Finance Committee on Oct. 8th, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay, but the points you're raising with your motion relate to the subject we're on?

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

No.

Well, yes, it's a notice of motion that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

If it relates to this debate, you're on and you're basically suggesting whatever, and that yours is better. Okay, let's hear it.

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

It continues: (a) that the committee be composed of 11 members, of which five shall be government members, four shall be from the official opposition, one shall be from the Bloc Québécois and one from the New Democratic Party;

(b) that changes in the membership of the committee shall be effective immediately after notification by the whip has been filed with the Clerk of the House;

(c) that membership substitutions be permitted, if required, in the manner provided for in Standing Order 114(2);

(d) that the members shall be named by their respective whip by depositing with the Clerk of the House the list of their members to serve on the committee no later than November 15, 2020;

(e) that the Clerk of the House shall convene an organization meeting of the said committee for no later than November 20, 2020;

( f) that the committee be chaired by a member of the official opposition;

(g) that notwithstanding Standing Order 106(2), in addition to the Chair, there be one vice-chair from the government, one vice-chair from the Bloc Québécois and one vice-chair from the New Democratic Party;

(h) that quorum of the committee be as provided for in Standing Order 118 and that the Chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence and to have that evidence printed when a quorum is not present, provided that at least four members are present, including one member of the opposition and one member of the government;

(i) that the committee be granted all of the powers of a standing committee, as provided in the Standing Orders;

(j) that the committee have the power to authorize video and audio broadcasting of any or all of its proceedings;

(k) that the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister of Health, and other ministers and senior officials be ordered to appear as witnesses from time to time as the committee sees fit;

(l) that the committee report no later than February 15, 2021.

Mr. Chair, on the point of privilege, it is very clear the direction we've received from the Speaker. He stated on October 1 that this committee, the finance committee, which has control over the interpretation of its order, has an opportunity to examine the documents and decide what to do with them. As you have stated, this motion of privilege is in order and I'll be supporting it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Ms. Dzerowicz is next and then Mr. Kelly.

Ms. Dzerowicz, you may speak on this motion.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Just to be clear, we're debating a motion read after a point of privilege after I introduced a motion. So I feel we're several levels down.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

No, the motion relates to the point of privilege. When a member makes a point of privilege, if the point of privilege is allowed, we're obligate to allow the member to move a motion related to that point of privilege. Once this is out of the way, we will go back to your motion.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

All right.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

But we will have to make a decision on the motion that relates to the point of privilege.

So, on Mr. Poilievre's motion related to the point of privilege, you're on.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I want to also reiterate that we have prorogued. We have just reconstituted our committee today. We have you as chair, and we have vice-chairs. My understanding is that we as a finance committee have not accepted the documents that were indicated by Mr. Poilievre. I don't think there is any question of privilege that should be considered at this point.

I want to indicate that there was a substantial amount of time allocated to looking at the CSSG and the WE situation. It was important for us to do. It was important for us to make sure that we validated whether there was any money misspent or wasted. We've confirmed and proven that was not the case. We have also eliminated a number of the myths that were promoted by the opposition throughout the summer, including that the Liberals were giving money to their friends. That was completely not true. That the Prime Minister or the ministers had picked WE intentionally was not true, and that was confirmed by a number of our very senior leaders and bureaucrats within the government. There were a number of other things that we completely dispelled throughout the many hours during which we actually looked at this particular motion.

I don't know why the opposition would want to bring this back onto the table. I agree with my colleague Mr. Fragiskatos that we as the finance committee have an obligation to hear from stakeholders on pre-budget consultations. I don't know why this would not be the absolute number one priority for all of my colleagues in opposition on this committee. It's my understanding that almost 800 submissions have been made. To my understanding, the number of submissions made is historic. There are many people who are very anxious to present to our committee.

I know many of them have called our offices. I know many of them have ideas on how we can ensure that Canada has a competitive economy going forward as we come out of this pandemic. They have ideas on how we can attract more direct investment, how we can accelerate growth and how we can invest in productivity-enhancing capital, many ideas.

I know they want to make sure that, after they've heard about the Speech from the Throne, after they've heard about our vision and our direction and what our goals are moving forward, there are a number of specifics they want to be able to provide to us in terms of information, in terms of things they think we might have missed. They have ideas about how we can implement the specific commitments we've outlined in the Speech from the Throne.

Mr. Chair, I truly believe this is where we should be focusing our attention. I'm very disappointed with our opposition members that this is not what they want to be focused on. We also know there are many industries that are disproportionally impacted by the COVID pandemic. We need to hear from them. While I'm hopeful that our government has plans under way to help them in the interim, we need to hear from them on how we can help them pivot after this pandemic.

We also know there are a number of industries that are in transition. We heard an announcement by Premier Kenney last week about new industries that Alberta wants to be transitioning into. I think there are many who want to relay to us the kind of support they'd be looking for and that they need in the transition. The world is changing. We will have changed after this pandemic. We all want to be getting the very best ideas and providing the platform that's needed so that we can hear back from stakeholders, whether our industries, our companies or our non-profits, about how we can get Canadians and Canada back on track to succeed in a more sustainable and equitable way.

Mr. Chair, I'll end there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

There will probably be other opportunities to come in.

We have Mr. Kelly, followed by Mrs. Jansen.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Both of the interventions we've had from the governing party members have really not addressed the question of privilege raised by Mr. Poilievre. Both spoke at length about the necessity of this committee dealing with COVID response measures, for example. That's a bit of a rabbit hole to take away from the motion itself.

I'm going to go there and point out that the questions raised by the WE debacle are very much questions of COVID response measures. The government had announced these measures as part of its COVID response, and Canadians need to know the extent to which corruption and the rewarding of friends have extended into its COVID response measures. This is an important question.

This question of privilege is directly tied to how the Government of Canada addresses the COVID emergency. When we are talking about the disruption of the absolute and unfettered privileges of a committee to examine and receive evidence, this is not something that can simply be shrugged off because the government and its caucus members on this committee would simply rather talk about something else.

The Speaker, in his ruling, referred the matter back to this committee, and this committee is going to consider this. I wanted to make that point quite clearly. These issues are all tied together. For Canadians who want and need their government to look at the emergency response measures, the manner in which money is put out and the lengths to which the government would go to deny a committee the evidence that it needs to examine this matter cannot just simply be shrugged off. This committee is an appropriate place to have this discussion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Next is Mrs. Jansen, followed by Mr. Fraser, Ms. Koutrakis, Mr. Poilievre, Mr. Ste-Marie and Mr. Falk.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Coming from the health committee, I want to give an example. We had a very similar situation there. I know Ms. Dzerowicz is wondering why we would be doing this. It's because the Liberals had started making it a norm to hide information. They did the exact same thing. They redacted before it went to the law clerk. We're in the middle of a pandemic. We want Canadians to trust us. If we want Canadians to trust us, then we need to be transparent with our information.

Mr. Trudeau consistently says he wants to be transparent. In December 2015, he said, “We are committed to open, honest, transparent government.” On April 3, 2019, he said, “We believe strongly in the importance of access to information and transparency”. On May 1, 2019, he said, “Under my leadership, we have raised the bar on transparency.” On June 10, 2020, he said, “We will continue to demonstrate openness and transparency.” On June 16, 2020, he said “Mr. Chair, throughout this unprecedented pandemic, we have been open and transparent about all of the measures we've put forward.”

I said the same thing at the health committee. This is not transparency when you redact and you do not allow parliamentarians the privilege of seeing the documents as they were written. There appears to be secrecy that absolutely needs to stop if we want Canadians to trust that we are doing our very best for them. We have got to support this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Mrs. Jansen.

Next is Mr. Fraser, followed by Ms. Koutrakis.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll cut to the chase.

I don't really care what information gets shared if it's within the rules. I do want to get on with the pre-budget consultations. It's my view, after having looked at Bosc and Gagnon's interpretation of privilege debates before committees, that we don't actually have the authority to consider this as a point of privilege.

I don't intend to take too much time. It will take me a couple of minutes. I'll read the relevant section where it discusses specifically matters of privilege raised before committee.

Unlike the Speaker, the Chair of a committee does not have the power to censure disorder or decide questions of privilege. Should a Member wish to raise a question of privilege in committee, or should some event occur in committee which appears to be a breach of privilege or contempt, the Chair of the committee will recognize the Member and hear the question of privilege, or, in the case of some incident, suggest that the committee deal with the matter.

Mr. Chair, I would suggest that you've carried out that portion of your duty by allowing Mr. Poilievre to make his motion.

I'll continue with the language:

The Chair, however, has no authority to rule that a breach of privilege or contempt has occurred. The role of the Chair in such instances is to determine whether the matter raised does in fact touch on privilege and is not a point of order, a grievance or a matter of debate. If the Chair is of the opinion that the Member's interjection deals with a point of order, a grievance or a matter of debate—

Here's the key part:

—or that the incident is within the powers of the committee to deal with, the Chair will rule accordingly giving reasons. The committee cannot then consider the matter further as a question of privilege.

The remaining part of the argument has actually already been made by members of the opposition. Mr. Poilievre, I believe, pointed out the good work of the parliamentary law clerk and counsel, who previously indicated in the letter that was referred to—I'll read from that letter if I can bring it up here momentarily—that:

In the circumstances, it is for the Committee to determine whether it is satisfied with the documents as redacted by the departments.

Further, both Mr. Kelly and Mr. Julian correctly pointed out that the chair in the House, who is master of this committee, save and except in its own uncertain circumstances, has actually referred this matter specifically to the committee.

Under my interpretation of the plain language explanation outlined in Bosc and Gagnon, you are required, Mr. Chair, to determine that this is within the power of the committee and not to be the subject of a report subjected to the House.

Moreover, Mr. Chair, should you not accept my argument, I would like to propose a simple amendment to Mr. Poilievre's motion. I would propose that, at the bottom of the motion, we add the words, “and that pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests a government response to the committee's report.”

However, that's only required should you find against my argument.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I've already allowed the motion.

You can always challenge the chair as well, but your amendment is in order.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I'm not sure that your allowing the point of privilege and motion to be put is conclusive in the present instances. I believe that you were correct to allow the motion to be made and to have it be debated. Having had the debate, I believe you would be entitled to find—and, in fact, are required to find—that if the issue of the redaction of the documents is within the power of the committee, then this can't be heard as a point of privilege.

That's my interpretation of Bosc and Gagnon. It doesn't take much interpreting; that's actually what it says.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

You and I will have a debate here.

What you're suggesting, then, Mr. Fraser, is that the issue of whether the documents were redacted beyond what the committee requested—or improperly redacted—is within the authority of the committee and should not be a point that is going to the House. Is that what I'm hearing you say?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

That's precisely the point.

The rule says that if it's within the power of the committee to deal with—and I'm paraphrasing here—then the point of privilege must be dismissed. The committee would be free to deal with the substance of that issue in due course. However, in this instance, we have both the letter from the law clerk and the direction coming directly from the Speaker of the House of Commons that, in fact, this matter should be dealt with by the committee. That direction should prevent this committee from going through the exercise of finding that there should be a report submitted for the House to then consider.

The whole point of both the Speaker's and the law clerk's directing the issue to the committee is for the committee to deal with it, not for the committee to bring it back to the House.

There's a reason that these rules exist. This is not procedural trickery. We're actually trying to have the right group or person make the right decision. In this instance, the committee should be empowered to find whether the redaction complied with the order that has been issued by the committee. According to Bosc and Gagnon's description of the rule, you should be required to find that this is beyond what should be permitted through a motion that's been debated on a point of privilege.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We're going to need more information from our own clerk to get into that kind of discussion, I feel.

Where are you suggesting we go, that we leave this with the committee, that the committee would hold the meetings, get the original request, the original documents, the orders from the Speaker, and then make a decision as a committee as to whether what we had asked for was abided by?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, I don't think that's quite what has been suggested. I believe it's already been made clear by the Speaker that this is a matter for the committee to determine. If the committee does not believe that the government complied with the order, then when there's an opportunity for us to have that debate, we can do so.

My point is that using a point of privilege to effectively jump the queue is not permitted under the rules of the House of Commons. I think there was an attempt by Mr. Poilievre to put this on the agenda, knowing that there was a motion coming forward to conduct pre-budget consultations. In fact, the rules have contemplated this specific kind of use of procedure and do not allow it, unless it's a true point of privilege and not instead something that the committee is empowered to deal with.

When both the Speaker and the law clerk have indicated that this is squarely within the powers of the committee to deal with, I think the conclusion is obvious.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, can I just ask a question of Mr. Fraser to determine whether or not—

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Yes, you can ask a question.

I think Mr. Fraser made an interesting point, but we're into it now.

Go ahead with your question to Mr. Fraser. I'll hold the order for others.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Fraser, are you saying that the Speaker referred the matter to the committee but he did not want the committee to refer it back to the House? Is that what you're saying?