Evidence of meeting #202 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was questions.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We shall call the meeting to order to resume our debate on the motion by Francesco Sorbara and the amendment by Gérard Deltell. For any members new to this, we're on the amendment to extend the hours for the minister from 3:30 to 6:30.
Who was the last member who spoke? Was it Mr. Richards?
Next on my list is Mr. Sorbara. We're on the amendment to point 7, to extend the Minister of Finance's hearing.
The floor is yours, Francesco.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Welcome back, everyone.
I'll point to remarks made by the members on the opposite aisle in discussing the amendment on hand, and some of the suggestions for a time allotment from 3:30 to 6:30 versus the current 3:30 to 5. My colleagues and I have entertained and discussed that, Chair. We could accommodate that request.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
There are three things we're seeking, Chair. One is that the minister be here for three hours, which I gather the government delegation has accepted. The second is that his opening remarks be limited to 10 minutes. The third is that we have licence to ask him about any matters related to his work as finance minister. Those are the only three things that we ask for. They seem pretty reasonable, and not out of line with what typically happens at a committee.
Given that this is a budget bill with 350 pages of content, and that this is perhaps the only time the minister will appear before this committee, I can't see any justification for not allowing that kind of openness under any subject for the entire session. I'll leave it at that for now. If members want to further litigate any of those three, I'm happy to do it. If they can offer those things, we can offer quick passage of the motion without any additional changes, and proceed from there.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay.
Does anybody else wants to speak?
Mr. Poilievre, you and I chatted, and you're saying, “any matters related to his work as finance minister”. It was my opinion that if the minister goes broad in his opening remarks, what I've tried to do in the past is to allow the questions to be broad. If the minister just sticks to the BIA, then the discussion would be pretty well limited to the BIA and, in essence, the budget as well.
Go ahead.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
I think you've just said that during his appearance, we can talk about other things than the BIA, as long as the minister wants to. That's the effect of the rule you're setting. You're saying that if he goes outside of the boundaries of the BIA, then we all can as well, but if he decides he wants to stay within the boundaries of the BIA, then we all must do likewise. I don't understand why a minister gets to decide the boundaries of a discussion. Why don't we just agree that if it deals with his work as finance minister, we as members of the finance committee can ask him about it?
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
I'm amused by the comments by my colleague, who talks about the boundaries of the discussion. It seems to me that in his view, the opposition is going to set the boundaries of discussion. I think this committee should come to a collective view on that.
When the minister comes here, I'm sure he'll talk about the budget. I want to ask him about the budget, because my constituents are asking me about it, not about grandiose economic theories or the role of the finance minister in general, but on something quite specific—the 2019 budget that has been presented, which we'll hopefully now examine if the opposition wants to be serious. What my colleague is proposing, I'm afraid, is not serious.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Thanks for the intervention by my colleague. You know, committees are the masters of their domains. I've been on this committee since we were elected as a majority government. I've really enjoyed it and we are the masters of our domain. When the minister has come to speak to us, we've all asked him questions. Mr. Poilievre, Mr. Deltell and Ms. Raitt, when she was here, asked questions, tough questions. We are going to be looking at the subject matter of Bill C-97. I'm sure Mr. Poilievre, Mr. Richards and Mr. Kmiec will want to ask tough questions and they'll be afforded that opportunity.
In response to my colleague, I was going to say my friend, Mr. Poilievre, that within the three-hour time slot from 3:30 to 6:30, you've asked for the minister to keep his remarks within 10 minutes. I don't think that's something extraordinary. I think the purview is that we are speaking to Bill C-97, which touches upon fiscal policy. It touches upon a thing. It's not a huge bill, and no pun was intended by the comment, but a document that's important to Canadians and to our government. Of course, it is important to this committee to study it, to bring witnesses forth and to commence that process. I think it behooves all of us as parliamentarians to do that.
Mr. Poilievre, I'm very accommodating and I think the committee is accommodating on where members are in terms of the three hours and the 10 minutes. I think it's obviously the chair's role to decide what's in order in any committee to be discussed. If we stray too far, then I think it behooves us to point that out, and it also behooves you folks to point that out on your side. I think we can be accommodating and meet on that.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Mr. Poilievre.
I was just laughing here to myself. I remember that when Ralph Goodale was minister, we weren't going to limit him to 10 minutes.
Right, Pierre?
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
I'm not sure that kind of limitation would hold with Minister Goodale.
No, but our friend Mr. Fragiskatos says that we will decide collectively as a committee what people will say, and collectivism is the ideology over there. However, the problem with collectively deciding what is acceptable to say is that it inherently limits freedom of speech. You have a majority who vote on what the minority can say. To borrow an earlier-used expression, that's like giving a group of people who have one interest the authority to decide what the minority with another interest can do and say. That inherently limits our freedom to act on behalf of the people who elected us.
No, there's nothing democratic about saying that we have more votes than you do so we're going to ban you from saying the things we don't want you to say. That's effectively what our colleague is suggesting. If you doubt the literalism with which I'm speaking, you just need to go back and look at the footage of the chairman slamming his gavel and then shutting down a meeting because he didn't want me to say what I wanted to say.
It literally is using a majority to shut down free speech. When a minister appears, it is not unusual for members to ask questions about matters other than a given bill or motion before a committee. You'll notice that when I made my original request, it was for us to be able to ask the minister about anything related to his work as Minister of Finance. I'm not interested in asking about his personal matters or his commercial dealings as a private citizen. I'm not interested in anything unrelated to the job he does as minister, for which we all agree he's accountable to Parliament.
That's it. Frankly, the good news is that it will be televised. If members of the public think we're asking questions that are not pertinent to their interests, we will be judged accordingly in October.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Before I go to Mr. Fergus, I will say that I do think it is fair for committee members to be able to raise questions relative to the minister's portfolio when a minister is before committee. I think we're fine with that.
Go ahead, Mr. Fergus.
April 9th, 2019 / 3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll make this quick.
Mr. Chair, parliamentary convention holds that, when a minister appears before a committee, it is to address the issue on the agenda. We are talking about the Minister of Finance, who has appeared before the committee many times. I don't believe he has ever even declined an invitation by the committee, but I digress.
When a committee studies a bill and reviews its provisions, government and opposition members alike have the opportunity to ask a minister questions, as they would with any witness. In all cases, however, the questions must relate to the subject in hand.
Mr. Chair, you've always been very open-minded. In the past, when the minister went off topic, you've always given committee members the leeway to do the same. However, when the minister's comments pertain to the topic on the agenda, the questions put to the minister should as well, as parliamentary convention dictates.
Thank you.
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
I'm not sure that there really is a conflict on the table. I understand from your recent comment that you're saying that a certain amount of latitude, insofar as the minister speaks about matters qua as Minister of Finance, will be accepted. It's your job to police this. I know that when we are in the House of Commons, the Speaker allows people—to a degree I find rather shocking, frankly—to speak very much outside the four corners of the bill that's at issue. Questions of relevance are rarely, if ever, addressed by the chair.
Given your commitment that you accept that a minister can come and talk about ministerial responsibilities, and given what Mr. Poilievre said, that he is not going to talk about personal matters but merely things concerning his work as finance minister, I don't understand that we have a real conflict on the table. I would suggest that we are ad idem.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
All we're looking for, to put an end to this, is just wording that says, “or any matters related to the minister's work as finance minister”. That's it. Then it will be clear in the motion that we can ask about any matters related to his work as finance minister.
I know that Ms. Rudd is really distressed by the thought that we might ask him about his work as finance minister, but just stop and ask yourself—
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
—a question: How can you possibly be worried about our asking the minister questions about his work as finance minister? What is it that you worry will happen, that is so dangerous, if we ask him about his work as finance minister? Explain what the problem is here.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I have Mr. Kmiec on the list first, and then you, Ms. Rudd.
I'm hoping we can end this discussion after that, because I think I've already said that questions that relate to the minister's portfolio are fine, and that's basically saying the same thing.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
