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.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Mr. Kelly, running around and making technical arguments about what the interpreter said doesn't suffice. It's surprising to me that the Conservatives have not—
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
—forwarded the French text with the amendment in English.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
If the Liberals are saying that an English-speaking member must read his motion in French and French-speaking members must read theirs in English, we are setting a very disturbing precedent. That's not what the principle of bilingualism is about.
The principle of bilingualism is about having interpretation and distributing written materials so that everyone understands. I am very concerned to see Liberal members insisting that members are required to speak in the language that is not their own. That's not what the principle of bilingualism is about.
I really hope they will stop making this kind of argument. It is extremely disturbing.
October 15th, 2020 / 12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We are back on the amendment. The discussion is on the amendment and we will eventually get to a vote on the amendment.
The only list I have is on the original motion. Is there anyone to speak on the amendment?
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I'll take the point of order first and then Mr. Poilievre on the amendment.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
I'm just confused. Are we supposed to be raising our hands right now? Are the hands raised in Zoom on the amendment or are they back on the main motion? How are you expecting us to raise our hands for the amendment part when there are already hands raised for the motion part?
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Unless Ms. Jansen knows more about these raised hands than me, the ones that are up are on the original motion. I will just take the hands as I see you raise them like this on the amendment.
First up on the amendment I have Mr. Poilievre, and if somebody could give me a show of hands who wants to go next, we'll go with that.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
I think we want to listen to what he has to say first and then we'll decide.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I have Mr. Poilievre and then Mr. Fraser on my list so far. Keep your hands up when you're putting them up because I have a very small screen.
Mr. Poilievre, go ahead, on the amendment.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Yes, in the spirit of Parliament and co-operation, we have assuaged your concerns, Mr. Chair. You have claimed that the committee does not know to which documents we are referring because those documents were submitted to the chair in a prior sitting of Parliament and prorogation has erased our collective memories.
This amendment simply refreshes the official memory of the committee, so that now we all remember those documents that you ruled were forgotten. Now, just to show how willing we are to co-operate and collaborate with Liberal members who are suffering from procedural and documentary amnesia, we are refreshing your memory, their memory and the corporate memory of this committee. Therefore, I am proud to support this amendment, which makes it a friendly amendment.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay. That's your point. Mr. Poilievre, you didn't quite catch my ruling entirely.
My concern is not about those of us who are on the committee. I don't think any of us has forgotten. If the original motion gets to the Speaker, however, I expect that without the documentation there, he'd look at me if I ran into him in the corridor and say, “What are you folks doing on the finance committee? You didn't provide me with the documentation from which to make the point of privilege.” That was my concern, not forgetting that if this gets to the Speaker, then he has to rule.
Go ahead.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Now everyone's memories have been refreshed and it's all clear what documents we're talking about, so I think we'll get unanimous support for this newly amended motion.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I think we're on a roll.
Mr. Fraser is next. Who wants to come after him? I see Mr. Gerretsen.
Mr. Fraser.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's perhaps a good segue. This really builds upon the point that my colleague, Ms. Koutrakis, made a few minutes ago. It's one of the things that I'm trying to figure out from a technical point of view. You initially ruled that we don't have the documents, and I made the suggestion that this could be remedied. As it stands officially now, the committee doesn't have documents in its custody, and that's the shortcoming that the proposed amendment seeks to remedy. When I see what's taking place with the motion from a very technical point of view, we're now being asked to adopt a series of documents into the evidentiary record and simultaneously pass judgment that we're not satisfied with them, more or less, and to move forward with the argument as it stands on a point of privilege.
Mr. Chair, is it your opinion—or perhaps you've taken advice from the clerk—that we actually have the technical ability to do that? Even having passed a motion, we would still be passing a main motion that would precede the adoption of the evidence on which the motion is based. That's a very roundabout way of saying that I don't think including the amendment in the main motion solves the original problem of the committee's still passing judgment on a series of documents that we technically don't have.
I'm wondering if you could explain the workability of the proposed amendment, given the fact that we're still going to be in the same position we faced at the outset of this meeting.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
My objective is to chair the meeting and to try to stay out of the discussion, but I did raise that point myself: whether the time frames within the motion could be met.
Somebody—maybe within the clerk's office—may be able to answer that question. I do know, and I think all of us who were on the previous finance committee know, that not quite all the documentation got uploaded to the digital binders before prorogation took place. It happened fairly shortly before prorogation, and that may be a problem. It's a question that I can't answer, and I just put a flag on it because in the motion, when we bring those documents forward, there are certain time frames within 24 hours of the adoption of this motion. I just want to raise a flag that this may or may not be possible by the parliamentary people who deal with this issue.
I just don't want us blaming them if it doesn't get done within the 24 hours because it may not be technically possible. That was why I raised the point.
Back to you, Mr. Fraser.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
What I'm still not clear on.... Frankly, I wasn't expecting, before Parliament resumed, to revisit considerations of the government's compliance with the document production order that I was supportive of back in July. I'm going to find myself in a bind where we agree that everything gets adopted. Practically speaking, if I'm going to go through the documents and determine whether there has, in fact, been compliance with what the committee asked for, I'm more or less being asked to pass judgment on the sufficiency of the redactions made for documents that I do need an opportunity to revisit if this committee is going to pass both this amendment and the main motion.
There's a further issue on the specific subject of the amendment. You mentioned just a moment ago that some of the upload of documents may have been interrupted by prorogation. I'm curious. I think the proposed amendment reads, “That the evidence heard and papers received by the committee”, etc. I'm curious if we can gain clarity specifically on how the interruption of any upload would be impacted if we're dealing with evidence heard and papers received.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I can't answer that question until this motion is either passed or lost and we talk to the clerk of the committee and others who would be involved in terms of the documents that were uploaded in the last session, and where there might have been a shortcoming in terms of those documents being uploaded. I can't answer that question.
It will be a bridge we have to cross. I understand your concern about not having the ability to compare them. It is an issue that I, as chair, can't answer. I have to deal with what's before us.
Mr. Fraser, do you want to add anything further? Then we'll go to Mr. Gerretsen.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
I don't at this time. I'll have you go to Mr. Gerretsen. It's fine, thank you.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I don't know if the clerk or the analysts have anything they can add on this. I would welcome their interventions if they want to give people clarity on the document upload.
Did anyone else in the queue put their hand up on this amendment? The last one I see before we go to the question is Mr. Gerretsen, but there's ample time to come forward if you want to speak.
Mr. Gerretsen.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
It's reassuring to hear Mr. Poilievre speak of the spirit of collaboration right after challenging the chair.
Where we effectively ended up with this amendment is the advice that you gave to the committee at the beginning in terms of how this motion could have been done in a way that was procedurally correct. For those procedural nerds who are paying close attention to this right now, what we've just witnessed was a full 180 from the committee. First, all opposition members challenged the ruling of the chair, and were successful in that, and then they came back and did exactly what the chair was recommending that they do. That would leave anybody watching this to conclude that the motive for challenging the chair was none other than a political motive to, in some way, have some vindictive purpose served in showing that they could challenge a ruling from the chair. The very position of a chair is supposed to be extremely and completely non-partisan, in which case I think, to what Mr. Julian said earlier, this chair does a very good job of being fair.
We've now seen this committee move an amendment, which we're talking about right now; it does exactly what the chair recommended doing in the beginning. Rather than take the ruling from the chair and then bring forward another motion, which is exactly what ended up happening through an amendment, the committee chose to overturn the ruling of the chair. I think that speaks volumes in terms of the political motive of the opposition on this committee using procedural tools to advance those political objectives.
I have no problem with the amendment, because the amendment seeks to do what the chair was suggesting we do at the outset, and that is to make sure that the documents required for this motion are brought over from the previous session of Parliament. And that's what we're seeing right now. I think it's extremely important to point that out because at the end of the day, this comes down to this whole issue of WE. It's about inflicting as much political damage as possible with a complete disregard for any collateral damage that might happen in the process, as long as it creates absolute political carnage around the Prime Minister and other members of Parliament as much as possible. That's really what this comes down to.
The amendment we're seeing right now...which by the way was introduced by Mr. Kelly, but then suddenly Mr. Poilievre had the French version and there was some confusion as to whether or not Mr. Kelly knew what the amendment was really all about, and he was all over the place with it, and then Mr. Poilievre jumped in and said he had the French version right here. This just underscores the fact that this is politically motivated. This entire charade is politically motivated.
I see Mr. Julian shaking his head. By the way, Mr. Julian, thank you for keeping your camera on when you're not speaking, unlike Mr. Poilievre, who does the equivalent of hiding under the table in a committee room by shutting off his video as soon as he's done talking. I appreciate your at least staying on. It's always nice to have the audience.