn't me. I'm just reminding the committee of the Prime Minister's views.

Now, I'm assuming that the Prime Minister feels the same way about this as he did in 2015. If he does, he should perhaps speak with the Minister of Finance at the earliest possible time to urge her to get to committee so that we can get on with the consideration of her legislation.

You know, Mr. Chair, another reason she needs to come here is that we have many important questions for her. The fiscal anchor that the Minister of Finance said she was completely committed to just one short year ago is now gone. What are fiscal anchors? Fiscal anchors are essentially a policy position of government that says we're going to do something to make sure that we are fiscally responsible. Some fiscal anchors are when government says we're going to commit to a balanced budget by a certain year. Another fiscal anchor is where a government says we may still run deficits, but we're going to make sure that the total amount of our debt as a percentage of the total value of our economy, the GDP, goes down a little bit every year so that we're not encroaching on the equity of our economy.

That's what Minister Freeland did last year. In fact, I'll quote her:

...let me be very clear: We are absolutely determined that our debt-to-GDP ratio must continue to decline. Our deficits must continue to be reduced. The pandemic debt we incurred to keep Canadians safe and solvent must—and will—be paid down.

This is our fiscal anchor. This is a line we shall not cross.

The sad part of all this is that I don't know how we could trust the Minister of Finance, if she came up with a new fiscal anchor this year, that she wouldn't just ignore it when it was convenient again, and next year.

We have a real credibility gap here, and that's another reason why she needs to come and explain why the debt-to-GDP ratio is going up just a year later when in fact she promised. In fact, it was not just a promise, it was a declaration of “a line we shall not cross”. She needs to come here and explain why she did that. Those were bold words. She proclaimed to the world that our debt-to-GDP ratio was her fiscal anchor, that she could and should be trusted to bring Canada's finances under control. She said that and it's not happening.

Another thing she said, not even a year ago, in the fall economic statement, was that by 2027, the budget wouldn't be balanced but would have a surplus of $4.5 billion. That's music to Conservative ears. I thought, that's okay, maybe they're actually serious now about bringing the budget to balance, being fiscally responsible, doing the right thing. But that was November. That was ancient history, according to this government. Six months is a lifetime.

I'm flipping through the budget document. By the way, so people watching can understand what we're talking about, I brought a copy of the budget bill here with me. This is it, for all the students here today. It's over 400 pages, and you know what? The Finance Minister who wrote this law won't come here to answer questions about what it's all about. That's not right. Do you folks think that's right? Anyone put up their hand if they think that's right. I don't see any hands going up from our wonderful students at the back of the room, Mr. Chair.

It's not even mostly a budget. For the most part, it's what they call an omnibus bill. It purports to amend or introduce 51 acts of Parliament. It's unbelievable. She has to come to explain why this budget isn't actually about budgeting, because what this budget is about as far as I can tell is almost anything but budgeting.

Some of these acts are the Air Travellers Security Charge Act, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act, the Canada Elections Act and the Canada Emission Reduction Incentives Agency Act. All these maybe are laudable goals, but they aren't about budgeting. They aren't about revenue. They aren't about expenses. They aren't about fiscal or economic policy. They're about all kinds of other things, so we're wondering what it is the Finance Minister is doing here. Why is she introducing amendments like this? some of the acts are the National Research Council Act, the Privileges and Immunities (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) Act, the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, the Patent Act, the Pension Benefits Standards Act. I could go on and on. I'm not going to belabour the committee with reading the names of all 51 of them.

I want to say why this important. Just a few short years ago, in a bill just like this, the finance minister of that day, Mr. Morneau, introduced a 500-page long bill that included buried in it a clause that would amend the Criminal Code of Canada to allow the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to give a free pass, a deferred prosecution agreement, to one particular company, SNC-Lavalin. That led to a major scandal. It led to the destruction of political careers. It led to the first indigenous Attorney General and Minister of Justice of Canada having to withdraw or being taken out of her portfolio.

I asked the question of the officials the other day and you might recall this, Mr. Chair. Is there any single company that benefits from any provision in this bill, this 400-page document, that we don't have the opportunity to properly scrutinize?

They said absolutely nothing. We had 50 public servants in the room and not a single one uttered a word. They would not answer my question.

We have a lot of questions for the Minister of Finance.

I am going to take a bit of a rest, although I would like you to recycle my name on the list, Mr. Chair.

I know my colleagues, who are far more eloquent than I am, are ready, willing and capable of picking up these arguments and explaining to this committee and to you, Mr. Chair, why finding Freeland is imperative to the progress of this committee, and to making sure that Canada remains a fiscally responsible country with a government that is accountable to its citizens.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Morantz.

Now we're going to MP Blaikie, please.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'll just remind the committee that I, in fact, support my amendment and will be happy to vote on it at any time. For the time being, I'll support Mr. Morantz in his desire to hear a more eloquent speaker.