Finance Committee on July 27th, 2020

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

I'll move something on that.

Just to simplify it, to avoid having you go back and forth and back and forth, why don't we just say the following: “That the committee invites Victor Li to appear between August 3 and August 7, inclusive, for no less than two hours”?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Could we have agreement on that, rather than necessarily going to a recorded vote? Could we say, in case he might want to make himself available on Wednesday, that we want to open that up between now and August 7 or whatever your final date was?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Chair, I think we should just make it for next week. There's so much going on, so many moving parts. I think we just do it next week.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Let's wrap it up. I see Mr. Julian's head shaking as well.

Is there, then, general agreement on that? Is there any opposition?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

That's where we're at. That will give you some direction, Madam Clerk.

[The Clerk]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Are there any other witnesses, Mr. Poilievre or Mr. Julian?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Yes. Next I have a motion as well that the committee.... Originally we had limited our preliminary examination to just four meetings. Of course, we all now agree that this would be insufficient. The Prime Minister himself has asked to testify in a meeting that would be in addition to the four already being held.

I would suggest, then, that we extend our study. I propose the following motion: “That the Standing Committee on Finance 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.”

This basically says that members of the committee are invited to bring forward a list, as is the normal practice, and that we'll convene a subcommittee early next week in order to schedule the proper timing.

It might be wise to have a bit of a breather so that members can absorb the testimony they're going to receive this week. There's also a commitment from the Clerk of the Privy Council to release additional documents. Committee members might want to read those documents before deciding what hearings to hold.

The purpose of this motion is simply to keep the study alive and to open the door for committee members to submit their witnesses through the clerk so that she can begin working to schedule them, and the subcommittee can convene informally, as it always does, in order to set up those hearings.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I'm going to go to Mr. Fraser and then Mr. Julian, but I want to come back to Mr. Li for a moment. If he offers to come this week, can we accept him?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

I think my motion on that has been adopted already.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Well, it wasn't a motion, but it was an agreement.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

We're going backwards now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I know we are, but if he's completely tied up next week and offers to come this week, is that doable? Do I have the authority to say yes?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

I don't think so. I think we have too much going on this week. Out of respect to Mr. Li, who said he's very busy this week, we should just leave it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

All right. Then that's an issue behind us.

I'll go to Mr. Fraser, Mr. Julian, and Mr. Fragiskatos on Mr. Poilievre's last proposal.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

There's a lot to take in here. I can even tell by some of Mr. Poilievre's Conservative colleagues laughing along as he's making these points that there may be—

Now they're shaking their heads that I've said that. We should do our best to be reasonable human beings here. If somebody can get through the testimony now, that's fine. I find it ironic that on the one hand there's opposition to limiting some meetings while on the other we are extending others. There seems to be a bit of a conflict.

The other piece that's grating away on me right now is that I think it's patently ludicrous to have an absolutely unlimited meeting length. I've been here only five years, Mr. Chair. You've been here probably as long as I've been walking. I don't think you would ever have seen a committee meeting that has dragged on indefinitely, with as many witnesses as anybody wanted.

I by no means am trying to close things down prematurely. I supported the study of this meeting. I supported the idea of the Prime Minister testifying. I supported a full document production. I want to continue to be transparent. At a certain point in time, I think we need to give our heads a shake and realize that the COVID-19 pandemic continues to pose potentially the greatest threat our species has faced in my lifetime, with the exception of, perhaps, climate change. I don't want to waste months and months, or even weeks and weeks beyond what is actually necessary to figure out what we need to figure out, when we can be turning our minds to how we are going to best support Canadians not only to get through the continuing public health emergency but also to get back to work, grow the economy and improve the quality of life for the people who live in our communities.

I know there is some interest in the story at hand. I think we should continue to have testimony from witnesses who have something important and unique to say. The idea that we will forever have as many witnesses as anybody who is attending this meeting should like is a bit over the top, to my mind. I hope colleagues will not break along partisan lines on this one. Actually, just ask yourself whether it's reasonable to have an unlimited number of witnesses. I think the answer is clearly no.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We will go to Mr. Julian, Mr. Fragiskatos and then Mr. Cooper.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There's nothing here that talks about an unlimited list of witnesses. In fact, what this motion speaks to is having the subcommittee—which is, as you know, Mr. Chair, fundamental to scheduling witnesses—meet and define who the witnesses are, what the timing is, etc.

The reality is that three weeks ago I brought forward the motion for documents, on July 7. We have had stunning revelations over the last three weeks, so we do have an important job to get to the bottom of this and to get answers.

Mr. Poilievre and I disagree on a whole lot of things, but the idea that we would end basically tomorrow, which was the original scheduling that we decided on as a committee, would be doing a disservice to the Canadian public. There are tons more questions that have arisen in the last three weeks. What Mr. Poilievre is proposing is extending the study under the agreement, if you like, or under the structure set up by the subcommittee. That's the way it should go. I'm not sure why Mr. Fraser is objecting so vehemently. It's certainly not an open book. It is the subcommittee getting together and structuring witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Yes.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Then of course, Mr. Chair, we have the documents, which we should be getting by August 8, hopefully. We have some of those documents. Others will be coming forward. That will give the subcommittee the opportunity to decide how we move forward.

I'm a member of the finance committee. I'm very disturbed by some of the revelations we've had around this scandal over the last few weeks, but I'm also working on behalf of my constituents and the pandemic, and also pushing hard, as the NDP has, on improving the government programs that were brought forward. I think there's a long list of policies and programs that the NDP and Jagmeet Singh, as our leader, have been able to force the government to accept, and we can do more than one thing at a time.

There is no doubt that we can't end the study tomorrow, which is basically what the motion we adopted on July 7 does, so we do need to extend it. There are tons of unanswered questions. Let's extend it under the structure put in place by the subcommittee, on which all parties are represented. We'll come to a consensus at the subcommittee. As Mr. Fraser knows, that decision will come back to the committee for the committee to ratify it.

It's not a blank cheque; it's quite the opposite. It's a very structured way of moving forward to get answers to the questions that have not been answered over the last three weeks. Of course, over the last three weeks, we have had tons more additional questions as this scandal has unfolded. Canadians need those answers as well. That's our job as responsible members of the finance committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay.

Normally, Mr. Poilievre and Mr. Julian, we do set some kind of deadline on when we should be done, which I think is appropriate as well. A very open-ended motion could see us roll on for eternity.

We will go to Mr. Fragiskatos, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Fraser and then Ms. Koutrakis.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To return to the point I made earlier, this is not the only committee that's examining this matter. The ethics committee is looking at it. The government operations committee is looking at it.

Let me tell you that when I came in to the office this morning, the first thing I did was answer a message from a new business owner who wanted to know what supports, if any, would be available from the federal government for new entrepreneurs. This individual is working very hard. They came up with a business plan and wanted to put a business in place. They didn't foresee a pandemic. They went to the bank, which is not being helpful. I'm working with the government and the relevant departments to assist this constituent, but the more we turn a committee like this one into the WE Charity committee, the more it takes away from our ability as MPs to do the work that's expected of us by constituents.

I wonder if Mr. Poilievre and the Conservative members on the committee would be opposed to looking at COVID-19 issues, and the government's economic response, in future meetings. I would hope that this would be the case. It should be the aim of the finance committee.

This is not to say that issues relating to WE Charity are not important to examine. We have, after all, devoted five meetings now to the issue, and Mr. Poilievre wants to keep going, feeling it's not enough. I understand his position, and I also, I suppose, appreciate that's it good to take “a breather”. I think that's the term he used. He also said that the committee is doing “too much” work this week. I'm sure he's very sincere when he wants us to space this out for the well-being of all of us, or it could be that other issues and considerations are on his mind.

Be that as it may, Mr. Chair, I have to tell you that when a word like “exhausted” is used in a motion, as is the case with Mr. Poilievre's motion, that's the problem here. I mean, there are many problems with what he has proposed, but when the word “exhausted” is used, I get the sense that this will now turn into the WE Charity committee and that we as a committee will not be able to examine the economic realities facing the country at this time.

We have heard from many witnesses at this committee. The clerk has done a wonderful job, so I'm worried about giving her more work, but I'd love to know the number of witnesses we've heard from. There were witnesses who shed a great deal of light on what happened. There were members of the public service, in particular Ms. Kovacevic, who came a few days ago and gave a compelling account and helped us understand more about this issue, but there have been witnesses who, with all due respect to them, at times did not shed a great deal of light, were not terribly helpful, and in fact focused on issues completely unrelated to WE Charity. I will not name witnesses here, but we saw how that went. It was unhelpful to the goals of this committee and this particular study.

If we could take out the wording that's it until the witness list is “exhausted”, that would be most helpful, because I do not want to see this committee, the finance committee.... With all due respect to all MPs, there are those who have made the point—I think, Mr. Chair, you've made this point to me in the past—that the finance committee is among the most important committees, if not the most important, on Parliament Hill. We have an enormous responsibility facing us at this time. We ought to live up to that responsibility on behalf of Canadian workers, businesses and their families.

This is not to say, of course, that ethical matters are not important. Of course they are imperative. That is why we have devoted these meetings to this subject. That is why the ethics committee is devoting meetings to this subject. That is why the government operations committee is devoting meetings to this subject. I really fail to see what we will get out of having meetings ad nauseam, over and over, until the witness list is “exhausted”, of course only to the satisfaction of Mr. Poilievre.

I have one more point. We have to keep in mind that at the end of the day, while this issue is important, we can't be distracted from all those issues that I mentioned before.

I'll leave it there, Mr. Chair. Thanks very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you.

We have Mr. Cooper, Mr. Fraser, and Ms Koutrakis, and I do see Elizabeth May's hand up as well. I believe we can let you in on this, Elizabeth.

Go ahead, Mr. Cooper.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let me just say, with the greatest of respect to my friends Mr. Fraser and Mr. Fragiskatos, who downplay the seriousness of what we are looking at, that Canadians care about ethics and integrity in government. Let's also be clear that this particular program falls within the legislative authority that Parliament has vested in the finance minister, so it is perfectly appropriate that this committee hold hearings to get answers in this matter.

With respect to the motion that has been put forward by Mr. Poilievre, it is not open-ended. It is a way to proceed that will allow the committee to call the appropriate witnesses at the appropriate times to get the answers that Canadians deserve.

When the initial motion was passed, it provided for four meetings. Every passing day there have been new revelations. Which witnesses might need to be called, how much time and how many more meetings are required have yet to be determined until we hear further evidence. Let us follow the facts. Let us follow the evidence. That is what this motion simply provides for.

I find it interesting that the Liberals on this committee are so keen on rushing witnesses through all in a week. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that in order for this committee to properly do its job, to absorb the testimony of key witnesses, to be able to formulate questions, to be able to identify inconsistencies, to identify issues arising from testimony, it's simply not feasible or practical to do that in back-to-back-to-back hearings.

This motion would allow our committee to take sufficient time to do our job. I know that's something the Liberal members on this committee are not particularly excited about. Let's face it: the allegations that have come out, by the day, have become more and more serious. We're talking about a contribution of $1 billion that was tagged to an organization that socially, politically and financially benefited the Prime Minister and his family and the finance minister and his family. We're talking about multiple breaches of the Conflict of Interest Act.

I know that they'd like to overwhelm this committee. They'd like to overwhelm the media. They'd like to overwhelm Canadians, effectively, to cover up what has in fact gone on.

I was there during the SNC-Lavalin scandal. I sat on the justice committee. I was there when Liberal MPs, using their majority, shut down the committee, shut down the ability of the committee to hear from witnesses who were prepared to appear. They walked out the back door, afraid to take questions, afraid to face the media because they knew what they were doing was wrong.

Well, the good news this time is that they don't have a majority. They don't have the ability to shut down this committee's ability to call witnesses, as they did during SNC-Lavalin.

I say this to my friends on the Liberal side: If you really are interested in getting answers, if you really are interested in allowing our committee to do its work and to call the appropriate witnesses, then let's provide sufficient flexibility to do just that, to call the appropriate witnesses based upon the evidence. Let us follow the evidence. Let us have sufficient time to do it well.

Thank you.