Finance Committee on May 7th, 2026

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Okay. It's predictable, but it's below system costs.

I'm asking for your opinion. I understand you may not be allowed to give me your opinion, but I'm curious to know what it is.

Do you think Quebeckers and Canadians in general are sufficiently informed or are well aware of the federal government's areas of jurisdiction and those of the provinces? Do you think the average Canadian understands what each level of government is responsible for?

[Galen Countryman]

I don't know what the average Canadian's level of knowledge is regarding federal and provincial jurisdictions.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

You don't want to hazard a guess.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair (Jasraj Hallan), Conservative, Jasraj Singh Hallan]

That's time.

Next, we have Mr. Kelly for five minutes.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you.

We've had some talk today in this study about the lack of transparency and the lack of understanding about how transfers within the federation work. The receipt of equalization is relatively straightforward; it's reported in the public accounts. You can tell quite easily how much a province has received. For example, in 2025, the number was $13 billion for Quebec, the single largest provincial recipient. It wasn't the largest per capita, but the largest overall.

Where can one find the precise number of how much a province has paid into equalization? The formula determines how much is paid directly to a province under the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, but the public accounts are not as clear on how much money was extracted from a province under this formula. For example, could you tell the committee right now what Alberta paid in 2024-25, the last fiscal year for which we have the public accounts?

[Galen Countryman]

As I think we've discussed before, the equalization is funded out of federal revenues in general, so it's a consolidated revenue fund.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

I understand, but you have a formula that dictates how much each province receives. You could look them up individually, but you cannot similarly see where it comes from. Could you give us the number for Alberta?

You have provinces that are non-recipients of this, but you have provinces that do receive, and it's all subject to a formula. Could you explain to the committee and Canadians how much the provinces—not just Alberta, but let's say the provinces that are not recipients of the fund...?

[Galen Countryman]

Again, all Canadians and Canadian businesses pay into the consolidated revenue fund for various sources of taxation and other revenues. The federal government receives it. It goes into the consolidated revenue fund, and then the Government of Canada decides to spend on various programs out of the consolidated revenue fund, one of which is equalization.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

I understand. The federal government taxes Canadians in all provinces, and then it pays out only to some under a formula. The net amount that went to the seven provinces necessarily came from the other three. This is how equalization works. That's the equal part of equalization.

Can you give us a number for the other provinces?

[Galen Countryman]

Taxes are collected from every province into the consolidated revenue fund, and then there are payments out.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

It is done by formula. This is exactly what I think Mr. Robson and other witnesses today.... They talked about how opaque the system of fiscal transfers really is, when some provinces are net contributors and others are net recipients through the program of equalization.

[Galen Countryman]

The only other place you could look, sir, is Stats Canada. It puts out provincial economic accounts that show where federal revenues and spending go, by province.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Perhaps you could table a response.

Mr. Chair, if you don't mind, I'm going to take this moment to ask permission from the committee to move a motion that did not have quite enough notice given, but I think there have been discussions between the parties. I am going to seek the committee's permission to quickly move a motion.

[The Vice-Chair (Jasraj Hallan), Conservative, Jasraj Singh Hallan]

Do we have unanimous consent for Mr. Kelly to move a motion?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Liberals are certainly comfortable with giving unanimous consent for this. I think our Bloc colleague is amenable as well.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you, committee members.

With that, I move:

That the committee undertake a study of Bill C-30, an Act to implement certain provisions of the spring economic update tabled in Parliament on April 28, 2026, provided that:

a. the following witnesses be invited to appear separately, for no less than one hour each:

i. The Minister of Finance and National Revenue,

ii. The Minister of Jobs and Families, in relation to the proposed amendments to the Employment Insurance Act,

iii. The Minister of Transport, in relation to the proposed amendments to the Canada Transportation Act,

iv. The Governor of the Bank of Canada, in relation to the proposed amendments to the Bank of Canada Act,

b. the Minister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food be invited to appear for one hour, on the same panel, relating to the proposed amendments to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act and the Pest Control Products Act,

c. the committee receive 4 hours of additional witness testimony, including at least one panel with departmental officials for a technical briefing, a panel of Canadians affected by high fuel, grocery and housing prices, another panel impacted by the annual alcohol excise duty inflation adjustment, and another panel featuring witnesses deemed relevant by members of the committee,

d. the Chair only be authorized to schedule a meeting for the purposes of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill after the witnesses have appeared as prescribed by this motion.

This was on notice, but only briefly.

[The Vice-Chair (Jasraj Hallan), Conservative, Jasraj Singh Hallan]

Go ahead, Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

Thanks to my colleague, Mr. Kelly, for bringing this forward and moving this today.

I think this is quite a reasonable proposal, and it is a good example of the committee coming together to work collaboratively. Although we'll have different views on different aspects of this particular implementation act for the spring economic update, I think it's a good proposal.

The only issue I have with it is part iv. The Governor of the Bank of Canada will be hard pressed to comment on legislative changes, such as amendments to the Bank of Canada Act, which are ultimately in the purview of the Minister of Finance. We've seen the Bank of Canada governor just recently. He did a great job at the committee. I'm sure we all agree that it's great to have him as frequently as possible, but I don't think, in this case, that it's necessary.

With the Minister of Finance and National Revenue coming for one hour, which is your first ask, I think he's more than capable of speaking to the Bank of Canada Act amendments, which he is ultimately accountable for. Our government should answer for that and have good answers to your questions.

I would just propose what I would consider a friendly amendment, which is to remove part iv. Delete that line, and then I think we'll be prepared to support it—and I think other parties may be as well. However, I won't speak for Mr. Garon, because he's more than capable of speaking for himself.

[The Vice-Chair (Jasraj Hallan), Conservative, Jasraj Singh Hallan]

Mr. Garon, go ahead.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

I join the other parties in agreeing with this motion's principle. I think we've already had the notice of ways and means motion.

We also need to start the study of Bill C‑30 soon. I think it's highly appropriate to hear from most witnesses listed in the motion before moving to the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C‑30. Ministers and officials will be welcome.

However, I wonder about inviting the Bank of Canada to talk about a legislative change that affects it. Although it's not perfect, the legislative branch, the executive branch and the judicial branch in Canada are independent from each other. I doubt the central bank would be inclined to discuss legislative changes. Our Conservative colleagues could speak a bit about this. I, for one, have reservations about inviting someone from the Bank of Canada. Moreover, I think inviting someone from the Bank of Canada will make us lose precious time we could use to question other witnesses, who could help us make better decisions and make better amendments to Bill C‑30.

[The Vice-Chair (Jasraj Hallan), Conservative, Jasraj Singh Hallan]

Thank you, Mr. Garon.

Is it the will of the committee to unanimously pass the friendly amendment moved by Mr. Turnbull?

(Amendment agreed to)

(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Thank you, colleagues.

Is it the will of the committee to adjourn?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Vice-Chair (Jasraj Hallan), Conservative, Jasraj Singh Hallan]

Thank you, colleagues.

Thank you, witnesses.

The meeting is adjourned.