Evidence of meeting #3 for Finance in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was appear.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I concur with my colleagues. I spent a lot of my summer travelling the country and doing pre-budget consultations. Mr. Garon is laughing over there, but it was a lot of hard work and time I spent away from my young daughters and family.
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
Madam Chair, sorry to interrupt the debate, but I really think that this is a point of order.
My colleague, who is filibustering his own motion, is accusing me of laughing at his comments and at the people of Quebec and Canada. If my colleague doesn't know what a good mood is, let's buy him a dictionary.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Mr. Garon, that's the debate. That isn't a point of order. Thank you.
Mr. Turnbull, you may continue.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Listen, I just remarked on the fact that he seems to be smiling, but I'm talking about a serious thing, which is that we did pre-budget consultations the whole summer. Mr. Garon probably knows this. I travelled to Hamilton, Mississauga, Toronto, Vancouver, Whitehorse, Halifax, Cape Breton, P.E.I., Iqaluit, Regina, Saskatoon, Victoria, Windsor and Edmonton. Our team did 50 round tables and had 83,000 survey responses. We went to every province and territory. There were over 940 briefing submissions to this committee on the federal budget. To say that we didn't do any pre-budget consultations is just inaccurate.
I think the main point here is that there's reasonable and then there's unreasonable. We're trying to be very reasonable. We're even willing to vote in support of this motion, even though there's some partisan rhetoric in it that I don't agree with. In essence, there's really only one sticking point here. The committee could just invite the minister to come at his earliest opportunity. We're fairly confident that the minister....
Well, number one, we know that the minister will want to come; it's not a matter of that. It's just that the Minister of Finance has quite a lot of work. He was in Copenhagen recently. Again, as my colleague Mr. Sawatzky mentioned, he is deepening ties with the European Union. We know how important it is right now for our country and our trade relationships to ensure that we can diversify trade in Canada and that we can move to more of a resilient economy rather than being reliant on predominantly one trading partner, which has been the case for quite a number of decades.
I think the key here is that there are reasonable requests and there are unreasonable requests. For a Wednesday appearance from a minister, just to be clear, with today being the 22nd, that would be two days from now. I understand that Mr. Garon would like to see the minister sooner rather than later. We're saying that of course the minister would like to appear and answer any questions the committee has. They are more than willing to do that. It's just that I've been around Parliament for six years, and I know ministers often have busy schedules. I think it's well acknowledged on committee that sometimes they take up to two weeks, maybe more, to come to committee. We try to work with that and to plan our time accordingly.
As my colleagues have mentioned, we have a lot of important work to do in this committee. This is a clarification of a budget cycle moving forward that Mr. Garon would like. I'm not saying it isn't important; I understand it's important to him. I will say that I haven't had one single constituent request on this. My constituents are more concerned with us getting Bill C-4 passed; getting the budget through committee; perhaps studying some of the impacts on our economy before the budget comes down, which I think could be very useful; and perhaps hearing from some of the witnesses, as I suggested in the last meeting.
Again, I started us off trying to be collaborative. I actually mirrored one of the motions that Mr. Hallan had put on notice, made some changes and had some discussion beforehand. I was really trying to start us off on the right foot in terms of doing some work in this committee on pre-budget consultations. If we want to talk about economic security or economic sovereignty, I'm okay with whatever we name it. If we want to call it a pre-study or pre-budget consultations, I'm ambivalent. I don't care. It's whatever the committee members want, but I want some witnesses from Quebec to come before this committee and speak to their perspectives on this federal budget. To me, we're wasting valuable opportunities here by simply being unreasonable on a request.
Wednesday, September 24, is the sticking point. Literally, I've just amended the motion to take that part out and for the committee to invite the minister to come at the earliest opportunity. You certainly have my commitment to ensure that the minister comes to this committee at the earliest opportunity. I will do my very best to make that happen. I know that our minister is very, very competent when he comes to committee. He does a great job. He answers questions. He is forthright. He's even entertaining, because he's such a bubbly personality. I would love to have him here. I always appreciate him when he appears at committee. We'll have him in short order, but it's about being reasonable, my friends. There's reasonable and unreasonable. What you're sticking on is, I believe, an unreasonable request.
In most committees I've been on, whether it was PROC or the agriculture and agri-food committee.... I was on HUMA for a long time. I've been on the finance committee. I was on the industry committee with my colleague Jean-Denis Garon. He eventually changed his mind. He didn't like the tribunal and the legislation, but we worked together for quite some time with good rapport and good relations.
There was always an understanding that when ministers are invited to committee, it may take a week or two, or even longer sometimes, to get them to committee, and that doesn't mean they don't want to come. It doesn't mean they don't value Parliament. I sometimes hear opposition members say, “Well, the ministers don't want to come and do their duty in Parliament.” That's not true. The truth is that ministers are more than willing to come and answer for their files and their portfolios and be held to account by Parliament. It's just that they also have to balance other duties and responsibilities that the Canadian public expects of them. I think those are more than reasonable expectations.
A timeline that's reasonable is really the sticking point here. It would be great if we didn't.... I don't want to assume the motivations for my colleagues, but to stick on such a pointed two-days-from-now timeline is, in the general practice at committees, definitely unreasonable.
I'm sure that many other committees.... We could go back in the records and look at how long it took for a Conservative minister to appear. We could look back in history and see that oftentimes it took two to three weeks to get a minister to appear.
Is this partisan throwing things in the air to try to distract from the important work we have ahead? I don't know, and I don't want to speculate, because I generally hold my colleagues across the table in high regard, and I try to treat them with respect and not assume negative motivations.
It's hard for me to understand why we would be so stuck on this Wednesday, when a couple of weeks from now, the committee could have the minister here. Why wouldn't that be sufficient? What is so important that we can't continue the important work of this committee? Why do we have to hang it up, meeting after meeting, instead of agreeing to something we could achieve consensus on? Have the minister appear, have Mr. Garon get the clarity he desires and move forward with important work that Canadians expect of us.
I don't want to waste our committee time. I feel like I'm being put in a position to have to speak to something I feel adamantly about, which is the part of this that is definitely an unreasonable request.
Thank you.
Liberal
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I feel compelled to share an observation about my colleague, whom I hold in high regard. He said that we've worked together in other committees. He added that it hasn't always been an easy relationship. However, since we don't have the same logo on our election signs, naturally we don't agree on everything. I find it rather amusing that he finished by saying that he doesn't want to waste the committee's time, when he and his three colleagues have been filibustering on their own motion for 29 minutes.
We may not have the same definition of the words “laugh” or “smile.” We most likely don’t have the same definition of “wasting time.” Maybe that's why we don't belong to the same political party.
That said, I welcome the fact that some progress was made over the weekend. At last Wednesday's meeting, we gave the minister almost 10 days to set his schedule. My colleague knows that the minister will be coming. We didn't give him two days. We gave him 10 days.
Last Wednesday, my colleague considered the entire motion unreasonable. I said that it was unacceptable to rush through the process of hearing from the too few witnesses during the study of the budget implementation bill. My colleague said that my comments were completely unreasonable. He referred to his extensive six years of experience as a seasoned parliamentarian and noted that, in previous years, witnesses continued to appear during the pre‑budget period while work proceeded on implementing the budget. He could confirm this.
We had these statements verified. In the past, during the budget implementation period, the pre‑budget period for the following year had already started. I gather that my colleague, Mr. Turnbull, has trouble reading calendars. He doesn't find it easy. He finds it complicated. There are years, months, days and boxes in a calendar. It's complicated. He took the weekend to think about it, which I understand. His opinion changed.
That said, we must meet with the minister, Madam Chair. My colleague says that the only part that remains unreasonable is the date. He's proposing a date, but he doesn't want us to vote on it. He's wasting our time.
According to my colleague, if we looked at the history of committee business, we would see that ministers typically take from one to five weeks to appear before the committee. This brings us to the eve of the budget. That's exactly what we're worried about. He then confirmed that we need to have a date.
We should also look back at times other than wartime and see which ministers left ambiguity surrounding the presentation of a budget in the spring, to the point that, on the first day of Standing Committee on Finance proceedings, committee members were unable to set a schedule and invite witnesses.
Perhaps we should ask the analysts to find the last time that this happened. If we're listing historical firsts, I would like to know which minister, upon taking office, didn't table a budget before an election; which minister didn't table a budget after the election; and which minister tabled a budget in November while being unable to say whether he planned to change the budget cycle, even though no one asked him to do so. We could play around with historical firsts.
My main concern lies in the fact that Mr. MacDonald, whom I also like, and Mr. Turnbull say that consultations took place, but that the opposition members weren't invited. These members were in their constituencies, and nobody was paying any attention to them.
The government is currently in a minority position. Yet the members say that they travelled by plane at the taxpayer's expense. They went to Vancouver, Kitchener and all over the place. They met with farmers from Prince Edward Island and had a good time, and ministers were there too. They had a Liberal gathering with everyone in Canada, but without the committee or opposition members. There were consultations. That's enough for them, and they're telling us to take a hike.
The word “indecency” is virtually the same in both official languages. I apologize, Madam Chair, but I must say that these remarks are indecent. We're asking for one thing, and we're ready to set a date for a meeting. All we want is for the Liberals to stop filibustering and to stop going on and on when it comes to their own motion. That way, we can vote on it, set a date and let the minister simply tell us whether he'll do the bare minimum required by his job description, meaning the minimum required by the union.
Will there be a budget in the spring, so that we can set a schedule? I'm ready to vote on their motion.
Liberal
Liberal
Carlos Leitão Liberal Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Our colleague just made a number of, shall we say, interesting remarks.
True, I'm a new member of Parliament. The rules here don't necessarily match the rules that I was used to in another Parliament, where I served for a number of years. However, in the other Parliament, I never saw anything like this. I never saw a minister being summoned to appear before a committee, or a parliamentary committee in Quebec City, with only two days' notice. I find that unreasonable.
We already said we were willing to meet with the minister to discuss the next budget cycle and all sorts of other issues. We just need to give him a bit more time to clear his schedule. He has a full schedule and he must find a time to come see us. It could be next week or the week after. We all agree that the minister should appear before the committee. I don't know why we're discussing this. We can find a date, but we don't think that September 24 works.
Last week, the minister was in Europe, in Copenhagen, to discuss the geopolitical situation with his European counterparts and the implications for the Canadian and global economies.
He said that we must understand that the current situation in Canada and around the world is somewhat similar to the situation in 1945 in terms of the global economic order. We're emerging from a time of great distress. We're trying to rebuild what our American neighbours unfortunately decided to destroy, which is a global economic order based on predictable rules.
How can we switch our focus? How can we find a new way of working with all the countries that share our vision, as the Prime Minister has already said?
The current situation is quite complex. Parliamentarians must show some leniency. In other words, the minister must be given more than two days' notice to appear before the committee. Ten days would be enough. I think that we could be a bit more flexible in this area. I don't really see why we couldn't give him more time.
Furthermore, our colleague, the member for Mirabel, said that a big Liberal gathering was held during the summer and that we carried out pre‑budget consultations with friends. It would have been nice to see him at some of our consultations in Quebec. It certainly wasn't a gathering of friends. The discussions were interesting and important. We would like these individuals or groups to come here to speak to the committee and to share the information contained in the briefs that they submitted to us.
Again, we're dealing with a new world. It isn't simple. It's complex. It requires equally complex decisions, findings and actions. It all takes a bit of thought and time.
We believe that it's reasonable to insist that the meeting with the Minister of Finance and National Revenue take place a few days after September 24. I don't understand the insistence on September 24. I'm a bit surprised by this request.
It's unfortunate. We would also like to discuss both the pre‑budget consultation process and Bill C‑4. The parties in the House have already expressed their preliminary support for the bill. We now need to take the opportunity to look more closely at the bill by carrying out a clause‑by‑clause consideration. That way, we can move forward with this bill.
I remember that, as colleagues, we discussed the need to make adjustments to certain aspects of Bill C‑4. We're totally open to discussing this and seeing how we can make progress on this work.
I don't understand why we can't walk and chew gum at the same time. While we wait for the minister to come meet with us next week or the week after, we could easily start working on Bill C‑4. This would give us a chance to move forward with our discussions, which is really important. We would need to go back a long way to find anything that remotely resembles the current situation.
Let's be efficient and find ways to make progress on our parliamentary business while we wait for the minister to come see us in a few days. I don't think that this is such a big obstacle.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Liberal
Jake Sawatzky Liberal New Westminster—Burnaby—Maillardville, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The thing we all have in common here is that we want things to move. However, we also need to be realistic with our timelines. If we're not being realistic, then we're inadvertently going to just slow things down, because we're expecting things that just can't happen.
For the Minister of Finance to come here.... There are a lot of things at stake. These are topics that can move markets. This is very sensitive information, and it's important that adequate time is given to prepare any kinds of documents or confidentiality reviews. There are legal considerations sometimes. Of course, there are notifications with stakeholders sometimes that are at play here as well. There are a lot of things that the Minister of Finance needs to prepare in advance of coming to the committee. Of course, there's also the translation of official documents, and there's really just the professional courtesy of giving the Minister of Finance more than two days, which I think is quite important.
Now there are a lot of other things that we could be discussing as well. We have over 940 pre-budget consultation requests that we could be spending our time looking at and discussing, so it's really important that we find a consensus. We don't want to spend time going over things when we know they're not realistic.
I would just say that I really hope we can find a way forward here, a compromise that is a bit more realistic with regard to the timeline for the finance minister.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Thanks.
I violently agree with Mr. Sawatzky, as usual.
All my colleagues on this side, I think, are trying to put their best feet forward and express to colleagues across the way how reasonable we're trying to be, essentially saying that this motion Mr. Garon put forward is a reasonable request with one slight hang-up, a minor detail, which is a date that's embedded into it. We know that the minister cannot appear by that date, which is this Wednesday. It's two days away.
It's pretty well known around here—and I don't want to insult my colleagues at all by suggesting that they haven't been around long enough to know this, but they literally have—that ministers often take a little longer than two days to clear their calendar, prep and come to committee. It's just professional courtesy, as someone said, and I think that's a good term for it.
With high-profile ministers, such as the Minister of Finance for Canada, you can imagine that the minister has been all over Canada and the world. Right now, obviously, Canada is at a pivotal moment. There's a lot at stake for our economy. We see our country being subjected to unjustified tariffs from our southern neighbour, who had been our most trusted ally and trade partner for many decades. We're now in this moment where we really need to defend our economy.
You've seen the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and other ministers who have key portfolios travelling the world and demonstrating very publicly their commitment to shoring up and strengthening relationships and economic ties with other countries, such that we can replace some of the demand for our exports with other trade relationships. That could be very beneficial for Canada.
I think those conversations are really at the forefront of the government's approach to strengthening and building the strongest economy in the G7 in Canada, which is our commitment. It's what we won the last election on. It's certainly a message that's resonated across Canada in every pre-budget consultation that I have had the opportunity to host and facilitate. Canadians are stepping up and are interested in feeding into the federal budget-making process. That was clear from the hundreds of conversations we had over the summer.
It would be great if this committee would hear from some of those witnesses, because there are so many thoughts, suggestions and ideas. Some of them are not even costly, which is something that I really appreciate, especially at this moment in time. Yes, we're going to be making generational investments in housing, defence and infrastructure, but we also see Canadians coming forward with proposals and ideas for how we can do things better, how we can tweak programs, investment tax credits or the indigenous loan guarantee program, so that these things can be more successful. There's a recognition that some of these things work well, but if only we had these small regulatory or even legislative changes in some cases, we would get further faster. We would enable the partners and strategic relationships across the country that we already have to move faster, be more effective and get more results for Canadians. I have many examples of these conversations that I've had.
To me, it's technical things associated with some of our investment tax credits. For example, if we were to tweak or change those ever so slightly, there would be some technology or application of green technology for mining, for the nuclear industry, for the battery storage industry or even for the petroleum producers, who have said that those investment tax credits are key for them to decarbonize their operations.
These are tweaks to pre-existing programs and tax credits that could be very, very useful. Again, it's another example of how, if this committee chose to use its time to hear from those witnesses instead of being stuck on a very unreasonable timeline for the minister to appear, we could actually hear from key witnesses who are making suggestions that would directly impact the budget implementation act.
For all the Canadians who are watching—I know there are not that many, but if you are watching—the budget implementation act is the bill that goes along with the federal budget. It's usually a fairly significant document, full of all the details. They're often small legislative changes. Sometimes they can have a big impact, but there are often lots of small changes made to tax law and other acts. This committee will be responsible for debating and moving through and getting it back to Parliament when the time comes. We could be hearing from some of the witnesses who have key suggestions. There are 940 or more. I think the list is probably growing.
I don't know, Madam Chair; have we received any more briefings to the committee other than the 940?
There are 940 groups. Some of the briefs were jointly submitted, so there actually could be three or four groups in each case who prepared or took the time to submit a brief. I'm sure many of them are from Quebec as well. I see the Université de Sherbrooke in here. It would be great to have some of them come before the committee to make their submissions in public, here at a committee hearing. I know that many of them expressed the desire to do so.
There's the Black Opportunity Fund. There's Food Secure Canada. I've known that organization for a long time. The Conservatives mention food insecurity regularly in question period. It would be great to hear the thoughts and views of the national organization that studies and has been advocating for policy change for decades. That's Food Secure Canada. It's a fantastic organization in Canada here that can talk about how to end food insecurity in Canada.
There are so many groups on this list that I would love to hear from. Breakfast Club of Canada is a great advocate for the national school food program. They probably have good advice for us on how we could continue to roll out and improve the delivery of that essential program, now that our government has made the commitment of $1 billion over five years to feed over 400,000 more kids per year.
In terms of inputs and suggestions, Summerlunch+ is another organization that I know well. The Growcer is another one. They've started essentially vertical grow operations in shipping containers. They're expanding across Canada. They've actually been able to decrease the price of food in northern and remote communities. There's a solution for food insecurity, but committee members here don't seem to want to hear from those witnesses. They would rather get stuck on a two-day timeline, when it's completely unreasonable for a minister to appear within two days, than hear from potentially 940 groups. It's actually more than that, because many of these, again, are group or joint submissions, so you could have three or four groups.
There's also Thrive Impact Fund, Purppl and Scale Collaborative. These groups I actually know from out in the B.C. area. They're doing fantastic work in food insecurity and using unique financial models and innovations to scale up solutions to food insecurity. I mean, these would be great to hear from. There are so many others here that would be really helpful for us to hear from. I would really value their input.
I want them to know, if any of them are watching, that on this side of the table, we really value those witnesses and what they have to say. We'd love to make time in this committee, if the opposition members are willing, to study some things. We would love to hear from some of these witnesses. I think we're wasting an incredible opportunity here to hear from witnesses who could feed directly into the budget implementation act. Consideration of that is still ongoing, I assure you.
Co-operatives and Mutuals Canada has an event on the Hill tomorrow. Credit unions like Desjardins, Vancity, Meridian and many of the others do incredible work, a lot of it in community finance. It really excites me to see them on the forefront and to see how we could work in collaboration with them to ensure that many of our rural communities can benefit from some of the investment they need, I think, so that while we're focused on these big major infrastructure projects, we ensure communities right across Canada will get access to capital and to help in growing their enterprises.
Agriculture is a topic that I'm really interested in, to see how we can do an even better job of working with our credit unions. They do a lot of the lending to our agricultural and agri-food businesses. They do a lot of the lending within the smaller communities along those main streets. We need thriving business environments for our towns and hamlets in all the areas across Canada, which should not be forgotten in this federal budget.
It would be great to hear from the credit unions on what they think are the big opportunities for this budget and how we can ensure that while we build big infrastructure, we can simultaneously scale up small and medium-sized enterprises and have them trade with some of the diverse trading partners whose relationships we're strengthening every day, as our Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and the Minister responsible for One Canadian Economy—Minister LeBlanc, who I think has another portfolio now—are doing internationally to strengthen those relationships. The work they're doing is incredible. I note that the Prime Minister was in conversations with some of the countries in Africa just recently—I think I saw a notice about that—which is another set of very important trading partners for Canada to continue to diversify.
I really hope that the committee can get back on track, that we can have a reasonable timeline and that my colleagues across the way will come to their senses and merely accept a reasonable request to have the minister appear, which we're more than willing to pass and move forward on. I hope we can see some sign of progress on the other side. I hope our colleagues will be reasonable and work with us to ensure that this committee can do valuable work on behalf of Canadians.
I'll stop there for now, Madam Chair, though I do have more thoughts on this subject.
Liberal
Carlos Leitão Liberal Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Again, I don't think it's reasonable to think that we can find a way to hear from the Minister of Finance in just two days, or convince him to appear. That's really not reasonable.
Let's take, for example, the Minister of Finance's schedule last week, from September 17 to 20. First, there was the meeting in Europe of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council, or ECOFIN. It usually brings together ministers in charge of economic and financial issues from European Union countries. However, this year, Canada was also invited.
So it was an extremely important meeting for Canada, and it was essential that the Minister of Finance be well prepared before appearing. Let's not forget that the Prime Minister's first trip after being sworn in was to Europe. He went to France and the United Kingdom. Canada really wants to strengthen economic and diplomatic relations with its European partners. So such a meeting was very important for Canada and for the Minister of Finance, who travelled to Copenhagen to participate in it.
Participation in such a meeting is not just about listening to what other participants have to say. It also means actively taking part in discussions to find solutions with European partners. As has already been said, the world we currently live in is very different from the one that existed before the November 2024 election in the United States, which has a new administration. The world is no longer the same. So we have to prepare and organize ourselves to deal with this new world.
The government got to work, and the Minister of Finance is at the heart of that work. He wants to appear and he will certainly do so, but two days' notice is just not reasonable.
I would like to add that, following that meeting in Copenhagen, the minister also met with Mr. Eby, the Premier of British Columbia. He met with the G7 finance ministers, as well, to consider ways to put in place support mechanisms for Ukraine. All of those meetings have dealt with very important issues, which require significant preparation. It's not just a matter of showing up at a meeting to discuss Ukraine. He has to be well prepared and have important things to say.
It's in the context of all that hustle and bustle that the minister will also appear before us. I tell you that he will do so, but two days' notice is not reasonable. This leads me to believe that the proposal is an attempt to delay the study of Bill C‑4. Everyone seems to agree on the bill. However, given that we are unable to move forward with the work related to the study of this bill, I wonder if everyone really agrees. I think this question is legitimate, since the work isn't moving forward.
I'd like to add one last thing. Of course, we all know that a federal budget is very complex. Various aspects need to be taken into account and a lot of things need to be analyzed before a budget is established. It's not just a matter of forecasting expenditures and revenues. In the current context, it's also about providing direction and proposing new ways of doing things, as well as finding new paths to take in the next year and subsequent years.
We used to live in a world where international trade rules were very clear, an environment where trade was based on laws and rules that everyone understood. The world is now a little more complex, but negotiations are still going on. The Minister of Finance sometimes has informal conversations with Scott Bessent, the U.S. Treasury Secretary. So we continue to try to find at least some common ground with our American neighbours. They're still our neighbours; we can't change geography.
The Government of Canada also announced that the consultation process for the review of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA, would begin soon. In Canada, we will begin this review process by asking ourselves what we would like to see in this new version of the agreement, which will be negotiated in 2026 with the United States.
This work is extremely important, and the Minister of Finance has a key role to play in the negotiation and review process for CUSMA.
I repeat that, for all these reasons, it is entirely reasonable to postpone the Minister of Finance's appearance by a few days.
September 24 is 48 hours away. Given the context we're in, 48 hours is really unreasonable.
Liberal
Kent MacDonald Liberal Cardigan, PE
Members opposite, again, I'm feeling like I'm not fulfilling my commitment to my constituents. I really want to get to work. I hope that we can find common ground on the date the finance minister can appear. I think the rest of the members have presented the complications with that.
If the chair would indulge me, as a representative of the agricultural community I would like to read part of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture's presentation. I think their recommendations should be read to the committee. The member from Quebec mentioned that he didn't get to have any input. I can share some of this with him now, if you'd like—if I can read it.
The CFA recognizes the importance of targeted, efficient spending. Accordingly, our recommendations emphasize low- or no-cost—
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Crowfoot, AB
On a point of order, the member asked whether it was appropriate or not, and I guess my view on this would be that reading somebody else's pre-budget submission is not relevant to the motion at hand and that he should stick to the motion.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I've been on this committee, in this very room, when many members opposite read things into the record when they had a chance to have the floor. I'm sure that we can all agree that pre-budget consultations are part of the motion, and what Mr. MacDonald is attempting to share with the committee are important views from constituents that he cares about that relate to pre-budget consultation. I believe it is relevant.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Crowfoot, AB
What we are debating right now is the amendment to the motion. We are debating whether or not to delete the words “no later than Wednesday, September 24”. I don't believe that there's anything possibly relevant to the debate about deleting the words “no later than Wednesday, September 24” in an agriculture stakeholder's submission to the committee. Typically, when people read into the record.... It's not the reading into the record that's the objection; it's the relevance.
I'll leave it in your hands to rule on this, Chair.