:
I call this meeting to order.
Welcome to meeting number 94 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, May 2, 2023, and the motion adopted on May 16, 2023, the committee is meeting to discuss Bill .
Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.
I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members.
Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike. Please mute yourself when you are not speaking. For interpretation, for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.
Just as a reminder, all comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. We appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.
Members, I'd like to bring your attention to paragraph (b)(iii) of the motion adopted on May 16:
(iii) if the Committee has not completed the clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill by 4:30 PM on Monday, May 29th, 2023, all remaining amendments submitted to the Committee shall be deemed moved, the Chair shall put the question, forthwith and successively, without further debate on all remaining clauses and proposed amendments, as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill, as well as questions necessary to report the Bill to the House and to order the Chair to report the Bill to the House as soon as possible.
I'd like to welcome our witnesses. They are all virtual. With us today, for the first hour, is a multitude of senior officials from various departments to answer any questions from the members.
Where we last left off.... Actually, I see that MP Blaikie's hand is up and MP Dzerowicz's hand is up.
I don't know if anybody else's hand is up.
No. There is nobody on the screen.
I will go to MP Blaikie just before we get started here on an annotated agenda.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I believe the slate is clear, as it were, of motions. I'd like to start by moving and then motivating a motion.
The motion reads as follows:
That notwithstanding the May 16th motion passed by the Committee, if the Committee has not completed the clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill C-47 by 4:30 PM on Monday May 29th, 2023, (i) all remaining amendments submitted to the Committee as of Friday, May 26, 2023 shall be deemed moved, (ii) the Chair shall put the question, forthwith and successively, without further debate on all remaining clauses and proposed amendments, except that not more than 20 minutes shall be allotted for debate on each proposed amendment, to be divided to a maximum of five minutes per recognized party, unless unanimous consent is granted to extend debate on a specific amendment, (iii) no subamendments or motions may be moved during debate, (iv) at the expiry of the time provided for debate on a specific amendment, the Chair shall put every question to dispose of the amendment, forthwith and successively without further debate, (v) the Chair shall be empowered to group clauses for which no amendment has been proposed, subject to the unanimous consent of the committee, (vi) once all questions necessary to dispose of all remaining clauses and proposed amendments have been decided, the Chair shall put, forthwith and successively, every question necessary to dispose of clause-by-clause of the bill, as well as questions necessary to report the Bill to the House and to order the Chair to report the Bill to the House as soon as possible.
This motion is really just meant to address the problem that I highlighted last day. Due to the choices of folks around the table, we've now exhausted most of the time we have to debate proposed amendments to the bill. How that works is that, until we get to the clause, the amendments that have been proposed so far aren't moved. At 4:30 they're all deemed moved. Then you could talk about them, except that the motion, which was agreed to by everyone around this table, including the Conservatives, by unanimous consent, prohibits debate.
We end up in an awkward position where prior to 4:30 we can't talk about the amendments. After 4:30 we have to vote on them. I think that means we end up not being accountable for the decisions we're making around the table.
I would say, because I notice we have some substitutions here today, that unfortunately we've come to a place where there's just no trust around the committee table. On trying to extend this process, I think many of us feel that any goodwill we might show in order to extend the process for appropriate reasons won't be honoured, and that it will be abused in order to do more of what we have seen around the table so far. It makes it really difficult in that kind of context, where you just don't have a lot of trust around the table, where the goalposts have often shifted and where you thought you had an understanding about how to proceed and then the time isn't used for the purposes we thought we had agreed to.
As I've said earlier too, I don't think it's just one side that's been difficult in this whole process. I think the ought to have told the committee if she was going to come for more than an hour, whether that was an hour and 20 minutes, an hour and 40 minutes or the two hours that I would have liked for us to express as a committee that we wanted her here for, but we never did get to a vote on the invitation for the two hours. There has been a lot of dysfunction.
I think the should show more respect to the committee than to refuse to come for a reasonable amount of time. I think she clearly had time in her schedule to stay longer. I think she should have indicated that to the committee beforehand. I think that's a very easy, respectful thing to do. That means that people can prepare for a longer appearance. It's nice of her to stay longer, but in a properly functioning professional work environment, people would have a heads-up. It's not like she can claim she didn't know that this was a matter of contention.
That doesn't mean I endorse the way everyone around this table handled it. I think they actually wasted all the time we had to hear from witnesses, then agreed to a really quick turnaround on clause-by-clause, and then kind of went back on that and decided to complain that, even though the text of the motion they agreed to was honoured, it wasn't good enough for them.
You know, I can hear them wanting to have heard more witnesses. There was some time for that early last week. Instead of raising it on the Sunday or the Monday, they chose to raise it on the Wednesday. They chose to raise it publicly before they raised it anywhere else.
We can all point fingers at each other around here. This has not been a good process. I think it's pretty pathetic, frankly. I hope nobody here is feeling good about what we've been doing over the last four or five weeks for any reason. I don't think there's anything we can point to in order to say to Canadians that we've done our job the way it should have been done. Some of us may be able to say we were prepared to do our job. I certainly undertook to do all the things one has to do to prepare for these meetings. Then I wasn't given the opportunity to do the work required.
This motion is just to allow five minutes to each party on each amendment that has already been proposed, to put some reasons on the record for why we're either supporting that amendment or not supporting that amendment. If folks here want to spend the next hour debating it and not have a vote, then what we'll end up doing is just going and voting on everything successively. It's just that Canadians won't get to know the reasons why we're voting. There will be nothing to hold us to account on that. I don't think that's value added to the process, regardless of the reasons somebody might feel it hasn't been a good process to date or of where they lay the blame. The one thing we can do now in the situation we find ourselves, where nobody really trusts anybody around the table, is to at least do the minimum to make sure that Canadians have an opportunity to hear why certain parliamentarians on this committee are voting one way on amendments or why they're voting the other way.
As I said, we can talk it out, but that's not going to do much except ensure that we have less accountability around this table. We don't all have to agree on it. All we have to do is let it come to a vote. Then the majority of the committee can decide if this is the way they want to proceed or not.
I've said my piece on that, Mr. Chair. I hope this is something that, at a minimum, we can agree to in order to meet our responsibilities to Canadians and to make ourselves accountable for the decisions we're going to make around the table. We don't have the power to compel a minister to appear, but we're here. We do have the power to allow ourselves to put comments on the record and then be held to account for those. I hope that at least we will hold ourselves to that standard of accountability. That remains to be seen.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I look forward to hearing debate on this motion.
:
I wanted to make sure of that, just in case something happened.
Anyway, thank you, Mr. Chair. I will say to you that I also want to acknowledge and honour the comments that Mr. Beech and you made at our last committee meeting. I think you both did an outstanding job of explaining how we got to where we are.
I also would like to say—just because I know the people in my riding and I have to be accountable to them—that there has been in no way any desire not to be accountable for this very important budget 2023 and the budget implementation act. I think there are a number of issues, concerns and questions that we could have had an opportunity to raise last week. Unfortunately, there was a filibuster that was led by our Conservative colleagues.
I will also say to you that I'm very glad our has come to committee. It's important for us to reiterate that our Deputy Prime Minister has been to this committee four times. There's no minister who ever comes every time they are invited to committees in general. I do want to say that our Deputy Prime Minister has, indeed, been here before this committee on a number of different bills. Before this bill, , she actually came for almost two hours. It was just over an hour and 40 minutes.
Mr. Chair, I know that there are a number of other people who want to speak. I'll say to you just in ending that I think it's very important for us to move forward with this . I think there are a number of targeted inflation relief measures for Canadians who need it the most. We do know that there are a lot of Canadians who are having a hard time making ends meet. There are a number of measures in the budget implementation act that will be very supportive to them. I think it's important for us to move forward with haste on this bill.
I think there are stronger public health care dollars, including millions of dollars for dental care. We currently have a dental care benefit, but the passage of budget 2023 will allow us to actually transition that dental care benefit into a dental care plan.
There are also significant investments to build Canada's clean economy, which will not only continue to create really great middle-class jobs but also ensure a prosperous economy moving forward. I'll tell you, in my riding there's a very strong belief that we need to move as quickly as possible to decarbonize and get to net zero by 2050. I know that this part of the budget is particularly important for those people in my riding.
Mr. Chair, I think that my colleague Mr. Blaikie is very right. I think we need to do much better. I think we have to come together after this to say how we can rebuild trust amongst ourselves and find a way to move forward on the important work that we've been elected to do on this very important committee.
Thank you.
:
Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.
I want to start by thanking Mr. Blaikie for moving the motion that he moved. I think what he has tried to do is give members a chance to explain their decisions as they vote through the budget bill. I think that's really important. Our role here in Parliament, as members of committee or in the House of Commons, is not just to vote on stuff. It's to make sure that we're listening to Canadians, hearing their points of view and then sharing with them why we've made the decisions we've made in voting or why we're advocating for what we're advocating for.
Unfortunately the Conservatives didn't give unanimous consent to Mr. Blaikie's motion. I think if we could pass Mr. Blaikie's motion, it would allow us to convey to our constituents why it is we're voting the way we are. I think that's a really important mechanism. I'm disappointed. I'm not looking to place blame, but I do think....
Let's be frank. The Conservatives just spent 27 hours or so filibustering this committee, which prevented us from hearing from witnesses. It prevented us from working on the bill to make it better. It prevented us from working on a bill that has tremendous implications for a lot of Canadians, especially on issues of affordability.
The fact that those 27 hours were spent filibustering by the Conservatives, who now won't give us five minutes per MP to speak to the amendments that are before us because they've declined Mr. Blaikie's motion, is really disappointing and goes counter to the spirit of how this place is supposed to work.
It's not just that it's not in Mr. Blaikie's interest or that it's not in our interest. It's not in the interest of any of the members here at this table not to be able to at least communicate for a few minutes about why we're voting the way we're voting or why certain amendments have been brought forward, or under what circumstances we would support certain amendments that have been brought forward. I'm disappointed in that.
More broadly, I would like to say that, as a member of this finance committee, this is the piece of legislation that I look forward to working on the most. I would argue that it's the most impactful part of what we do as a finance committee.
When I think about the challenges that all of our constituents are facing—especially when it comes to affordability, when it comes to challenges like growing our economy, when it comes to challenges like providing the most vulnerable with the support that they need—I think it's important that we take the opportunity and take the time we can to make this budget bill as strong as possible. Because of what has happened over the past number of weeks and the filibuster, we're not going to be able to do that. All we're going to be able to do is vote on the amendments as they are before us, and I think that's really unfortunate.
The intent of the budget bill is to supplement the budget that was introduced by the at the end of March. When I think about what the budget was designed to do, it was designed to, first of all, help people with the cost of living. As inflation has hit Canadians hard, as they struggle to pay their bills, the budget was meant to help address some of those challenges.
An example of that is the grocery rebate to help folks with the rising cost of food. Whether it's cracking down on junk fees, credit card interchange fees or predatory lending, whether its the tax-free first home savings account, which would allow homebuyers to save $40,000 tax free, or whether it's freezing the excise tax for a year on beer, wine and alcohol at 2%, these are some of the measures, in addition to many others that have been taken in the past several years, to help folks with the cost of living.
The budget had significant investments in health care, with conditions attached, which is really important because we need to make sure that not only are we getting value for taxpayer dollars as they get provided to provinces, in this case for health care, but that they actually deliver results for patients. We know there's a lot of improvement but also a lot more results that Canadians expect from their health care systems, and that's why we've not only provided a record amount of money but also attached conditions to that funding.
There's $13 billion for the new Canadian dental plan, which will provide dental coverage to families earning less than $90,000. I think that's transformational.
Then there are investments to build a clean economy and a number of other things to make sure that our economy grows so that the pie grows for everyone, and so that the quality of life in this country is growing and people's prosperity is growing.
All this is to say that I think there's a lot in this , an awful lot, designed to make Canadians' lives better. I look forward to voting on these amendments. It really would have been nice to be able to debate them, hear from more Canadians and communicate why we're voting the way we are.
I thank you, Mr. Chair, for the time.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I won't dive too deep into this, but I share everyone's sense of disappointment that the mistrust has reached these levels.
I'll jump into the amendments because time is short.
The first I'd like to talk about is with respect to.... Of course, this is a huge document. It's $490 billion, and we have 15 minutes, but I'm going to talk about a couple of areas that I believe deserve some attention and that I'm familiar with as well, which are around tax policy.
There are a couple of principles of fundamental tax fairness that this budget implementation act violates. I'll start with the Excise Tax Act. I think it is a good step by the government to limit the amount of increase, but the principle behind it is so very troubling and undemocratic. It runs anti the very basics of tax policy and democracy, I might add.
What happens with the excise tax is that it increases every year. That is a tax increase on Canadians who engage in drinking beer, which many Canadians like to do, and there's no ability—no accountability—for Parliament to say yes or no with respect to it. It has sort of slipped underneath the veil of darkness because there hasn't been high inflation in recent years. However, thanks to this government's high-deficit, high-spending agenda, we saw inflation increase dramatically, which then led to—because this is tied to inflation—a dramatic increase in the excise tax.
We actually saw inflation go up again in the latest report. What happens is that, without the consent of Parliament—which is, of course, the people's representative—the government is appropriating funds for individuals performing the terrible act of going to their local grocery store, LCBO or SAQ and buying a case of beer or a bottle of wine.
In that scenario, perhaps it's only a couple of dollars on that beer or that wine, but it's the principle behind it that is so very troubling—that we would engage in taxation without representation, because that's what that is. It's giving a large tax increase, a large amount of revenue, to the government simply because of inflation. In fact, it's rewarding the government for its own poor economic record, because the higher inflation goes, the more revenue the government will receive. We saw revenues overflow, and even with that large amount, we still get large deficits and large debts.
I'll move from there to another troubling principle. Once again, it's the principle that matters, not so much the subject. This is the section within the BIA that calls for the application of retroactive taxation, and not just by a year or two years or five years or 10 years. It goes back 30 years. For those of you for whom it is unfamiliar, it is of course with respect to the banks and the application of GST and HST on certain monies that they make with respect to the charges of credit cards. The actual subject of the matter is not particularly important relative to the overall concept or the principle of it.
What happens is that, when we pass laws, those laws, by principle, are the rule of law. It doesn't matter what Philip put on the record or what Sophie put on the record beforehand. It doesn't even matter what we thought the bill was going to be. It's actually what the legislation is. It is then the courts who get to decide how the law is interpreted. It's a very basic tenet of law, and it's a very basic tenet of democracy that the rule of law is what we put in writing.
It's what separates democracies from authoritarian states, because in authoritarian states, the leader can go and say, “Do you know what? Just kidding, actually, we meant the law to mean this.” In Canada and other advanced democracies, when you write something, when that becomes law, at that point, the legislators then pass that law on to the judiciary for their interpretation, so whatever happens happens. If a legislator wants to change the law because they're unhappy with a decision, they can do that, but it's nearly always done prospectively.
When I asked Ms. Gwyer of the Department of Finance to name a single case where retroactive taxation had been put in place, she could not name one. Thirty years—that's what separates an authoritarian regime in its application of the law from an advanced democracy, where once that law is made there is certainty so that those individuals will go out and plan their lives based on the rules that exist at the time. Certainly, there could be different interpretations of the rules, and that's for the judiciary to decide, but lawmakers in general won't go back to change the rules of the game halfway through the game. This is a very basic fundamental principle, not just of tax law but of law in general.
This change proposed by the sets a dangerous precedent. It says that, regardless of the rules and despite the law in force for decades at the time, the government can, at its own behest or otherwise, go back and actually change the rules of the game more than halfway through the game—in fact, decades through the game. People plan their lives on this certainty in law.
The challenging part is that Canada is, of course, amongst the lowest, and predicted to be the worst, with respect to capital investment. We, in many ways, are an economy unfortunately in decline, and that's due in part at least to the lack of economic and capital investment. Our manufacturing inventory is not being updated at the rate we need. We are not seeing the capital investment that is required to keep a modern economy moving. Right now, change is exponential with artificial intelligence and other technologies that are coming online, so our country needs capital investment more than ever. Because we're not replacing our capital stock, that doesn't just hurt us for today. Some of these pieces of equipment will be online for 10, 15 or 20 years, so as we fall further and further behind, it gets to be almost a generational problem of capital investment. Some of this money will come domestically, and that's terrific. Some of this will come from investors from abroad, who would hopefully see a Canadian market that would be an excellent choice to invest in.
Unfortunately, when a government creates uncertainty, as they will with this budget by setting a precedent that, even for laws that are decades old, they can go back and change the game and they can go back and change the rules, this will no doubt have.... In fact, in talking to stakeholders from far and wide, many discussed the fact that it's this uncertainty that would be a concern to investors in their business.
You can imagine making a substantial investment—maybe of millions, maybe of tens of millions, maybe even billions of dollars—and you're counting on a certain law being in place. If they want to change the law going forward, fine, give those actors notice and they can go ahead and make their changes prospectively. However, going back retroactively might mean that you have an inability to make decisions because you were counting on the rules of the game staying the same—and if not, with notice for future changes.
This will have a chilling effect on individuals and companies from around the world and their willingness to invest in Canada at a time when Canada needs that investment most.
We're struggling with respect to innovation. We have an innovation gap with respect to most of our advanced economic peers, and the root cause is capital investment.
We also have a productivity gap. Despite having the best workers in the world—we have incredible talent here in Canada—we are amongst the lowest with respect to productivity. We're well behind the United States of America, Switzerland, Ireland and many other developed economies. This is extremely challenging.
To introduce uncertainty into our economy is baffling, quite frankly. That this would be the time, for relatively small gain in tax dollars, to put in additional uncertainty when we need capital investment to bridge that innovation and productivity gap is baffling.
All of this has resulted in our having the lowest economic growth per capita, 0.8% over the last 10 years. What that translates into is not just a statistic; that has affected Canadians' lives, because now we have double or even triple the food bank usage.
Those were a couple of the amendments that Conservatives put forward. We look forward to having a robust discussion with respect to the amendments from the other sides.
Once again, I will conclude by saying that I share everyone's disappointment at this table. Certainly I think there's a lot of blame to go around, and that disappointment in the way this committee has evolved should be shared by everyone.
What I won't do is in any way apologize for being the opposition. That's our role. As I said earlier, we don't work for the Liberal Party of Canada. I work for the people of Northumberland—Peterborough South. This government's economic record after eight years is atrocious. We have high deficits, high debt, high inflation and high interest rates. We have the worst growth since the 1930s. Our job is not to cheer the Liberal Party on as it drives our economy into the ditch. It's our job to yell, “Stop!”, and that's what we're going to do.
I will never apologize for speaking out for the people of Northumberland—Peterborough South and saying, quite frankly, the truth. I'm going to speak truth to power, Mr. Chair, because that's my job. I make no apologies for that whatsoever. The economy is in a challenging situation. I talk to so many constituents. Even the food bank chair in your own riding said that the situation on the ground is terrifying.
If, after eight years of economic failures, Conservatives are not sitting there cheering on, helping you press the accelerator to drive our economy off the cliff.... I don't understand that, and I make no apologies for telling you to stop. Stop trying to ruin our economy through the unbelievable deficits, debts and challenges that you're putting on Canadians.
We live in the greatest country in the world. We have the greatest people. The only thing stopping us from realizing our potential is the Liberal Party and this government.
While I don't agree with all the points that were just stated, it was refreshing to actually hear some of MP Lawrence's reflections on the bill that we are debating. It is disappointing to me that this is the only opportunity we're all going to have to engage on this. I hope that going forward we're going to find ways to engage in more constructive ways, so that some of Mr. Lawrence's good ideas can find their way into future legislation.
We don't expect a cheerleader in the opposition. We merely expect a reasonable working relationship. Unfortunately we haven't had that for the last little while, but I am an eternal optimist. Mr. Lawrence and I have had many good conversations about many important issues, and I think some of our best work is potentially ahead of us. I'll continue to be optimistic about that.
I'm not optimized, necessarily, towards this 15-minute summary, because that wasn't initially the plan, and we're optimized towards individual clause-by-clause, but I will do my best to provide some coverage on the 686 clauses that we are set to vote on, and then maybe give some concluding thoughts if there is still time.
As members know, we've already carried clauses 2 to 6. With regard to clauses 7 to 70, we are in favour. On clause 71, we are opposed. On clauses 72 to 112, we are in favour.
The first government amendment is on clause 113. This is a coordinating amendment. All members around this table, and in the chamber, for that matter—I'm going to try to continue to focus on the positive—agreed that it would be a good idea to get Canadians the grocery benefit in advance and to get provinces and territories $2 billion in health transfers in advance. This amendment simply takes this out of this BIA, since we have already delivered those funds through another legislative mechanism.
We continue with clauses 114 to 117, of which we are in favour. That brings us to clause 118, which is the Bloc Québécois's first amendment. The first and second both have to do with GST and how it applies to crypto mining. In general, we believe that crypto miners should be paying GST. Where it gets complicated, of course, is when we're talking about the data providers that are providing the technical hardware and usage—the computing power—for that mining. We don't think they should be held to that unless they're actually mining themselves. I've sent some notes to my friend Gabriel regarding the reasons we're opposed to his amendments, but I also believe, through discussions with him, that we're trying to accomplish the same thing. I think we're going to end up in a good place.
That would take us through to clauses 119 to 123, which we are in favour of. That brings us to amendment CPC-1 and a number of amendments that have to do with the excise tax. We consulted with industry professionals from across the country. We heard that this has been a very challenging year, as it has been for many different industries across the country, but it has been for this one in particular. We listened to that feedback, which is why we're very proud to support a 2% reduction in the increase to the excise tax this year. We have also examined the methodology by which the Conservatives are proposing to go forward with this, and there are some unintended consequences, including refunding some of our largest brewers and resetting rates to what they were several years ago when we talk about being retroactive. That's something this would actually do, so we are opposed.
There are a number of amendments that speak to that. I think I will move from there to amendment BQ-5. That would mean we support clauses 127 to 136. Amendment BQ-5 is on clause 137. This has to do specifically with the Bank Act. We believe the authority sought under this amendment already exists, therefore we are opposing it. It's not because we necessarily disagree with it, but rather because we want to keep legislation clean.
That would bring us to clauses 138 through 209, which we are in favour of.
The next amendment is CPC-13, which is adjusting for the Criminal Code. I think this language, if I remember correctly, might have reflected a vote that we had in a private member's bill a while back that we all voted against—except the Conservatives. The reason we're opposing this, the actual reason, is that we believe this also is duplicative legislation. CPC-14 we oppose.
Clauses 211 to 241 we support.
The second government coordinating amendment in the last of our amendments is clause 242. I've already stated the reasons for that. That would bring us to a number of clauses that we oppose but I'm not going to comment on, just for the sake of time.
I would go all the way down to clauses 243 to 246 in the middle of the CPC clauses we do support. There are no amendments attached to them.
If we zoom down to CPC-18, this has to do with equalization and reporting. It is our position that any changes to equalization or the reporting of equalization need to be done in conjunction and consultation with the premiers in the provinces and territories. We would not support any measures without that consultation and their full support.
That would then take us to—pardon me, this is a bit of a distance from where I want to speak to you—another set of Conservative amendments that we will be opposing, until we get to clause 251 through to—and this is a big chunk— clause 444.
I'm seven minutes in, and it looks like we might actually make it.
Where does that bring us down to? Yes, there are still the CPC amendments that have to do with interswitching. I believe we're split on those.
We then carry down from clause 447 to clause 454, which we are in favour of.
Then there are a number of NDP amendments around air passenger protection regulations. It's unfortunate, because there are a number of things that are in here that we think are reasonable. There are a number of things in here, though, that we can't support, and we were actually planning to work through this as part of the clause-by-clause process and perhaps see some things get passed. Without the ability to have some sort of constructive debate, though, we're not going to be able to do that. Hopefully, we'll be able to continue to work with the NDP to figure out how to improve legislation going forward.
We support clauses 456 to 458, clause 460 and clauses 462 to 464, which do not have amendments, as well as clauses 466 to 470, and then clause 472 through to clause 632.
That would bring us to Bloc-6, I believe, which has to do with the reporting via the chairperson versus the board. Substantially, reporting ends up entirely at the board, so we find this to be somewhat duplicative as well, and we will be opposing it.
This would take us then to Bloc-7, which is about the standards for attending the EI tribunal either in person and the options thereof.... Now, I think this is another situation in which we're in agreement with the Bloc, but that we don't necessarily think the language of the clause being proposed is accomplishing what we want. Our general principle, given the consultations that we had over the summer, is that proponents—workers—should have the flexibility to appear as they need to, and that a virtual option should always be available. I believe that's also the Bloc's point of view, but we're not necessarily sure that the particular writing of this clause actually accomplishes that. I think we're going to end up in a good place anyway.
Then we would support clauses 635 through 662. This would bring us to CPC-22, which is a cost analysis for changes to the EI programming.
The only thing I would say about this is that it was never meant to be a cost-saving measure. It was supposed to ensure that we had better representation and better results for workers. We think this amendment is speaking against workers.
That would bring us to clauses 664 through 681, which we support. We support schedule 1 and schedule 2; we support the short title and the title itself, and, of course, we support the bill itself.
With that, Mr. Chair, seeing that I have a little less than four minutes left, I will use the remainder of my time to address some things that our government has done, both through this bill and through previous legislation, which I think are important for Canadians.
Obviously the budget itself is focused on a few major things. One was an unprecedented investment in health care. Two billion dollars of that has already gone through, but there is significantly more provided by the actions that our government has taken. There is a massive investment in the next stage of investing in the clean jobs of tomorrow and ensuring that we meet our climate change targets while creating good, high-paying, quality, sustainable jobs in every region of our country. The third thing, of course, that we focused on, while dealing with inflation, was making life more affordable.
I want to detail some of the measures we have taken to make life more affordable, but first I want to provide a bit of economic context.
First, despite what my friend MP Lawrence has stated, we fully understand that there are difficult times in Canada. There are definitely difficult global times that we as a government have been dealing with. We just came out of a global pandemic. There is a war in Europe, which has had a significant impact on food prices and energy prices and a massive effect on countries around the world. Despite that, we have been able to keep inflation lower than many of our peers have, including the United States and our peer countries in Europe. We've had the fastest-growing economy in the G7 while having the lowest deficit and the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio while we have created almost one million jobs since the pandemic.
We recognize that things are tough. We need to invest in making life more affordable and in making new opportunities. This budget does that.
It's not just the grocery rebate. It's dental care, letting children get their teeth fixed. Up to nine million Canadians are going to have the benefit of the dental care program. It's eliminating interest on loans for students while increasing grants by 40 per cent. It's lowering fees and taxes for small businesses, including $1 billion in saving on credit cards alone over the next five years. It's making sure that we improve the Canada workers benefit, which will provide up to $2,400 in support for our workers for up to 4.2 million families. It's decreasing the cost of child care so that families have the option to rejoin the workforce when they feel it's the right time, and then further lowering that to $10 per day by 2025. It's indexing all of the support programs we have invested in over the years, including the Canada child benefit, the GST credit and the Canada pension plan, OAS and GIS to inflation. That does lag a bit now, but those increases are coming to match inflation and make sure people have the resources they need. It's the climate action incentive, which, in jurisdictions where it applies, is making life more affordable for eight out of 10 Canadian families. All of these combined, including our anti-poverty strategy, have lifted 2.7 million Canadians out of poverty.
Conservatives like to accuse Liberals of saying it has never been so good. We are never the ones who say that. We understand that these are challenging times, but we will continue to take an evidence-based approach to make sure we are setting up Canada and Canadians for success. That is exactly what this budget does.
I want to thank the officials who are in the room for the very hard work they have done to put forward such a great budget. It's unfortunate that we weren't able to hear more from them, but hope springs eternal, and maybe next year we will.
With that, Mr. Chair, I am happy to cede the floor.
:
Good afternoon, everyone.
I'm speaking to you through a House-approved standing microphone. Let me know if there are any sound problems. I also have my micro-headset for backup.
I'll try to be brief in presenting my amendments.
As Mr. Beech mentioned, amendment BQ‑1 concerns the taxation of businesses that own large servers, with major processing capacity and very high-speed fibre service, which are located in Quebec and Canada and that hire out their services. When those services are hired by a foreign business capable of carrying on mining, the concern for the industry in Quebec and Canada is that they may no longer have access to the same benefits as businesses in other sectors. Consequently, amendment BQ‑1 would specify and ensure that, if a business leases its computers for activities, it will be treated in the same way as other businesses.
This is important because this rapidly developing sector will help all kinds of research sectors. We've even heard talk about artificial intelligence. I want to thank Mr. Beech for all the follow‑up he has done with me on this issue. According to him, and according to the government's action line, these businesses are targeted by this division. However, that's not the industry's opinion. So I encourage you to support amendment BQ‑1, which would clarify matters and ensure that our industry remains competitive.
I won't present amendment BQ‑2. I had concerns about the admissibility of amendment BQ‑1. I know that our chair, Mr. Fonseca, is very strict about the admissibility of amendments. However, Mr. Méla reassures me, and it's quite possible that Mr. Fonseca will allow amendment BQ‑1. Consequently, amendment BQ‑2 won't be presented. In any case, it wouldn't completely achieve its objective. It would've had to be amended, which is no longer possible.
That brings me to amendments BQ‑3 and BQ‑4, which concern the excise tax on fruit-based alcohol products.
This takes us back to the debate on last year's budget implementation bill. The government said that it would henceforth be taxing all kinds of wines because Australia had sued Canada before the World Trade Organization, the WTO, and had won its case. We said that Australia's suit concerned only wine made from grapes. In Quebec, wine is wine made from grapes. Cider and mead go by different names. We wanted to exclude all alcohol products made from small fruits, honey and maple syrup. However, the amendment was ruled inadmissible. We very soon managed to exclude cider and mead, but all other alcohol products, such as ciders made from pear, apple, apple combined with pear and other small fruits, weren't covered by the exclusion that we obtained last year, and the producers are subject to full compensation. This makes no sense. For a year now, I've been hounding and repeating to the minister, Ms. Freeland, that the industry wants her to correct this error. We hope that will be done.
We are introducing amendments BQ‑3 and BQ‑4 in order to clarify that alcohol products, wines made from other small fruits, cider made from pears, or anything else, such as a maple syrup product, aren't targeted by the WTO judgment, which solely concerned wine made from grapes. I sincerely hope that Mr. Beech and all my colleagues can remind Ms. Freeland and her team to resolve the matter. It's urgent. It's extremely important. These are small artisans. Whether or not this tax applies can make the difference between a viable business or a failing one. This is very important.
These amendments may well be ruled inadmissible. Once again, I hope the chair of our committee will be magnanimous. Otherwise, I urge Mr. Beech to speak to Ms. Freeland and her team to resolve this, please. I realize that billions of dollars aren't at stake here, but it would really make a difference for these businesses.
Those are the concerns that amendments BQ‑3 and BQ‑4 are intended to address.
Now I'll turn to amendment BQ‑5.
When we heard from the representatives of Option consommateurs, they told us that a great innovation that appears in Bill would pose a problem. Currently, in a dispute between a client and the client's bank, the case may be reviewed before a commissioner, but the commissioner's decision is only a recommendation. Consequently, amendment BQ‑5 supports what the Option consommateurs representatives told us, which was that the recommendation should be made binding. I obviously hope this amendment will be supported.
Amendments BQ‑6 and BQ‑7 concern employment insurance. We aren't seeking an in‑depth reform, but what we're proposing isn't in Bill C‑47. The people concerned by employment insurance generally welcome what's in the bill on this matter.
Amendments BQ‑6 and BQ‑7 propose minor amendments to improve this part. Suggestions have been made by Quebec's four main unions, the CSN, FTQ, CSQ and the CSD, the Centrale des syndicats démocratiques, which came to speak to us on behalf of the group. The amendments are minor but important.
The aim of amendment BQ‑6 is to increase transparency. Its purpose is to ensure that the joint group operates properly. Currently under Bill C‑47, management reports to the chairperson of the commission, who provides a summary to all members. We are requesting—this is the unions' proposal—that management be directly accountable to the commission as a whole. There would thus be more transparency and openness than there would be with an intermediary.
Mr. Beech said his party didn't think that was appropriate. However, the unions feel that management should be directly accountable to the commission as a whole and not through an intermediary.
We're saying that we want to go back to a regionalization of appeals. In the part amended by amendment BQ‑7, if the parties say that an appeal may be heard virtually, we can do it. We're saying that not all the parties to the matter need to be consulted, just the person who brings the appeal. For example, a person filing an appeal in an unemployment case may want to be heard in person rather than have the case heard virtually.
Once again, according to Quebec's major unions, Bill is drafted in a vague manner. For example, a person residing in Sept-Îles who wants a case to be heard in person, whereas the other parties prefer that it be heard virtually, could be heard virtually. That wouldn't achieve the desired objective. This amendment would ensure that the person can be heard in person in his or her region.
I hope I have clearly presented the Bloc Québécois' various amendments.
Having said that, I want to draw your attention to certain points. First, I will support the NDP's amendments because I think they're very constructive. The same is true of those of the Conservatives, except those respecting equalization. This seems to be related to today's election in Alberta. Failing anything better, we want a good equalization system. However, it's being said that the equalization process would be delayed, except as regards stabilization payments, which is oil company equalization. We don't agree with that, but it's fine to change the name. We also support the Conservatives' amendments respecting the excise tax, among other things.
As regards the Liberal Party's two amendments, the idea here is, first, to take away the GST check, which is just grocery money, since that's already included in Bill C‑46. However, we want to keep it since officials told us it wouldn't mean a second payment in any case. However, if that's true, I would nevertheless support it since I think the less well-off do need it.
The same is true for health. Ottawa is giving the provinces a sixth of the money they requested, but we'd have a chance to get $2 billion more if the Liberal amendment were defeated. It wouldn't be automatic, but it would be a step in the right direction.
The Bloc Québécois believes that Ottawa should make its proper contribution to health. We will therefore vote against this Liberal Party amendment.
Otherwise, as regards division 9 on equalization, we recently received correspondence from certain officials who said that adopting this division would result in hundreds of millions of dollars in losses for Quebec, without it being consulted. The Bloc Québécois therefore opposes this division.
Mr. Blaikie invited the Comité des représentants des transporteurs ferroviaires. So there's a whole debate going on. Unfortunately, we couldn't get to the bottom of things in order to form an opinion. For the moment, however, the railway carriers have convinced me, and, like Mr. Blaikie, I'll vote against Bill 's divisions regarding this matter.
I have a final point to make. Under section 510.2 of Bill C‑47, which runs to hundreds of pages and more than 600 clauses, “Charles the Third, by the Grace of God” would officially be made King of Canada.
It is a rule of Parliament that we may not be irreverential toward the Crown or the monarchy.
Thus, instead of preparing a short, clearly presented bill that would be debated in the House, we are concealing the fact that we are providing for a change of sovereigns in a budget implementation bill that will affect a range of statutes.
I think this is unacceptable. I therefore encourage members of this committee to reject this clause in order to force the government to present this matter in a regular bill so that it's done properly in an open and transparent manner.
On this subject, I would like to use my speaking time to ask the committee clerk, Mr. Roger, a question.
According to tradition, when a government appoints persons to unelected positions, opposition members may summon those persons to appear before a parliamentary committee to speak with them and get to know them and their duties.
Consequently, I would have liked to welcome King Charles III to the Standing Committee on Finance since, under Bill , he would be named, and not elected, King of Canada. There is nothing more hereditary than that appointment.
As it is customary to be able to question appointees in committee, I asked, more than one month ago, that we invite King Charles III and his little prince to come and testify.
I would therefore ask Mr. Roger whether we have received any news from Buckingham Palace.
:
Mr. Ste-Marie, I heard the king was here yesterday, but, since we weren't here, the “little prince” said he might be back another day.
[English]
For those of you who don't know, there is a little French song about a petit prince, and they talk about coming to see somebody who is not there, and the little prince suggests coming back another day of the week.
I think it's enough to participate briefly in this exercise to know that this isn't a great legislative process. I'll say just that much and then try to make the best of the time that I have.
I'll speak first to the government amendments. I think they're sensible. I think they're meant to have the legislation reflect not only the intention of the government but also the agreement that the government reached with the provinces in respect of an increase to the Canada health transfer, and I think we would not be doing our job well if we were to consent to unilateral changes in funding, even if that's a funding increase. I think that when we're talking about the terms and conditions of the Canada health transfer, we need to have an agreement between the federal and the provincial governments in order to back that up.
I would say, and I have said before at this table, that it really was remiss of the government not to have included these coordinating amendments in the first place. I certainly hope that the finance department has learned a lesson and in future will ensure that, if it's offering cash in more than one bill for the same agreement with the provinces, it has coordinated the legislation sufficiently to not run the risk of doubling the cash amount or otherwise changing it.
In the same spirit, the amendments that have been presented by the Conservative Party in respect of the equalization formula are not something that I would be prepared to support. Again, if we're going to make changes, and as I understand this amendment—of course, we don't have time for discussion or for debate—it would give a province that had a referendum the unilateral right to try to trigger a renegotiation of the terms and conditions of equalization. That is something about which, I suspect, other provinces would have something to say, so I don't think it's becoming of the finance committee of the House of Commons to decide that it's appropriate, without any real discussion or consultation, to change the way in which provinces would go about initiating a conversation about the equalization formula. For parties that are serious about honouring the rights of provinces, I think that kind of discussion and agreement is required. Because there has been no such discussion and there has been no such agreement, I don't think it's appropriate for this committee to decide to make a change like that on a unilateral basis.
There are some amendments proposed for the Bank Act. I believe these amendments are amendments that we've seen already in this Parliament as a private member's bill. The New Democratic critic on that bill, , did some good work, and we have had a debate already. New Democrats had a position on those amendments at that time in the House, and nothing has changed in that regard here at the finance committee.
I want to talk a bit about some of the excise tax amendments. Canadians who have been following this file will know that New Democrats have opposed the automatic escalator. We don't think it's a good idea, and a big part of that is the role of Parliament and the unpredictability of inflation rates, and I think we've seen that. We've also seen that as inflation goes up, it can have a real negative impact on the core business of certain companies that are subject to the excise tax. That's the position on the automatic escalator.
The thing is, these amendments, as a package, go a lot further than that. They actually return the excise tax to 2017 or 2018 levels from before the automatic escalator was put in place. We support not having an increase in the excise tax this year, but that's different from reducing the excise tax. We also haven't said that we're opposed to reasonable excise tax increases in the future. We just think they should be voted by Parliament. The package on the excise tax would substantially lower the excise tax. It's not just a matter of keeping it at zero. It would actually go back to, I think, 2017 levels, which would involve a substantial rebate, as I understand it, of the excise tax. We just had a lecture on making tax policy retroactively. I think this falls along the same lines.
Interestingly, this substantially changes the excise tax position of the government, whereas the other changes that were referred to earlier have to do with digital payment infrastructure. This is why I'm comfortable supporting this legislative change.
I don't think what's going on here is an egregious example of retroactive legislation. It seems to me, and we've heard this to some extent around the table, that the government has had a pretty consistent position over the last 20 or 30 years in respect of this tax. It has collected the tax. It's not a matter of going back and taking a tax. The government implemented a tax, and it has been assessing and collecting that tax. It's a tax on big banks, which have made tons of money over just the last couple of years, let alone over the 20 to 30 years that this tax has been in place.
The amount of revenue generated by that tax is not an incredible amount. I've heard some people use that as an argument to say that it should be no problem for the government to give it back. However, when you compare it to the profits that the banks make, it's a good question as to why we think taxpayers would remit that money back to the biggest banks in Canada when the government has had a consistent position and has been collecting the tax.
I get that big banks want a rebate on the tax. However, when we heard from the person from their organization, I didn't hear a compelling reason for why we would rebate big banks and not continue doing business as it has been done for the last 20 or 30 years.
It's an odd thing. We have a claim that is retroactive, but in this case the retroactivity simply affirms the status quo, and up to some time within the last year, the courts have actually maintained the government's position. It was in an appeal court decision that this was reversed, and the government has acted relatively quickly to change the legislation to preserve the status quo and save taxpayers from having to refund big banks.
That's a case where I think what's going on is not anywhere near as nefarious as it has been made out to be. That's why I won't be supporting those amendments.
When it comes to the EI appeal board, we have a few amendments. What I want to say globally about the changes to the appeal board in the budget implementation act is that I think this is largely a change that's headed in the right direction. We heard that from a lot of different folks. Of course, we didn't get to hear it at this table, but we heard it elsewhere. I think that's a really positive thing. Some of the details that we might quibble about and that the amendments seek to change, overall, are not huge and don't substantially alter what's going on.
In respect to the Bloc amendment to slightly change the reporting relationship of the executive head of the EI appeal board, that's one I am inclined to support. That's something I too have heard from stakeholders. I think it provides a little more clarity.
In respect to the Bloc amendment around in-person appeals, I'm satisfied that the legislation goes at least as far as the amendment would. I worry that the language here might make things needlessly complicated. If there is an issue, I think it's in the vagueness of “except in the circumstances provided for”, because those are circumstances provided for in regulations.
To the extent that I share Mr. Ste-Marie's concern that people should always be able to insist on an in-person hearing, I think it's the exception that is probably the biggest threat to that. I note that this is preserved by his amendment, so I don't intend to support that particular amendment.
In terms of the amendment that would create some reporting on cost, I'm not usually opposed to such things, but I don't really see the purpose here. I think this is a real change in the way that the appeal board is going to work. It's not a change that's being made for the sake of cost-effectiveness. It's a change that's being made in order to, hopefully, be able to hear more appeals more quickly and to have fairer outcomes for people who have been hearing those cases.
I think that trying to artificially maintain an idea of what the operating cost structure would be for something that's changed substantially over the years is not—
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that.
I was just in the process of going over the proposed amendments. I want to briefly address the amendment on applying GST, or not apply it, to crypto currency mining.
It was an interesting discussion we had in respect to the witness testimony we heard. I am satisfied that the department understands the problems that have been raised and that the intention is to try to create a fair tax policy in this regard while being sensitive to the concerns that have been raised.
It sounds to me as though the dispute is over whether or not the legislation is clear enough. It seems to me as though it's worth giving this particular legislation a shot. I wasn't convinced by the arguments around the table that the legislation is obviously not clear enough, and it does seem to me that the department has a relatively clear intention in terms of how it believes the legislation should be implemented. I think that this is the kind of thing that can be evaluated over time. I'd be open to perhaps revisiting this question in the future, but for the moment I'm satisfied with the legislation in its present form.
I also want to talk briefly about the interswitching proposal. As I understand it, no amendments were proposed on that, but we have had a good discussion here.
I represent Transcona. There are a lot of folks who work for the railway. I think there are some real concerns, which I am not as prepared to dismiss as the agricultural lobby on the Hill is, about employment in Canada and business essentially being handed off to American railways. The interswitching proposal is one that I find hard to support. I will be requesting a recorded vote on clause 443, which is the first of the interswitching clauses.
If that clause passes anyway, then for the sake of efficiency, I won't request a recorded vote on the subsequent clauses. If you could take note of that, Mr. Chair, and consider me to have already requested that vote, that would be great. If we are doing it late in the night, I might miss the opportunity. I would hate to think so. I will do my best to be vigilant. That's why I want to lay that marker down now and inform you, Mr. Chair, that this is my intention. Any kind reminders, in the event that I do miss it, are certainly welcome.
Finally, I want to go through some of the amendments on the air passenger bill of rights.
Actually, I think a substantial amount of the package is dedicated to this. I would be remiss if I didn't commend my colleague for all the work he's done on the air passenger rights question generally as well as in preparing these amendments. I regret that Mr. Bachrach isn't here to present them himself. He wanted to be. He made efforts to be here on Thursday. Members of the committee will know that he was here. Had we not been subjected to a filibuster, we very likely would have considered those amendments in the time that he made available to be here. It has been a very unpredictable process around this table, including the eleventh-hour agreement to have any time at all to discuss amendments. Unfortunately, we weren't prepared to have Mr. Bachrach here to do that.
Any errors or omissions in the presentation of the amendments are my own. They are not his. I apologize in advance if I've not quite captured the intention or the spirit of those amendments.
The amendment he has proposed to clause 445 would put some language back in to protect the right of the complainant to make their own complaints in addition to any proactive requirements for action by the agency. There's some concern here that it is left to the agency's discretion to be the one to move forward on a complaint. We believe an individual complainant should have the opportunity to move forward on something even if the agency does not wish to. We want to make sure the customer is in the driver's seat when it comes to shepherding their complaints forward.
We have some concern about there being a secrecy provision with respect to complaints being adjudicated. We think that's appropriate in the case of mediation, but if something moves to adjudication, open court principles should apply. There should be a body of precedent that's built and that's public. That's not something the current legislation allows for.
I see that I'm getting a little bit of a nod that my time is over, and while there's more to say and there are more amendments, I am grateful to have had at least this much opportunity. I hope that next time we'll have a better process that allows for full and proper debate of these amendments, instead of this kind of rush job that we've all just been subject to.
Thank you.
Mr. Garnett Genuis: It's not a matter of debate. It's a matter of order.
The Chair: It's not a point of order. We were in the midst of a vote—
Mr. Garnett Genuis: I'm asking for a suspension.
The Chair: —member.
Mr. Garnett Genuis: You started the vote in the middle of a point of order, Chair.
The Chair: MP Lawrence, what's your vote?
Mr. Garnett Genuis: Chair, you started the vote in the middle of a point of order. I have a right to raise points of order, and you're showing flagrant disregard for the privileges of members.
The Chair: Clerk, move to the next.
Mr. Garnett Genuis: It's a point of order. You're supposed to suspend during question period. It's a well-established practice of committees that during question period, committees should be suspended.
The Chair: MP Morantz, your vote.
Mr. Garnett Genuis: This committee should be suspended.
Mr. Marty Morantz: I think we're in the middle of a point of order, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: No, okay. Next member.
Mr. Garnett Genuis: It's a point of order.
The Chair: MP Ste-Marie, your vote.
Mr. Garnett Genuis: Chair, this doesn't make any sense. There's a point of order. Question period is going on. Question period is about to start.
The Chair: MP Blaikie.
An hon. member: I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Garnett Genuis: Members may not be aware, it's 2:10. Question period is about to start and members have a right to be—
The Chair: MP Blaikie, your vote.
Mr. Garnett Genuis: —at question period. If members can't hear, that is question period going on. Statements by members. .
The Chair: That is dangerous for the interpreters, MP Genuis.
Mr. Garnett Genuis: Mr. Chair, it is dangerous for our institution.
The Chair: The health and safety of the people—
Mr. Garnett Genuis: The health and safety of our institution is under threat, Chair.
The Chair: Order. Decorum. Respect.
Mr. Garnett Genuis: You are showing flagrant disregard for our institution. This should be suspended.
The Chair: MP Genuis, turn that off.
Mr. Garnett Genuis: This should be suspended, Chair. I want you to understand that this is going on and you're calling a vote in the middle of a point of order.
The Chair: I had ruled on your point of order.
Mr. Garnett Genuis: No, you said it was debate. You didn't even rule on it. You said it was debate.
The Chair: We are going to MP Blaikie on—
Mr. Garnett Genuis: I had barely started and you said it was debate.
The Chair: Vote, MP Blaikie, please.
Mr. Garnett Genuis: Question period is going on, Chair.
An hon. member: Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.
Mr. Garnett Genuis: This is question period. is raising—
An hon. member: I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Clause 489 is carried.
Mr. Garnett Genuis: Chair, members—
Really, the most foundational right of members in this place is the right to vote. There are extensive protections that are established in terms of the right of members to vote. I did want to be able to raise this quickly, given that I think a violation of privilege has taken place, even though I don't have all the precedents in front of me around this.
I do recall a number of rulings, though. One was by the previous speaker, when a number of members were not able to vote simply because they were not able to get to the vote in time because the buses weren't running. At the time, the Speaker of House, Speaker Regan, granted a prima facie case of privilege. Members were prevented from doing their job simply because the buses were not getting there in time.
That is one example I can recall. I think there would be many examples where various Speakers and committee chairs have recognized the centrality of members' right to vote and that right being unfettered.
I would also add, in terms of understanding the right to vote as it exists in our parliamentary tradition, that the right to vote is an individual right. It's not dependent on membership in parties. It's not dependent on what one's own party may or may not be doing. If a member of the same party is engaging in activity that is disruptive to another member's ability to vote.... I don't think that's what was happening in this case, but even if that was your view of it, the fact is that the right of a member to vote is individual.
The committees exercise delegated authority from the House, which means that the rights that exist for members in the House ought also to be protected by members in committee. In this case, the role of committee members voting in committee should, I think, not be seen as materially different. I mean, it's different in certain respects, but not substantively in terms of the privileges of members. The ability of members to vote in the context of committee should be afforded the same fundamental protections as the right of members to vote in the context of voting in the House. That's the right to have unrestricted and unfettered access to the place where the vote is taking place. It's the right to exercise their vote without being blocked in any way from doing so. These are all foundational to the rights of members of Parliament.
They're foundational because this is what makes us members of Parliament. There are many activities that we engage in that other people can engage in or that are potentially optional for us, but the most core thing our constituents send us here to do is to vote on their behalf—that is, to be their voice through the voting process and cast their ballot for them in the House and in committee, on their behalf.
We had a situation take place at the finance committee earlier this day where members were trying to raise points of order. There were clearly disputes among members, as well as between members and the chair, about the appropriate process for raising those points of order. There were various members saying “point of order” at the same time. There were, simultaneously, some audio and translation issues. The point is that points of order were being raised at the time members were speaking. Other members who did not have the floor were sharing thoughts off-mike back and forth with members. There was considerable noise in the room.
In the midst of that environment, members were trying to raise points of order and had concerns about whether the committee should be suspended or not because question period was, at the time, about to begin. The chair first told one member who was raising a point of order that the member could not raise the point or order. He said that it was a matter of debate, and then he said that we were proceeding to a vote.
That member continued to try to raise the point of order; meanwhile, multiple other members were, at the same time, raising points of order. In spite of the general level of noise and discussion in the room, and despite the fact that members were raising points of order about what was taking place, the chair made the decision to proceed with the vote.
This was an environment in which I could not hear what was being voted on, even the initial question that led to that. Members didn't have an opportunity to indicate how they thought the vote should proceed. The chair called the vote after members had already begun to raise points of order and when there were multiple members who were trying to raise points of order at the same time.
The chair then proceeded with the vote. I'm not sure what the status of interpretation was at the time, but I suspect that members were not able to hear the votes that were going on because some members were, I think, still of the view that we were not into consideration of a vote, that we were into consideration of points of order.
Members then went through and were instructed to vote. I believe maybe some members voted, but a number of members did not vote during the vote that was taking place, so they may not have been aware of what was being voted on. Other members were in the middle of speaking, trying to raise points of order and other members in the....
Mr. Daniel Blaikie: I think debate on the matter of privilege has collapsed, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Garnett Genuis: No, I'm still speaking, but the chair is not in the chair, and I'm trying to make arguments to the chair.
The rules say some specific things, and we have to be guided by the rules. I'm a big stickler for that concept, because the rules protect our privileges. They protect our democratic institutions, and they prescribe the mix between majority and minority.
To what Mr. Blaikie said, the reality of the rules is that it is not for committees or chairs of committees to provide the remedy. If there was a matter of privilege that was violated, then the chair's responsibility would be to rule as to whether or not a privilege is engaged, whether or not it's a matter of privilege, which is a form of the prima facie privilege ruling that the Speaker makes. After that, the committee may consider a report to the House, which brings the matter of privilege to the attention of the House.
Now, the chair may rule that it is a matter of privilege, but the committee may decide not to report it to the House. The committee can consider other options at the time, but the chair has to make a ruling on privilege. It is not for the chair to provide the remedy. It is for the Speaker and it is for the House as a whole to provide that remedy.
I think it is reasonable that the committee is allowing this vote to take place again. I think that's probably something the committee would take into consideration in determining whether or not to report this matter to the House, but to say that the committee has come up with a remedy or that the chair has come up with a remedy is just not consistent with the rules in terms of the way these things are supposed to be adjudicated.
Second, I remain unclear about whether the chair has actually made a ruling. The chair has to say whether or not this is a matter that engages with the privileges of members. The chair said at certain points that he had made a ruling. Mr. Blaikie said that the chair may make a ruling later on. The chair must make a ruling, and he must be clear about what his ruling is. Then the committee will proceed on the basis of that ruling. It's a simple thing. There's no way to get around it; it is established in the rules.
We need to hear a ruling from the chair on the matter of privilege, and then the committee can decide whether to dispose of this matter by referring it to the House or by taking other actions. The committee has options available to it, one way or the other. The matter of privilege, however, requires a ruling, which the committee will then consider, and—