THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL FINANCE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, November 9, 2020
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met by videoconference this day at 3:30 p.m. [ET], pursuant to rule 12-13 of the Rules of the Senate, to organize the activities of the committee.
[English]
Maxime Fortin, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, as clerk of your committee, it is my duty to preside over the election of the chair. I am ready to receive a motion to that effect.
Senator Marshall: I move Senator Mockler.
Ms. Fortin: Thank you. Are there any other nominations?
Senator Duncan: I would second the motion of the nomination of Senator Mockler.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I second the motion.
[English]
Ms. Fortin: Thank you. It is moved by the Honourable Senator Marshall that the Honourable Senator Mockler do take the chair of this committee. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Ms. Fortin: I declare the motion carried and I invite Senator Mockler to take the chair.
Senator Percy Mockler (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Thank you very much, honourable senators and colleagues, for again giving me the honour to chair the Finance Committee.
As we stay safe and secure, there’s no doubt in my mind that we will have some challenges, however, as we have shown in the past, working as a team, we can find solutions and make recommendations to government.
I would like to take this opportunity, as we go forward, to thank Maxime and the staff for a job well done in the past, and no doubt in my mind, we will continue.
Honourable senators, the first item would be the election of two deputy chairs.
Before I move to this item, I would also like to thank the two ex officio members who are with us today, Senator Gold and Senator Plett, for being at our first meeting. This is also a first for us.
The next item on the agenda is the election of the two deputy chairs. Honourable senators, I am ready to receive a motion to that effect. Are there any nominations?
Senator Galvez: I would like to move, for the ISG group, Senator Forest as our representative.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I would like to move that Senator Richards be nominated deputy chair, on behalf of our group, the Canadian Senators Group.
The Chair: Senator Richards for deputy chair?
Senator Dagenais: Yes.
[English]
The Chair: Are there any other nominations for deputy chairs?
On this, I would like to have comments from the clerk. Are we respecting the procedure for the four groups in the Senate?
Ms. Fortin: We have two deputy chair seats and we have two motions. Procedurally, everything is okay.
The Chair: Therefore, the two deputy chairs would be Senator Forest and Senator Richards. Is that what you have in mind, senators?
Therefore, I declare that Senator Forest and Senator Richards will be the two deputy chairs. Is the motion carried, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
I now have some routine motions, honourable senators, to bring to your attention. As you know, there are routine motions to adopt the procedures.
[Translation]
The first motion involves the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. First of all, for the motion to create the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, known as the steering committee, we agreed that, for this session, all four parties and groups would have a representative.
[English]
It was agreed that all parties and groups would have a representative on the steering committee. Do I have a proposer for the representative of the Progressive Senate Group?
Senator Gold: Before I make the formal proposal, I understood from the clerk that Senator Klyne is the representative of the progressives on this committee. Is that correct, Maxime?
Ms. Fortin: Yes, Senator Klyne is the only member of the progressives on this committee.
Senator Gold: In that event, I propose that Senator Klyne be added to the steering committee.
The Chair: It is moved by Senator Gold that Senator Klyne be added to the steering committee as the fourth person.
Senator Richards: I second that motion.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Richards.
Are there any other nominations for the fourth person on the steering committee?
Hearing no other nominations, I declare Senator Klyne as the fourth person on the steering committee, representing the Progressive Senate Group.
Also, that the subcommittee be empowered, as a routine process, to make decisions on behalf of the committee with respect to its agenda, to invite witnesses and to schedule hearings. Is the motion in question that I have just read carried, honourable senators?
Senator Galvez: I have a comment to make. I was thinking that we could make an exception for the work plan that is discussed with all the senators, because now we have two types of senators on the committee. We have four now in steering, and all the rest of us. With respect to the work plan, I think it would be good if we can discuss it amongst all of us.
The Chair: We will have a round table before we adjourn the meeting today, Senator Galvez, so I will recognize you to make your comments and they will be taken into consideration by the steering committee.
Senator Galvez: Thank you.
The Chair: On motion 4, for committee proceedings, do I have a proposer for the motion to publish the committee’s proceedings, honourable senators?
Senator Marshall: I so move.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Marshall.
I declare the motion carried.
Do I have a proposer for motion 5 as follows:
That the committee ask the Library of Parliament to assign analysts to the committee;
That the chair be authorized to seek authority from the Senate to engage the services of such counsel and technical, clerical and other personnel as may be necessary for the purpose of the committee’s examination and consideration of such bills, subject-matters of bills, and estimates as are referred to it.
Senator Duncan: I so move.
The Chair: Honourable senators, is motion 5 carried?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
We will now move to motion 6, authority to commit funds and certify accounts. Honourable senators, do I have a proposer for the motion?
Senator Loffreda: I so propose.
The Chair: It is moved by Senator Loffreda:
That, pursuant to section 7, chapter 3:05 of the Senate Administrative Rules, authority to commit funds be conferred individually on the chair, the deputy chair, and the clerk of the committee;
That, pursuant to section 8, chapter 3:05 of the Senate Administrative Rules, authority for certifying accounts payable by the committee be conferred individually on the chair, the deputy chair, and the clerk of the committee; and
That, notwithstanding the foregoing, in cases related to consultants and personnel services, the authority to commit funds and certify accounts be conferred jointly on the chair and deputy chair.
Is the motion carried, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Honourable senators, next we have motion 7, dealing with travel.
It is moved by Senator Klyne:
That the committee empower the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure to designate, as required, one or more members of the committee and/or such staff as may be necessary to travel on assignment on behalf of the committee.
Is the motion carried, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Motion 8 deals with the designation of members travelling on committee business.
Do I have a proposer for motion 8, honourable senators?
It is moved by Senator Duncan:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be authorized to:
1) determine whether any member of the committee is on “official business” for the purposes of paragraph 8(3)(a) of the Senators Attendance Policy, published in the Journals of the Senate on Wednesday, June 3, 1998; and
2) consider any member of the committee to be on “official business” if that member is: (a) attending an event or meeting related to the work of the committee; or (b) making a presentation related to the work of the committee; and
That the subcommittee report at the earliest opportunity any decisions taken with respect to the designation of members of the committee travelling on committee business.
Honourable senators, is motion 8 carried?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you, honourable senators.
We will now move to motion 9, travelling and living expenses of witnesses.
Do I have a proposer, honourable senators?
It is moved by Senator M. Deacon:
That, pursuant to the Senate guidelines for witness expenses, the committee may reimburse reasonable travelling and living expenses of one witness per organization upon application, but that the chair be authorized to approve expenses of a second witness from the same organization should there be exceptional circumstances.
Honourable senators, is motion 9 carried?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. Thank you, honourable senators.
Motion 10 is next and deals with communications.
[Translation]
Do I have a proposer for motion 10, which involves communications?
Senator Dagenais: I will move the motion involving communications.
The Chair: Senator Dagenais moves:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to direct the communications officer(s) assigned to the committee in the development of communications plans and products where appropriate and to request the services of the Senate Communications Directorate for the purposes of the promotion of their work; and
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to allow coverage by electronic media of the committee’s public proceedings with the least possible disruption of its proceedings, at its discretion.
Is the motion carried, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[English]
The Chair: Now we have motion 11, other business.
Honourable senators, we have completed the adoption of the routine motions. Thank you for your assistance and participation.
We are now at the stage of discussing other business. As you know, the Senate of Canada has asked our committee to study the subject matter of Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (Canada Emergency Rent Subsidy and Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy). Honourable senators, it is standard practice when a committee conducts a pre-study that it tables its report before the bill is introduced in the Senate. However, we have some flexibility. I think it is realistic for us to table our report next Tuesday when the Senate resumes its work.
I am proposing the following schedule, which, as discussed in the past, will be confirmed by the steering committee. For Bill C-9, we will have two meetings on Thursday of this week. The first one will be with Minister Freeland and officials from the Department of Finance. The second meeting will be with two panels of witnesses suggested by the analysts and senators.
Honourable senators, if you have any suggestions or recommendations, it would be appreciated. Some of you have already sent some suggestions to the clerk. I will give you a chance to put forward your proposals in a few moments.
The steering committee will be able to decide on witnesses, depending on the number of proposals and the availability of potential witnesses. Therefore, honourable senators, of course, our analysts must be given time to prepare the draft report and then send it for translation. If we stick to such a plan, with the experience that we have had in the past, a draft report could be distributed on Monday morning, November 16, and the Finance Committee could meet in the afternoon to discuss and adopt the report.
That’s basically the plan that we were thinking of and bringing to your attention, honourable senators. I’m going to give the floor to senators so that we can hear from each and every one of you before we adjourn the meeting.
Senator Galvez: Thank you very much for giving us this opportunity to comment on the work plan. This is a relatively small bill, and I understand the work plan that you are presenting, and that you are giving us the opportunity to send you more witness suggestions. I will do so as soon as I can, especially for the second panel.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Congratulations, everyone. This is a short bill and we have a very tight timeframe, but it is important to hear from people in the industry in particular. In my view, it has an element of administrative complexity to it, so I would really like us to be able to hear from professional accountants or other witnesses like that. We know that the hospitality, restaurant and tourism sectors are likely the most vulnerable. We had already thought of asking an association of people in those sectors to testify. Our objective was to change the distribution of the speaking time rotation; that is what I am hoping for at Thursday’s meeting
[English]
Senator Marshall: One clarification before I give you my suggestions: Will the two Finance meetings both be held on Thursday? Is that the intent?
The Chair: I will ask the clerk, and that would be the intent, yes, Senator Marshall.
Ms. Fortin: This was my understanding but, of course, it’s up to the committee to decide what type of schedule they want, keeping in mind that if you want to have the minister, you may need to be somewhat flexible to accommodate her schedule.
Senator Marshall: Okay. I just needed to know for my own schedule. So yes, I’m delighted that the Minister of Finance will appear.
I would also like to hear from the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion or somebody from that department. I would also like to hear from Mr. Siddall at CMHC because the rental assistance program is being administered by CMHC, so I would certainly like to hear from him.
My third choice would be the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, preferably Dan Kelly if he’s available. If not, then whoever they suggest.
Senator Boehm: Chair, congratulations on your election and to the other members of steering as well. I just wanted to make a point that I think in future we should be looking ahead for trying for a bit more gender balance as we establish our committees. That’s just an observation.
Second — and perhaps this is a question I’m glad that both leaders are present for — our two meetings do not preclude an eventual meeting of the Committee of the Whole of the Senate, given the importance of this particular bill, so that’s one I’d like to place out there.
Perhaps not for this round, but I consider it very important that as we move ahead, now that we’re constituted as a committee, we bring in the new Governor of the Bank of Canada as a witness, given the implications for monetary policy as the national debt increases.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: To avoid any confusion, I understood that we were going to have a meeting on Thursday and that we would have another on Monday morning. Since a number of senators sit on more than one committee, it might be good to know at some point what our permanent meeting schedule will be, because I believe I am not the only one sitting on two or three committees. It’s simply a matter of being able to adjust our schedules. That’s it in terms of meeting schedules.
With respect to witnesses, I would really like to hear from Michel Leblanc, the president and CEO of the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal, who is heavily involved in the industry in Quebec. As you all know, much like the Toronto area, the Montreal region is a red zone and is therefore badly affected by COVID-19, which has had a major impact on small and medium-sized enterprises. It would therefore be worthwhile to hear the point of view of the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal’s president and CEO, Michel Leblanc.
[English]
Senator M. Deacon: Congratulations to our steering committee. This work is very important. I say that because we are just working through Bill C-9. We just had a debriefing or further understanding of some of the intricacies of this bill on the table, and the most important thing about our witnesses is making sure we’re capturing balance across this country, and those in dire need and most impacted.
That’s where my mindset is right now. I did submit earlier the consideration of something similar to Destination Canada, which covers a lot of the hospitality sector. Following Senator Dagenais, I was thinking Chamber of Commerce. I was trying to look for western representation as we move through that piece, around certainly the other piece — it was really important getting our Minister of Employment in. I think I’ll leave it at those for now.
The other challenge I would pose is, we had at the end of June or early July, some folks who had key information in this area, key concerns that we never got to listen to as witnesses, on the other work we did around COVID response. I also think there are about four in that group who would be really outstanding to speak to us under this bill as well. Thank you, respectfully.
Senator Loffreda: Congratulations once again, chair, and to the steering committee.
I think it has all been well covered. I think we have the ministers. We looked at the chambers of commerce. Can we have more of a Canadian span for the chambers of commerce? Senator Dagenais said it well. I know Michel well. He would be a great witness.
One area I agree with, and to Senator Boehm’s point, is to have the Governor of the Bank of Canada eventually. I’m not going to echo everything that was said, although great comments. One point where we see across the country and across all industries is at the banking level. We should have somebody like a John Stackhouse, who just works below the CEO, looks across the country and he can really bring in some fabulous insight as to many industries, the ones having difficulty: what he is seeing on the commercial mortgage side, on the rental side and what the banks are seeing.
John is with the RBC. I’m retired. There is no bias there, but it’s the biggest bank in Canada. We could have any other senior executive from other banks if John is not available, and that would be just as good, as long as it’s a large bank representative of a portfolio across Canada. I think that would be a good addition to the people and witnesses you’ve already mentioned.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Loffreda.
Senator Smith: Congratulations to you, Senator Mockler, and the rest of the group who will be supporting you as leaders.
In my own view, we don’t have a lot of time to be able to review this bill. It is certainly an important bill for entrepreneurs and, of course, from both sides, the entrepreneurs and the lessors, the actual businesses that own the facilities. My hope is that we can focus on trying to get to the key issues and hash out those key issues as expeditiously as possible so that we keep a focus on what we’re trying to achieve.
Having someone involved in this business as a family member, I can tell you there is still a concern that no matter what you do with the program, all it’s going to do — in terms of providing funds — is accelerate the pathway to bankruptcy. So there are a few issues that really need to be discussed clearly so that we can make this legislation the best it can possibly be.
It’s just a comment. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Duncan: Thank you very much. First, my congratulations to the chair and members of the steering committee. Thank you once again for taking up the mantle of this committee.
I have two comments to make. First, I’ve been asked to sponsor Bill C-9 in the Senate and I have reached out to all my colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee to hopefully have a better understanding of any concerns or issues with this bill, so I’m looking forward to speaking with those I have not yet spoken with. Those I have, my thanks for offering your comments and thoughtful advice.
I would like to follow up on a suggestion I had made to the chair and deputy chair regarding witnesses. Senator Forest briefly mentioned this already. A local accounting firm has put an ad in our newspaper inviting small businesses with questions about programs and initiatives such as this to address any questions to them. I think it would be important and an ideal opportunity to hear briefly from the accounting and the accountants’ association, particularly as this committee before has dealt with the issue of changes to the Income Tax Act, and how an overhaul is long overdue. We are dealing with changes to the Income Tax Act, so if we could have someone give us an idea of the problems and the issues and what they’re seeing, I think that would be helpful for the committee’s report.
Thank you very much. Please do get in touch with me if there is any way I can be of assistance. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Klyne: I don’t have a question. I just want to submit for the consideration of inviting as panel witnesses, the National Aboriginal Capital Corporation Association and the National Indigenous Economic Development Board.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Klyne.
Senator Plett: To the chair, let me also offer my congratulations to the hard-fought battle for retaining the chair here. I know you’ve spent some sleepless nights campaigning and did a wonderful job.
Further to what Senator Boehm said — and I say this in all good humour — I think the four smartest people on the committee are the four women who are on here, so this is quality rather than quantity. I think we’re doing fine on this committee for gender balance.
My bigger concern for balance here is regional balance. I’m very disappointed, as somebody from the West, that the only western senator I see on here is Senator Duncan. And that’s a bit of a problem. She’s pointing out somebody. Oh, Senator Klyne. I really apologize. Of course, Saskatchewan is certainly from Western Canada. I apologize to you, Senator Klyne, for that. Nevertheless, if we talk percentages, we’re still well outgunned here.
Chair, I have no comments as far as the witnesses who have been suggested, but I do need to say I’m a bit disappointed that this is all going to be done in two meetings in one day. I really think Thursday is a long day. I think there could well be three meetings on that day. I think there could be some meetings on Friday. This may be a small bill as far as the number of pages it entails and the number of paragraphs, but it is anything but a small bill as far as the magnitude of it is concerned.
As a Conservative caucus, we were very agreeable with the Leader of the Government in having a pre-study. We are fully anticipating a thorough vetting at a Committee of the Whole in the Senate as well, which we have, of course, been promised, and Senator Gold has always come through with that.
However, chair, I really would encourage strongly for this committee to have at least one, possibly two more meetings over the course of Thursday and Friday. There have been a number of very good suggestions made here, and Senator Galvez said she was going to send some more in, but there have been many good suggestions here that have come from a number of senators, and you will not get anywhere near the number of witnesses you need.
I would really encourage you, chair, to have your steering committee give more thought to adding more meetings to this. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Plett.
Senator M. Deacon: If I could in this format just ask Senator Plett, with respect to the comments he’s made, my question perhaps back to the chair is that there are a number of witnesses who have been mentioned. This is an important bill to get right and make sure we have the reflection from a variety of witnesses.
So my candid question is this: Our timeline and backward mapping, what are the wishes and hopes? I know everyone will say yesterday and we need to go as quickly as possible, but getting it right — what are the timelines we’re trying to adhere to?
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Gold: Congratulations, chair, and others, and the steering committee.
We are working against a timeline, just to answer your question, Senator Deacon, that requires Royal Assent by a week from this coming Saturday, to allow the CRA to provide the benefits in a seamless fashion. That has been the understanding of all the groups as we’ve been discussing and planning for this pre-study, and then the passage through the chamber.
With regard to the chamber, I want to confirm what Senator Plett said. There is an understanding among leaders that we’ll hold a Committee of the Whole. I think it’s scheduled for Tuesday when we return at 3 p.m. for two hours. That will be an opportunity for many senators to question the minister at that point, in addition to the time you’ll have with her this coming week.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I would just like to make a comment. I am always surprised how quickly we must consider bills that cost Canadians billions of dollars. We are caught between a very quick review and royal assent. This is not the first time that, in a matter of days, we have had to review bills that involve several billions of dollars in spending. I am always surprised that we have to adjust so quickly. We need much more time to make decisions that affect the aviation sector and airlines in Canada.
[English]
Senator Richards: I agree with Senator Dagenais and Senator Plett. I think everyone has that worry that this bill is going to be presented very quickly and we’re just not going to be able to get in the number of witnesses we want to talk to. That’s my only concern. It is a big bill, according to the millions and billions of dollars we’re going to be spending. It would be good to spend some time with it. It doesn’t seem at this moment that it’s possible to do that.
Senator Gold: Thank you. I appreciate the comments and everybody’s determination, which I share, that the Senate spend the appropriate time on this bill.
I just wanted to put things in context, however. This bill passed in two days in the House of Commons. Thank you to my colleagues and the leadership of all the groups. We have agreed that we will have a pre-study that your committee will do. I have every confidence, chair and steering committee, that in light of all these comments, you will develop an appropriate work plan to make the best use of this week.
In addition to the pre-study — indeed, we gave you the opportunity to extend your study beyond this week, but it’s in your hands — we’re also having a Committee of the Whole. We will also have many possible days of debate this coming week. We’ll be spending far more time on this bill than was spent in the other place. So, from my part, from the government representative part, I’m confident we’ll have enough time to do the job. In that regard, I look forward to the contribution that your committee is going to make to our study when it does reach the floor of the Senate.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I would simply like to remind you of two things. We need to take the time to hear all the witnesses, because their testimonies will reflect a difficult reality for some major sectors of economic activity. It’s important to remember that this is a preliminary study entrusted to us and that there will also be a committee of the whole in the Senate. This will allow senators who wish to take this study further to do so. In my opinion, we have a duty to hear witnesses from various parts of Canada and various economic sectors, and we need to do it as part of a preliminary study, not as a final study.
[English]
Senator Plett: I’m only going to speak one more time on this issue. This is not supposed to be a back-and-forth here on what we should do, but in reference to what the Leader of the Government just said, I have the highest degree of confidence that the Senate always does a better job than the House of Commons. This wouldn’t be the first time that we would do a better job than the House of Commons.
Should we use the fact that the House of Commons managed to rush something through in two days? The last time we had the Minister of Finance in, she was telling us how they had been singing “Kumbaya” on a very controversial issue in the House of Commons.
So, without question, we’re going to have a Committee of the Whole where all senators will be involved. We are going to have a debate in the House of Commons where we will all be able to put our views on the line. However, we have a committee that is supposed to do the study. Indeed, they have been mandated to do the study. To ever think that a committee should rush something through because we will then correct their work in the chamber — chair, with the highest degree of regard for our government leader, he is the Leader of the Government that wants this bill. There are those in the opposition who want to take the proper amount of time to make sure this is done right and to take the proper amount of time to make corrections where it clearly isn’t done right. So we clearly come at it from two different views. That’s not being critical of one view over the other. It is simply that we come at it from two different perspectives, chair.
So I will still stand on that. If there is a way for the committee getting in another one or two meetings, I think that would be well served and time spent well.
Senator Loffreda: There is a saying that my dad used to say: You either do it well or don’t do it at all. We used to have the same saying in banking.
With time permitting, I just want to make a suggestion. When we get important witnesses — I stress the fact that bankers see the businesses across the country, across the industries. They have the books and the portfolios. They speak to each other. It’s very important. The concern I have is, with a delay of two or three days, getting senior executives could sometimes be difficult.
I have a suggestion. They obviously can’t choose their time; the committees have their time. If they can give us 10 or 15 minutes, that would be fine. But obviously planning way in advance and fixing these times, and having the proper witnesses, are always a key to our success. At this point in time, we can’t do it but maybe we can have them for a lesser amount of time, if they’re not available for the whole period that we would like to have them. That’s my concern; getting the right people in such a short period of time.
The Chair: On this, honourable senators, there is no doubt what I have heard as chair —
Senator Dagenais has another comment before we close.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I’d just like to make a very brief comment before we close the meeting. I do not wish to add to what Senator Plett said or disrespect Senator Gold, but if the House of Commons passes bills in two days, good for it. Thank goodness the Senate does not have to do the same thing. The Senate, which is the chamber of sober second thought, must take the time needed. I don’t want to hear the argument “that bill was passed in two days by the House of Commons, you know.” I don’t find that to be a strong argument. I just wanted to make a simple comment.
[English]
The Chair: As chair, I want to say that we have done our due diligence to listen to each and everyone. I will be asking the steering committee before we adjourn this meeting of the whole membership of the Senate Finance Committee, so therefore a link to what you have shared with us, comments you have made, will be on the agenda of the steering committee. Immediately after we adjourn this meeting, we will have the steering committee. On this, I believe that due diligence has been given. We will take into consideration your comments, and then we will send, through the clerk, the planned agenda for this week, in order that we will be in a position to report back to the Senate on Tuesday the 17th in the afternoon.
On this, honourable senators, I now declare the meeting adjourned. Again, a reminder, please steering committee, stay connected on this connection, so that we will continue and finalize our plan for the Finance Committee to be shared immediately, in the next 24 hours, with all senators of the Finance Committee.
(The committee adjourned.)