Finance Committee on Oct. 8th, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is there any discussion?

Mr. Julian.

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

If Mr. Fragiskatos is saying that in the case where we are travelling across the country for pre-budgetary hearings that it start regardless, then I would agree. I'm not sure I want to give a blanket ability outside the parliamentary precinct, but I believe what he's proposing is in the case of pre-budget hearings where it does make sense. Outside of the parliamentary precinct during pre-budgetary hearings, I would support that if he accepts it as a friendly amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is there any discussion?

I am not sure what other committees do in this regard, but we only travel for pre-budget anyway.

Are you okay with that, Peter?

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

I am.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Julian is basically saying that when travelling outside the parliamentary precinct on pre-budget hearings that the meetings begin. Are we okay with that?

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

Yes, that is very much in line with what we had in the previous session under the same routine motions for this committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

All those in favour?

There's no one opposed.

(Motion agreed to)

Mr. Fragiskatos.

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

This relates to time for opening remarks and the questioning of witnesses:

That witnesses be given five minutes—

—which was previously 10 minutes in the last session—

—for their opening statement; that, at the discretion of the chair, during questioning of witnesses, there be allocated six minutes for the first questioner of each party as follows: First round: Conservative Party, Liberal Party, Bloc Québécois, New Democratic Party; For the second and subsequent rounds, the order and time for questioning be as follows: Conservative Party, five minutes, Liberal Party, five minutes, Conservative Party, five minutes, Liberal Party, five minutes, Bloc Québécois, two and a half minutes and New Democratic Party, two and a half minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I see Mr. Julian first, and then we'll go to Mr. Poilievre and then Mr. Ste-Marie.

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

I don't have any problem with the time allocation, but what procedure and House affairs has adopted, and what committees are being urged to adopt is for the second round. The first round is fine. The second round would actually be Conservative Party five, Liberal Party five, Bloc two and a half minutes, NDP two and a half minutes, and then Conservative Party five, and Liberal Party five.

That would be the amendment I would propose to Mr. Fragiskatos. That's what procedure and House affairs has adopted. Hopefully, it'll be a friendly amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Just to be sure I got this right, the first round would be as is, six minutes. The second round would be Conservatives five, Liberals five, Bloc two and a half, NDP two-and-a-half, and then into the next round starting with Conservatives five and Liberals five.

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay, we'll leave it at that.

Mr. Poilievre, you had your hand up.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Before I speak, can I just confirm, has Mr. Fragiskatos accepted that friendly amendment?

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

I have not, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay, so you're going onto another issue.

Is there a discussion on the amendment as proposed by Mr. Julian?

We'll go to Mr. Ste-Marie and then Ms. Dzerowicz.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wanted to raise the same point as Mr. Julian. I will support his amendment, as agreed to by the whips. I believe this is the way the committee should proceed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Ms. Dzerowicz, are you speaking to this amendment?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Yes.

I just need to understand why the proposed change, Mr. Julian? Things went so swimmingly in our first part of the year. Everything went well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Go ahead, Mr. Julian.

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

The reason that procedure and House affairs adopted that format—even though the third and fourth party have much less time—the way the rotation worked, they are suggesting this and committees are adopting it this way for the second round to ensure that those two and a half minutes actually make it. If you put it right at the end, it's doubtful that the second round actually could be completed, whereas this way, the third and fourth party actually get a second way to ask questions. That's why procedure and House affairs proceeded this way. It's basically a supplementary round for things that come up.

That's why it was proposed by procedure and House affairs. That's why other committees are adopting it that way. We've already seen a number of them over the past. I don't think finance should be an outlier. We deal with very important issues, so having that supplementary question can make a difference, even if it's only two and a half minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Ms. Dzerowicz.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My understanding, Mr. Julian, is that the chair can be empowered to shorten the time to ensure everybody gets two rounds. I think it was traditionally done so that the government party gets first crack at the second round and then the leading opposition gets second crack. I believe maybe PROC, for some reason, specifically decided to agree to this, but I'm not sure that all other committees are going to follow suit.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Peter.

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

The ones that have so far, yes, they have.

You can certainly talk to your whip about why procedure and House affairs recommended that format. I'm sure it came through discussions.

My point is that if procedure and House affairs is recommending it, all parties agreed to it for procedure and House affairs, and other committees are adopting it this way, why would finance then put the third and fourth party possibly without the ability to ask any supplementary questions? In a minority Parliament all parties have to work together. That's why procedure and House affairs is strongly recommending the format that I proposed.

I'm sure Mr. Fragiskatos was aware of that as well.