Finance Committee on May 25th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I'll call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 92 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

Pursuant to the order of reference on Tuesday, May 2, 2023, and a motion adopted on May 16, 2023, the committee is meeting to discuss Bill C-47, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023.

Members, if you can put yourselves on mute, I will complete my opening remarks.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. For interpretation for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

I will remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can, and we appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

Members, before we begin, I understand that there have been some questions on the interpretation of the motion adopted. Knowing that we have spent a considerable number of hours on the subject matter and Bill C-47, I'd like to provide a recap for the benefit of our members as well as anyone watching this committee.

To be precise, as of last week, we have completed a total of 40.5 hours, equivalent to at least 20 meetings, thanks to our wonderful clerks here.

Thank you, Clerks.

As chair, I must interpret the motion as written. Given that there seems to be some confusion over part (d) of the motion and how the phrase “goal of accomplishing at least 20 hours of study prior to the beginning of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill” interfaces with the rest of the motion, I want to specifically read out the start of the motion and section (a). It reads:

That the committee continue its pre-study of Bill C-47, an Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, by:

(a) Inviting witnesses to appear on the contents of Bill C-47 during meetings scheduled the weeks of May 1, May 8, and May 15, 2023....

In keeping up with specific requirements, our clerks have diligently worked hard to schedule witnesses. Our members may already be aware that we had to cancel all those scheduled witnesses ahead of the meetings. In fact, thanks to the kind intervention of our Bloc member MP Ste-Marie—and thank you very much, MP Ste-Marie—we were able to break a marathon meeting, number 87, which ran for approximately 27 hours or at least equivalent to 13 meetings. It started on Tuesday, May 2 at 11 a.m. and ended on Tuesday, May 16 at 4:24 p.m.

We adjourned that meeting through unanimous consent from all members here on this committee, which represent all parties on this committee. Again, it was by unanimous consent. Those watching may not know that all members voted unanimously and that all parties were represented by those members. It read:

(e) and that the whips of the recognized parties, and the clerks, be empowered to seek as many meetings as possible, with the goal of meeting for 10 hours before the end of this week.

That week was the week of May 15, which was last week. Thanks to our extremely hard-working clerks again, we were able to miraculously achieve the 10 hours of witness testimony last week as required, with a full house of witnesses for every hour of those meetings.

Unfortunately, due to the late passage of this motion, members are fully aware that we are under constraints, and our clerks did their best to work around the timelines required for last week. Everything was done in good faith and in collaboration, as evidenced by being carried with unanimous consent from all of the members of committee, who represent all parties.

All parties submitted amendments in the same good faith within the required deadline of 12 noon last Friday. This was a clear indication that everyone interpreted the adopted motion the same way that the clerk or I understood. Also, this timely submission helped our legislative clerk and his team—Philippe Méla, thank you—work towards the next step to ensure they prepared the required documents and package for clause-by-clause.

I understand that the members who brought this up late afternoon yesterday had plenty of time to bring this up ahead of submitting their amendments. All members on this committee have my personal contact information: my cellphone, email, etc. You can call me, text me and email me. You've done it during weekdays, weekends, workday hours and after work hours. It doesn't matter. I'm open to hearing from the members.

The members who have put this letter together have also reached out to me many times in the past, and I always try to get back to you within a reasonable time. Sometimes within minutes I get back to you. You had the opportunity to reach out to me last week or all of this week, but I did not hear from any of you.

I hope what I've mentioned has brought better clarity to the letter that was received and the motion that was adopted by—again, I'll repeat—the unanimous consent of all the members.

Again, I would like to thank MP Ste-Marie for quickly thinking of an efficient way to bring in the witnesses who were cancelled a couple of weeks ago. I really believe that our finance committee works well with this kind of collective team effort.

I would again like to take this opportunity to thank our clerks, our legislative clerk and team of analysts, and our interpreters and technicians, who have really made these 40-plus hours possible and are still working. Thank you very much.

Thank you to all of you.

Members, if good, we will go ahead with what's in front of us. You have received the package from our clerk. With us today are a multitude of senior officials from various departments, per division as discussed, if you have any questions for them.

I see a hand up. I see MP Lawrence.

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

Mr. Chair, thank you very much for your opening remarks. I disagree with nearly all of them.

I would like to put the following motion on the table for discussion and debate. I move:

That the committee reiterate its desire to hear a total of 20 hours of testimony in relation to Bill C-47, Budget Implementation Act No. 1, as agreed to on May 16, 2023, and notwithstanding that motion, the committee not proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of the bill until the committee hears 20 hours of witness testimony.

I think you'll find that it's in good order. I'd like to at this point start my discussion of the motion if I could, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Lawrence has moved a motion.

I do see that MP Beech's hand is up.

Is it on this motion?

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

First of all, is the motion in order, Mr. Chair? I would be happy to speak to it if it is.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

It is in order, PS Beech.

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

Then I have a few things I would like to say about it. I have three points specifically, although I think you covered it quite well in your introduction, Mr. Chair.

It is a little hard for us to understand—

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

Hello...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Lawrence, PS Beech is speaking to your motion, and then I have MP Morantz after that.

If you could mute yourself, I would appreciate that.

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

Hello...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Lawrence, can you not hear us?

We're going to suspend because we're having some technical difficulties.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

[Technical difficulty—Editor] and PS Beech.

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

Are we good?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We're good.

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

All right. We're starting out strong.

I want to make a few comments about this. First, the motion that was referred to in this motion did pass, through unanimous consent by all members around this table, after a wonderful 25-plus hours of a Conservative filibuster, where they were literally filibustering the desire to have the minister appear for two hours while we had a motion on the table to invite the minister to appear for two hours.

In the past, we've generally operated from a position that witness testimony is to be used for the study of the bill, particularly in our clause-by-clause review of the bill. We will note that in that motion, which was passed unanimously, the deadline for amendments was noon Friday. Thank you to all parties for submitting amendments.

In our UC motion as well, in response to questions from MP Ste-Marie, to ensure that we had some testimony on the BIA before we started the clause-by-clause review, we agreed to ensure that 10 hours of witness testimony would be heard that week. While I agree, I would have preferred to hear more witnesses. If Conservatives were in fact sincere in their desire to have more witnesses here on the BIA, the time to start that was in the first week referred to by the motion. Instead, we spent not one but two weeks on the Conservatives filibuster. We sent food banks, chambers of commerce and other important stakeholders home, while listening to something that decidedly, after having listened to it for 25 hours, had actually nothing to do with the BIA.

It strikes me as a bit insincere that our Conservative colleagues actually want to hear from witnesses. If that were the case, they would have let us hear from those witnesses over the last three weeks, as it is stated in the unanimous consent motion that we passed.

I am aware of part (d) of the motion, Mr. Chair, which calls for us to attempt to reach 20 hours of testimony. As you've already mentioned, we've had over 40.5 hours of committee meetings and unfortunately only 10 hours of witness testimony. The rest of the time was filled with a Conservative filibuster. Today we are here fulfilling the next step of that motion that was passed by everyone under unanimous consent, which is to examine it clause by clause. You can see all the binders that are laid out here on the table on this side and I think on all other sides. We were prepared to come here today to do clause-by-clause consideration.

Conservatives want us to believe that they were perhaps in the committee room hiding under the desks, waiting for this meeting to start on Saturday, Sunday, Monday and Tuesday, but of course, I think the fact that we first heard about this particular complaint on Twitter on Wednesday, four or five days after the fact, and the fact that they didn't call you or text you or use any of the normal means to place this objection, speaks to the insincerity of this particular concern.

I would suggest that all members—

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

Mr. Chair, I believe if not for a technical glitch, as it were, which was with respect to the House of Commons, I would have the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Mr. Beech has the floor, MP Lawrence. He's speaking to your motion.

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

I believe I still have the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

No. MP Beech has the floor, MP Lawrence.

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

I don't believe that's correct.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

That's correct.

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

There was a technical reason. I should still have the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

PS Beech, please continue.

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

Thank you.

I'd also like to note that part (a) of the motion clearly states—again, this is the motion that was passed by unanimous consent—that we are able to hear from witnesses the weeks of May 1, May 8 and May 15. I'm happy to read that quote:

(a) Inviting witnesses to appear on the contents of Bill C-47 during meetings scheduled the weeks of May 1, May 8, and May 15 2023

In fact, we did have those meetings. The Conservatives chose to use that time not to hear from witnesses but to instead talk to themselves about almost anything that didn't have to do with the BIA. Given the limited time we have, the many officials who are present here to support us in this important work in studying this bill, and all the work that has been done by all members and staff and the clerk and everyone else—

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I'd like to challenge your ruling that I didn't have the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

There is a challenge.

(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 6; yeas 5)