Finance Committee on July 27th, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

On the list, I have Mr. Fraser, Ms. Koutrakis, Ms. May and Mr. Fragiskatos.

I would just throw one thing in, Mr. Cooper. You did talk about appropriate witnesses. I don't think that's a problem, but at the moment, for the original list, we've exhausted the Liberal list, we've exhausted the NDP list and we've exhausted the Conservative list.

I would remind people that August 7 is the deadline for submissions for pre-budget consultations. We usually have 300 to 550 submissions, and then we have to be prepared to have that stuff researched and to do hearings on that in the fall, as well as on the restart and recovery from COVID. My concern is that we have appropriate witnesses and some kind of deadline we can work with.

We will go to Mr. Fraser, Ms. Koutrakis, and Ms. May.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you again, Mr. Chair.

Look, though I'm enjoying this discussion, I know that Mr. Julian suggested that perhaps the ordinary way these things are dealt with is by virtue of the subcommittee. I can't help but feel that it might have been an appropriate forum for much of today's discussion.

Frankly, Mr. Julian, I agreed with almost everything you said in your speech. Doing this the normal way, with the subcommittee getting the witnesses and establishing how to proceed, is not the portion of the motion I objected to. Where I think we have a point of disagreement—and I don't know if you'll come around to seeing things my way or not—is in the portion of the motion that discusses each of the parties bringing forward their witnesses and the committee hearing them until every list is “exhausted”. To my mind, that is in fact an indefinite period of time that would allow one party or another, if it so chose, to put in 200 witnesses whose testimony might have limited probative value. If the subcommittee wished to get together and discuss a path forward, that would be a very healthy discussion. If the motion included language demanding that the committee hear from every single witness that every member of this committee could put forward, I think we would create an environment that would be ripe for abuse, frankly.

Mr. Cooper, I take your comments with great respect. I always find you to be articulate. There is no effort to demean the importance of the issue that is currently before this committee. My experience on this committee, since this Parliament has begun, has been extremely valuable to me. I've been very fortunate to have front-row tickets, in some ways, to the economic emergency response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

There are three sources of information that have been as valuable as anything for me to get new ideas that I could use to help influence the government's approach to various policies: conversations with stakeholders, including in my own community; conversations with MPs from different parts of the country and different parties; and the finance committee. It was really an incredible experience for me to learn about things like the need to invest in the mental health of those who serve on juries in serious trials. It was really valuable to me to learn about the role of the Great Lakes Commission, which I knew very little about before the testimony. It was very informative for to me hear, at a granular level of detail, what investments in a green recovery might be able to offer in terms of the future growth of Canada's employment numbers and environmental and economic health. I could probably list about 200 different examples of testimony that I found valuable and was able to have conversations with colleagues about.

There is a global pandemic on the go. It will require our continued attention and a world-class response if we are going to best serve the interests of Canadians. I do not view that position to be mutually exclusive to the idea that the current study before the finance committee is also important. Both things can be true at once. My only point is that I don't want this scheduling issue to turn into a forum to have as many witnesses as one party may like for potentially political opportunism rather than the substantive probing that I think has taken place to date and that I agree should have taken place to date. That's why I supported most of the motions that have come before this committee, with perhaps the exception of one motion when my power went out. I lost connection immediately before a vote on an issue that I would have supported.

My only hope is that we can get together, be reasonable human beings and, as in virtually every other project, exercise or initiative that I've ever been a part of, try to figure out how long this should properly take and try to figure out where the real information should come from so that we can focus on the issues at hand rather than background noise, which will just confuse the issue for perhaps the purpose of keeping it in the newspapers, when there's actually an emergency that we need to respond to. I would pray that the committee members, whom I've enjoyed my time with, would share my desire to advise the government on what policies it can implement as part of the effort to build back our economy in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

I promise you, Michael, I'm not trying to be tricky. I want to have a solid inquiry through this committee. I think it's been valuable to date. What I do want to avoid is turning it into an exercise that is something other than a probative exercise, which would detract from our ability to advance policies to keep roofs over heads and food on the table.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay.

I have added names to my list, and I see another hand up. I have Ms. Koutrakis, Ms. May, Mr. Fragiskatos, Mr. Ste-Marie and Mr. Poilievre. Hopefully we can end the discussion there.

Go ahead, Ms. Koutrakis.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to repeat many comments that I've heard here from all my colleagues on this committee, no matter the party.

We all agree that this is a very important issue. We need to ask the important questions. Canadians expect us to ask the important questions and to get the answers that they deserve to hear, but this is the finance committee. As far as I know, we have heard testimony in the past. Monies have not been spent. We are in the steepest economic decline in history, and hopefully, a robust recovery is around the corner.

As important as WE is, I think our economy and how Canadians are doing are far more important at this time. We have to focus on the pandemic. We don't know what's around the corner. We know, as we have heard from senior health officials not only in Canada but worldwide, that a second wave will come upon us.

As part of the very important work that we do as the finance committee, we have the pre-budget consultation meetings coming up. As everyone knows, this is my first mandate as a member of Parliament. I'm very honoured to be a member of this all-important committee on finance. I have learned a lot from everything that I've been exposed to, from my colleagues in my own party and my colleagues across the way.

I can't imagine how we should be spending all of our time and effort on this very important issue. Again, I echo many of the comments. This is an important issue. I'm very happy that the Prime Minister and his chief of staff will be before us this week to answer questions for us. However, I don't want us to focus on just the one issue, which is the WE Charity, at this time.

I've started to schedule very important meetings with my constituents. I've started to hit the terrain, with my mask and with my team. It is so lovely to visit them and to hear how important all of the government programs that we've rolled out up until today have been.

I have to tell you that I monitor my emails very carefully. In my own riding I have not received one email saying that this is the most important issue of the day. What I have heard from my constituents is how happy they are to see me reach out to them. They are happy about how my team is helping them during this difficult time. They are happy to see that I'm going to visit them and start to learn more about them and their needs.

Nothing would make me happier, and I think I can speak for my colleagues in the Liberal Party. We're looking for answers as well, but can we take a balanced approach? Can we take a step back and identify what the most important issue is right now? Where should we be focusing most of our efforts? Is it really only WE? Should we perhaps be doing more meetings to see whether we are in the right place? Are we doing the right things to help our small businesses, to help the mothers who need to report back to work? Do we have the affordable child care that women need? I happen to be in a province, in Quebec, where we do have affordable child care in place. We should be talking about those issues.

I'm not saying, again, that we should not be asking the all-important questions where WE Charity is concerned. I'm very much looking forward to listening to WE Charity and its testimony. I just want to make sure that we don't forget about all the other issues that are very, very important. We should not diminish our role as the finance committee. Let's, please, be reasonable. Let's all be reasonable and make sure that we're taking a well-balanced approach.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We will go to Ms. May, then Mr. Fragiskatos, then Mr. Ste-Marie.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, colleagues.

As I've been listening to all of this, I've been thinking that looking for evidence around the WE Charity scandal did get us the evidence of GlobalMedic and Rahul Singh. Of course, I'm not a member of this committee and I can't vote, but please be mindful of his evidence. The summer is going by. He had hundreds of people who were ready to participate in the program when it was going to be run by WE. Now it's run by nobody. I think we as parliamentarians have an obligation to keep our eye on the ball to make sure young people get the opportunities they're still entitled to. I am very impressed with a lot of the evidence we've heard while looking into the WE Charity issue, but I don't want us to forget the people who are caught in the crosshairs of a big, juicy scandal, and that includes a lot of young people and NGOs like GlobalMedic.

As for your motion, Mr. Pierre Poilievre, I'm not going to be able to vote on this, but when the word “exhaustion” is used, I just encourage all colleagues to remember that at some point, the public appetite for this issue will be exhausted. Keep an eye on that, because they're going to get very frustrated if they see parliamentarians more interested in scandal than in helping them.

This is a big issue, and it needs to be thoroughly and properly investigated. I would not want to appear to say that this is not a subject of importance. The fact that the Prime Minister is testifying before this committee underscores that we all understand the gravity of the situation. Major ethical breaches occurred, but just be mindful of where the public sense of what we do as parliamentarians shifts from “Good for them for getting to the truth” to “What the heck is wrong with them? Don't they see we're in a pandemic?”

It's advice you probably don't want.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Ms. May.

Now we have Mr. Fragiskatos, Mr. Ste-Marie and then Mr. Poilievre.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, here is another case in which I find myself agreeing, as I so often do, with much of what Ms. May said—not everything, but there's a great deal there, a great deal of substance, as always, from our colleague.

Mr. Chair, I received an email from a constituent just a few days ago. It relates back to the points I was making earlier about the importance of staying focused on the main thing. Obviously, WE Charity is quite critical. We're not denying that at all. I'm not opposed to extending our study beyond the original mandate—the original mandate being four meetings, of course—but the main thing facing this country, the main thing facing our constituents right now, is COVID-19.

Here's the email from the constituent. I won't read the whole thing, but I'll read the part that stood out the most and that moved me the most, as follows:

My rent is average for London rent prices, and even still once I pay rent I have nothing left to spend on my other bills. This means I have to rely on the food bank. What can you do to lower my rent to an affordable amount? I need to stay where I am to maintain my health. My doctor would gladly confirm this.

I get emails like this on a very regular basis these days, as I'm sure we all do. This one particularly stood out. It's heartbreaking. Of course, I want to help this man in every way I can. I don't have that ability. There are many things I can do, but I cannot create a new reality for him, much as I would like to. What we as a committee and what we as parliamentarians can do is be serious about the work at hand. We've heard at this committee very effective, very important and very meaningful testimony at previous meetings. I expect that once we get to budget deliberations, we'll hear even more about COVID-19 and its impact on the country, what it's doing to the country, how the federal government is responding and how else it could respond.

The issue I have, which I think Mr. Fraser brought up and Ms. Koutrakis brought up, and now Ms. May has eloquently brought up, relates to the wording of the motion. That's the issue here. We're not trying to get away from further probing the issues relating to WE and the challenges they raise for the government. Important questions still need to be answered, but will we even get to those pre-budget deliberations if we go down the path that Mr. Poilievre and his Conservative colleagues are suggesting? “Exhaustive” carries very.... Well, its meaning is very clear. There are clear consequences to endorsing this motion, ones that would set us back as a committee.

I also find it rather peculiar, Mr. Chair, that Mr. Poilievre has put this motion forward. If he is concerned that this committee is not engaged in an exhaustive study of the WE Charity issue, then frankly he's wrong. We are going to hear this week from the Prime Minister of Canada on this subject. The Prime Minister of this country is coming to testify at committee and answer questions.

This is unprecedented, as I'm sure Mr. Poilievre knows. In fact, I know he knows that, because on November 6, 2013, he had a chance to vote in favour of Stephen Harper coming to what was the access to information and privacy committee to examine matters relating to the Mike Duffy scandal. Mr. Poilievre voted against that motion.

That said, I won't exhaust the point—not to use that word over and over, although I'm using it now in a different way—but on November 6, 2013, there was a vote in Parliament on a motion that said the following:

That the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics be instructed to examine the conduct of the Prime Minister’s Office regarding the repayment of Senator Mike Duffy’s expenses; that...Prime Minister [Harper] be ordered to appear under oath as a witness before the Committee for a period of 3 hours, before December 10, 2013; and that the proceedings be televised.

Mr. Poilievre voted against that motion in Parliament. He voted against it. A number of other current Conservative colleagues who are now sitting in the House also voted against that motion. I know that was 2013, but it's still relevant, because contrary to that approach, this committee, with this Prime Minister, will see something that is very, very different: We have a Prime Minister coming to the committee to answer questions, so if Mr. Poilievre is looking for an exhaustive approach to this issue, we're seeing it play out. We are looking into this matter in great detail.

I'll leave it there, Mr. Chair, but I think we have to be serious about what matters here and the task at hand. We have to stay focused on COVID-19.

We cannot push aside matters of ethics. Canadians will have questions, and we ought to look at those issues and make sure there are not unanswered questions, but when we have this committee, the ethics committee and the government operations committee all looking at all those issues, I end with the point that I began with, which is that the emails that I see in my constituency office are the reason I'm a member of Parliament: to help individuals who are going through those sorts of challenges.

WE is an important issue. We should devote more time to it than the original four meetings. We are doing that, and I'm not opposed to looking at this in greater detail, but let's not forget the main thing right now. The main thing is the main thing, and that's COVID-19.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I have Mr. Ste-Marie and then Mr. Poilievre.

Did I see your hand up, Mr. Fraser?

That should end our list. I don't want to use the word “exhaust”.

Go ahead, Mr. Ste-Marie.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to respond to what Mr. Fraser and his fellow members Mr. Fragiskatos and Ms. Koutrakis said. Obviously, the committee's priority is to focus on the government's financial and economic response to the pandemic, which is hurting not just people's health, but also our economic health overall.

I would also point out that, in the last election, the people elected the Liberals to form a minority government. In the current context, the government has introduced economic programs of unprecedented proportions, the likes of which we've never seen. Although it was necessary, this whole issue is tremendously important. It's imperative that the public's trust in government not be broken.

As lawmakers and elected officials, we've already handed over way too much power to the government. In dealing with bills on an urgent basis, we no longer subject them to committee scrutiny as we did before. Had we done so, we may have learned that the Liberal Party of Canada would be able to take advantage of the wage subsidy, support it does not need, in my view. That affects the level of trust I have in the government, and my constituents have expressed the same concerns.

Now, we have a situation where the administration of a major program, one worth nearly a billion dollars, was apparently given to an organization whose ties to the government raise serious ethical questions. We never should have had to probe a scandal like this, a situation involving hugely problematic ties to the government, but we do. Why must we do it, and above all, why must we do it right? Because the people's trust in government depends on it. Never have we seen such massive spending, by a minority government, no less, without lawmakers having the ability to fulfill their roles and ensure the government's actions are scrutinized.

That is why we must examine the situation properly, in my view. Conducting a balanced examination demands that we take the time necessary to get to the truth. Frankly, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the government have left us no choice. This isn't what we wanted.

I enjoy working together to improve measures so they are better tailored to people's needs. We trusted the government, and this is what happened, so let's get to the bottom of this. Taking an in-depth look at what happened is not tantamount to brushing aside what matters most, because this is vital to maintain the public's trust in government. I hope my fellow committee members will agree.

That's what I wanted to say.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you very much, Mr. Ste-Marie.

Mr. Poilievre, the floor is yours.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I agree with Mr. Ste-Marie.

I'd like to point out two things.

First, the Liberals are saying they want to discuss other issues related to COVID-19, and yet, not a single Liberal member of the committee has suggested holding additional meetings this summer to discuss COVID-19. If they were so concerned about having the finance committee discuss COVID-19 matters, they should have suggested witnesses, but they didn't. That shows this is merely a diversion.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Chairman, I have two voices, one in English and one in French.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay. Are you on “French” there when you're speaking French, Mr. Poilievre?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

I don't know. I have interpretation. Is that what I press? I'm not sure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Whatever you're speaking, if you're speaking English, make sure you're on the “English” button. If you're speaking French, make sure you're on “French”.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

I see. All right.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

My apologies. Pardon me.

First of all, what I just said is that the Liberals are claiming they want to discuss the COVID-19 pandemic, but they haven't put forward a single motion to that effect. What they are actually suggesting is that the committee do nothing for the rest of the summer. The assertion that they want the Standing Committee on Finance to discuss the COVID-19 pandemic is merely an excuse to avoid being held to account for the scandal involving We Charity.

Second of all, as parliamentarians, we gave the government sweeping spending power, which is almost unprecedented, to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. It is that very power that the Liberals used to grant a contribution agreement valued at more than $500 million to an organization that paid the Prime Minister's family and footed the bill for the Minister of Finance to take a vacation. It is therefore up to us, as parliamentarians, to answer for the government's spending under the power granted by Parliament in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Third, and finally, the committee members seem to take issue with the word “exhausted”. I would remind the committee that, as soon as the majority decides there is no longer any reason to discuss the matter or continue the study, that majority can vote to put an end to it, as always. Consequently, should the time come when the witnesses no longer have anything relevant to say, the committee can simply choose to conclude the study. My motion doesn't prevent that in the slightest. It simply gives committee members an opportunity to submit their witnesses and to hear from everyone, nothing more.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Sorry about that, folks.

I have Mr. Fraser on my list, and that should wrap it up. We'll see where we can go.

Go ahead, Mr. Fraser.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you once again, Mr. Chair.

First, in response to Mr. Poilievre's commentary, should others wish this committee to sit and study things related to the economic recovery, I would be more than pleased to do so. I think he'll appreciate, given his experience in his role as a member of Parliament sitting on numerous committees, that it is atypical for standing committees to sit when the House is adjourned for the summer months. He can rest assured that as a local representative and the finance minister's parliamentary secretary, I have continued my work on this issue, literally on a daily basis, through this summer.

It doesn't take place exclusively before this committee. Should the rest of the committee wish to supplement the work that I do and that the government is doing over the course of the summer, I think it would be an honest value added. I think that taking different voices from different perspectives would help inform this process.

Mr. Ste-Marie, thank you. As always, I find your submissions valuable and interesting. I don't disagree with you. It's important that there be public trust between the government and its citizens. The only point I have an objection to, which I think Ms. May very professionally outlined, was the fact that it is unusual to have a motion suggesting that there be no limit to a list of witnesses that the committee must exhaust.

Madam Clerk, perhaps we could bring this discussion to a head. If you could repeat the motion that's actually on the floor, I'd like to propose an amendment. It will be interesting to me to see whether committee members will dig in and insist that in fact this committee must exhaust every single witness that any member of any party proposes, in contravention of the ordinary practices of the committee.

Madam Clerk, could I invite you to read the motion on the floor so I can fine-tune the amendment as we go?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Go ahead, Madam Clerk.

[The Clerk]

Do you want that in English?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Yes, please.

[The Clerk]

It reads, “That the finance committee continue to hold hearings until the list of witnesses committee members submit is exhausted, and that the subcommittee convene to discuss scheduling of meetings for witnesses to attend.”