Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 16 - 30 of 459
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Thank you, Peter.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 9; nays 2)
(Clauses 8 to 14 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 15)
View Ed Fast Profile
CPC (BC)
View Ed Fast Profile
2021-03-23 16:20
I do. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to read it into the record. I move that Bill C-14, in clause 15, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 8 with the following:
must not at any time exceed $1,611,000,000,000:
I don't believe that requires a royal recommendation. Do you want me to make a few comments about that now, or do you want to rule?
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
It's allowable, because it's talking about reducing money.
Mr. Fast, the floor is yours. Make your arguments.
View Ed Fast Profile
CPC (BC)
View Ed Fast Profile
2021-03-23 16:21
Thanks, Chair.
Let me be very clear. We support the programs and the benefits that Bill C-14 is delivering for Canadians—let there be no doubt about that—yet I remind members that there are still millions of Canadians who have been left behind, including those in the most heavily impacted industries, like tourism, hospitality, airlines and charities, and a host of small and medium-sized industries that were promised targeted, sector-specific support but haven't received it.
Bill C-14, while helpful, does not in any way address these thousands of SMEs that have fallen through the cracks and either have closed up shop or are struggling to survive, so obviously we encourage the government to provide this support.
The one element of Bill C-14 that we cannot support is the government's attempt to increase our country's debt ceiling by the massive, unprecedented and unwarranted amount of $663 billion. This amount goes far beyond the government's current borrowing needs. Indeed, the government has already built in an undefined contingency fund of $87 billion, and then, on top of that, they've set aside another undefined $100 billion of stimulus funding.
When asked what this money might be spent on, the finance minister really refused to say. On top of that, the government has added another $220 billion, without saying what this money might be used for. When asked about this, the minister effectively said we should not worry, that we should trust them, and that there's no reason to believe they'd actually use that borrowing authority.
View Peter Fragiskatos Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Fast is recalling a conversation that happened a few weeks ago at committee between himself and Minister Freeland, but I don't remember the conversation going that way, and since he's reading it into the record, the record won't be accurate. That's my concern.
View Ed Fast Profile
CPC (BC)
View Ed Fast Profile
2021-03-23 16:23
I'll go back.
When asked about the $220 billion, on top of all that, in terms of unallocated spending, the minister effectively said, don't worry, trust them, and there's no reason to believe they would actually use that borrowing authority. Now that's pretty rich, since this government blew through $200 billion and through the current debt ceiling in less than three years.
Therefore, Mr. Chair, the government's request for an increase to its debt ceiling to $1.83 trillion is excessive. Accordingly, our amendment does the reasonable thing and reduces the debt ceiling request by $220 billion to $1.61 trillion. This still leaves the government with a contingency of $87 billion and a $100-billion stimulus fund, which as yet remains undefined, and incorporates the exempted borrowing that was exercised during the pandemic, so I encourage all of my colleagues here at committee to do the reasonable thing and support this amendment.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Thank you.
The floor is open for discussion. I remind folks again that there are officials here from four departments. I guess it would be the Department of Finance on this one. If you have any questions for them, we have ample time to put questions and take answers.
I have Mr. Julian first.
Mr. Julian.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm intrigued by this amendment and will be listening very carefully to the discussion through the course of the committee. My concern all along, Mr. Chair, as you well know, has been that there's been no provision for the revenue side when we're talking about expanding the debt ceiling.
We have not put in place any wealth taxes, unlike other countries that have done so. Also, no efforts have been made to stop the hemorrhaging of money going offshore. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has evaluated that at over $25 billion every year, which means that over the last decade a quarter of a trillion dollars has gone to overseas tax havens.
We are not putting in place any measures of the sort that we had in the Second World War on the revenue side. For example, we had an excess profits tax. It was 75% of excess profits through the Second World War. At the end of the war effort, it was at 100%. There were measures taken in our past that actually balanced out revenues and expenditures, even in a situation like the war effort, where very clearly increased expenditures were called for.
I decry the government's lack of effort to take on the revenue side of the equation so that the debt ceiling does not have to be raised. We've seen Canada's billionaires increase their wealth during this pandemic by over $60 billion. That didn't happen in the Second World War. Measures were taken to avoid that kind of intense profiteering.
We have whole sectors, like the web giants, that don't pay any tax at all. As well, we have not seen the kind of action that needs to be taken to tackle overseas tax havens and to put in place a wealth tax that would actually help make sure that resources are available for Canadians through this pandemic and in the rebuilding that must surely follow.
I'm intrigued by the amendment and I look forward to the debate, but I think that is a major weakness in the fall economic statement and a weakness, of course, in Bill C-14. Ultimately it would be a colossal failure in the budget that we're finally going to see now, after two years, on April 19.
If the government says billionaires can have a free ride, that banks, with profits of over $40 billion, don't have to pay their fair share of taxes, and that web giant companies that have profits in the billions of dollars don't have to pay anything at all, there's something fundamentally wrong with that fiscal picture. We have also seen the use of COVID funding by many companies—profitable corporations—for dividends, executive bonuses and stock buybacks.
That's why I'm intrigued by Mr. Fast's motion. Mr. Fast and I don't agree on many things, but I'm intrigued by his amendment and will be listening very carefully to the debate.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Thank you.
Before I go to Ms. Dzerowicz, who is on next, I know that the officials are here, and at committee several times now there has been a lot of discussion around the borrowing cap and whether it is right to borrow up to that cap. Is it equivalent to spending at that level?
I would ask somebody from the Department of Finance or the officials if they could come in to explain in layman's terms what the borrowing cap is. Regardless of whether it's $1.8 trillion or $1.6 trillion, what does it really mean as compared to spending?
Nicolas Moreau
View Nicolas Moreau Profile
Nicolas Moreau
2021-03-23 16:29
Chair, I can take this question.
We have explained in the past basically where this number is coming from. It's the sum of the expected financial requirements for the next three years, as presented in the fall economic statement of 2020. To this, we add the overall level of stock that already exists and the money that has been used so far to help fight against the COVID-19 crisis.
When you look at the limit that we're proposing, it's different from providing.... It's a borrowing limit. It's different from approving the spending. By that, I mean that granting borrowing authorities is one thing, and spending is something else, because it needs to go through appropriation bills. It needs to go through different processes in order to be approved. For example, the next budget will propose spending—a new program. This will need to be voted on.
Putting in place a new limit does not per se—does not at all, in fact—provide authorization to spend that money. It's just a limit on the capacity of the government to borrow money from the market.
View Julie Dzerowicz Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank Mr. Fast for his thoughtful explanation of what his worry is around this section. I'm just going to expand a bit more on what Mr. Moreau was just talking about, for those who might be watching or would be interested in knowing.
If they go to the fall economic statement and go to page 141, they are able to see exactly how we end up with—I had to practise this earlier today—the figure of $1.831 trillion. It's exactly what Mr. Moreau was alluding to. It's the current borrowing cap, with the emergency spending, some adjustments around Canada mortgage bonds, and then what is expected to be borrowing until 2023-24.
I think it's laid out very well. I appreciate Mr. Moreau very well articulating that there is a complete difference between a borrowing cap and spending.
I will have a question for officials in a second, but I want to make one more point, which is for Mr. Julian, who was talking about how the government hasn't presented the revenue side yet. That is indeed not included in Bill C-14, but the good news today is that our Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance has announced that we will be presenting our budget on Monday, April 19, and I think we'll be hearing quite a bit on that date about the revenue side, in addition to the overall budget and what our game plan is moving forward.
As for my question, I'm hoping that maybe one of our officials can make this crystal clear. I believe it was our Parliamentary Budget Officer who said this. Can you please confirm that should this $1.831 trillion borrowing authority pass, Parliament still needs to approve government expenditures under this borrowing authority? If someone could just make that crystal clear, I'd be very grateful.
Thank you.
Nicolas Moreau
View Nicolas Moreau Profile
Nicolas Moreau
2021-03-23 16:33
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Yes. As I said before, any new spending will need to be approved by Parliament. Like I said, this is a borrowing limit. It's only in order to provide for the government to borrow that money in the market.
The reason we're doing this is that in 2017 the government put in place the Borrowing Authority Act in order to increase transparency on government borrowing. By setting a limit, the government is coming in front of Parliament at least every three years in order to make sure it has been transparent and has presented exactly what the government market debt will be. That's the capacity to borrow, basically, in the market.
View Peter Fragiskatos Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, colleagues.
I would just say that we ought to think back to the testimony that was given by the Parliamentary Budget Officer last week. The question was put to him about the debt-to-GDP ratio, and he said it was in and around the range of 50% now, which admittedly is high. Certainly in relative terms, it exceeds in significant ways what we saw prior to the pandemic. However, it's a pandemic, and that necessitated emergency programs, which were bound to drive up the overall debt.
We have a debt-to-GDP ratio that still, compared to other G7 countries, is quite healthy and quite strong. Compare, for example, Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio to those of the U.K., Germany and the United States. All those countries, whose economies are considered by the vast majority of economists to be very strong still, have debt-to-GDP ratios that far exceed what exists in Canada at the present time.
The other point I would make to ease the concern of Conservative colleagues is that we've been here before. In the early 2000s, Mr. Chair, as you know, the debt-to-GDP ratio was at about the same level it is now, give or take a bit, and we were still able to see robust economic growth well into the 2000s. Of course, things turned in 2008, but that's a different story.
I think these points need to be put onto the table to reflect what actually exists and to provide context. Officials have already spoken to the distinction—the very important one—between borrowing authority and spending authority, Mr. Chair, so for that reason, I won't be supporting the amendment.
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I first want to say how much I appreciate the contribution, hard work and suggestions that the Conservative committee members have put forward. Since the election, their ideas have gone a long way towards making measures better.
I agree with the points raised by the honourable NDP member Peter Julian. We have to tackle the revenue side of the equation, because giving way to the immoral use of tax havens is not cutting it. As far as this amendment is concerned, however, I do think it's important to remember what André Giroux, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, told us, as Mr. Fragiskatos mentioned. Mr. Giroux said that, with respect to Bill C-14, increasing the borrowing limit is not synonymous with introducing new spending measures.
Every expenditure has to be approved. Parliament overseas spending through supply votes, not the debt ceiling.
Keep in mind that playing with the borrowing limit is the tactic Republicans use in the U.S. to trigger crisis after crisis. When the government reaches the limit, it can't write any more cheques: public servants stop being paid, pension and employment insurance benefits stop going out, and government service providers shut down.
That is an irresponsible approach, and for that reason, I will be voting against the amendment, especially since a vote for the amendment is akin to a non-confidence vote—and all the consequences that go along with it.
Results: 16 - 30 of 459 | Page: 2 of 31

|<
<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data