Finance Committee on May 2nd, 2023

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

I can answer that in the next round, if you like.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you.

Now we will go to MP Blaikie and the NDP, please, for six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Minister.

One thing that the budget implementation act does is empower the Public Sector Pension Investment Board to incorporate a subsidiary to manage the growth fund. One thing New Democrats have argued forcefully for, in partnership with folks like Gil McGowan at the Alberta Federation of Labour, is to have two seats for labour at the table that's making decisions about growth fund investments.

I understand that these are initial steps. There is more consultation to do on the exact governance structure of the growth fund.

I am looking to ask what the government's expected timeline is to present legislation legislating those two seats at the growth fund table for labour representatives.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Thank you very much for the question.

I am glad you mentioned our mutual friend, Gil. It's a nice opportunity for me to really give him and organized labour credit for the work they have done in building this budget.

As you know, this budget—and in particular the green industrial policy in this budget—takes unprecedented action to ensure that the policies here include workers, unionized workers and guarantees of good-paying jobs.

That's a first in Canada. Gil was a very essential person in figuring that out.

I absolutely agree with you on the importance of worker representation at the growth fund. The first step there, as you know, is that in the budget we announced that we're going to consult unions this spring on adding two seats to the PSP Investment Board for representatives of organized labour.

As you know, it is the PSP that is in charge of managing the growth fund. We're aiming to legislate this change in the fall of 2023.

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

Thank you very much.

Just by way of participating in the preambulatory remarks about your presence at committee, I do think there is a standing invitation for you to appear quarterly. We've seen the Governor of the Bank of Canada come. There are invitations in the context of the study on inflation.

We've spent a fair bit of time around this table arguing about an extra hour of your presence. I would encourage you to, in the future, consider committing to coming for the full two hours. I certainly would have much preferred to spend the last 23 hours listening to Canadians about their own thoughts and views about the content of the budget implementation act. Instead, I listened to Conservative colleagues around the table.

I think some more generosity with your time at this table may help us overcome some of these challenges because your presence has become, unfortunately, an issue in respect of the well-functioning of this committee. It's Canadians who are missing out because we do have an important job to do around this table. Conflicts about your presence or lack thereof are definitely getting in the way of that work. Anything you can do to facilitate better operations at this committee table would certainly be welcome for me. I won't speak for others, although I imagine it would be welcome from those who spent so much time beseeching your presence.

I would certainly remind them how much time they spent trying to get you here and encourage them to use the time well instead of continuing the bickering that we have seen for so long now that we do have an opportunity to talk to you about the legislation.

In that spirit, I want to come back to an issue that you've heard me talk about before, that I've asked you about before and that I am concerned the government hasn't taken the opportunity in the BIA to address. It is the allocation of $25 billion of CERB debt to the employment insurance account.

Your government has been promising meaningful EI modernization since 2015. In fact, we saw it during the pandemic because the EI program was so inadequate that it couldn't bear the burden placed on it by the pandemic.

Without much notice, your government cancelled those temporary measures in September. I think most people thought that meant that a significant modernization of EI was in the wings. Not only has that not happened, but it seems to me that asking EI ratepayers—both employers and employees—to pay off $25 billion of CERB debt, which doesn't properly belong on the EI account, means that the government's wings are clipped in respect of meaningful EI modernization. The room that would have gone towards contributing to a higher-income replacement rate, towards the cost of having a universal lower hours threshold and towards things of that nature are instead going to pay down a CERB debt, which should be happening off the general ledger.

I am wondering if you want to take what time I have remaining to give a little bit of an explanation as to why the government is dead set on having EI ratepayers pay off a significant chunk of CERB debt instead of using that room within the premium to improve the program.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Minister, you have about 30 seconds or so.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

In that case, I'm going to go to your first point, Mr. Blaikie. I very much appreciate your effort to pour oil on the troubled waters of this committee. One thing that I learned—

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

As long as it's not subsidized oil—it's important to say....

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

It's Canadian oil—maybe canola oil.

One thing that I learned during the NAFTA negotiations is that appeasing a bully never works, and that tends to be my approach in life. I've also seen nothing in the conduct of these Conservatives—and I would contrast that, for example, with the behaviour of former finance critic Ed Fast—to actually show a serious desire to engage on the serious economic issues before our country.

You may be more trusting than I am, but I've learned from experience. I'm delighted to be here today, because the Canadian economy is strong, and I'm happy to talk about that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Minister. Thank you, MP Blaikie.

Now we are on to our second round. This will be our final round. We have the Conservatives up. We have MP Morantz for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, in this budget there is an additional $798 million in new, unannounced spending. There's now $12 billion in total non-announced spending, for which you've provided no specific details. I'm wondering if you would table with the committee the details of the spending.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Thanks for the question.

In the budget, we provide extensive details on the spending and on its composition. There have been some areas, for example, the very important investment in Volkswagen, where, for reasons of commercial confidence and ensuring that Canada is attractive as an investment destination—

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

I'm sorry, but the question is about the non-announced spending, though. Could you give us the details?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

We, in the budget itself—

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

What are you tabling?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

—had to be careful. As you know, when it comes to Volkswagen, we have now offered the full details, and we continue to work on attracting other investments of that kind, because Canada needs it.

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

All right. There are no details on the non-announced spending, I take it.

On November 3, in the fall economic statement, you said that by 2028 there would be a $4.5-billion surplus. That was only 144 days before you tabled the budget. In the budget, that same table in 2027-28 showed a $14-billion deficit, which amounts to an $18.5-billion swing in that year. How could you or your departmental officials have been so wrong just 144 days earlier, by being out by $18.5 billion in the 2027-28 forecast?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

MP Morantz, I respect you too much to think that you do not understand very much how the budget projections are built; but maybe some Canadians listening will have been misled by your question, so let me explain something very elementary—

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

With the greatest respect, it's not misleading. It's in the table.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

No, but let me be clear.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Minister and MP Morantz—

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

I take exception to that. I don't mislead people, Minister. I am just telling you what is in your own budget—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Mr. Morantz—

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

I said people may have been misled by your question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

—just allow for the answer to be—