Evidence of meeting #46 for Finance in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Mr. Poilievre, we're working on your previous point of order and getting an explanation from the clerk. If you don't mind, we'll let him finish his explanation and then we'll go to your new point of order.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
I just confirmed with the whip's office that our whip has not consented to this meeting being an hour. The clerk's concern being dispensed with, we're back to the normal rules, which require a majority vote before the meeting is shut down. I thank him for advising us about other meetings, for which whips have maybe agreed to an hour-long engagement, but I can confirm that our whip's office did no such thing in this case. We are here as long as it takes to get votes on the motions, or until the majority of committee members vote to adjourn the meeting.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I will ask others to consult with their whips on that.
The other difficulty here, Mr. Poilievre—and then I'll go to Mr. McLeod on this point of order—is that regardless of where the whips are at the moment, if this was agreed to from an administrative point of view, we have a problem with those who manage interpretation, Zoom technicalities, etc. That's the only thing I see. I'm willing to continue, as long as we're not imposing on the public service in an area that we should not be.
Mr. McLeod.
Liberal
Michael McLeod Liberal Northwest Territories, NT
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want to make a few comments on the point of order that Mr. Poilievre raised.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I know you haven't, but a point of order takes precedence over your remarks. I hate to tell you that.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
It's okay. I didn't realize it was a point of order that Mr. McLeod was raising.
Liberal
Liberal
Michael McLeod Liberal Northwest Territories, NT
I just want to add to the discussion on the standard practice that Mr. Poilievre referred to regarding committee rules.
Mr. Chair, you are the longest-serving member of this committee. I think I've probably been here the longest on the Liberal side, and Mr. Poilievre was appointed the same day I was. We have a bit of history going back to the last government, and I remember quite clearly that our committee wrapped up on the hour, on the minute that it was scheduled to, and many times because Mr. Poilievre had to leave to go to another commitment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I'm sorry, Mr. McLeod, but I don't believe this is on the point of order. The information has been noted.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I think it's more a point of information. Thank you.
We will have to figure out what we do at seven o'clock. I'm not sure if you have assistance there or not, Mr. Clerk, because the whips of the other parties will have to be consulted so we can find out where we're at here. If there was an agreement that the meeting end at seven o'clock, that's what it will have to be. If we can get around it, we will continue.
In the meantime, I'll go to Ms. Dzerowicz, then to Mr. Fortin and Mr. Fragiskatos.
Go ahead, Ms. Dzerowicz.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the points of order that were made, but it's exactly as you had interpreted.
The reason I was speaking to the original finance motion was that it's all relevant, to me. There's a motion on the table right now to have the Prime Minister come to speak for three hours and have Ms. Telford speak for two hours. My argument for why I'm against it is that the Prime Minister coming to our committee at all is an honour and is unprecedented, and for him to come for an hour I think is sufficient. I also think having the chief of staff to our Prime Minister, to our government, come for an hour is sufficient.
The other argument I'm making is that we, in my opinion, have heard testimony that has largely, if not completely, satisfied what we were meant to study in the original motion that was passed on July 6.
I will reiterate, though, that to me it is important for us to have these types of studies. It is important for there to be oversight and accountability. It is important for us to ensure that if issues arise, there are meetings for testimony so we can ask the important questions and ask the hard questions. I think that is what we've done for the last few meetings.
As I think my colleague Mr. Sorbara mentioned, we heard the Conservatives yesterday repeating questions multiple times. To be honest, the other thing I heard quite a bit yesterday was fishing for information. It was as though they kept on asking for more and more information in the hopes that if they collected information, somehow there would be something they could use to make this issue look worse than it really is.
To me, this WE issue has descended into something that is beyond the original intention of this—
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
The clerk's story sort of changed here. The other day, when you shut down the meeting early, the claim was that it was because you didn't have unanimous consent to go on. Now the clerk is claiming there is some kind of an agreement that this meeting go for only an hour.
I just got off the phone with a senior staff member in the whip's office. He claims this was an agreement by the whip. I have again confirmed, for a second time, that there was—
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
—no agreement whatsoever that this meeting be limited to an hour. So the clerk has inaccurate information, and that cannot be used as a justification to shut down this meeting.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Mr. Poilievre, I'll let Mr. Fragiskatos in on this point of order, and then—
