Evidence of meeting #87 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was ministers.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Just to clarify, does this email include a willingness for...two hours?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
It is that the minister will appear before committee on May 16.
Now we are back to MP Perkins.
You have the floor.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think this is my third set for today on this.
Mr. Chair, you summarized the situation well in our "finding Freeland" exercise, and, in particular, I would like to say that one of the reasons we like to ask the Minister questions with regard to this budget bill, this bill that amends 51 acts of Canada and spends $3.1 trillion, is that Canadians are suffering because of the high costs of everything, in particular, housing. I know many members of Parliament who have been grappling with this issue of high-cost housing.
I would just like to bring to the committee's attention something that I would love to bring to the minister's attention, were she to come here for two hours to discuss the impacts of this government's budgetary process on housing.
A recent report on housing affordability by the Royal Bank of Canada is entitled, “Buying a home has never been so unaffordable in Canada”, which I think is really true. There are four opening summary points to the more detailed report, which I'm sure members will like to hear in order to understand the types of questions that could be asked if we had a bit of freedom for Freeland to come here to committee and actually answer questions for two hours as parliamentary accountability, which is the purpose of both the subamendment and the amendment by Mr. Blaikie. The reason this seems to be a challenge is that, in the last six months, there have been three invitations to the Minister to appear.
For those who are watching and aren't familiar with parliamentary process, committees can only request that a minister appear. The minister does not need to feel compelled to appear, but out of parliamentary tradition and, quite frankly, because of the open and accountable government document that all ministers are required to review and understand released by this government in 2015.... This document, referenced in every single mandate letter of every minister of this government, says that ministers must make themselves available for questioning both by Parliament—that would be the House of Commons—and the Senate, as well as by the parliamentary committees that are tasked with examining government legislation and policy ideas.
This is the finance committee responsible for going through Bill C-47, the budget implementation act, which amends 51 acts of the Government of Canada. In this accountability, some of the areas that we've approved include this concern, while Canada's leading bank that says that buying a home has never been so unaffordable in Canada. In the summary here, there are four points.
The first one is:
Surging interest rates drive ownership costs to record-high levels: The Bank of Canada’s rate hiking campaign since March has added hundred of dollars to mortgage payments
That would be the previous March in 2022. In some cases, as we know, it's up to $7,000 a month "that comes with a home purchase. This, along with the jump in property values during the pandemic have made it more difficult than ever to become a homeowner in Canada."
I see that we're joined by a number of young people here who are working on the Hill for the summer, some very bright and intelligent interns. When they graduate and enter the workforce, I'm sure they hope to own a home. That's the dream of everyone, yet this RBC report says that dream is out of reach. As our leader, the next Prime Minister of Canada, Pierre Poilievre, says quite often, it's become out of reach for new homeowners. Indeed, "RBC’s national aggregate affordability measure reached 60% in the second quarter, surpassing the previous worst-ever point (57%) in 1990."
Now, in 1990 there was another global recession. It was a difficult global recession and led to double-digit interest rates, causing massive issues with affordability. It wasn't like the early 1980s recession under Pierre Elliott Trudeau, when mortgage rates reached 21%, if you can believe that—21%. These rates only reached 12%, 13%, 14% in the early 1990s, a relative bargain compared with what happened under Pierre Trudeau, and they obviously make the current situation look less drastic. But if you are entering the housing market now with some of the highest housing prices in the world, two of the biggest housing bubbles in the world are in Toronto and Vancouver, and so this, combined with the double whammy or perfect storm, if you like, of high interest rates is going to make it virtually impossible for that dream of home affordability.
The second point of RBC is in the summary is that affordability worsened everywhere in Canada: “The deterioration over the past year has been off the charts in most markets in most markets with only parts of the Prairies and Quebec having experienced deeper erosion in the past.”
I live in rural Nova Scotia and we have a housing crisis in every part of rural Nova Scotia. Some people think this is only a big city issue, but it's an issue everywhere. We've seen soaring housing prices in rural Alberta, in rural Canada. I'm sure all members from rural ridings around this committee will acknowledge that they receive those calls every single day.
The third point is of particular interest to some of colleagues: Ontario and BC buyers are extremely challenged. Banks can sometimes be the centre and focus of understatement and I think “Ontario, BC buyers extremely challenged” is perhaps an understatement. RBC goes on to say in that bullet that “Conditions are still manageable in the Prairies and most of Atlantic Canada and Quebec though.” I tend to disagree, as these regions have lower average household income and there are fewer household opportunities to buy, to purchase a house. Yes, the housing prices in parts of my riding may be at levels that seem ridiculously low compared with Toronto and Montreal, or even Vancouver, but when the median income in my riding is $30,000, a $200,000 to $400,000 home at these interest rates is out of range, just unfathomable to most people, forcing them into rental units, if you can find one.
The largest community in my riding—I would like to ask the minister about this—is called Bridgewater and the Prime Minister will be familiar with Bridgewater, as will the industry minister because they were just there a few parliamentary breaks ago making an announcement with one of our employers, Michelin. A one-bedroom apartment on the main street above a retail store starts at $1,200 to $1,500 a month, so if you think it's a bargain to live in small town rural Atlantic Canada, it is not. Yes, the rents are not huge like in Toronto, but the income levels are relatively lower too and make it more difficult.
The fourth point RBC makes is that “Home price declines [will] eventually bring relief to buyers”. That's what we all hope. They say:
The sharp housing market correction that began this spring is rolling back some of the spectacular price gains made during the pandemic. We expect benchmark prices to fall 14% nationwide by next spring—more so in Ontario and BC. This should help lower ownership costs next year. But the likelihood of further rate hikes from the Bank of Canada is poised to intensify affordability pressures before then
—which we have gone through—
more so in Ontario and BC. This should help lower ownership costs next year.
Unfortunately, counterbalancing that—perhaps levelling out in some markets a lowering of some of the higher-end products—are higher interest rates, which doesn't make housing any more affordable to the new homebuyer.
These things are the questions we would like to ask on affordability when housing prices, whether you rent or buy, have doubled under this government. But we can't get to ask those questions if the Minister of Finance has been present at question period only six times since January and has not shown up, has blown off, one might say.... In fact, I said in question period today that the minister has blown off the last three invitations from this committee and has not bothered to come to those hearings.
We're only asking for two hours of her time. I would remind the Minister of Finance that the spending arm of the government, the Treasury Board, has a policy document on ministerial accountability that I'm sure she has read, but isn't listening to.
For the translators, on page 15 of that document, section 2.2, is called “Parliament's role in holding the government to account”, and it says:
Parliament’s role, on behalf of Canadians, is to hold ministers to account for the activities carried out under their authority or those authorities vested directly in departmental officials. Ministers, in turn, need to assure themselves that structures and processes are in place to give them the appropriate degree of control, which includes ensuring that their deputy is managing the department well enough to support ministerial accountability.
It goes on to say that “Parliament has a broad range of means to hold the government to account. The oldest and still among the most powerful is control of the public purse—the exclusive right to authorize taxation and the expenditure of public funds. In support of this responsibility, Parliament audits the accounts of revenues and expenditures in a manner of its choosing.”
Now, let's just stop there. Let's take a look at Bill C-47, the budget implementation act. By its very nature, the purpose of the budget implementation act, and the examination by this finance committee with the minister, is to do precisely what Treasury Board says our job as parliamentarians is: “The oldest and still among the most powerful is control of the public purse—the exclusive right to authorize taxation and the expenditure of public funds.” That is our duty as parliamentarians. It's to scrutinize the spending plan of the Government of Canada, in this case as exemplified in Bill C-47: “In support of this responsibility, Parliament audits the accounts of revenues and expenditures in a manner of its choosing.”
There's a footnote on that. It's footnote 11 at the bottom of the page:
See Norman Ward. The Public Purse. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1951, pp. 3–4, for a statement of the core principles and practices of parliamentary control of finances. Part IV of the Financial Administration Act sets out the manner in which the Public Accounts are to be kept, subject to the regulations of the Treasury Board
To go back into the document, it says:
Other means include Parliament’s role in the passage of legislation, the scrutiny and approval of public expenditures, debate over resolutions, and the provision of information, whether through Question Period or formal reporting.
There's a footnote here on that sentence:
Based on Peter Aucoin and Mark D. Jarvis. Modernizing Government Accountability: A Framework for Reform. Canada School of Public Service, 2005, pp. 20–21.
This is a fairly commonly written-about thing:
Parliament audits the accounts of revenues and expenditures in a manner of its choosing. Other means include Parliament’s role in the passage of legislation, the scrutiny and approval of public expenditures, debate over resolutions, and the provision of information, whether through Question Period or formal reporting. Three areas warrant specific attention: Question Period, the scrutiny of the government’s performance by parliamentary standing committees (particularly the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, and the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Accounts), and the role of the auditor general.
Toward the bottom of the page, there's a new section under 2.2 entitled “Question Period”. As I think I've said before, in our effort to find Freeland we've been disappointed by the fact that there have been six appearances in Parliament. We were hopeful that there would be a seventh, since she was there yesterday, but apparently a seventh was not possible today. We live in hope that there may be an appearance tomorrow, but Wednesdays are the Prime Minister's question period, so it's not terribly useful if she shows up then. We cannot pose questions to the Minister of Finance on a Wednesday in the House of Commons. We are reliant on the other days for the minister to be present and/or in committee here, as this report says.
For those who are unfamiliar, the Treasury Board guidelines say this about ministerial accountability in question period:
Question Period is a distinctive feature of Westminster democracy and arguably its most powerful instrument of accountability.
We had the President of the United States here recently, and we had secretaries of state, their cabinet, who are not elected. They are appointed by the President and ratified by Congress, but they are not elected individuals. They marvel that ministers in charge of departments have to actually be held accountable on a daily basis in question period. It's what I think makes our system so much superior to a republican system like the U.S., that daily our ministers are held to account by other elected people—not by the media when you show up and do a press conference, and not by the media when you are at an event and scrum afterwards, but by people duly elected to hold you to account. As this paper says, “A centrepiece of parliamentary life, Question Period gives parliamentarians timely”—the key is timely—“opportunities to challenge policies and raise questions about administration.”
This is Treasury Board now. It's the Government of Canada. This document says:
Ministers are obliged to be present in the House of Commons to respond to questions, to account for the authority that has been assigned to them, and to defend the way in which they or their officials have exercised authority.
At the bottom of the page, just so the translators can follow along, we find footnote 14. The footnote to that important direction from Treasury Board states:
Ministers have a duty to attend Question Period daily. See Canada. Governing Responsibly, 2004, p. 16. 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.
Of course, for the past number of months—we're in month five, I guess, since Parliament came back in January—we've seen six days with the Minister of Finance and all the rest answered by somebody else. Sometimes I have the feeling when we're in the opposition and asking questions of the Minister of Finance, who clearly has been given permission, according to this, by the Prime Minister to not actually attend to earn her paycheque, that—
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
According to these academic studies, the Prime Minister is responsible for giving clearance and saying that the minister only needs to be there once a month in order to collect her paycheque.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Well, I've been asked by a member present in the committee how that happens when the Prime Minister himself has some challenges in that regard in terms of attending question period during the week. It's a good question. It's one I'd like to pose, perhaps, to the minister if she came to committee: How is it that in the expenditure of tax dollars to pay your paycheque, you have been given permission to actually be absent and not present in most of the last five to six months?
Some of you may recall that famous debate by that great, great NDP leader Jack Layton. By the way, I knew his father, Bob Layton. I know that Jack Layton didn't advertise this in Parliament, but Bob Layton was elected in 1984 as a member of Parliament from a riding in Montreal in the massive Brian Mulroney sweep of 1984, when he won 211 of 282 seats. I think MP Blaikie's father was elected in that election. In this case, Jack Layton's father was elected and Brian Mulroney put him in the cabinet. He was the Minister of State for Mines.
In the cabinet shuffle in 1986, when my boss was moved out of junior minister of finance over to the role of privatization minister, Mr. Layton unfortunately was not in that cabinet then, but he eventually became caucus chair. I know that he was very proud of his son, who started the White Ribbon campaign to end violence against women after he left public office. I know, because I talked to him many times when he lived in Toronto, how proud he was of his son Jack.
Why wouldn't he be? Jack Layton fought over four elections as the leader, I think, although I stand to be corrected. In 2011, in the debate against Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, this is what he said to Mr. Ignatieff: You know what? You have the worst attendance record in Parliament. People expect you to show up to work to get paid, not to get paid to stay home or do whatever you're doing. They expect you to show up when you get paid. You haven't been showing up. You have the worst attendance record in Parliament.
I would hope that the members of the NDP caucus, when they're having discussions on their supply arrangement with the government, would raise these concerns about the fact that the Minister of Finance seems to suffer from Ignatieff syndrome, that being the inability to find your way to Parliament Hill. It seems to have afflicted the Minister of Finance. I don't know if it's a communicable thing and like COVID was passed from person to person and got passed through the NDP caucus. Obviously, the part of Mr. Layton's admonition of the Liberal leader for not showing up to work hasn't been a communicable virus that spread to the Liberal cabinet, or we would see the Minister of Finance more frequently. We all know that we would appreciate her presence more to answer questions, as Treasury Board says we should.
This Treasury Board document, which is only 55 pages, says the following at the top of page 16:
Any member can ask any minister any question about his or her area of responsibility, without advance notice. By questioning ministers, parliamentarians hold the government to account in ways that apply appropriate political pressure, especially by raising public attention to a problem.
In some ways, I guess, we're doing that now in this committee. We're raising public attention to a problem. Not only is it a problem that the finance minister just says “yes” when asked to spend more money, because there is no plan to balance the budget, but we're also raising attention through this. We've been asked why we're doing this and why we'd like the minister here for two hours. It's because we'd like to raise public attention to the fact that we have a truancy problem in the House of Commons.
Yes, truancy; you remember that. I would never have spent a lot of time skipping classes. Far be it from me to do that.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
I might have, but just a few. I was more concerned with sports than I was with that, personally.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
I did get in trouble for talking in class. I admit it. I'm guilty as charged. But truancy is an issue when you don't show up. We know that the people who didn't show up in class were generally the underperformers. Not showing up at class is not only an underperformance; it also contributes to your continued underperformance in the future.
I think that's why “truancy” is an apt name for this bill. This is a bill from a truant finance minister who, if we'd been able to hold her to account, might have been more sensitive to the needs of Canadians and other communities and their concern about how these spending pressures are driving up their everyday costs.
When you're not available to have those questions asked, and when you're not held accountable, it's sort of like, as somebody recently said—perhaps it was in question period today—when you're trying to find Nemo or on a search for Freeland; sometimes with the responses in question period, because the Minister of Finance isn't available, it's like we're playing whack-a-mole. One minister pops up here to answer a question on finance, and then the Minister of Sport gets up and answers a question about the budget even though the Minister of Sport is not responsible for the budget. Then the Minister of Public Safety will get up.
These are kind of odd things, because we aren't seeing, in some cases, that they are personally responsible. We do know, though...and I could go back, if you wish, to the parts of this paper that talk about the collective responsibility of cabinet ministers. Maybe that's what they're doing. They all feel that they're just as responsible for this mess as the minister.
They are collectively like those times in high school when some folks were truant and would come back and say, “Can I have your notes? Maybe I'll be able to write the mid-term test with your notes.” It feels to me like these cabinet ministers are keeping the notes for the finance minister, but something's getting lost in translation when they're giving those notes to the truant finance minister.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
It could be "trud-ancy", but I won't say it's "eel-legal". She can be absent if she chooses to, if the Prime Minister gives her that permission, and I guess he has.
So any member can ask any question of any minister any time about her area of responsibility. Now we come to another really important section of this Treasury Board document that I know you're all waiting for. It's called “Committee review of government spending”. I know you're riveted by that.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
[Inaudible—Editor] of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. They weren't alive during his.... So if you could mention that—
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
I've had a special request—and I do take special requests—about a fellow named Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
I never met him personally. I was far too young. He was the father of the current Prime Minister.
For the young folks in the room, just to let you know, the father was prime minister from 1968 to 1979 and then again from 1980 to 1984. In 1968, fresh-faced—sounds familiar—with Trudeaumania—sounds familiar—Pierre Elliott Trudeau, having had the party depose unceremoniously Prime Minister Pearson from the job, sort of in the way the Martin people did to the Chrétien people, as new Liberal leader, with all his vim and vigour and the great enthusiasm and optimism of our country after its centennial, said he would not run deficits and that the Government of Canada was not a Santa Claus.
That's what he said in 1968: that the government is not Santa Claus. After all those years in power and the loss of his finance minister because of the spending, Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau built up $468 billion in debt—$468 billion—and now the son has build up over $700 billion.
The easiest way for young folks to understand the Trudeau legacy is that the two Trudeaus, the father and son.... The son committed the same sins as the father in oh so many ways—but we'll just stick to financing—and contributed $1.1 trillion in debt that the young folks in this room and their grandkids are going to have to deal with. Their grandkids are going to have to pay. It won't be me and it won't be the members around this table who are going to have to worry about this record spending, the $1.1 trillion in Trudeau debt and borrowing: It will be them and their grandkids. I feel sorry for them.
That's a bit of a digression, but I did take a request.
It will be felt from all three oceans, the north, Vancouver and Vancouver Island: I think there's change. The wind is blowing in Vancouver Island right through to the eastern tip, the closest point to Europe in North America, in the wonderful province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The importance of what we are here to do on accountability is exemplified very well in the following paragraphs in this Treasury Board document that deals with ministerial accountability and committee review of government spending, which, after all, is what Mr. Blaikie's motion and Mr. Beech's original motion are about. They are about accountability on this budget.
For the sake of those following at home, this Treasury Board document on page 18 reads as follows, and this will be new to some people:
The Estimates process is fundamental to holding the government to account and is linked to Parliament’s control over the public purse. The government can raise revenue and spend or borrow money
—this one certainly borrows money—
only with the authority of Parliament.
I digress, but I will for a moment. As we approached COVID, this government actually tried to usurp Parliament on its spending pressure authority. It wanted to get a blanket authority to be able to spend and borrow whatever it wanted for two years without Parliament's sitting. There's a fellow named King Charles I, not King Charles III, but King Charles I, who lost his head due to parliament because of such an attempt. Now, we would not suggest that we do that....
Was it King Charles II? I've been corrected by MP Blaikie. It was King Charles II who actually lost his head, but nonetheless it was a King Charles. Now, I'm not suggesting that this is what would happen to our new King Charles as a result of that. I'm not. I am quite proud of the Charles III pin I wear, but ultimately it's not a great consequence of trying to usurp Parliament's authority, as this government tried to do. Thankfully, due to the efforts of a very strong opposition by all parties, we did that.
Conservative
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
I've had a request to talk about the Magna Carta, and I must say that I think our leader is perhaps a greater expert on the Magna Carta than I.
I'll continue with this paragraph, the first paragraph of “Committee review” of governing documents:
Parliament exercises authority over government financial administration through enabling legislation, such as an appropriations act, and by reviewing financial documentation, such as the Main Estimates (parts I, II, and III) and the Public Accounts of Canada.
We're told we can't use props in the House but we can use props here. I think this is an adequate prop. Do you know what? I'm not even sure the Minister of Finance could count all of the pages in this act it's so thick and big, amending 51 acts, but we're trying to hold her to account in a measly two hours to ask a few questions.
“In the Main Estimates,” as this document says, “the government presents Parliament with spending proposals for a fiscal year and provides details on individual programs and on the plans and performance of departments and agencies.”
It is true that the estimates do not amend things, as this supposed bill does, such as the design of the king's crown in an emblem for our new king. That supposedly changes some of the symbols from what they were. Some religious symbols are being removed to, I assume, make it a non-sectarian sort of thing and they are being replaced with a snowflake. Snowflakes are replacing the images of a snowflake. That aside—
Liberal
Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac, QC
Thank you. I want to remind my fellow members what we are talking about.
I would like to mention that on this point of order we are not talking about Charles III or snowflakes or fisheries. We are talking about a motion to invite the Deputy Prime Minister to appear for two hours in front of this committee. We have also learned that she's willing to come on Tuesday. I would really like to invite my colleague to continue the debate on our motion as amended by the NDP to invite the Deputy Prime Minister to come and appear in front of this committee.
Thank you.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Again, just keep it relevant, MP Perkins.
Go ahead, MP Kurek, on a point of order.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I would ask the honourable member if she would simply share with this committee whether or not the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance would be willing to come to this committee for a very reasonable two hours.
Certainly I know Mr. Perkins and other Conservative members would be happy to get on with the business of this committee. We think it's entirely reasonable that the Minister of Finance on a budget that spends almost $500 billion would come to this committee. I'm just curious whether that member heard from the Deputy Prime Minister that she would in fact be willing to come to this committee for two hours when she indicated her availability to appear next Tuesday.
