Finance Committee on May 2nd, 2023

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

Peter was locked in. I could tell.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

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

Mr. Morneau said, “Supporting people off work was critical, but we recognized that the amount decided on by the PMO was over the top.” He called it “over the top”, Mr. Chair.

This is the finance minister:

For many part-time workers or those in low-income jobs, this amount would exceed their regulate take-home pay. I wanted to be generous, but the PMO's figures, chosen with no regard for our detailed calculations and justifications, meant we would be distributing billions of dollars more than was actually needed under the circumstances.

This is the finance minister of Canada saying that. It's stunning, actually. It's absolutely stunning.

Now, he doesn't say what he would have recommended, and I don't know if we'll ever be able to get that information, but I would love to know what he recommended. Whatever it was, this $1.2-trillion debt the Prime Minister has racked up—well, he's doubled the debt since 2015, as Mr. Fast mentioned—would be significantly lower if the advice of the finance minister had just been followed.

He goes on to talk about the wage subsidy as well. He says:

Once again, my team worked through the night to make our calculations and shape our recommendations on how much money businesses would actually get. I managed to deliver our report to the prime minister at 10 p.m. one evening early in the pandemic.

At a press gathering the next morning, about 12 hours after he had agreed with all aspects of the program I had presented, I watched and listened as he introduced the program to Canada. With great pride he announced the amount of money made available to individual businesses via CEWS...a figure significantly higher than we had agreed was the highest we should go the previous evening!

It's unbelievable. I'm getting to my point about this motion, because I'm not sure, I'm absolutely really doubting, sincerely, Mr. Chair and colleagues on the other side, whether Ms. Freeland, the finance minister, is even the right person to come to defend this budget. It seems to me, if you listen to Mr. Morneau, that it doesn't really matter what the finance minister thinks, says or recommends.

Honestly, I think maybe what we should be doing is changing the motion to call on the Prime Minister to appear to defend this budget. It's clear to me that, by the way this Prime Minister operates, his cabinet ministers really have no real authority.

On that, I want to return briefly to a point I was making earlier about the omnibus nature of the budget.

There are 39 separate legislative initiatives contained in part 4. Earlier today, we had something like 50 officials—50 officials—from the finance department here, and I asked them a very simple question.

Some of you may remember that a few years ago the justice department put a provision into a budget implementation act, saying that the Attorney General should be able to defer prosecutions at her discretion. It breezed through. It became law, and that laid the groundwork for what became known as the SNC-Lavalin scandal.

I asked officials today if there were there any changes. This bill is absolutely massive. Most of the things it contains really have nothing to do with budgeting. It contains things like withdrawing most favoured nation status from Russia and Belarus. That's not a budget item, but it's in there for some reason. It amends the Privileges and Immunities (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) Act to enable the Paris Protocol to be implemented in Canada. That's not a budgetary item in anyone's estimation, but it's in the budget document.

It amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Yukon Act, the Marine Liability Act, the Wrecks, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act, and air passenger rights—some of these are laudable goals, Mr. Chair—and prohibits testing of cosmetics on animals, and so many other things.

I was worried, so I asked these 50 officials if there is anything in this bill....

Remember, the amendment for the deferred prosecution agreement was specifically there to benefit the Prime Minister's buddies at SNC-Lavalin, so that they could avoid criminal charges on very serious charges.

I asked them, “Are there any changes in this bill that would benefit one particular company?” Do you know what happened, Mr. Chair? There was no response, not a peep, from any single one of the 50 public servants who were sitting here a couple of hours ago. Silence.... I would still like that question answered before we go any further. I think Canadians need to know if there is anything that is going to be scandal-worthy again in this budget. We need to know it right up front.

With that, I have made my points for now, anyway. I have a lot more to say about this document, particularly around....

I want to say one other thing, because I want to reiterate one point before I finish, which Mr. Fast touched on.

From the day of Confederation in 1867 to 2015, when this Prime Minister took office, the amount of debt accrued by the consecutive governments of Canada was just over $600 billion. Today it's over $1.2 trillion. From 1867 to 2015, it was $600 billion, and from 2015 to 2023.... You be the judge.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you.

I have MP Chambers on next.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

There is the parliamentary secretary right now, and I'm glad he's here.

Also I want to note for the viewers at home that the member from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is in the building and has a number of materials that he will draw upon for his comments. I am just the warm-up act.

As we talk about the motion before us, we had some requests on this side with respect to clause-by-clause maybe starting on June 6 instead of Thursday, May 25, but we will give all other demands or requests up if we reference an invitation to the minister to appear at the committee for two hours before clause-by-clause.

Based on previous experience, invitations that include the minister don't even need to be abided by the minister, so I'm not really sure what the government's issue is with having an invitation to the minister included in this motion, unless, of course, the minister is intending not to show up.

If the minister does show up, I have some questions for the minister, and this is why it's important.

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

I have just a quick point of order, Mr. Chair.

I think Mr. Chambers point is well taken, certainly by me, if I understand it right. I'd be happy to suggest an amendment to that effect, but I can't do that unless I have the floor.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

I will yield the floor to Mr. Blaikie.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you.

MP Blaikie, go ahead with an amendment to what MP Chambers has suggested.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Chambers, for offering me the floor.

I would propose to amend the motion to add the following clause:

that the Minister of Finance be invited to appear for two hours on the bill, and that this appearance be scheduled on or before May 18

I think that would make the most sense with the motion we have before us.

That is May 18, 2023, of course.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Blaikie.

I am just looking to—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I'm sorry. As a point of order, could that be read again a little more slowly, so we can make note of it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Okay.

Can you repeat that? Would it be at the end of the motion, MP Blaikie?

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

Yes, that works for me, if it works for everyone else.

It would be something to the effect that the Minister of Finance be invited to appear for two hours on the bill, and that this appearance be scheduled on or before May 18, 2023.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Genuis, did you hear that?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Yes, maybe just one more time, to make sure I have it, but I think I have it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I have MP Lawrence on this.

Go ahead, MP Lawrence.

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

As always, I am impressed by Mr. Blaikie's ability to bridge the unbridgeable.

I have one small addition to his language, and that would be changing the motion that the clause-by-clause beginning—and I believe the date is the 18th, if I have that right—is made contingent on the minister's appearance for two hours.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Okay, so—

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

I'm sorry. I'm struggling to find the clause here, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Would you like me to suspend for a couple of minutes?

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

Yes. Perhaps you could give me just a couple of minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Sure.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate your generosity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Okay.

We're suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We're back.

The last speaker on was MP—