Evidence of meeting #1 for Finance in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
What I've seen from the clerk is Mr. Gerretsen first, then you, Mr. Poilievre.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Chair, I would very much enjoy hearing what Mr. Poilievre has to say. I would be willing to let him go first, if I could follow.
Liberal
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
I thank my distinguished colleague for that concession.
I heard Ms. Dzerowicz's comments, and I couldn't agree more. Let's get on with the rest of the committee's business. I totally agree. I want to move right to her motion. If we could just vote on the motions before us, we could probably get through the votes on the two amendments, plus the main motion in about five minutes. I'm happy to actually stay and discuss her motion as well. We could easily get through it all today.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
Is Mr. Poilievre saying he is withdrawing his original motion and going right to the pre-budget consultation motion?
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
No—with a minor tweak, which is that we would just vote on these motions that are before us right now and then we'd go right to your motion. If you're really interested in....
Mr. Chair, we're in a pandemic. Canadians are suffering. They've lost livelihoods. Some have lost their lives. Let's get back to work on that. Let's vote on these motions, so we can get them out of the way and get back to discussions on how we can rebuild Canada's economy. Let's do it now.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Here is the problem with what Mr. Poilievre just said. He is basically saying, Mr. Chair, that he recognized that Ms. Dzerowicz's motion was on the floor, but didn't like the fact that we had to deal with hers, so he tried to use some procedural moves in the last meeting to jump ahead of her so we would just vote on his motion to get it out of the way, and he is happy to go back to hers.
If he can't see the problem with that, Mr. Chair, then I think he really needs to reassess his participation in this committee. It is not all about him. Maybe it is just about him on the Conservative bench, because he seems to be running the show there, which is very respectable, and his soldiers are doing a great job on his behalf.
The reality is that there was already a process in place with Ms. Dzerowicz's motion and Mr. Poilievre tried to jump ahead of it. Now he is trying to use the rationale of us voting on it to push it out of the way and then we can go to her motion, as long as what is important to him is dealt with first. I find it extremely unfortunate that he has chosen to go down that road. If he has an issue with members of the Liberal caucus taking a position on that and being offended by that, I would assure him it is a legitimate position, in my opinion at least, for Liberal members to be taking.
That is how I end up supporting the fact that maybe it is in the best interest for Mr. Poilievre to withdraw his motion, to get in the queue where he belongs and let his motion come forward properly. I believe that even Mr. Julian had one in between the one that was on the floor and his, but somehow he is the most important asset to this entire committee and the parliamentary process writ large and therefore his issues should be dealt with in great haste.
I'll just go back to the amendment we are discussing, which is my amendment to the amendment, Mr. Chair. I want to emphasize why these transmission letters are essential.
It's already a rare occurrence that cabinet confidences of a sitting government are released. The clerk took the extraordinary step to release all information as it relates to the CSSG while also maintaining that he would protect necessary and unrelated cabinet confidences. He detailed that process, as did other deputy ministers in their transmittal letters. Everything present here has been done in the spirit of that promise while respecting the committee's motion for information.
Let me give some examples of that. In the PCO release we have a summary of a full cabinet meeting. The discussion could have been related to a vaccine or PPE procurement, national security or other matters. A cabinet document such as this is rarely, if ever, made public. Cabinet confidences unrelated to the Canada student service grant are redacted per the terms of the motion adopted by the committee. Keeping with the spirit of this committee's motion, the CSSG items in particular were visible.
The second example of this is in a PCO release. We have a second cabinet note, Mr. Chair, where the document is redacted. It is the latter cabinet meeting in May of 2020. The CSSG implementation was discussed and is unredacted as ordered by this committee and agreed to by the Clerk of the Privy Council; however, the rest of the information is still redacted as it falls under cabinet confidence. Again, we do not know what the topics of discussion were. There could have been talks related to national security matters, legal discussions that are under solicitor-client privilege or key discussions related to further personal protective equipment and vaccine procurement that would have put our competitiveness at risk if released.
Mr. Chair, in conclusion, I think we have demonstrated, in an exhaustive manner, that the redactions the opposition members have been turning into political theatre are, in fact, in line with the motion that they proposed at this very committee.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Thank you, Mr. Gerretsen. It was really nice of you to get back to the amendment. That's where we all should be.
Just before I turn to Mr. Julian and then Mr. Samson, Mr. Ste-Marie, if you do want in, you're probably going to have to wave both arms, because you're nearly in the dark there. I don't want to miss you if you want in.
I'll go to Mr. Julian and then Mr. Samson.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
From the very beginning of this meeting, we've seen Liberal members try to find technicalities to try to delay what is very clearly a breach of privilege and to deny the instruction that we've received from the Speaker. The Speaker asked to find out whether the committee is satisfied with the documents as provided to it. The documents have been provided to the committee, and with slight exceptions, all of that information was available in August in the public domain. The media were very clear in reporting both the law clerk's letter and all of the other details relating to the massive censorship of these documents.
This search for a technicality I find very disturbing. This meeting now has gone on, according to the House of Commons website, for 180 hours. I know we've been suspended for much of that time, but basically, government members of Parliament have been delaying for 180 hours a clear question of privilege that we have to decide upon as a committee and then provide that decision back to the Speaker. That is our role: to defend the committee's decision. The fact is that the government clearly did not adhere to it—and the law clerk has been very clear about this—by censoring documents that they were not entitled to censor. We have that important response to give back to the Speaker. That's this motion that Mr. Poilievre has suggested, with the amendment that I think we all accept. I think any other amendments are distinctly unhelpful.
I am very frustrated and dismayed by the attitude of the government, and we've seen this in other areas. Within days of the pandemic striking, $750 billion in liquidity support was given to Canada's big banks, yet people with disabilities have been waiting now for seven months to get one cent of support from this government. The government delays when the people's interests need to be taken into consideration. When there are lobbyists, they just move right ahead. I find this deplorable.
If the government members were really interested in what has been raised as various points, given the fact that we have put forward an amendment and that the amendment was put forward in a way that should provide consensus from all members, we should be voting on the amendment and voting on the main motion. I will be voting against the latest amendment because I think it is basically a delaying tactic. We should be proceeding to inform the Speaker about our opinion on the documents that were so heavily, wholly and substantially censored. We should be able to move on to other important items.
I'm very dismayed that government members have now held up this committee hearing for 180 hours. We're in the midst of a pandemic. We should proceed to the vote. We should move on to other business.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay.
The final one on my list is Mr. Samson, on the amendment to the amendment. That's the one we're on.
October 15th, 2020 / 2:30 p.m.
Liberal
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
I'm sorry to interrupt, Mr. Chair. As a point of order, I'm also on that list. I thought I had raised my hand too. I'm glad to speak whenever it's appropriate.
Liberal
Liberal
Darrell Samson Liberal Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will certainly support the subamendment, which is extremely important. As my colleague Mr. Gerretsen explained, if the letters are not included with the documentation, we can't make decisions or confirm that the information is correct. I explained it clearly in English earlier. So I am doing it again in French, because I cannot vote on a document until the clerks have confirmed that this is exactly what existed before.
I want to raise a second point. I believe Mr. Poilievre has made it clear today that his strategic tactic, in fact, was not to address the most important issue, which is Ms. Dzerowicz's motion. This motion demonstrates unequivocally that our committee's task at this point is to ensure that we can move on to the extremely important prebudget consultations, so that we get the documentation. As I said earlier, I do not understand how the Conservatives can waste their time and not proceed with the prebudget consultations when, for months and months, they have been saying that we should table a budget to show Canadians where we stand. It is amazing how the Conservatives play politics. They are preventing the committee from carrying out its responsibilities, which are well established in the standing orders communicated to us.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to speak on this matter.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I have two on my list: Mr. Fragiskatos and Mr. Gerretsen.
Go ahead, Mr. Fragiskatos.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Thank you very much, Chair.
I'll respond to the comments made by Mr. Julian a few moments ago. I think he raises some legitimate points. I will disagree on the substance of the points he raised, but when he does make general arguments about the need for all of us to stay focused on Canadians, I think that is a perfectly reasonable point of view. It's one that I wish was adopted unanimously at this committee.
We are facing as a country right now our most difficult moments, the most challenging time the country has seen since the Second World War. That sentiment was reflected in a tweet Mr. Julian put out very recently calling for support to be given to Canadian food banks. I applaud the government for standing with food banks, not with just one announcement for financial support but two, as we've seen in recent days. Those are the sorts of issues we should be debating at this committee.
There are Canadians in need. I did notice that Mr. Julian failed to mention the importance of the CERB and how that has assisted folks, and the CEBA. The CECRA program has assisted, with admittedly some gaps. Let's talk about those things. Let's recognize Ms. Dzerowicz's motion to begin pre-budget consultations, which, I remind this committee, is absolutely mandatory. It is not a choice that we can make. Standing Order 83.1 specifically mentions the Standing Committee on Finance, our committee here. It calls on us to take pre-budget consultations that have to commence at a particular time and end at a particular time. It's not a choice. We are mandated to do that.
I very much hope we can move towards that. Liberal members have wanted to move towards that particular outcome. Actually, it's not just Liberal members: Let me commend our colleague Gabriel Ste-Marie from the Bloc, who has made it clear the he wishes also to put forward a motion that would move this committee towards pre-budget consultations. We need to commence that. There's no way around it.
I know the opposition wants to raise matters on the WE Charity issue. As I've said at the committee before, we're not trying to push those questions aside. They ought to be raised. Mistakes were made by the government. That is not being denied here. When you're flying a plane and building it at the same time, it's going to be the case that errors will be made. The government has been forthcoming in a desire to release thousands of documents. I know the opposition still continues to raise its arms and wants to put forward motions that relate to those documents that, frankly, only the opposition understands.
We have an amendment to an amendment here that I think is very, very reasonable. It provides greater certainty and greater clarification. It calls on the opposition to compromise, to put some water in its wine. The opposition will not get its way every single time at committee. What they were originally proposing was inappropriate. It was coming very close to breaching, if not entirely breaching, the privilege of members on this committee.
What has happened? Mr. Gerretsen has very correctly put forward an amendment to the amendment suggested by Mr. Kelly. I think it was suggested many hours ago, and here we are, still debating. I fail to accept the rationale for the amendment. As we heard from Mr. Fraser as well, there are deep challenges with that amendment, for a number of technical but very important reasons. This amendment that's been put forward can move us forward in a way that provides a lot of certainty and greater comfort for members of this committee, who want to make decisions but in a way that matches with recognized parliamentary procedure. If we were to accept Mr. Kelly's amendment as it stands, on its own, then I worry that we would be going down a path that would set a very negative precedent for this committee. That's not something that I want to see happen. I know it's something that every member would be concerned about, and quite rightly.
Yes, this is a matter that we need to decide upon, but when we've seen close to 800 submissions from Canadian stakeholders from right across the country—and later I'm sure we'll be continuing this discussion—I do want to talk about some of those stakeholders.
The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has an interest in seeing support for municipalities continue. The federal government has stepped up in remarkable ways to support our cities and towns, but that needs to continue. That renewed federal-municipal relationship that took shape beginning in 2015 needs to proceed with even more vigour, particularly now as cities and towns face great difficulties. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business—