Finance Committee on May 2nd, 2023

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

I appreciate that MP Blaikie was very polite and articulate in his intervention.

I think, Mr. Chair, it is important to remind members—all those who spoke on this point of order—that what we're speaking to is the subamendment to Mr. Blaikie's amendment. The subamendment is where the relevance is, because the subamendment is asking the Minister of Public Safety to come before this committee relative to the budget. Since that is in the budget and the motion, and the Minister of Public Safety is responsible for the RCMP—who are not enforcing the law on the elver fishery—that minister needs to be held accountable, through this budget process, for the expenditures of those monies and for why they're not enforcing the law. That's the relevance to the elver fishery. I know that everyone who is fascinated by the elver fishery, as I am, and concerned about criminal activity would like to hear from the Minister of Public Safety as to why.

What's been interesting is that the Atlantic Canada MPs have been totally silent on the issue of the lawlessness going on—the lack of RCMP and DFO enforcement of the law. Those are part of any budget.

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

On this point of order, Mr. Chair, could I respond quickly to something Mr. Perkins said?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Yes, MP Blaikie.

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

As I said earlier, I certainly appreciate his interventions. I would remind him that the subamendment was moved by Mr. Genuis. At the time, I thought it was kind of interesting. This speaks directly to the question of the relevance of Mr. Perkins' remarks to the subamendment moved by his Conservative colleague Mr. Genuis, when he was touring our committee.

There were two things I thought were interesting about it.

First of all, Mr. Genuis said we needed to hear from the Minister of Public Safety to address the question of an office being established to fight foreign interference, which was announced—he said—because it's in the budget implementation act. What I found interesting about that claim is that it's false, because it's not in the budget implementation act. I suspect Mr. Genuis, who himself noted that his expertise is in foreign affairs, missed this. I think it is common for a lot of people who aren't an integral part of the process on a regular basis to not realize that a lot of what's announced in the budget doesn't appear immediately in the subsequent budget implementation act. Often, people conflate the budget document with the budget implementation act. I think Mr. Genuis did that.

That's an important reminder for all of us parliamentarians, when we substitute on other committees: Be properly briefed instead of walking in and throwing our weight around when we don't really know what we're talking about.

Were there mention of such an office in the budget implementation act, or anything to do with it, then the idea, of course, would be that we would send it to other committees, as we've suggested doing with other content.

I hear what Mr. Perkins is saying. I would remind him that the subamendment was moved—at least by the mover—with the express purpose of getting the Minister of Public Safety here to talk about the issue of a foreign interference office here in Canada. It wouldn't quite be relevant, then, to talk about the fishing issues on the east coast. That's not the purpose for which the minister was being called. Of course, the minister was being called for a purpose that is itself out of order, because the thing Mr. Genuis wanted to talk to him about isn't in the bill we're studying.

There is a bit of a regress going on, in terms of what sounds like a good reason being defeated by another reason that itself turns out not to be good. There is a fair bit of confusion. I hope I've helped resolve some of that confusion. I expect we're going to hear more about Fisheries and Oceans. I always appreciate an opportunity to learn. That's why I sub on other peoples' committees sometimes—to get to learn about other things. It's interesting to be on the finance committee and not get to hear about issues of finance, particularly when we have the budget implementation act before us.

I'm a sport and I'm here to learn, so please carry on. I just thought we should carry on with a proper understanding of what's going on. Now that we have that understanding established, let's continue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Blaikie.

MP Perkins, I think this is the first time you've sat here on this committee. I'm not sure.

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

As a member of Parliament it is the first time. As a staff person, I've sat at many finance committee meetings.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I believe MP Genuis was also not here. At times, the public or even members and those here on the Hill may not understand that the BIA is not all-encompassing of the whole budget. Where Mr. Genuis was coming from, your linkage to that subamendment and how that may not be relevant are what MP Blaikie is making us all aware of—and those watching today—in terms of what the BIA is.

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

I appreciate that intervention.

I'll make another clarification on the point of order, just so you understand. While this may be the second time I've substituted in finance, I have a long history of understanding how the budget works. I worked for the minister of finance in the Mulroney government. I sat in many finance committee hearings over those eight years of the government. I appreciate that, so I know the difference between the bills, the act and the budget statement.

When I look at the subamendment that Mr. Genuis proposed, while there may have been a preamble rationale, when I read the subamendment it makes no mention of the things Mr. Blaikie was talking about. The subamendment just talks about the appearance of the Minister of Public Safety, in addition to the finding Freeland effort that we're going through to get the Minister of Finance to actually show up for two hours on the main motion.

I should remind people that this is what this is all about. It's about the fact that we're trying to get the Minister of Finance to actually show up for a couple of hours, as well as the 11 committees that were referenced earlier by my colleague, Mr. Morantz.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Just on that, Mr. Perkins, that was the friendly amendment, I believe by MP Blaikie, to bring in the minister and to add that to this motion. The minister would be added to the motion to come in for an appearance.

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

I've searched the subamendment and that amendment and I see no reference to any of the things that Mr. Blaikie said, other than the appearance of the Minister of Public Safety.

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

If I may, Mr. Chair, it's why I thought it was important to say that it's not in the motion, but it was part of the reasons given by Mr. Genuis.

I accept that the intense focus that Mr. Perkins has put on the appearance of the Minister of Public Safety has distracted somewhat from the important point, which is to have the Minister of Finance show up on her own bill. He'll know that I'm in perfect agreement with the Conservatives on this point. I would like to see the minister here for two hours. I think it would be very helpful for her just to offer to come for two hours. I've been clear about that.

I do think that we got distracted from that appropriate focus of the finance committee by the intense treatment of the importance of the Minister of Public Safety appearing at the committee of finance on a bill that doesn't have any content that the Minister of Public Safety is responsible for.

I can certainly speak to things I think should be in the budget that aren't in the budget. I've talked about employment insurance reform, investment in non-market housing and a whole bunch of other things.

When we're studying the bill, it's important that we know what's in it and which ministers are responsible for it. I do think that's been obscured somewhat by the conversations here today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I have PS Beech on this point of order and then I think it's MP Perkins on this point of order.

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

Yes, and I think this is a fine opportunity to provide some further context for where we're currently at. I was going to wait until the end of this point of order, but since we've gotten onto the topic that I want to talk about anyway, I'll take the opportunity. It also gives me the opportunity to interact with our guest, Mr. Perkins, who has been very articulate on the fisheries and oceans committee, and now I have learned of his previous experience on finance committee, so I'm even happier that he's joining us here today.

For those who are watching at home, and for anyone else who's paying attention, I think we're either nearing or passing hour five of this Conservative filibuster. I would go through all the different requests, the ebb and flow of things that have happened, but the point is that we're in a filibuster that has prevented various witnesses from appearing at committee today for the study of the budget implementation act. Those witnesses include representatives from food banks, the Canadian Health Coalition, the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Centre for Future Work and the Smart Prosperity Institute, all important stakeholders that I think everyone around this table respects and thinks could have a very positive voice that could add to the quality of the budget process and the budget implementation act.

It's also preventing, as Mr. Blaikie has articulated and as Mr. Morantz has clarified, a number of letters going out to committees in a timely way. Last year, they didn't have enough time to actually provide valuable feedback. I think there are committees with expertise that do want to weigh in on the BIA, and I think that would also be a valuable process.

The other impact of this filibuster, of course, is the cancelling of other committees due to a lack of committee resources. The day before yesterday, a meeting to study foreign interference was cancelled due to the fact that this filibuster is ongoing and is consuming House resources. There was a meeting of the procedure and House affairs committee that was scheduled but was cancelled due to a lack of resources.

The motion to study this bill is very much in the form it was in last year, excluding some of the more controversial closing dates that were specifically excluded to make it easy for the committee to find a path forward after discussions with all parties. In addition, it has been amended now to include an invitation to the minister to attend. That is, by the way, the second invitation, because the first was included in the prestudy motion, which was outstanding. Then, Mr. Ste-Marie, from the Bloc, asked when that would be fulfilled. While we don't have a specific date, it was targeted for before May 18.

I am thus very happy to continue listening to whatever topics from whichever ministries and whichever substitutes the Conservatives want to bring to this committee. However, if we are serious about studying the BIA and ending this filibuster, there is very much a sense that the will of the majority of this committee, and likely all parties except the Conservatives, is to actually get these excellent witnesses to the table so we can improve this budget, which has measures to make life more affordable for Canadians and to make sure Canada has a dynamic and sustainable economy. We're creating new, clean, sustainable jobs, not to mention measures that will ensure that we have the resources we need for the provinces and territories to deliver quality health care. As long as this filibuster continues, that is what we are putting at risk.

I just wanted that context for this point of order on the subamendment on the Minister of Public Safety's appearing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, PS Beech. I had MP Perkins.

Seeing he's out, MP Lawrence, yes, on that point of order, go ahead.

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

He's a great colleague.

Here are a couple of ways we could resolve this impasse.

Conservatives want to move forward with the consultation on the BIA. We certainly would like to hear and we certainly do not want to upend any of the other business. In fact, I made several offers to suspend, but the Liberal Party was unwilling. That was mis-characterized, and the public was misled by a statement in the House of Commons that seemed to say that we were intentionally trying to cancel meetings, which everyone at this table knows, quite frankly, is just untrue. It's just a fabrication, and it's sad that it has gotten to this level. Conservatives are ready to move forward. We just believe that, when the government is spending $490 billion, the minister would like to speak to Canadians for two hours. That's $8 billion a minute.

It is an embarrassment that she will not come to this committee. She has three times refused invitations. This is the finance committee. As a parliamentarian, I'm nothing special, but I do represent 100,000 people from Northumberland—Peterborough South, and we all represent millions of Canadians. If Minister Freeland wants—

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

I have a point of order on this. I believe he's speaking to the amendment, not the subamendment.

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

I'm speaking to the point of order. It's your point of order.

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

It's on your point of order, which was very broad.

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

Mine was on the subamendment.

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

Yours was on committees.

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

Exactly. You had a wide breadth, and I'll take the same liberty.

When we look at this, we have a couple of suggestions. One is we remove the clause-by-clause from the date of the start of the clause-by-clause, and then we can move forward in listening to witnesses.

We're ready to go right now. We can get the chair to call the witnesses. All we have to do is remove the clause-by-clause, or we make the clause-by-clause contingent on the minister showing up. Clearly, she doesn't want to show up, and she has a record of ignoring our invitations.

What value does an invitation have if she's ignored it three times already?

We need to make it a condition that we go to clause-by-clause to get the finance minister who, once again, is asking Canadian taxpayers for $490 billion and won't show up for two hours to talk to Canadians. That is an embarrassment. I'm sorry, but it is.

With that, I will end my point of order and turn my time back to Mr. Perkins.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Okay. We were at MP Perkins.

Please, members, speak through the chair.

Was it on the point of order, MP Perkins?

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

No.

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

I have one last addition on the point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Okay. We're still on the point of order.

Go ahead, PS Beech.