Okay.
Mr. Poilievre, go ahead.
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.
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.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
I asked questions about the finance minister at a previous committee meeting. I thought it was unprecedented that the chair slammed the gavel and shut down the whole thing. You can understand why I'm sensitive about the possibility that our one chance to ask questions of the finance minister will effectively be shut down the instant the minister gets a question he's not comfortable with.
I have no doubt that he and his staff have complained to the chair of the committee before about the fact that his previous appearances have gone very badly for him, but it's not a self-esteem factory. It's not our job here to make the minister feel good about himself; it's our job to ask the tough questions that taxpayers demand be answered.
We're considering a very sweeping motion right here. It has a time frame by which the higher bill will be reported back, whether we vote on it or not, whether we agree to let that happen or not. We're effectively giving you licence to send the bill back to the House by a pre-set date, guaranteeing what you're looking for, and all we're asking for in exchange is that we have the minister here for a free and open set of questions for a three-hour period. That's it.
It's not a precedent, Frank. I'm sorry; it's pretty customary. We have a thin-skinned minister who's terrified of committees because he's become an Internet sensation because of his previous performances here.
I'm sorry, my constitutional obligation is to hold him accountable and to ask him questions that he's not comfortable answering. The fact that he doesn't want certain questions asked about his job is not my problem. My job is to hold him accountable, and when opposition MPs stop doing that job, pity the poor country we call Canada, because it's not going to be a nice place to live. The job of the opposition is to ask these questions, and we are not going to agree to a motion like this until such time as we have a guarantee that we're going to be able to ask them.
I'm not going to show up here on the day the minister appears and have the chair pull out his gavel and start banging away because he hears something that he knows the minister is going to be angry about. We're going to keep talking this out until such time as we get a very modest demand honoured, that we have free and open debate related to the minister's role as a minister for three hours on television. That's it.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Mr. Poilievre, I think that's what I said about questions that relate to the minister's portfolio.
I'll go back for a minute to the time I gavelled that the committee meeting adjourn. I think you have a different interpretation of that than I do. The fact of the matter was that there was a point of order from this side of the House, and I went to that point of order and you kept pushing your mike button when I tried to go to that point of order on that side. I said, “Enough of this. That's it.” The meeting was suspended and then adjourned. That's history.
As I've said here, we're on the amendment to meet from 3:30 to 6:30. I think we need to vote on that amendment. I've said very clearly—it's on the record—that in my chairing the meeting, questions that relate to the minister's portfolio are wide open. That's the way I think the meetings should be with a minister of finance. When ministers are here, questions related to their portfolio have been allowed most of the time. That's the way it operates.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
If I may, I think that's very reasonable. All I'm asking is that we put that in the motion so it's clear, and we're done.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Is it not enough to have it on the record?
I'm telling you as chair it's on the record that questions related to the minister's portfolio will be allowed. It's a pretty broad portfolio,
4 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Does that portfolio include matters that were in previous budgets?
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
The BIA we're looking at here builds on previous budgets, so yes, you have to be able to deal with budgets on top of budgets and what we have done as a government, which I think the minister is probably pretty proud of. I would think he'd want to lay out those points.
I've clearly stated on the record that questions related to the minister's portfolio are fair. I won't allow disorderly conduct like what happened at the other meeting, and that was between you and me and a point of order on this side. You can't re-till old ground.
Are we ready to move to deal with 3:30 to 6:30, and what I've said?
I have Mr.—
Go ahead.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
In conclusion, I could propose an amendment to the motion, particularly to paragraph 7, that “the Committee invite the Minister of Finance to appear on Bill C-97 and matters related to his portfolio on Wednesday, May 1, 2019, from 3:30 to 6:30, with opening remarks not to exceed 10 minutes, in an appearance that will be televised”.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay.
We have an amendment to an amendment, really, but I think we've agreed on those points. If you want to deal with it in writing and see where it goes, we can—
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
You basically agreed to all this already, so I don't understand what we're arguing over.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Because we're on the amendment, on the original speaking list I had Mr. Fragiskatos and Mr. Richards. On the new list on the amendment, I have Mr. Rankin.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
That's a summary of what I've heard here, so I would support that amendment.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Mr. Richards is first, and then Mr. Kmiec is on the second list.
This is on the amendment, guys.
Mr. Fragiskatos.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay.
We'll go to you first, Mr. Fragiskatos, then Mr. Richards, then Mr. Kmiec, and then whoever else.
April 9th, 2019 / 4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
It's a short comment.
My colleague questioned your fairness. I'll speak for myself, and I know you can defend yourself, Mr. Chair. You've conducted yourself with only fairness in this committee. In fact, just last week, you called my question out of order because it strayed from the topic, and in fact, it did. I raise that only to say that you don't have any biases and have never exhibited biases on this committee.
My colleague—who's not at the table now, but I'll put it on the record anyway—says that it's customary for the minister to come in for three hours. We've actually gone quite far here in compromising to say that the minister ought to come in for three hours.
I don't recall at any point, when Mr. Oliver was.... I'll talk recent history. I don't recall Mr. Oliver testifying for three hours. I don't recall the late honourable Jim Flaherty testifying for three hours. In fact, I took a moment to look at the minutes of previous finance committee meetings, specifically on the BIA under the Harper government. This finance ministers, both Oliver and the late Jim Flaherty, testified for an hour.
We've gone quite far here to compromise, so I think it's quite unreasonable when my colleague says that we have not gone far enough. I think we have gone quite far. I think that merits being put on the record, so that's why I wanted to speak.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Some of you will know this and others may not. In my previous career, before I got into politics, I was in real estate. I helped folks sell and buy homes. This reminds me, actually, of some of the situations I found myself in, in those circumstances. Sometimes what you'd get is that someone would say, “I know we have a contract here that says X, Y, and Z, and this is the price of the home and this is the closing date, and all the conditions that go with that, but you know what? Don't worry about that. Yes, we'll get the walls painted for you, or, yes, we'll leave some of the furniture, or whatever the case might be.” They'd say, we don't need to throw that in the contract, though. It will just be an agreement between us. For obvious reasons, I wouldn't accept those kinds of things. This reminds me of those same situations.
Mr. Poilievre has made a suggestion. It's been said a couple of times on both sides, but I will point out that this is a fairly significant compromise by the opposition, I would argue, because we're letting the government have exactly what it wants, which is to limit the amount of time there is for consideration and debate and amendments or anything else related to the budget. In return, the expectation is that there be three hours for the minister to come here to be held accountable for any matters related to his finance portfolio, and that his opening remarks limited to 10 minutes and that the meeting be televised.
What we're hearing, essentially, for the most part, is yes, we agree to all of that, but we don't want to put it in writing. Whenever I have someone tell me they agree with me and they're willing to give me something, but they don't want to put it in writing, I have to question the motivation for not being willing to put it in writing? If it's okay and you're agreeing that you're going to allow it, why not just put it in writing? What's the harm? As I say, it hearkens me back to my days in real estate, when somebody would say, “Yes, no, no, don't worry. We'll leave the freezer. We don't want to put it in the contract—let's not do that—but we'll leave it, we promise.”
You never want to doubt someone's sincerity, and I'm not saying I do, but why not put it in writing then? What's the problem here? I just feel that we're in a spot where it's almost like there's disagreement for the sake of disagreement, or something like that. I wish we could end that. If that's what everyone's saying is—
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Mr. Chair, I am wondering if we could suspend for five minutes. I think there are some discussions that are going on. I'm wondering if we'd just take a five-minute break to continue those discussions.
4:10 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Mr. Chair, I believe you are a man of your word. I've known you for a long time. I've never once known you to violate your word, and so I take you at your word today that we will be allowed to question the minister, not just on the BIA but also on his broader finance portfolio. I give you my word that my questions will focus exclusively on his work as a finance minister, not on anything unrelated to that job.
As a result, I am prepared to withdraw my earlier amendment and propose a different one.
(Amendment withdrawn)
With my new amendment, paragraph 7 would be transformed to read:
the Committee invite the Minister of Finance to appear on Bill C-97 on Wednesday, May 1, 2019, from 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., and that his opening statement be limited to ten minutes, and that the meeting be televised;