Finance Committee on Oct. 8th, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Hold on, Mr. Gerretsen—

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

With his vast experience, he knows this better than anybody on this committee, maybe with the exception of you, Mr. Chair. He knows he's debating right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Gerretsen, order. I will determine whether it's a real point of order or not, in a moment.

Mr. Julian, let's hear you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Overruling your decision allowed for the amendment, which Mr. Gerretsen now says he supports, so let's have the vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I'll go back to Mr. Gerretsen.

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

If you want people to take your word, Mr. Julian, then at least raise a legitimate point of order. That wasn't a point of order; you were trying to respond to what I had to say, and you're doing it in a way that you're just trying to throw one-liners out there. Do you know who does that a lot? Donald Trump. Somebody says something and he just goes, “Wrong”. You don't have to justify what you had to say there; you're just throwing out things, saying “Wrong” and you're not justifying it. Get on the speakers list and tell me why I'm wrong; that's what I'd ultimately like to hear.

Nonetheless, I just want to say, and this is what I have been saying.... Multiple points of order have been raised because apparently people are offended by the way I talk to them, but then we shouldn't take offence from what this committee witnessed towards the end of its last meeting before it was suspended. I am trying to get at the point that the chair quite clearly laid out a path to putting forward a procedurally correct motion. The majority turned that down and then basically, through this amendment—Mr. Kelly, that's how I'm addressing this point—are trying to come back and do exactly what the chair said, but you ruled them out of order in the first place. I think this is a slap to the parliamentary institution and the democratic procedure that we have, the manner in which all opposition members, not just Mr. Julian, conducted themselves on this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I have Mr. Julian and Mr. Fraser. I'm not sure whether you're on the main list or this list. Mr. Julian, you were on the main list originally, I believe. Your hand is up here; I'm just wondering whether you're on the amendment.

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

Yes, I am, Mr. Chair.

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

As am I, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I have Mr. Julian first, and then Mr. Fraser.

Just to indicate to committee members, the clerk sent me a note, in case anyone wants to have a look at it. The documents and evidence from the previous session are still on the finance committee's public website. I'm not 100% sure, Madam Clerk, whether all the documents were uploaded or not.

The floor is yours on the amendment, Mr. Julian, and then Mr. Fraser.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Again, for folks who might have listened to Mr. Gerretsen's very wildly inaccurate interpretation of what's happened at the committee.... As you know, Mr. Chair, you made an interpretation that did not allow us to amend the motion, and that's why members of Parliament decided to overrule your decision, because otherwise we wouldn't have been able to amend it. We have now heard from a number of members of Parliament from all parties that they support the amendment; they now support the motion.

I think the logical conclusion is, rather than continuing this filibuster, which I think has been very unfortunate, particularly with the personal attacks I've heard.... I don't think that's appropriate. In any committee and in Parliament, we should be treating all members with respect, even if we disagree.

Given all of that, I call the question, because obviously all members now agree with the amendment, and agree with the motion. We should proceed to the vote.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, Mr. Julian is assuming a lot.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I still have others on the list to speak.

I'm going to Mr. Fraser.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't want to sound like a broken record, but I keep getting hung up on what evidence is actually before the committee. Look, maybe I'm stuck in my previous career as a litigator, but the evidence that actually makes it formally on the record is what can be considered. This amendment tries to adopt the evidence that was before this committee in the previous Parliament. I have great difficulty around the subject of what evidence is actually before the committee, or what's purported to be before the committee, should this amendment pass.

I actually question whether it's in order, given the nature of the evidence that was actually placed on the record previous to prorogation. Frankly, if I'm going to be put in a position to pass judgment as to whether my privilege has been violated or if the government has complied with a document request from this committee, I think that ask, in and of itself, would violate the privilege of members who have not received all the documents but who nevertheless have to make a finding that the government did not comply with the order.

I would ask for your guidance as to whether an amendment that contains such uncertainties is properly in order or is, in and of itself, a violation of privilege on the basis that we're going to be asked to make a finding about information that we have not received.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Does that exhaust our list now? Can we go to the question?

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

No, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Fragiskatos.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I notice that Mr. Poilievre is still absent, in contravention of what Speaker Rota made very clear to all of us on September 24. I'll overlook that in a spirit of cordiality, if you want to put it that way, or any other way that Mr. Poilievre was talking about earlier, but he is still not here.

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

That's because he's like Polkaroo: He just pops up every once in a while.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I have Mr. Julian on a point of order.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Fragiskatos has a lot of experience. He knows that in the House, as in committee, you cannot point out the absence or the presence of members of Parliament.

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

A point of order—

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

When we look at the Speaker's ruling that Mr. Fragiskatos quotes, that is for electronic voting. I don't want the public to be misled by him trying to extend an interpretation on electronic voting to committee hearings or House hearings.

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We have Mr. Gerretsen on a point of order, and then we'll go back to Mr. Fragiskatos.