Evidence of meeting #14 for Finance in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was havens.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
No. I'm suggesting that we're not going to get to a vote on this. I have lots of remarks and I have the floor. I'm just suggesting that it might be a good idea, if members agree.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Crowfoot, AB
On a point of order, I think this is about the practice of the committee. If Mr. Turnbull is planning to talk for the next 23 minutes or longer, I agree that it would be appropriate to invite our witnesses to disconnect if they wish, but the rest of us are prepared to continue with the witnesses.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
It sounds to me like Mr. Turnbull is prepared to speak for a while, so I will apologize to the witnesses. Thank you. I will leave it in your hands whether you would like to stay and watch this debate, but you are also free to go. Thank you very much for taking the time to be with us today.
We'll go back to you, Mr. Turnbull.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
As I was saying, for me, there's a good case to be made for having this request from Monsieur Garon be included in a BIA prestudy. I think he made a very good case for why this should be a part of a prestudy for the BIA. I know that members now have access to those documents because they were tabled yesterday. I know it's a lot of reading for us, but, Madam Chair, in my view, we have time and resources that are valuable and we should spend them to begin that prestudy.
It would be great to have members opposite agree to have the PBO and perhaps the former PBO, Kevin Page, as part of a prestudy for the BIA. I know that members all have critical remarks in the House of Commons on the BIA. Obviously, they now have the details, so there is a lot of opportunity to get into the details, perhaps hear from witnesses in future meetings and really start to undertake the work.
I know that members opposite had claimed at numerous points in the past that they sought or would seek to have witnesses come from their jurisdictions, like Quebec, and speak to the BIA and what's included in the budget. They had, at times, even said that there was not enough consultation done. In my view, we did a lot of consultation over the summer. I know I spent a lot of the summer travelling, so the budget is in direct response to a lot of input that was given by Canadians. It would be great to have some of those witnesses come forward and speak to what they think could be improved about the BIA.
I know that members opposite will have opinions on which witnesses we should hear from and what amendments they would like to propose when we get to clause-by-clause on the BIA. There is a lot of time for that. I know that in past parliaments.... I was PS to finance before, in the last Parliament, for a period of time. A lot of prestudy work happened that was really fruitful in terms of our efforts and time spent, so I think that would be helpful.
The other thing is that our government has focused, in budget 2025, on ensuring that we have a capital budgeting framework for a very good reason. We decreased operational spending. We've outlined two important fiscal anchors. The deficit-to-GDP ratio on a declining track is very important, as is balancing the operational budget or the spending of the federal government in the next three years. These are also tied to a goal we have, which is to mobilize about a trillion dollars in capital investment, so there's a focus on capital formation. Things like investment tax credits, I believe, help to spur and stimulate private investment. We've also offered immediate expensing, which we've called the “productivity super-deduction”.
There's a list of things that we've offered to boost productivity in Canada that directly responds to the things we heard from the Governor of the Bank of Canada and the deputy governor, who were here not so long ago. They pointed to very specific things we can do to boost productivity in Canada. Many of those things are actually in the budget.
The BIA outlines the details—the specific changes to tax law. For example, manufacturers and processors will be able to write off new machinery and equipment in year one. That's a 100% writeoff. This is clearly going to boost productivity in Canada. There's no doubt about it. As a business —I ran a business for many years—you tend to save money to pay your taxes at the end of the year.
When you do that...but you know that the government is moving forward with things—a 100% writeoff for new machinery and equipment, or protecting your intellectual property, or helping you expense, at a rapid rate, new information technology and new clean technology, or even investing in research and development so that you can offer new products and services—it allows businesses to take the money they've been saving and invest it immediately in their operations to be more productive and grow the economy.
Monsieur Garon may argue and take issue with that and say, well, that doesn't provoke capital expenditure, but as I think we heard from the deputy governor of the Bank of Canada, those measures specifically help to spur investment. She said that anything that spurs investment, that helps to get businesses to invest in themselves, would improve productivity in Canada. I know that the Conservatives agree with me on this, because they have time and time again in the House of Commons, for the last three years easily, said that we need to do something about GDP per capita in this country. That's going to increase the standard of living for Canadians.
I see that Mr. Lawrence from the other side emphatically agrees with me. That's great. What's interesting is that he now just voted in the House of Commons against all the measures we put in the budget implementation act in order to address GDP per capita, in order to raise the standard of living and in order to give real wage growth to workers across Canada that would outpace inflation. What's kind of hard to accept...but I understand. I'm used to seeing Conservative hypocrisy all throughout parliamentary proceedings. It's just the case that we find them saying one thing one minute and doing the exact opposite the next. That's something I've gotten used to over the years here.
For me, though, I think the opportunity here is to study the BIA, as Monsieur Garon says, and to have the Parliamentary Budget Officer, with his assessment of what should or shouldn't be included in operational versus capital definitions, come to the committee. We could also balance that out with a somewhat critical lens from his mentor Kevin Page, who now runs, I think, the centre for fiscal and democratic studies, if I'm not mistaken, and who I think has a varying view on how these things would play out.
For me, it makes sense to have this as part of a BIA prestudy. Perhaps the members opposite would agree to that if I were to propose an amendment. I'm not sure whether they would or not, but I'm hopeful.
I'm sorry, Madam Chair. I seem to be losing my voice.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Kevin Page also recently said, “In the current economic environment, I'm comfortable with budgetary deficits in the 2.5 per cent range of GDP.”
Let's remember, colleagues, that Canada has a lower deficit-to-GDP ratio than Germany, Italy, U.K., France and the United States. That's including all the generational investments—I know that Mr. Garon loves the term “generational investments”—in budget 2025. By the way, those are when investments in the economy that create capital formation have returns to taxpayers and Canadians for multiple generations.
I also would note that Mr. Page recently said, “We need to focus on economic growth. We need capital investment to boost innovation, improve our infrastructure and diversify trade.” He also said, “We live in dangerous times, and we must meet our NATO spending targets.”
These are comments by the first parliamentary budget officer, who was appointed by.... Remind me. Mr. Lawrence would know this. Oh yes, Stephen Harper. Thank you. Former Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper appointed Kevin Page.
I think it was a good appointment. At seven years...he was the first parliamentary watchdog, or the budget watchdog, as members liked to call him. He's really well respected. The interim PBO was here and said how much he admired Kevin Page. I would propose to have Kevin Page attend as well. I think it's more than reasonable, if we want to get clear on what should be considered a capital investment and the definitions around that, that we should balance out the witness testimony.
I already mentioned that the interim PBO had deemed our budget sustainable. Kevin Page has also said the same multiple times. He said, “I think the analysis that we've seen from finance, from the [Parliamentary Budget Office], and from the [IMF] last year is that Canada is fiscally sustainable.” That's something that Kevin Page said recently.
He also said that he thought the language from the Interim Parliamentary Budget Officer, Jason Jacques, “is just wrong, and he should walk that back, quite frankly. He should tell people that our fiscal situation is sustainable.”
Again, I think we have varying opinions from these budget watchdogs. By no means are they homogeneous in terms of what they believe and what their perspectives are. I think it's good for a democracy to have debates about these things, as long as there are various perspectives and members opposite don't try to shut down Liberal members when we ask questions, that we also get the opportunity, as is our right within parliamentary privilege, to pose questions to witness, but also to have a witness list, even the way that we—
Liberal
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Crowfoot, AB
I'm sorry to interrupt Mr. Turnbull, given the history we've had around struggling to end these meetings within the rules.
I want to be clear that Conservatives do not give consent to adjourn this meeting until this matter has been disposed of. We understand that there are resources. We're told five hours and 15 minutes of resources—
Liberal
Liberal
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Thank you very much.
I appreciate MP Kelly giving me a slight break for my hoarse voice. It's always really appreciated.
Kevin Page also recently said, “If you put the deficit and debt in perspective, we are not in a bad place with respect to other countries. With respect to our credit rating, we are actually in a pretty good place.”
These are important perspectives to have at this committee, I think.
I'd like to propose an amendment to Monsieur Garon's...and I'm going to read it in English—I apologize. I have it in French as well, and I can send it around.
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
I would like to raise a point of order.
I was waiting for Mr. Turnbull to finish.
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
My first point of order concerns decorum in committee. This is the first time I have raised one, but earlier Mr. Turnbull addressed me by my first name. Is that customary in committee? I do not call people “Ryan” or “Carlos”. Is it part of parliamentary standards to call people by their first names?
I think my second point of order is a real point of order. It concerns the interim Parliamentary Budget Officer. In his own motion, Mr. Turnbull refers to him as the “Interim Parliamentary Budget Officer”. Isn’t it also disrespectful to an officer of Parliament to constantly remind him of his interim status in a condescending manner?
What do you think, Madam Chair?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Thank you, Mr. Garon. I will check with the clerks.
Neither the first nor the second point are points of order.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Please wait a moment. I would remind members that they must wait until I call their name before speaking. This is also a matter of decorum.
These are not points of order but matters of decorum. I would remind all members of the committee to observe the decorum of the Standing Committee on Finance.
Thank you, Mr. Garon.
Mr. Turnbull, you have the floor.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I know that committees operate informally and, from my perspective, having been here for six years and on, I don't know in how many committees—seven or eight committees—we've often used each other's first names on the record. No disrespect was meant to Mr. Garon at all.
Also “interim Parliamentary Budget Officer” is actually the title of the interim Parliamentary Budget Officer. That's clear. That's just fact. It's not meant to be disrespectful at all to him. In fact, I've had very good conversations with him, and I respect him very much. There's no disrespect intended, and I hope members don't read anything into that.
I was going to propose an amendment to Mr. Garon's motion. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to read it in English:
Given that budget 2025 and the Budget Implementation Act 2025 have been tabled in the House of Commons, the committee invite the Parliamentary Budget Officer and former Parliamentary Budget Officer, Kevin Page, as soon as possible, for a period of two hours, to examine the current budgetary situation, the methodology surrounding capital investments, and the government's ability to meet its financial commitments; and that the testimony of the Parliamentary Budget Officer and former Parliamentary Budget Officer be included as part of the committee's upcoming study on the Budget Implementation Act.
That's what I'd like to propose. I think I've already argued for why I think that's an amendment that's a good, balanced and fair amendment to be able to proceed, but I'm more than happy to debate this for as long as members want.
Liberal