Finance Committee on June 15th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Chatel.

I'm just looking to members to see if we have unanimous consent to release the officials. Yes.

Thank you very much, officials.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

No, we don't have unanimous consent.

[Some hon. members]

Terry says no.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Terry, did you say...? I'm sorry. I didn't catch that.

PS Beech said no, so the officials will stay.

Continue, please, MP Chatel.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

I'm sorry.

To sum up, I'm very disappointed that we haven't completed our work thanks to the Conservatives. We've failed to hear certain witnesses thanks to the Conservatives. That's money that taxpayers have invested in us and that has been wasted thanks to the Conservatives.

I hope that, when we come back in September, we of the Standing Committee on Finance will do the work we're paid for.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

PS Beech is up next, and then I have MP Lawrence, MP Baker, MP Dzerowicz, MP Ste-Marie, MP Morantz and MP Blaikie.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to say a few things and if I get to the end of this, perhaps we can retest Sophie's idea, but I do want to say just a few things first. I do acknowledge that there is a planning meeting on Tuesday. I want us to get to a place where everyone is in a good situation so we can go into that hoping to improve that situation.

Let me just say a few things. I've had various conversations with our own members and with opposition members from all parties. The default filibuster obstruction stance of the Pierre Poilievre version of the Conservatives is actively and obviously hurting the work of this committee. This motion is a direct result of that.

Even members of the Conservative Party, I think, admit that we've seen an escalation of obstruction under the new Leader of the Opposition. It's plain to see. It's evidenced by—and I'm not going to go into all of it, because I already gave a 20-minute speech on that—the unwillingness, on multiple occasions, to negotiate in good faith, the desire to obstruct the work of the committee and the will of the majority of the committee, as well as the actions that have played out over the last number of months.

Negotiations with the Bloc and NDP always go reasonably well. They never go perfectly. There's miscommunication. There's back and forth, but it would be exceptionally rare that, once those discussions have happened and there was an agreement, the positions would change. It took less than an hour to find a consensus between government members and the opposition members outside of the Conservatives once everyone put all their concerns on the table, whereas the Conservatives spent weeks specifically making sure we would never agree on terms.

Jas himself has stated multiple times that it's been only one filibuster and we shouldn't set this precedent. I can already think of three times there have been filibusters since Jas has been the critic. There might be more that I'm not thinking of off the top of my head. There's no doubt it's been worse under this leadership. That evidence could be gathered and would be indisputable by any objective measure.

The fact that the vice-chair has caused some of these issues or has contributed to them and isn't necessarily aware of all the impacts of them or of how many times this has happened is kind of the point of Mr. Blaikie's motion. While I was initially surprised by the motion, I, upon reflection, do understand where it's coming from.

I would also suggest to my colleague Mr. Hallan, who, I believe, is actually a reasonable person and who, I believe, wants to work hard for his constituents, that there are a number of ways in which he could demonstrate and that the Conservative Party could demonstrate they are willing to engage this committee in a professional way that would allow the committee to do its work while not giving up the ability to play a strong role as the critic for the official opposition.

I think finding a way to get dates scheduled for meetings on the pre-budget consultations would be a good step. I think assuring that travel actually happens, even though it's been cancelled for the last two years, would be a good step. I think providing real terms for working on the fall economic statement and the budget—important fiscal documents—would be a good step. I think all of us could agree. The start of this meeting is proof that we need to spend less time debating the work we're going to do and how we're going to do it and instead spend more time actually doing the work.

Daniel said that a few times, and I think that sentiment is shared by all of us at some level. Listen, I know that there are things that are outside of our members' control. There are discussions and decisions that happen outside of this committee, whether they be based in the Standing Orders, in the chamber itself or in whips' offices or the House leaders' offices, but certainly the Conservative leader's office shouldn't have to be consulted for every single decision on every single negotiation. We should be able to have a responsible discussion because, after all, this is an independent committee of MPs or it's supposed to be.

As members of Parliament—and I truly believe this—we have a duty to work together on legislation to make it better.

There is good work that could be done here. Some of that good work was actually already happening today with regard to the mortgage study. By continuously filibustering legislation for no purpose other than to obstruct it, you actually hurt constituents. You hurt the legislation. You hurt the country, and you hurt our ability to do more studies like the one we're discussing today.

The BIA would have been better if you had contributed your ideas. If you choose not to participate, that's fine, but you should allow the other opposition parties to contribute and debate their ideas as well. The quality of the decisions made at this table and in Parliament is directly correlated to the quality of the debate, and you do everyone a disservice by choosing not to engage in that debate. You do damage to our democracy by taking that right away from other members around this table.

I've served on many committees before the finance committee, and I've been happy to work with members to incorporate amendments from all parties, including the Conservatives, the Bloc, the NDP and the Green Party, and I was happy to incorporate those amendments into legislation drafted by the government, because they were good amendments and they were good ideas.

Last I will say that I think there is a path forward, a positive path that can lead to a better place for all members of this committee, no matter which side of the House they sit on, but I also note that I'm not certain at this point that this motion will have a constructive impact on improving our working relationship, especially given the fact that I'm not sure how blame should be distributed among individual members of the committee versus being assigned to the actual leader of the Conservative Party.

I would also note that we have witnesses here for a study we all agreed to spend the day working on. I was not willing to support unanimous consent for them to be removed, because I still feel as though we could get back to that work today.

I know there are members around the table. I was hoping to adjourn debate on this and go back to the witness study, to be honest, with everybody here. I still support doing that, but I do not want to take away the right of my colleagues to say what they want to say about this motion.

I'll put on the record that I'm in favour of adjourning debate on this and going back to the mortgage study today, but I want to make sure everybody has the time to say their piece, as I've had my time to say my piece.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, PS Beech.

I will run through the speaking order. If you did not hear it the last time, next is MP Lawrence, then MP Baker, MP Dzerowicz, MP Ste-Marie, MP Morantz and MP Blaikie.

MP Lawrence, go ahead, please.

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

I move to adjourn the debate.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

It's defeated, so we will continue.

MP Lawrence, go ahead.

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

I have a quick point of order. I wonder if you might consult the clerk, Mr. Chair.

I think it's typical that after moving adjournment, a member loses the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We'll suspend here for a second. I'll confer with the clerk.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We're back, members. No, that is not the case, MP Blaikie.

MP Lawrence, go ahead.

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

Thank you. I would welcome the member to tune in—as he said disrespectfully to my colleague—to procedures.

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

I have point of order, Mr. Chair.

I would like to be helpful to my colleague. We sent some notes. I don't know if he's had time to check his text message, but I do support adjourning debate as long as my fellow Liberal colleagues have the ability to put their—what I would assume would be—short remarks onto the record.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Okay. That's not a point of order, but thanks, PS Beech.

MP Chambers, you wanted to be added to the list. Is that right?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

No, I'll take my name off.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Okay. Your name is off.

We'll go back to MP Lawrence.

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

Thank you. While not a point of order, that's very much appreciated from Mr. Beech.

I will just very briefly put a couple of remarks on the order and then hand it over to my Liberal colleagues, as long as they are brief, because we have only 24 minutes or so left and, as I said, this is an impending crisis, a ticking time bomb with respect to the mortgage market, as an article I'm looking at right now says. It's sad that we have to put up with these childish games.

If there is anyone who needs to be removed from their post, it's the Minister of Finance. She has disregarded multiple invitations from this finance committee. Her sole job is to manage the finances and to report back to the Canadian people. We are the Canadian people's tool for her to express herself. It's not the media. It's Parliament. That's why the Magna Carta was drafted 800-plus years ago. That is why Parliament exists.

However, she has flagrantly disregarded the invitations from this finance committee. If anyone needs to be replaced desperately, it's the Minister of Finance. She has presided over the worst economy since the Great Depression, and all the Canadian people were asking for was for her to come and testify for two hours, but it was too much for her to climb down from her ivory white tower and talk to the Canadian people, the common people.

Instead, while we have an economy in which, in the chair's riding, one in 20 is using the food bank, we have an obstructionist Minister of Finance who will not appear in front of this committee, but who finally did to get her legislation brought forward and then only showed up for an hour and a half even though she was invited for two hours.

Conservatives worked hard to have professional decorum and to improve the legislation, but we are not going to be bystanders as the worst economy since the Great Depression is presided over by this Liberal failure economy. Do you know what? It might be shocking to the other parties, but the Conservatives work as a team. We know right now that Liberals are probably vying for their cabinet positions. Perhaps they don't work as a team and some are happy in the backbenches, but as they have pushed and shoved along for the inevitable cabinet shuffle, we have seen this absolute failure in government. We saw in a recent poll that 80% of Canadians want a new government. Eighty per cent is a huge number, especially considering something like 30% of Canadians consider themselves Liberals. Nearly a majority of Liberal supporters want a new government.

I see Mr. Blaikie posing with this Liberal government for pictures and during photo ops. Perhaps he too wants to ingratiate himself with the new government, so it's no wonder these childish games are happening. When the economy is falling apart and when their party is falling apart, perhaps they are lashing out like small children. It's very disappointing. We have a crisis coming, and you know what? Way to destroy and poison the well. You couldn't have done it any better, guys. Congratulations there.

Do you know what? The reason we don't support this budget has nothing to do with Pierre Poilievre. It has nothing to do with him. It has to do with the Canadian people. We have the worst economy since the Great Depression, guys. We have a mortgage time bomb. We have officials here who want to talk, but instead we have to play childish political games. It's pathetic. It's sad. It's disappointing, and it is just an absolute embarrassment for this finance committee. I am embarrassed to be a part of this committee. If anyone should be removed, it's the chair here, the chair who has presided over complete dysfunction. It couldn't get any worse.

Daniel, if you want to remove someone, remove Peter. Remove the Minister of Finance, who won't come for two hours despite multiple invitations here.

With that, I'll let you guys have your piece.

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

Just on a quick point of order, Mr. Chair, the last person who accused me of childish games, just two weeks ago, was Minister Freeland herself. I see Phil is taking his speaking direction from the minister.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Blaikie, that's not a point of order, but thank you.

MP Baker is next, and then MP Dzerowicz, MP Morantz and MP Blaikie.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thanks Mr. Chair.

I'd like to start by thanking Daniel for bringing this forward. I think it's really important that we have this discussion. I want to thank MP Beech for making sure that all the members who want to speak have a chance to have their voices heard in this discussion.

I'm not going to repeat it for the sake of time, but I want to say that I agree with the vast majority of what Mr. Blaikie said in his opening. I also want to say that I was an elected official for three and a half years federally and four years as a member of the Ontario provincial parliament where I sat on a finance committee. I've debated with members of all parties on a range of issues. I've disagreed with folks on a lot of things. I've seen a range of arguments and a range of tactics used, but I've never seen something like this before.

I think it's in all our interests, no matter which side of the aisle we're on, for it to stop. I think it is.

I remember when I came to this committee. One of the first people to say hello was Mr. Ste-Marie.

He said hello. We worked together, and we said something very positive and optimistic about this joint effort, which I very much appreciated.

I don't always agree with Mr. Ste-Marie, but I think he makes a very constructive contribution to this committee, and I'm glad of that.

Something very similar happened with Mr. Blaikie early on in that first meeting when I came to this committee. What I said about Mr. Ste-Marie I would say about Mr. Blaikie as well, and his contribution to this committee. We don't always agree on everything, contrary to what the Conservatives would like people to believe, but I'm okay with that. I don't harbour resentment that we disagree with each other.

I've had a chance to have conversations with our friends from the Conservatives. Those conversations were very similar as well: “I look forward to working with you. I look forward to getting things done.”

I remember having conversations off-line with Conservative committee members over the course of the time that I've been here, with Mr. Hallan and Mr. Chambers and Mr. Lawrence and Mr. Morantz. I remember Mr. Hallan telling me about—I won't talk about that on the record—his background, his work in his community over the course of years and what led him to run for office. I found that really poignant and memorable. Mr. Lawrence has shared similar comments with me.

I've found Mr. Chambers to be someone who is capable of conciliation and compromise and productive work across the aisle. I think he's capable of that in a way that many members are not. I think there are others around this table who are capable of that as well, but I think Mr. Chambers has done that over the course of the last number of months.

I share that to say, whether you think the minister should appear for 20 minutes or two hours or 10 hours, whether you think the economy is doing well or not doing well, whether delinquencies are too high or they're not too high, whether we're doing enough to support Canadians, no matter what your views are, you're entitled to them because you are here to do a job on behalf of your constituents, to represent them. How you do that and what their views are, I don't harbour resentment for any of that.

What disappoints me the most is that, when we see behaviour, tactics, personal attacks and disruption for the sake of disruption that have nothing to do with the substance of the matter before us.

It's not about whether the economy is performing well. It's not about whether interest rates are hurting people, and frankly it's not consistent with what the members in the Conservative caucus I've spoken to told me when I met them, when I got to know them, when they told me why they came to this place and why they ran for office to represent their constituents.

I don't want to use this intervention to beat up on anybody. That's not why I wanted to speak. I think we all know what those things are, what happened in this committee. We were there. I know we all get pressure from our respective leaders' offices. We all get it. Let's be frank. That's the system of government we're in.

Mr. Hallan, I appeal to you. I ask you to remember that conversation you shared with me on why you ran for office and on some of the work you've done in your community.

I think what upset me the most about what happened here over the past few weeks.... There were lots of reasons I was disappointed. It wasn't even about the time we wasted. It wasn't about taking it to a new level. It wasn't about the rhetoric, although that was very upsetting. What upset me the most was that it wasn't consistent with what I heard in those initial conversations about why we're here. I didn't recognize the members I thought I knew.

I'm not here to beat up on people. What I'm here to say is that anybody who wants to know what happened in this committee can go back to the record and they can listen and they can watch, but, folks, I don't care if you're in opposition or in government or second party or third party or fourth. It doesn't matter. Guys, folks, it hurts all of us when what happened over the past few weeks happens.

I guess I would say I have great concerns about the tactics the Conservatives used. I do. Mr. Hallan is the leader of the Conservative team here, as Mr. Blaikie pointed out, as the vice-chair and as the finance critic. I would ask us all to take this moment and just reflect on why we're here, and I would ask us to just show respect for each other and for this place. When we go after each other personally and we disrespect each other—whether it's the chair or other members, it doesn't matter—then we harm our ability to do our job, we harm our ability to serve our constituents and we harm this place. We harm this institution's ability to serve our constituents.

It may feel good in the short run to score a hit or to score a punch or to get a sound bite or whatever it is or to appeal to a leader's office that's asking someone to do something they probably shouldn't, but in the long run it's hurting all of us and it's hurting our constituents, no matter what you think about how long the minister should be at committee or how well or badly the economy is doing or what the issues of the day are or what the solutions to those problems are.

I would just ask all of us to ask ourselves why we're here and how we make the most of this opportunity.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

PS Beech, go ahead on a point of order.

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

Thank you.

Given the speaking list and given that we will not have time, I'd like to retest for unanimous consent to dismiss the officials at this time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

All right.

I'm looking to members for UC to allow officials to be released. I see thumbs-up from everybody.

Officials, thank you so much for being with us. The testimony you provided on the members' questions was excellent. We really appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you, also, MP Beech.

Next on my list I have MP Dzerowicz.