Finance Committee on May 2nd, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We shouldn't be speculating on any of these questions, so, MP Lawrence, continue.

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

Well, I'll tell you there. The answer is none. There is absolutely zero recourse this committee has if, in fact, she decides that.

It's a bit unfortunate that the chair sort of occasionally shows his bias and his party by refusing to answer the most simple and basic of questions, not even permitting his clerk to respond to this.

I will tell you, and no one will debate this because it's fact: This committee would have zero recourse. We're in a situation where thrice before this committee has invited the Minister of Finance to come before us. That's the majority of the committee. If we want to talk about subverting democracy—

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Go ahead on a point of order, MP Chatel.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to know whether the Deputy Prime Minister has confirmed that she'll appear before the committee on Tuesday, May 16. If so, why aren't we moving forward with Mr. Blaikie's amendment to the motion?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Clerk, we received an email that the Minister of Finance would appear on the 16th, correct? Yes, that is correct, MP Chatel.

Go ahead, MP Lawrence.

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

Perhaps the chair will answer this question. Was there any commitment for the length of the appearance of the Minister of Finance? Was it for one hour, two hours or 10 minutes? Was there any commitment with respect to the time she would appear?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I have not seen it.

Clerk, I don't know if there was a time. No, there wasn't.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

The minister would appear on May 16th.

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

To be helpful to my colleague, because of the current filibuster, no invitation from this committee requesting a two-hour appearance has ever been able to go out, because the Conservatives have been filibustering for the last 14 hours, just to clarify that. I would also clarify that I wonder what recourse the committee has if the Conservatives continue to filibuster past her timed appearance on Tuesday.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We're not going to entertain those questions either.

MP Lawrence, you do have the floor. We did receive an email from the minister that the minister would appear on the 16th.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. To be clear, there's absolutely no time allocation with respect to that. It literally could be as short as a minute. I'm sure that the parliamentary secretary would have in the course of his duties.... As I've said, I do have respect for Mr. Beech, a strong negotiator for his side, no doubt, who certainly may one day serve in cabinet. I don't know.

I'm sure that he would have shared with the Minister of Finance and deputy leader the Conservatives' consistent request that she appear for two hours.

We're left in the situation, Mr. Chair, where have a Minister of Finance who has disregarded three times the request of this committee to attend. We have an invitation that has been accepted, but we have no time with respect with how long she will appear, nor do we have any recourse.

As Lord Denning famously wrote many decades ago, where there are no consequences, there are no laws. We have here a pattern of disregarding and subverting democracy by the Minister of Finance . Excuse my skepticism but her pattern would tell us that perhaps she is too busy to give her grace or has other things that are more important to her than the finance committee. That is why we need a subamendment to be put in place.

In earlier debate, it was questioned whether we could make other portions of a study of legislation contingent on a minister's appearance. I'd actually like to read into the record a precedent that has been set and was actually agreed upon by the languages committee, I believe. The motion was moved by Marc G. Serré, and it was item number two with respect to the amendment. It said:

amendments to Bill C-13 be submitted to the clerk in both official languages no later than 11:00 a.m. ET the business day following the last meeting with the ministers and departments;

You'll note the similarity to the subamendment moved by my friend Marty Morantz. So we have a subamendment that has been found by the chair to be admissible, in good order. We have a precedent where this has appeared before.

My question for my friends, and this is a legitimate question, is if they really believe this invitation is valid and their minister—they are all one government, I believe they caucus on a weekly basis, like the Conservatives, the NDP, the Green Party and the Bloc Québécois—will actually show up, why are they concerned?

This will move it ahead right now. There's no legitimate reason for them not to accept the subamendment if they believe the Minister of Finance will show up and do her job.

Once again, Mr. Chair, with unanimous consent, I would just like to, if I could, if we're agreeable, ask them to answer my question as to if they are agreeable to the minister showing up for two hours. Clearly, you wouldn't vote for something knowing full well that it won't happen. That would be beneath the honourable members and would be a subversion of democracy, as my colleague said.

By the way, just in respect to clips, I'm happy to have anything I've said here any time clipped. If that's a threat, bring it on.

There's no need for veiled threats here. That's beneath the member. If you want to see some entertaining clips go to some Liberal filibusters. You'll see some very entertaining things that have been said.

But I like to keep things professional and above board. To me a deal is a deal. I am just a simple farmer that way. When I agree on something, when I shake on something, it's a deal.

If this two-hour invitation is legitimate, then they'll have no concern. Like I said, there's already been a precedent set, with almost the exact same language, to make the movement of a bill contingent on the appearance of a minister.

With permission, I would love to hear from one of my Liberal colleagues what possible reason they could have for objecting to this subamendment if in fact it is actually the intent of the Minister of Finance to show up for two hours?

Is that acceptable to the chair? I can see now that it's not.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Lawrence, I have MP Morantz, MP Perkins, MP Masse and MP Dzerowicz after that.

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

Okay. I'm happy to wait.

I just want to sum up where we are for everyone watching.

We have a budget put in front of Canadians for $490 billion. The Conservatives on this side of the table are asking for the Minister of Finance to show up for two hours. We have an amendment put forward by the NDP for two hours.

However, given the Minister of Finance's pattern of disrespect for this committee, the three times she has refused to come to this committee and the fact that we have zero recourse and zero consequences toward the minister if she decides for a fourth time not to come here, we have put a subamendment in place that amends it so that progress on the bill will continue after her appearance.

There can be no reason for Liberals not to support this, other than the fact that they don't believe the Minister of Finance will show up to do her job. We are asking her to come for two hours to talk to the Canadian people for $490 billion. That is $8 billion a minute.

She had two hours this weekend to talk to Liberal insiders. She had two hours for Liberal donors.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I have MP Chatel on a point of order.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Once again, I want to point out that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance agreed to meet with the committee next Tuesday, so May 16. She will be here to answer members' questions.

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

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

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Yes, it is a point of order, because it seems as though my fellow members are debating something else.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Chatel.

To clarify, that is correct. We received an email from the minister that she would want to appear on the 16th.

Go ahead, MP Lawrence.

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

Yes, I would encourage the member to review our subamendment. If, in fact, it was the intention of these Liberals to have the Minister of Finance appear, they would have no problem with it. They would have absolutely no problem with two hours.

They must believe she is not going to show up. That's the only possible reason they would object to our subamendment. There is no other.... Within logic or four squares of reason, they don't believe their deputy leader, their Minister of Finance, is going to show up.

Before I was interrupted—I want to be clear—we have a Minister of Finance, who has appeared a handful of times in the House of Commons and who has thrice refused our invitation to the ministry of finance. It is a blatant disrespect to the institutions of democracy. She is asking Canadians to cough up the amount of $490 billion, and all we want her to do is to explain, for two hours, why.

I am not even casting aspersions with respect to the budget. I am just asking her to come and appear before Parliament.

I would think that all opposition parties would be in favour of hearing from the finance minister for two hours, but evidently not, so the Conservatives will continue to talk about the importance of democracy and protect our institutions, as Conservatives do, against this subversion of democracy by the Minister of Finance and deputy leader.

What is on the list, Mr. Chair? I apologize.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We have MP Morantz next, then I have MP Masse, MP Dzerowicz and then MP Chambers.

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

Perfect.

I think I have made my point with respect to our recalcitrant deputy leader and Minister of Finance, who is unwilling to come to our committee. Although there is virtue signalling that she is going to appear, the reality is that she has time for Liberal insiders. Her own party does not believe she will show up. Otherwise, they would agree to our subamendment.

This can all be solved and we can move ahead right now if the parliamentary secretary says, “I guarantee, on the record, that our Minister of Finance will be here for two hours so we can move forward today.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Morantz.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just to continue on with the very compelling argument made by my colleague Mr. Lawrence, we're talking about the most important piece of legislation a government can table in any particular year. We're asking for the Finance minister to come to the Standing Committee on Finance to answer questions about her budget for two hours. We can't seem to get that commitment from other members of this committee.

It makes me wonder, and I want to return to this argument, about the omnibus nature of this bill because, as members might recall, I actually read quotes from the Prime Minister during my last meeting. He commented on the nature of omnibus legislation and said essentially that he thought omnibus.... I'm just paraphrasing now because I can't seem to put my hands on the actual quote, but I did read it into the record before.

He said a couple of things. Gone are the days when legislation is not coherently strung together with a consistent theme. Gone are those days when bills are created that have a hodgepodge of everything but the kitchen sink thrown into them. He said that when he was the leader of the Liberal Party running to be Prime Minister. He went on to say that this type of legislation is undemocratic. I agree with him.

What's very alarming to me is that the government should have learned its lesson about this three or four years ago when the budget implementation bill of the day—I think it was 2018—came to this committee and had this innocuous clause buried in it.

Now to be fair, the committee members at that time did speak about it. The Liberal members and the opposition members alike discussed their concerns about this idea of giving the Minister of Justice and Attorney General a power that office had not ever held before in Canadian history. It was the power to reach into the public prosecution's office and to alter the course of a prosecution. It gave a politician that power. That was buried in a budget bill. That should have been its own bill, frankly.

That's why I'm so concerned. What happened? The committee members were kept in the dark. It turned out that there was a hidden agenda. Prime Minister Trudeau had a hidden agenda when that provision was introduced into that particular budget bill, because he knew with that provision he could help out his friends at SNC-Lavalin who were under a very serious—