Finance Committee on June 15th, 2023

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

I can barely hear you. Please speak up.

[Matthew Emde]

That doesn't mean, obviously, that there are no risks involved with housing debt and housing assets. House prices can fall.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

That's the time.

Thank you, MP Dzerowicz.

Now we will go to the Bloc and MP Ste-Marie for two and a half minutes.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I want to apologize sincerely to Ms. Dzerowicz. I was sitting close to the witnesses and chatting with Mr. Blaikie while listening to what was being said. I'm really sorry, and I assure you I will pay closer attention in future.

Mr. Emde, since I have only two and a half minutes of speaking time, I'm going to ask you some questions in quick succession.

Given rising interest rates, do you anticipate a drop in real estate prices, in the purchase of housing units, for example, including houses and condos, among other things? If so, how will that break down. What kinds of models do you expect?

Do you have an estimate of the number of personal bankruptcies that might result from rising mortgage costs and inflation.

Thank you.

My apologies once again, Ms. Dzerowicz.

[Matthew Emde]

Thank you for your question.

In fact, there is definitely a link between rising interest rates and house prices. We've already seen house prices decline by 15% or 16% from early 2022 until this past spring. That's already happened, but it seems that the real estate market has stabilized. Recent data show that a rebound is under way.

However, I can't say whether house prices will fall further.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

What about rising personal bankruptcy numbers?

[Matthew Emde]

I've already discussed the consumer insolvency data. The situation is more or less the same for mortgage payment defaults. We've seen an increase in recent months, but the level is similar to what it was before the pandemic.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Ste-Marie.

On the sound, members, the clerk has asked for the sound to be increased.

Also, if members can use their earpieces.... The chatter or whatever that is happening within the room does affect the interpreters. That is what I've understood. If people could keep it down a bit and if you use your earpieces, you can hear better. We have increased the sound.

On that, we're going to the NDP and MP Blaikie.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

With the time I have presently, I would like to move a motion that I gave notice of last day, the second part of which reads:

That Vice-Chair Hallan no longer has the confidence of the Standing Committee on Finance and, as a result, that we proceed immediately to the election of a new Vice-Chair from the Official Opposition.

I just want to give a little bit of context for this.

Members may not know and Canadians watching may not know that vice-chairs of committees receive an extra $6,600 a year for the work they're meant to do for the sake of a committee. Members around this table will know that the finance committee has been meeting a lot over the last number of weeks. We had over 40 hours of filibuster on the budget implementation act.

What I found remarkable about that process, among other things—and I have given my thoughts on the record before about the nature and the reasons for the filibuster—was the absence of the vice-chair during those proceedings. Of course he was here for some of the time but not for all of the time.

The principal formal duty of a vice-chair is to be available in the event that the chair can't chair. Sometimes that's when a chair can't come to the meeting. Sometimes it's because the chair has to excuse him or herself at various times for various reasons. The principal duty that a vice-chair performs for the committee is to be present and to be available in order to relieve the chair in case that's required.

There are also informal roles that vice-chairs play in terms of talking to other members of the committee and talking to other recognized parties on the committee to try to find a way forward, particularly when there is an impasse, as there most definitely was in the case of the study of the budget implementation act. Not all of the minutes of those meetings and all of the blues for those meetings are currently available because there were a lot of meetings, and House staff need time, even as they continue to support our committee and others, to be able to put that information up online, so not all the time stamps are there.

I think, Mr. Chair, that you'll get an idea of the extent of Mr. Hallan's participation in that study just by comparing, first of all, the substitution list and the number of interventions. When you look at comparable members like the other vice-chair for this committee, Monsieur Ste-Marie, you'll see that, during the course of the study, he had two substitutions. Monsieur Mario Simard and Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné subbed at various times for Monsieur Ste-Marie, who nevertheless had about 115 interventions during the course of the study.

I had two substitutions during the course of the study because it is the case that MPs from time to time have other legitimate parliamentary commitments that don't allow them to be at the table. Mr. Taylor Bachrach and Mr. Brian Masse substituted for me. I still managed to have about 169 interventions in the course of the budget implementation act study.

Mr. Lawrence, did a lot of work for the Conservatives during the course of the study, including—I would say—the informal role of vice-chair that he played. He talked to other committee members. He was part and parcel of negotiating those moments where we were able to make some happy progress in the study of the budget implementation act.

Mr. Lawrence had four substitutions. Kelly McCauley, Ben Lobb, Damien Kurek and Ed Fast all substituted for Mr. Lawrence at some point. He managed to have 290 interventions in the budget implementation act study, which gives you a sense of just how present Mr. Lawrence was and the work he was doing in trying to provide some leadership to the Conservative side.

In the case of Mr. Hallan, we saw that he had 10 different substitutions. These were Karen Vecchio, Damien Kurek, Marc Dalton, Michelle Ferreri, Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Cheryl Gallant, Garnett Genuis, Larry Maguire, Rick Perkins and Arnold Viersen. Anyone who was listening to the proceedings will know that, while I listed Rick Perkins as one name in a list of 10, it was a very outsized contribution that Mr. Perkins made, at least in respect of time devoted to the proceedings of the committee.

Throughout the entire budget implementation act study, Mr. Hallan had about 29 interventions. That's almost exactly 10% of the interventions that Mr. Lawrence had.

Again, I respect that MPs have a lot of things to do. I respect that MPs can't always be at the committee table, and I myself have sometimes not been at the committee table, but I don't get paid $6,600 extra dollars a year to be here at the committee table to be able to relieve the chair. I haven't undertaken that responsibility.

Conservatives themselves have recognized, in the context of this Parliament, that sometimes their finance critic can't meet the obligations of a vice-chair and, therefore, does not deserve the pay. For instance, when Mr. Poilievre was finance critic for the Conservative Party and sat at this committee table, the vice-chair was Greg McLean, and when Ed Fast was finance critic for the Conservative Party, the vice-chair was Dan Albas because at that time it was recognized that the person who's going to do the job of vice-chair should be, in the main, here.

If they had a finance critic who was too busy doing other things, like trying to improve upon a lackluster question period performance, undermining the sitting leader or whatever it is that they're doing when they're not at this table—different ones have committed that time to different things—they didn't accept the $6,600 for being the vice-chair of the committee.

That's fair enough. I'm not here to dispute that MPs are busy people. I'm not here to dispute that we're all trying to juggle a lot of different jobs. However, I notice that in the past, when their finance critic was too busy to do the job at this table, Conservatives have asked somebody else to be vice-chair. I think that is actually the right and proper way of doing that. I think that, when you look at the statistics of interventions and substitutions over the course of the budget implementation act, it's clear that Mr. Hallan is too busy to be doing the job of vice-chair with other things. I don't begrudge him those other things. It takes time to prepare a hagiographic podcast, for instance. I know that he needs hours in the day. That's fine.

However, when I look at Mr. Lawrence and the amount he invests around this committee table—even though it's not recognized by his leader—in trying to talk to other people and have a sense of a path forward for the committee, I think it's more befitting that Mr. Lawrence be the vice-chair of this committee and receive the $6,600 because he's putting in the time and work. I think it's important that when people accept additional salary they do the additional work.

By and large, that is the work of presence, particularly if you're going to do that job for a party that is going to cause a lot of extra meetings and time. We spent a lot of time listening to the interventions of Conservative members, including on the east coast fishery. So be it. I respect the right of members to filibuster, but I find it passing strange that Mr. Hallan would be part and parcel of triggering some long non sequiturs here at this committee and then decide that those aren't worth his time but make the decision for the rest of us at this table that those interventions were worth our time. I think it would have been an important act of leadership on his part to be here for the speeches that he argued were an important part of the budget implementation act study.

I may very well argue differently. In fact I have, on the record, in other places.

It's his contention that those were important speeches for us to listen to. He ought to have been here to listen along with us. I think the fact base clearly shows that he did not provide that leadership but that Mr. Lawrence was here for those things, and that Mr. Lawrence was accomplishing the role that Mr. Hallan ought to have been accomplishing.

I think that we're not here as a committee to judge Mr. Hallan's role as finance critic. We're not here to judge his role as an MP. We're not here to judge how he spends his time, but we are in a position to judge whether he's doing us a proper service as a vice-chair in fulfilling those roles. I think we would be better served by the situation that Conservatives have put in place before, where their finance critic is not the vice-chair.

There is someone here who's doing the work of the vice-chair. That person has made it a priority to be here. I don't doubt that Mr. Lawrence is busy with other things and that he has obligations to his riding and to his party that he has to fulfill outside of the context of this table, but he's nevertheless made it a priority at least to be here, if nothing else. I think that is an important component of being the vice-chair. It's why I think this is an important item of committee business.

I recognize that we're getting ready to rise for the summer. I think it's important that we deal with this before we do. That's why I'm bringing it forward at this time before there is no more time, in order to address this question before rising for the summer.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Blaikie.

I do have an extensive list here of MPs who want to speak. I have Chatel, Beech, Lawrence, Baker, Dzerowicz, Ste-Marie and Morantz.

I don't know if I see anybody else who would like to get on that speaking order.

MP Chambers.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you.

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. You have an extended list. I don't know how long people's interventions tend to be. If they intend to talk out the rest of the meeting, that's totally fine by me. I appreciate the fact that we have officials here who have generously donated their time. I wouldn't ask anyone to change what they're going to say, but I would appreciate, if we are going to talk out the rest of the meeting, that we allow our officials to return to their jobs, working on the things that they need to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Chambers.

I can't presume what members are going to do, so we'll move into our speaking order first and we'll just hold the officials with us for the time being.

We're starting with MP Chatel.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I find it a bit strange to hear my colleague say that. If we do that for the rest of the meeting, I agree we should allow the witnesses to return to their jobs, which is ironic. For three weeks, we've invited witnesses to appear who have remained seated for hours and listened as the Conservatives filibustered.

This committee really isn't taking this seriously. For hours and even weeks, we've heard people talk about everything except topics related to our business.

Mr. Blaikie, you say the Conservatives normally think it's important to earn their pay and do good work for the salary they're paid, but I don't think that's true. They have no regard for their salary.

Using a quick calculation method, I've come up with the following result: we've wasted $200,000 of taxpayer money for absolutely nothing.

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

Mr. Chair, I have a brief point of order.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

No, I believe I have a right to speak, Mr. Lawrence.

Considering the 60 hours of wasted time, I have a right to my minutes of speaking time. So I'm going to continue. In closing, I share my colleague's view with all my heart.

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

I have the right, Ms. Chatel, to have a point of order.

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. It's your job to interrupt the speaker.

Mr. Chair, if you're not going to do your job, the vice-chair will take the role.

Mr. Hallan, you are now the chair.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

That being said, I'm not sure that's the appropriate solution. I think it's something else. However, we really have to think about what we're going to do and how we are going to deal with this waste of time. I'm going—

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

Mr. Hallan, you are now the chair. He is not doing his role.

On a point of order, he's not here. You are now the chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Please members, let's have no crosstalk. We cannot—

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

I've been saying point of order for five minutes, Peter.

You have to interrupt. It's your job.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Look at what's happening again!

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Lawrence, can you keep your volume down, please? Let's have some decorum and respect, MP Lawrence.

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

Your job is to respect—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

My job is to listen. I could not hear you, MP Lawrence.