Finance Committee on Oct. 8th, 2020

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order—

[An hon. member]

On a point of order—

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I see Mr. Fraser and Mr. Samson, and I heard someone else.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Ms. Dzerowicz has perhaps articulated the point more accurately than I have. I'm scanning these sheets as we go. I can't find.... I've been looking for the transmittal letters because the purpose of their inclusion was more or less a covering letter to explain whether and to what extent and reasons certain portions of documents would have been redacted. If we know that those documents are not in the documents that we're about to adopt, then we will know that we need to engage with government to encourage them to re-disclose the full package of information on the committee's record.

I don't think it would be a violation of privilege, which is not for this committee to find, but it strikes me, Mr. Chair, that if we know that the documents referred to in the amendment have not been fully disclosed on the record for this committee because they're not on the website that contains the evidentiary record, I'm curious as to whether the proposed amendment could be construed as being in order if we know, in fact, that the documents referred to do not reflect the complete version of the documents that the government disclosed to members but is not before the record on this committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Go ahead, Mr. Samson.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate the opportunity to make my point of order.

I've been listening now for about half an hour and I'm very disappointed with the opposition trying to let Canadians think that we are not prepared.

Let's be honest with what's happening here. This is an amendment that was just put up in this meeting. How can you be prepared for an amendment about documents? Now the question mark is that you're asking me to vote on an amendment about documents that may or may not all be there as they should. Now I'm listening to the opposition say, “Oh, I did all my reading; I was prepared. I did all my other work.”

Listen. Let's be honest with Canadians here. We are not expected to vote on something that we.... I'm not. How can I vote on something when I don't know for sure those are actually the documents?

Then I have to share this as well. I've been listening in the House of Commons now for a number of weeks since we started again. All they talk about in the media is budget, budget, budget, budget. Let's get to the budget. Where's our budget? We have a standing order that clearly indicates that, as soon as Parliament took over in September, we have to be working on this budget, doing pre-budget consultations. I've been—

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

I have a point of order. This is just debate, Mr. Chair. It's time to call the vote. This is not relevant to the motion. It's not relevant to the debate on the motion. Call the question, Mr. Chair. Restore order.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

We cannot respond to those documents unless we move forward on them. Mr. Julian, with all due respect, has brought some very important points to the table in the House of Commons about tax inequalities and tax evasion. I enjoy when he shares his perspective on tax evasion, but he's not talking about that.

We're never going to get to those points unless we move on to what is important for this committee, and that is pre-budget consultation, as the standing order clearly indicates.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

You are straying considerably from the amendment, Mr. Samson, but I think—

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

Nonetheless, it's very true.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

—the question really is.... I don't know whether, Madam Clerk, you have to contact somebody in the parliamentary branch there, but I believe what members are asking—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Just a moment. Can somebody give the assurance that all the documents that the committee asked to be uploaded to the website prior to our digital binders—I guess that's the proper word—prior to prorogation, including the transmittal letters, are there in that link.

I think that's what members are asking.

Go ahead on your point of order, Mr. Fragiskatos.

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

I think, Mr. Chair, you suggested something there that could provide guidance. I have enormous respect for all public servants, including those who perform the role of clerk. The clerk is incredibly able. Otherwise, she would not be tasked with being the the clerk of probably the busiest—and with due respect to many of my colleagues serving on other committees, the most important—committee on Parliament Hill, or if not the most, then one of the most important. This is particularly so now, as we deal with the challenge of COVID-19.

Your suggestion a moment ago that perhaps the clerk could go back and confer with other parliamentary colleagues on the matter could be a useful suggestion.

I also think we have to be remarkably careful here when we see a mention, in what basically counts as our guiding bible, if you want to put it that way—House of Commons Procedure and Practice—making very clear that matters of privilege do relate to papers and to records.

When those papers and records are not present and accessible, then issues of privilege arise, in my view.

I think Mr. Samson also put a very good point forward when he just spoke, saying that—

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

This is repetitious, Chair.

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

No, it is not, Mr. Chair. I said before that I have enormous respect for Mr. Kelly, but I wouldn't want to accuse him of violating my privilege by interrupting me on a very important point of order as an MP.

I'll continue, Mr. Chair.

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

It's too late. You've already said it.

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

He already did it, but I'm going to ignore it in the spirit of collegiality, which Mr. Poilievre so ably talked about before.

By the way, I still see his absence here at the committee.

We need assurances. We need certainty—absolute certainty—that we are seeing the documents we ought to see as they've been put forward. We can't play guessing games, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Fraser talked about that; Mr. Samson talked about it as well; Ms. Dzerowicz raised this point earlier. I do not believe that we're ready to move forward to a vote here until all of these issues have been looked at thoroughly and analysis has been exhausted on the matter.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

I have another point of order to add to that, Mr. Chair, if I may.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Go ahead.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you.

Just in line with what Mr. Fragiskatos has said, I wonder whether voting on this motion is in order, when we don't know that we have the full document. I think that's really what I'm left with.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Assumptions can be a problem. I'm operating under the assumption that the information that went to the digital binders and the documents in the transmittal letters are as the clerk maintains. Whether or not we've seen them, we certainly expect them.

I'm going to suspend for five minutes so that I can talk to the clerk on the side, because we need assurance that this information is available now or is readily available. I'll suspend for five minutes and will call you, Evelyn, offline.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay. There's nothing like saying that life is complicated.

In any event, from the clerk's point of view in discussions, the committee will see exactly what they saw in session 43-1. They're restoring the e-binders. They will be brought forward and made available to this session. Part of the problem here is that if we want to see the evidence from session 43-1, we really don't know that evidence until we ask for it. Certainly, some of us who were on the previous committee have seen that evidence. That is the link that was available prior to prorogation. Everything that was available to the committee in 43-1 is there.

I don't have an answer on it. I don't think all the evidence was in the digital binder on the documents at the time of prorogation. I know that David went a few hours after prorogation to try to get it in the digital binders.

So I can't answer on that question, but basically what I can say is that the committee will see exactly what they saw on session 43-1. This amendment is asking for that evidence. As I said at the beginning of the meeting on my order, the Speaker would definitely need that evidence in order to make a ruling.

That's where we're at on the amendment. I know there may be some objections to that—

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

A point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

—and I'll go to Mr. Poilievre's point of order, but that's the best I can tell you at this time. The transmittal letters and some 5,000-plus pages of documents should be in that e-binder that was in the last session.

Mr. Poilievre.