Finance Committee on Oct. 8th, 2020

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

I just want to say, from what I understand, Mr. Gerretsen's motion is to be able to explain why the non-partisan public service redacted the documents as opposed to the people who were supposed to, which was the Law Clerk.

This exact same thing happened at Health. Instead of it going straight to the Law Clerk, who is just as non-partisan and is just as efficient and amazing at his job as the non-partisan public service, it would have been perfectly fine for it to have gone to him instead of being done the way it was done.

I don't understand why he now wants to make this about why it was done like that when it should be about who should be doing it. That's what the motion is about: who should have done it. The point of privilege was that the Law Clerk was supposed to do it. He didn't. This is not done just here for the WE documents; it was done at Health as well.

Just the fact that Mr. Gerretsen suggested that Mr. Poilievre brought a fake document to a press release shows you who's doing political theatrics here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

He did withdraw that comment.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I did. I think the public knows who does the political theatrics.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We're not going to get into that argument.

Mr. Fragiskatos.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Dzerowicz raised a number of pertinent points. I certainly agree with what she said.

I also think it's important to remind opposition colleagues exactly what the subamendment is that Mr. Gerretsen is calling for, just in case there is confusion. I would have thought by now that we would have unanimous support for something that is quite reasonable.

It says that“after the committee reviews the two different versions of documents, the committee invite each of the relevant deputy ministers or the signatories of the transmittal letters as well as the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons to give testimony regarding the redactions applied to the documents that were requested and granted in the motion adopted on July 7, 2020.”

I fail to understand, Mr. Chair, what exactly the opposition has a problem with. The Liberal members of the committee and the government.... There's no obstruction here. You can't say that we, as Liberal members, are being obstructionist. In fact, we're trying to find a compromise.

We have a pretty good subamendment here. It's a very strong one; it is reasonable and it responsible. It would allow for committee members to give public servants and the law clerk the opportunity to tell us why particular redactions were made.

What is the opposition worried about? Are they worried, perhaps, that when public servants are questioned, they might say that the personal information of individuals is not something that should be revealed in public? That much is obvious—at least it should be obvious, but opposition members continue to have a problem with that, apparently—particularly the Conservatives. Are they worried that the law clerk would agree with that perspective? Perhaps they are, Mr. Chair. Let's allow those meetings to take place.

In the meantime, let's start planning for what is our chief responsibility right now, which is to abide by Standing Order 83.1. It's absolutely paramount, Mr. Chair.

So many things can be said on that front. When we look at our responsibility as members of Parliament, we not only think about what our role is.... Ms. Jansen put it very well. I had her quote in front of me, but it has since disappeared, so I won't look for it. She made the case this morning that she was elected by her constituents to go to Parliament to serve and to fight on behalf of the people in her community. Every single member of Parliament will echo that.

I humbly suggest to my opposition colleagues that they put some water into their wine, if I can use that analogy. Mr. Chair, Victor Hugo said, “Being good is easy, what is difficult is being just.” I would add to that by saying that to be just, one must be fair. One must be open. One must be open to compromise.

Here is an opportunity to recognize that Liberal members and.... I speak for all of us here. Mr. Gerretsen has put forward a really credible amendment. It would allow us to move forward. It would allow the opposition to have their concerns heard, but in a way that is absolutely fair and, therefore, just.

Opposition colleagues were smiling when I brought up Victor Hugo. It's a famous quotation, and one that is quite relevant. We can't talk about fairness without talking about justice. He, obviously, had a great deal to say on the matter of justice.

What is wrong, in the spirit of fairness and justice, to bring public servants to the committee to put on record why they did what they did? I think it's fundamentally—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

For the benefit of the member, he might also appreciate a quote by Winston Churchill, who once said, “It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations.”

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

That is debate, Mr. Chair. It is not a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I think that's a matter of debate, Mr. Genuis, and not a point of order.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thanks for clarifying.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I don't believe there's anybody on the list after Mr. Fragiskatos, if you want to come in then.

Go ahead, Mr. Fragiskatos.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I did see Mr. Gerretsen with his hand up, but I'll let you revisit that. Mr. Gerretsen seems to be interested in speaking, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the intervention, even though I was interrupted, but I know the member did it in a spirit of goodwill. Mr. Genuis and I have sparred a number of times in the chamber through debate, and it's a pleasure to sit with him on the special committee that examines, at the moment, Canada-China relations. He's an able member of Parliament and someone who is extremely intelligent and learned. Of course, we are all so very impressed that he can quote Winston Churchill. That is good to know, and I'm glad—

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

It's with Google.

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

With Google—well, I won't say that, Mr. Chair. I don't know who said that. I heard something there—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

You didn't let me say the quote. It makes much more sense in that context.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll give you the opportunity later, Mr. Genuis.

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

I'm sure he will take it.

To get back to the issue at hand, the subamendment of Mr. Gerretsen provides us with a framework that will not occupy the committee at enormous length and therefore prevent us from looking at, in a very serious way, the issue of pre-budget consultation. It is therefore completely in line with the spirit of Standing Order 83.1, which—as I have mentioned a number of times today—we need to recognize and follow.

We would have meetings on these documents. We would be allowed to question—and I would have questions, serious ones and not ones that would try to ignore the main issue or that would be partisan, but ones that would be very straightforward to public servants and to the law clerk. I would be very interested to hear what they have to say and put on record.

Why is the opposition trying to prevent those folks from coming to the committee and speaking to committee members? Is it because—and I'm just speculating here, Mr. Chair, and not making any accusations, which I would never do—

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

That would be a first at this committee, but go ahead.

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

I always appreciate your point of view, Mr. Chair, and I will just try, in the spirit of being a good colleague, to be very sincere about what I am about to say.

I am not of the view at all that our job is to be partisan on these matters. Unfortunately, the opposition seems to continue to be anxious to score political points, because they're worried about scoring those points right now. What I'm worried about is making sure we have a decision here today that allows for meaningful discussions, for substantive meetings where we can actually question those involved in the decision-making around the redaction of documents.

Why that is such a problem I'm not sure. Perhaps they're looking at polling. I'm not quite sure. They want to score the points now. They're anxious. Maybe they've received orders from their whip that it is a must that the initial motion of Mr. Poilievre be accepted. If it's not that motion, then it must be the amendment of Mr. Kelly—who is not here right now, but was here earlier—that must be followed, so that the Conservatives cannot work with their colleagues in a spirit of good faith to agree to a compromise that gets to what the Conservatives want but also in a way that is, again, fair and just, to go back to that line of argument.

I will also make a point, Mr. Chair, that I've made a few times here, but I think certain members of the committee are not recognizing it. It is that where we are in the country necessitates a particular approach on the part of members of Parliament. We as MPs have an enormous responsibility, but we are agents of the state in so many ways. We are tasked with working within government and advocating to government on the part of our constituents.

There are many conceptions of the state, as you will know, Mr. Chair. I see Mr. MacGregor here from the NDP. It's good to have him here. If Mr. Julian was here, I'd say the same thing to him: that the NDP has a particular conception of what the state should look like and how it ought to operate, and it differs from how Liberals feel on the matter. It differs from how Conservatives feel—

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Go ahead, Mr. MacGregor.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Just going back, I missed Mr. Fragiskatos' comments there. Did he say that we, as members of Parliament, are agents of the state?

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

He did.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Do you want to clarify that? I see myself as an agent of the people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

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

You could be many things at the same time. We operate within a state framework and therefore, in that sense, we are agents of the state, but I recognize, Mr. MacGregor, that you are also a member of Parliament. I don't know your personal situation, but you are also a son. Perhaps you are a husband. Perhaps you are a father. You can be many things at once.

The phrase “agents of the state” is not pejorative in any sense.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We are straying a little from the relevance of this motion.