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
Michael McLeod Liberal Northwest Territories, NT
Mr. Chair, I want to point out that I'm not having much success using the robotic hand to wave at you. I keep pushing it and it doesn't seem to work. I had to do it the old way and use my own hand to get your attention.
I also want to say welcome to all the new members who have joined us. It's good to see some new faces around the table. Some are not so new, but welcome.
It looks like we're back in business with the finance committee. We've spent the last two hours talking about rules and procedures and documents, and about what's not a document and what should be on the table. Of course, we're in the middle of a pandemic, and COVID-19 should stay at the forefront. We also need to do the budget consultations. That can't be pushed to the sidelines. We've had many, many submissions made on pre-budget consultations. I don't want to lose sight of that.
I think people who are watching us are probably assuming that in the last session we had an opportunity to sit down and really analyze the documents, the response that the government made on the request for the WE Charity issue. I think it should be clear that our committee at that time, during that session and now, since it is our first meeting, has not had the response tabled, put in front of us as a committee, where we walk through it, analyze it, make comments and where we see things that are redacted that maybe shouldn't have been or anything of that nature.
In my opinion, that step is important. I think Pat Kelly indicated that a lot of this is tied to what the government response is. Well, let's take a look at what the government responded to. We did prorogue. That, of course, throws a twist into what this means. Prorogued means that all committee work and everything on the table comes to a standstill.
I think the motion, the point of privilege, is premature. I don't think we have taken the necessary steps to make a full assessment of what was provided. We have some new members. It's unfair to them to be voting on something where they didn't have an opportunity to really have a good number of sessions to get together and really get into the detail of this. If there's going to be a forensic look, then let's do it together as a committee. That's my point. I think we jumped a couple of steps ahead of what we need to do. I hear what the Speaker has said, that he can't deal with it and it has to go back to the committee, but how can the committee make a determination about documents that were really not formally discussed in this committee at this point?
Those are my comments, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Thank you, Mr. McLeod.
Ms. Dzerowicz, Mr. Fragiskatos and then we'll have Mr. Julian. Hopefully, that will wrap it up.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
Mr. Chair, I'm going to start where Mr. McLeod ended off.
A key point is that we at finance committee can't assess what we have not yet received. That's the first point.
The second point is that I have heard a couple of comments from Mrs. Jansen and other members of this committee about transparency. I will tell you those are not just quotes about us being transparent. I think we sometimes have a bit of a short memory and the prorogation might have shortened our memory even more.
There was an enormous amount of transparency around the dollars we have spent through this COVID crisis. There was an extraordinary effort by our former minister of finance to ensure that we had a biweekly report on every single dollar that we spent. It was given to us every two weeks, On top of that, our minister of finance came before this committee to answer any questions about the spending. Then we had government officials stay an extra hour, which was extra time to answer even more detailed questions.
There has been accountability. I don't want any Canadians listening to think that the federal government has been spending upwards of $300 billion with zero accountability. There has been a lot of accountability, and there will continue to be. It will be accountable; it will be transparent, and it is a huge commitment of our government. It's not just in words; it's also in action.
I will also say that we gave a lot of time to the Canada service grant matter. There were some very legitimate questions about whether or not there was wasting of money and whether there was any attempt by certain government leaders to select WE Charity on the side. There were some legitimate questions about why WE was selected.
An extraordinary number of hours were spent on answering those questions. We brought senior bureaucrats before this committee. For a historic moment in time we brought the Prime Minister of our nation before this committee.
We have heard very clearly—it is documented in the record of this finance committee—that there was no money wasted. It all came back. There was no money misspent. Even in the agreement that was signed with WE Charity there was no way for them to profit from it.
It was also very clearly stated that the Prime Minister and the ministers had zero hand in selecting WE Charity. We heard from the Clerk of the Privy Council, Ian Shugart. We heard from Rachel Wernick and we heard from Gina Wilson, who are both very senior bureaucrats within our civil service. We also heard from the Kielburgers under oath that none of the ministers, nor the Prime Minister, nor anybody, directed anyone to pick WE.
We responded to every single point that was brought forward. It was responded to. It is documented and it remains as part of the official record.
Did we behave in an ethical manner? I believe that the people who should make that determination are not a partisan committee such as ours. A couple of very important people, who are independent, highly competent and outstanding public servants, are looking into this matter. Can I please remind everyone that we have the Auditor General looking at our finances and how we are spending it; it's an independent person who is doing that. We also have the Ethics Commissioner looking to see whether or not any unethical actions were committed on behalf of our Prime Minister as well as our former minister of finance, or anyone else.
On the issue of the redaction, it seems like what has come up in the last go-round is that there is a desire from some members for us to convene another special committee, external to this body, to further investigate the WE Charity matter. I think this may be a good idea. If there is a group that believes this needs to be looked at even further, my humble and personal belief is that there is not one person who has approached me over the last few weeks who has any more questions about the WE matter right now.
What people care about right now is their kids going to school, keeping them safe, having a safe Thanksgiving, being able to continue to keep their jobs, and somehow being able to give someone a hug after this.... That is the hope. That is the stuff they care about right now. If there is a desire for a special committee, that is something that needs to be decided outside of this committee.
At committee, I proposed a motion to begin pre-budget consultations, which is what Canadians want us to focus on. They want us to focus on how to restart our Canadian economy in the best way possible, and to listen to over 800 groups. People are knocking at our door and saying they have some really great ideas. They want to make sure we have the information we need, so we can not only restart our economy in the strongest fashion possible but also build a better, more equitable, more sustainable future for our country.
I will leave it at that. I really hope we can get back to my pre-budget consultation motion, and back to work on what Canadians are asking this committee to focus on.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Thank you, Ms. Dzerowicz. Hopefully, we will get back there.
Mr. Fragiskatos.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Ms. Dzerowicz raised a pertinent point toward the end of her comments when she talked about special committees. I would just advise all members, as I am sure they know, that anything relating to the creation of a special committee cannot be decided upon by a committee. That is a matter to be decided on by the House. That is really critical in case colleagues in the opposition are contemplating that. Again, it's not about trying to avoid difficult issues, but from a procedural perspective, any discussion of a particular focus through a special committee needs to go through the House.
I again refer to Bosc and Gagnon. As we just heard, matters of privilege raised at the committee level are difficult, and it is difficult for me to understand the relevance of Mr. Poilievre's motion. I will read directly from the text itself. With respect to matters of privilege being brought forward at the committee level, it reads:
Since the House has not given its committees the power to punish any misconduct, breach of privilege, or contempt directly, committees cannot decide such matters; they can only report them to the House. Only the House can decide if an offence has been committed.
It continues:
Most matters which have been reported by committees have concerned the behaviour of Members, witnesses or the public, or the disregard of a committee order. Committees have reported to the House on the refusal of witnesses to appear when summoned; the refusal of witnesses to answer questions; the refusal of witnesses to provide papers or records; the refusal of individuals to obey orders of a committee;
—and it gives other examples.
We are going around and around discussing a matter that has been brought forward on a question of privilege. Again, the committee cannot examine what it has not seen, and we are in a new session of Parliament
I put this to you, Mr. Chair, and to my colleagues on the committee, that we're not in a position to be debating these matters. The motion introduced by Mr. Poilievre is of questionable relevance for all the reasons outlined.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Chair, I have to say that I disagree with my Liberal colleagues on virtually every interpretation they have tried to put forward in terms of what privilege means and what committees are supposed to do to deal with that. It's almost like there needs to be a remedial course on rules of order.
The reality is that the Speaker gave to the committee the ability to report back on this question of privilege. That's point one. We have that responsibility to choose to report or not. That's the committee vote. I think the majority of committee members have said that they believe privilege was breached. That is sufficient to report to the Speaker and to report to the House.
Also, we have had a number of months now to look through the documents. I've looked through the documents. There is no doubt to my mind that over a thousand pages that have been completely or substantially censored is simply inappropriate for any committee.
As members of this committee, we have a number of responsibilities. It's true that we wear a number of hats. However, one thing that is foremost, and that should be foremost in the minds of every single committee member, is the importance of maintaining our parliamentary institutions. Committees have the right to request documents, and the government does not have the right to intervene and censor those documents, particularly when a motion directs that any redaction that takes place takes place through the law clerk. We have a responsibility to report to the House and a responsibility to say that this was a breach of privilege. There is no question. I think we will find that the Speaker will take a report from this committee very seriously, and I think we will see the interpretation that he makes based on parliamentary precedents.
My final point is this. A number of members have indicated that they are supportive of the idea of a special committee to investigate allegations of misspending. I'm very cheered to hear that. I just gave notice of motion, and I will be bringing this forward forthwith so that we can put in place a special committee.
Now, how does that happen? Mr. Fragiskatos is absolutely right. We report to the House. The House will have a concurrence debate, and a majority of the members of the House of Commons will decide whether or not that special committee is put into place. It's two stages. We have now given notice of motion. Hopefully at our next meeting we will be able to have that debate, make that decision and then report to the House. That would be important to do what Ms. Dzerowicz has talked about, which is to get to the pre-budget hearings as well. I would say, though, that we would be doing pre-budget hearings now if it weren't for the fact that the Prime Minister prorogued this committee and prorogued Parliament back in August. We would already be doing that.
That's all I have to say. I will be supporting, of course, the motion of privilege. It's defending our committee responsibilities and rights.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We will go to the vote. I just want to read the two points at the end:
Your Committee has concluded that the government’s response failed to comply with the order, and, accordingly, wishes to draw the attention of the House to what appears to be a breach of its privileges by the government’s refusal to provide documents in the manner ordered by the Committee.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Just hold on:
Your Committee, therefore, recommends that an Order of the House do issue for the unredacted version of all documents produced by the government in response to the July 7, 2020, order of the Standing Committee on Finance, provided that these documents shall be laid upon the Table within one sitting day of the adoption of this Order.
Did I miss someone on the speaking list?
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
No. The speaking list was exhausted. We're in voting. It's too late.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
It's not a point of privilege; at this stage it might be a point of order.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
In any event, it may come back to the “raise hand” function we discussed. I see there are currently five hands up on the list, if you weren't monitoring that. I know that some members, after Mrs. Jansen's suggestion at the outset of the meeting, have been using that function.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I wanted to be sure people knew what they were voting on, if we get to the vote, because it's been a long while since people heard the meat of the motion.
I do see Mr. Sorbara.
Liberal
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
The meeting cannot be adjourned until there's a vote. The opposition will not grant consent to adjourn, thereby ensuring that no matter how many speakers we have, there will be a vote before we adjourn. I just wanted all members to get their coffee and get comfortable, because we can be here for as long as they want to talk.