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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
From the chair's point of view, I do want to go back and deal with Ms. Dzerowicz's motion, even if it's at midnight.
Liberal
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Mr. Chair, first of all, it's great to be back with my colleagues on the finance committee. I remember this from the summertime.
Pierre, it's nice to see you again. It's always a pleasure.
Mr. Chair, it's always a pleasure.
I see Mr. Kelly there, MP Kelly, and many good friends, so hello to everybody. There's Mr. Julian. It's wonderful to see everyone.
I do have a question. I've been following along this afternoon. This is my second committee of the day, so it seems that a lot of procedural things have been going on. We've made some headway in some committees, and in some committees it's sometimes like making sausages. You love eating the sausage, for those of us who like to eat sausages, but in order to get there, it requires a little work and effort, that's for sure.
I do wish to ask the clerk this. Is the committee in possession of or in ownership of these documents?
Liberal
Evelyn Lukyniuk
Right now, in the 43-2 session, the committee does not have the documents.
Liberal
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
What are the implications of not having these documents? Wouldn't it require a new motion to be put forward, or something to that extent, to obtain these documents? It's not like you can just go out to the next room and pick them up.
Evelyn Lukyniuk
A motion could be adopted by the committee to have the evidence from 43‑1 brought forward to 43‑2.
Liberal
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Okay. I just needed to clarify that the clerk is not currently in any sort of position to have these documents and does not have these documents.
This leaves me, in listening to this conversation today...and I do believe in transparency and accountability on all levels. Obviously one of the reasons I ran to be in politics and to be a public servant is that I believe in representing my constituents to the best of my ability and obtaining all the answers I need to obtain.
Having participated in the proceedings in the time we spent over the summer, a lot of information came out. I believe a lot of information came out that the Prime Minister's Office did a lot of due diligence on the Canada service student grant. It asked a lot of very, very tough questions, a lot of secondary questions, I would say. Where I worked in a prior life we would say it was a “data room”. You went through the data and you answered and made some tough questions and looked at things from top to bottom.
The impetus for this committee, I believe, is to really get at these documents that are related to the pre-budget hearings, to start looking at that. That should be the focus for the committee, to look at the submissions from all of these organizations from coast to coast to coast, at the submissions from our wonderful energy sector, how we can ensure a competitive energy sector as we move forward in Canada, whether it's in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland or northeastern B.C.
I grew up in Prince Rupert, where we have the grain elevator and coal port. Also, Pembina has a facility there. AltaGas has a facility there, exporting liquefied—what are they—the secondary condensates, the secondary derivatives. There are a lot of good things happening in our economy.
At the same time, we need to ensure that we remain competitive. The world is changing and innovation is driving that. The onus is on the committee members to continue on that track even more so. We've seen across the world, in developed and developing countries, fiscal policy, monetary policy working to support our economy, support Canadians.
I reference this, and I'm understanding that there's been some noise about forming a special committee, in terms of looking at programs that were put in place. This takes me back to a conversation I had with the committee when I sat in a few months ago when they were looking at investments we were making in the corporate sector. I brought up one sort of investment that we made in Mastercard, creating several hundred high-tech jobs in Vancouver, and how it was important for us as a government to partner in that.
Fast forward to today, and I don't think any of the opposition MPs would complain about or object to the investment made by the Province of Ontario and our government into the Ford motor facility in Oakville, Ontario.
I look today to the pre-budget submissions we've garnered here on committee, and the number of ideas and suggestions is incredible. I look at the programs we've put in place, which have been referenced by our opposition members, and suggestions that have come from constituents across this country, coast to coast, not just public servants, not just elected officials. I look at the Canada emergency response benefit, the Canada emergency wage subsidy, the regional relief recovery fund. I look at all of those programs and how we've supported business—the Canada emergency business account—and how we continue to support businesses.
As a finance committee, we need to go through those submissions to now, in this recovery phase, move forward. I think that should be the focus of the committee. Nonetheless, if there are questions asked on what this government has done in the last seven or eight months for Canadians, again from coast to coast to coast, I'll be very happy to participate in that endeavour. I'll be very happy to point out how we've helped Canadians receive benefits of $2,000 a month on an advanced basis, and how we transitioned the income support system we have here in Canada, the recovery benefit on the EI side, the sickness benefits.
As someone who's an economist and has worked in the financial markets for 20-some years doing many things, I'm very pleased to see what our government has done not only in terms of the supports on the income support side but also in terms of making sure our economy is competitive and moving forward in the right way.
Mr. Chair, with regard to the motions today, first going back to what Mr. Poilievre was referencing this afternoon, I always find Mr. Poilievre to be a very eloquent individual from whom I learn quite a bit and for whom I have a great deal of respect. We're friends and so forth, and I always wish him the best in all of his endeavours, but sometimes I think that the focus needs to be on what everyday Canadians are thinking and experiencing and what their worries are when they go home to their families at night.
Their worries are about where we are going with this economy and how all levels of government can work together. We're seeing that happening with the Ontario government headed by Premier Ford and our Prime Minister and our Deputy Prime Minister all working together with our regional partners and our municipal partners. We continue to do that. That's what the focus should be for the finance committee. It should be how finance committee members can generate ideas to move this committee forward, drive the economy forward and create those good middle-class jobs, independent of sector.
It doesn't matter to me where we create those jobs, but we need to be creative and we need the private sector to grow. We need them taking risks and we need them investing. We need to ensure that those conditions are present in this economy. Yes, we have opened up our fiscal firepower to assist Canadians and assure Canadians that we've built a bridge, and we've solidified that bridge until we come out of COVID, but we are seeing the second wave, Mr. Chair, across the world, whether it's Europe, the United States, or Southeast Asia, and we need to prepare for that. Our testing is ramping up today in the province of Ontario. There were 48,000 tests completed. We are doing that. We are working expeditiously. Obviously we are in a brave new world. That's why you're seeing this fundamental co-operation.
I keep referencing that, Chair, because I think the committee, in its endeavours over the next few months.... I've done pre-budget consultations, I believe, for five years in a row on this committee. I enjoyed every single minute of it, because I got to travel the entire country and see it from coast to coast to coast, and I say literally from coast to coast to coast, because we did go up to see Deputy McLeod, and I want to congratulate him on becoming a grandfather; that's awesome. We did go there and listened to those stakeholders. It's important that we continue as a committee to do that.
Now, if the opposition members—and I don't blame them, since that's their job—wish to ask other questions and focus on things that Canadians are not focusing on, that's their prerogative, and they make those decisions.
I am an MP who tries to work across party lines, chat and have conversations with all members of Parliament. I see Ms. Jansen.
Ms. Jansen, you seem to be on my screen. It's like you're looking at me right now. It's kind of weird. Everybody else has gone, so I'm not sure what's gone on, but you seem to be there. I tend to work well with everyone. I think that's what this committee does.
Mr. Chair, I can go on for a while longer, but I'm hoping that we can continue this conversation. I would like to suggest that we suspend for five minutes, Mr. Chair. Would that be all right?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I'm thinking of that because I need a washroom break, to be honest with you. I'm going to suspend for about eight minutes.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
—and come back to the next speaker.
I know you don't mind, but I remember one time when my lights went out, Pierre.
With that we will suspend for eight minutes.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We'll reconvene.
I want to make sure everybody is on. Do I have everyone? Okay.
I've had a little break. I've also had some communication with the clerk. There is some question about whether the motion is procedurally in order. I am going to have to get further advice from some of the clerks to find out where we're really at technically.
With that, I'm suspending the meeting until further notice—
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
The meeting is suspended.
I officially call the meeting to order.
We are now resuming the meeting that started on Thursday, October 8, of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. The committee is continuing the consideration of committee business.
Today, we are going over a few things in case we get rusty, since we haven't been at this for a while. Today's meeting is taking place by video conference, and the proceedings will be televised and made available via the House of Commons website.
I would like to mention a few rules. Interpretation will work much like a regular meeting. You have the choice of floor, English or French. It's critical, to get the best sound for those doing the interpretation, that members wear their headsets. If you plan to alternate from one language to the other, you do need to change the interpretation channel to the language you are speaking. It may be best to pause briefly when you're switching over to give the interpreters time to catch up.
I know all members knew these points in the spring, but as a refresher, all comments should be addressed through the chair. Should members need to request the floor outside of their designated time, for questions or comments, they should activate their mike and state they have a point of order.
If members wish to intervene on a point of order that has been raised by another member, they should use the “raise hand” function. That will signal to the chair and the clerk your interest to speak. In order to do so, you should click “participants” at the bottom of the screen. When the list pops up, you see, next to your name, that you can click “raise hand”.
Please mute your mike when not speaking. If technical problems arise, like audio, translation or other, please advise me, and we will wait until that is resolved.
I will now turn to the suspension of the meeting. There was some confusion over this. You will recall I stated on Mr. Poilievre's point of privilege that there was a procedural technicality with his point, and the motion following his point.
We suspended for a few minutes, and I did not get complete clarity on what was really an unusual development to a great extent related to the fact that this is a new session of Parliament. I'll get to that in a moment. The meeting was not adjourned, as some implied, but was suspended by the chair. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, page 1098, states:
Committees frequently suspend their meeting for various reasons, with the intention to resume later in the day. Suspensions may last a few seconds, several hours, or span even more than one day.
On the question of privilege, some people have asked me, “How can you interrupt a motion and go to another motion?” When you're discussing a motion, the question of privilege does take precedence, and the chair has an obligation to deal with that. The chair, under parliamentary procedure, must hear the point. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, page 1060, states:
If a member wishes to raise a question of privilege during a committee meeting, or an incident arises in connection with the committee’s proceedings that may constitute a breach of privilege, the committee Chair allows the member to explain the situation. The Chair then determines whether the question raised in fact relates to parliamentary privilege. If the Chair determines that the question does relate to parliamentary privilege, the committee may then consider presenting a report on the question to the House. The report should:
clearly describe the situation;
summarize the facts;
provide the names of the people involved, if applicable;
state that there may be a breach of privilege; and ask the House to take such measures as it deems appropriate.
Ordinarily, presentation of a report to the House is a prerequisite for any question of privilege arising from the proceedings of a committee.
Mr. Fraser did raise a point from parliamentary procedure during the discussion, but he didn't challenge the chair on that point.
It's not in the rules, but running through my mind at the time was the problem that a point of privilege could be used to jump the queue on motions.
You'll recall at the beginning of the meeting that I stated the order of motions would be Ms. Dzerowicz's motion on pre-budget consultations. We operate under a standing order of Parliament that we must do those in the fall and report by December. That's an obligation for the committee.
I spoke with Mr. Julian and I told him I would have his motion dealt with second at the committee, as the proposals came forward. His motion was on privilege and documents as well. Mr. Poilievre's staff emailed me to say that Mr. Poilievre would be putting a motion. It didn't say it would be a point of privilege. That was the way the motion came to me.
My thinking was to get to the pre-budget consultations, so that our staff, the clerks and others, could start the process and line up witnesses and meetings while we continued to discuss these other issues.
Finally, the reason I said that the motion had a technical procedural problem related to the fact that we're in session two of the 43rd Parliament and there was prorogation of session one.
On prorogation, the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, pages 975 and 976 reads, “as soon as Parliament is...prorogued...parliamentary committees (with certain exceptions) lose their orders of reference, mandates, powers and members.” All studies undertaken by committees lapse.
Also in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, page 977, under the topic “Resuming Proceedings in a New Session”, it states:
Standing and joint committees that wish to resume a study they initiated themselves can do so by...adopting a motion to this effect....
If occasion arises and they consider it appropriate, committees that have the power to do so may re-adopt orders for the appearance of witnesses or the production of papers.... It is quite common for the House or a committee to adopt an order stating that evidence heard and papers received in a preceding parliamentary session be taken into consideration in the new session.
That leaves us with the current motion from Mr. Poilievre on his point of privilege. It doesn't technically have the evidence to make his point, because the evidence doesn't have a motion in it and there hasn't been a motion to bring that evidence forward from the previous session. Therefore, the Speaker could kick it back to us and say that the evidence isn't there.
I see Mr. Julian shaking his head, but those are the facts of the matter. We all know, those of us who were on the committee, what it means, but technically that's where we're at.
I'm going to go with a couple of options.
I'm going to rule the current motion as written out of order and ask Mr. Poilievre to bring it in order by putting in an amendment or bringing it back with a proposal to bring forward that evidence from the previous committee. However, I would rule it out of order as written.
I think that these are the options. Mr. Poilievre can take the motion back, sit in position three, and we'll go back to where we were, with Ms. Dzerowicz's motion first, and then come through the line and deal with his motion as amended. He could challenge the ruling of the chair. We'll see where that goes. We would have to deal with it in that respect.
I'll give members a moment to think about that. As I said, as written, I have to rule it out of order. It can be fixed, and I would suggest that Mr. Poilievre bring it back later in the meeting.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, given that I continue to have the floor—I had the floor when you suspended the meeting—you have now suggested an amendment and I accept that suggestion. Therefore, the evidence that you require is considered amended into the motion. We can continue taking a speaking list on that premise.
Liberal
Conservative
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
I move a motion to challenge the chair. I challenge chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
That's fine. That's what I was going to suggest. To go that way, you have to challenge the ruling of the chair.
I'll ask the clerk to take a vote on the ruling of the chair.
(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 6; yeas 5)
It makes me procedurally happy that we're back in procedure.
Mr. Poilievre, the next speaker on the list is Mrs. Jansen. I think we were going to her, but I do believe you had the floor. You should also move the appropriate amendment at the appropriate time, when you get a chance.
The floor is yours.