Finance Committee on Oct. 8th, 2020

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Okay.

One of the reasons I raise it, Mr. Chair.... I clicked one of the links. I'm trying to scan this in real time. I don't even see something as basic as the transmittal letters that were included in the correspondence that, in some instances, actually explain the nature of why certain redactions would have been made. I feel like we're dealing with two separate evidentiary records, potentially. One has been submitted through a link, very kindly, by our clerk just minutes ago. Madam Clerk, please accept my apologies; I do not mean to put you on the spot or ask for information that would be nearly impossible to have front of mind.

I still am struggling with the fact that, when we're talking about the papers and documents received, that's going to mean something. A person is going to interpret that as something. I don't have confidence, upon a quick review, that the information that you just shared with us through those links, Madam Clerk, actually matches up with the evidentiary record that was before this committee in the first session of the present Parliament.

In the absence of that certainty, I can't know specifically which documents are in or out so I can compare them with the motion to determine whether the redactions were made in an appropriate way to comply with the request of this committee. Is there a potential path forward that you see that would allow us to actually confirm that the documents we're about to vote on—which are the subjects of the present amendment to the main motion—are what certain members of this committee are saying they are?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I'll go to you again, Madam Clerk. I don't know whether we have to bring in the others from the parliamentary branch or not. I don't really want to put you on the spot, but answer as best you can.

I believe Mr. Poilievre wants in as well.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

The documents in question are very clear.

The amendment you have basically refers to the conversations around WE Charity and the Canada student service grant that happened in the 43rd Parliament. It doesn't say anything about what's on a website somewhere. [Technical difficulty—Editor] website or web link. There's nothing in the motion that deals with a website or a web link. It deals with the record, which is permanently crystallized into parliamentary history from the 43rd Parliament.

It is very clear what the documents are. They are published. They are contained in something called the blues, which members should be familiar with. The documents were turned over to this committee. At that time, there was a record of receipt of those documents and transmission of those documents to all committee members.

All of that is in existence. Whether or not the clerk has put them on a website somewhere or whether there is a web link where Liberals can go and find it is absolutely irrelevant to this debate. The documents and the testimony are now permanent matters of public record. That is what the amendment refers to. When this motion is reported to the House of Commons, then the Speaker and all MPs will be able to refer to those records. There is no confusion about that.

I find it a little bit embarrassing. I feel badly for my Liberal friends who kind of embarrassed themselves by saying they haven't done their homework on what happened only a few months ago right here in this committee prior to prorogation. To say that they are oblivious to those conversations or that they have been unable, in the six or seven weeks since, to pull up those documents and look at them is kind of embarrassing. Use the basic rule that you come prepared.

Ms. Jansen, who is a new member of this committee, seems to be more informed than Mr. Fragiskatos and Mr. Fraser, who are completely oblivious to what happened right before their eyes in committee meetings they attended. I'd like to congratulate Ms. Jansen for—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. This is the example of a personal attack—

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

I'm in the middle of a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We're already into a point of order. We'll get to you next, Mr. Fragiskatos.

Mr. Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

I'm merely pointing out what Mr. Fragiskatos has admitted. He has admitted that he is unprepared and that he has no idea what happened in meetings that he attended. That is the very basis for his argument that he can't vote.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. It's another personal attack. It's completely unacceptable.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

If he and Mr. Gerretsen are confused, then that is a matter of poor preparation and not a matter of parliamentary procedure. We can't hold everybody's hand because they haven't been able to do their homework. Canadians expect a high level of competence from their committee members. That's why they send us here. That's why parliamentarians get paid. If they can't do their homework, maybe they should call up their whip and ask to be replaced by someone who can.

Ms. Jansen has demonstrated she can show up to work prepared, so I ask that all members of the government side follow her example.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We have Mr. Fragiskatos on a point of order.

I believe we're straying from the discussion.

Mr. Fragiskatos.

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

I appreciate that, Mr. Chair. I will keep it focused. It is long-standing practice, not just in Canadian parliamentary tradition, but Westminster parliamentary tradition writ large that, as a basic way of engaging in debate, members have to be collegial. Mr. Poilievre brings this point up about collegiality when it suits him, but all too often goes on the attack.

I'm not insulted personally, but I think it establishes a negative precedent. He went after me and said that I haven't been prepared. I've been prepared for each meeting.

He went after Mr. Fraser as well. Mr. Fraser is modest and won't speak about himself. He's one of the first MPs that I met after being elected in 2015. I know he takes the job extremely seriously. When Mr. Poilievre attacks my friend Sean Fraser, I have to stand up. He's done it to other members at this committee as well, not just on the Liberal side, but throughout his tenure as a finance committee member. He has gone after each member of the committee. He has heckled and thrown insults. It's not becoming of what an MP is all about. We have to keep in mind that, yes, we will agree and disagree, but when we disagree, we must do so reasonably. It's very unfortunate that Mr. Poilievre has decided to engage members in that particular way. I'd call your attention to it, Mr. Chair.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, please, call the question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I do have Mr. Gerretsen first on this point, and then Mr. Fraser.

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

Mr. Chair, I just want to say that, although Mr. Kelly would love for Mr. Poilievre to have the last word on that, I would like to weigh in on that as well.

I am a new member to the committee. He was trying to insult me by saying that I should have done my homework. I would have had no way of knowing that the Conservatives were going to bring forward this particular amendment to a motion. Therefore, there's no way that I could have been able to somehow in advance try to figure out what they were doing.

Mr. Poilievre criticizes members of this committee for not being prepared and perhaps doing other things. I'll be the first to say that I was doing something else, Mr. Chair.

I'm not sure if Mr. Poilievre is aware, but there's a global pandemic going on right now. We are in the second wave of it. Canadians are looking for assistance. I've pulled staff from my Ottawa office back to my Kingston office to assist members of my community, my constituents, in accessing a lot of the programs that they need right now, stuff that they rely on and that they're looking to the federal government for.

I apologize to Mr. Poilievre if I wasn't paying attention when he was grandstanding and waving papers around in the air trying to get attention from the media. Some of us were back in our constituencies actually helping Canadians who are looking for help right now, who are looking to access programs like CERB, and small businesses that are looking for—

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I was doing the same thing and was able to prepare my homework.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We're already on a point of order, Ms. Jansen.

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

Call the question, Mr. Chair. This is a delay tactic.

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

No. I think it's—

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Gerretsen and then Mr. Fraser.

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

It's extremely germane to the discussion, Mr. Chair, because what Mr. Poilievre is accusing members of this committee of doing is basically of not doing the work that he deems to be so important, which apparently is predicting what his next move will be so that we can properly prepare for it.

On the contrary, I would argue that most members of this committee—and I would put my Conservative, NDP and Bloc colleagues into that as well—are working on behalf of their constituents. I have small businesses in my community that were looking for access to the wage subsidy for their small businesses—businesses that are literally about to close.

For some reason, Mr. Poilievre feels as though the most important thing for Canadians right now is to get in front of a podium and grandstand and wave around papers, as though that's the only thing Canadians care about right now.

Mr. Chair, I do sincerely apologize to him and to the other colleagues on this committee that I did not somehow anticipate what their moves were going to be so that I could magically prepare for them, because I was caught up doing other things on behalf of my constituents while we're in the second wave of a global pandemic.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Next is Mr. Fraser. Then I'll go to Ms. Jansen, and then we'll call the question, hopefully.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With respect, the accusations Mr. Poilievre is lodging don't really bother me. However, one of the things I'd like to draw attention to is that no one—including him, with his criticism of my request for clarity on this—has actually clarified the one piece that I keep repeating. The issue here is that there are different batches of documents that we are talking about.

I understand that some were disclosed on USB keys to critics of different parties. I understand that some have been uploaded to the website. I also understand that there was a very specific and unique thing that happened during the upload of the documents, which was prorogation.

This is not a matter of not having done homework. I've been able to look at many of the documents that, in fact, I expect are the subject of the proposed amendment, but I don't even know how we can consider the amendment in order if it doesn't make clear which documents we're actually looking at.

Perhaps because I was paying attention, both at the meetings and to the various pieces of correspondence that have come through to committee members, I would say that the unique piece is whether the documents that the motion is actually going to further adopt are effectively an incomplete version of the disclosure, because of the timing of prorogation. If that is the case, obviously the right approach would be to ask the government to please table the full disclosure of documents as it was asked to do. Then we would presumably have an opportunity to look at those documents, compare them to the request we've made, and make a determination at that time as to what is appropriate.

Perhaps Mr. Poilievre is choosing not to understand that particular point, but the issue at play, from my perspective, is the fact that the amendment does not make clear to me whether we're dealing with all the documents the government had intended to disclose because of the very particular nuance around the prorogation at the time they were being uploaded.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Next is Ms. Jansen, and I believe that is the end of my list.

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

I'm good, thank you.

I just wanted to remind Mr. Gerretsen that I was doing all the same things. I was out there, got my flu shot and went to Thanksgiving dinner. All of that helped businesses. I also met with veterans at the Legion and got ready for the meeting.

That's our work. That's our job.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I guess we're ready for the question. Madam Clerk, I wonder if you could call the vote on the amendment to the motion.