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.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
Mr. Chair, this rambling on has absolutely nothing to do with the amendment to the amendment.
October 15th, 2020 / 2:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Mr. Falk, I was just going to say to Mr. Fragiskatos that I believe he is straying away from the discussion on the amendment to the amendment.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I disagree with what Mr. Falk is saying. Mr. Julian raised specific points with respect to how the government was responding, and Mr. Fragiskatos has been addressing those points. If you were going to allow Mr. Julian to make those points in the manner he did just preceding Mr. Fragiskatos, I think you have to allow the opportunity for Mr. Fragiskatos to respond to that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I believe we are straying into debate there, Mr. Gerretsen, so we'll ask Mr. Fragiskatos to make his argument as to why those points are on the amendment to the amendment. Then we'll move to the next speaker.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I echo the rationale of Mr. Gerretsen. I was simply offering a rebuttal to what Mr. Julian put on the table. Hence, there is relevance, but I will bring it back specifically.
We are debating the substance of Mr. Kelly's amendment. As Liberal members, we've heard Mr. Gerretsen put forward an amendment to that amendment, and I'm glad to continue to discuss that. I think there are important issues that have yet to be clarified and decided upon, but the more we focus on these technical issues, the more we are hindered from focusing on the lived realities of everyday Canadians. In my community in London, I know my constituents want us to focus on the COVID-19 response from an economic perspective. I know that constituents in every one of our communities feel exactly the same way.
Why we have now descended into a political battle over this particular issue is beyond me. In the summer, we saw a number of meetings, meeting after meeting, and those meetings needed to take place. They should have taken place. It was good for this committee to focus on the WE Charity issue, but now the Conservatives in particular, and the rest of the opposition too, are trying to steer this committee towards an outcome that suits their political interests and, I fear, not the interests of this country. This country right now needs its politicians at every level to focus on COVID-19 and the economic response.
I urge my colleagues, Mr. Chair, to move in that direction. We can keep debating this amendment, but again, on relevance, it's standing in the way of our talking about the main thing, and the main thing right now is COVID-19.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay, I have Mr. Gerretsen and Ms. Dzerowicz, if I haven't missed anyone.
Mr. Gerretsen, go ahead on your amendment to the amendment.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Chair, I raised my hand when I heard Mr. Julian, in speaking to this amendment to the amendment, starting to go on about the lack of work that the government has been doing.
The reality of the situation is, Mr. Chair, that 8.9 million Canadians have received CERB and 5.4 million Canadians received CERB between the time the World Health Organization declaring a global pandemic and a month and four days later. This government has been working around the clock, and, more importantly, so have the officials for the government, the departments, the folks who have been coming in for overtime, folks who have been working from home relentlessly to develop programs that would probably otherwise take 18 months to develop. You're seeing these programs come together, like CERB, in a matter of five or six days.
For Mr. Julian to be making the point, which he just made a moment ago, that the government is not doing anything and is not doing meaningful things to support Canadians, I think, is incredibly disingenuous, especially when you look at the facts.
He brought up businesses, so to address his point specifically, 106,000 small business have received commercial rent assistance in Canada. That's a lot of businesses throughout our country that are receiving assistance from the federal government.
There are 994,000 employees who have been helped as a result of that, and those businesses—
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I have a point of order. As you know, Mr. Chair, one can occasionally stray, as I did, for 20 seconds when intervening, but there is a question of relevance when people go on for minutes and minutes about something that is not related to the amendment at all.
Mr. Gerretsen, you've taken far longer than 20—
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
If I understand correctly, Mr. Chair, Mr. Julian is—
Liberal
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
There is an issue of relevance here. Straying occasionally is quite different from devoting an entire speech to something that is not relevant to what is before the committee.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
If that's the case, Mr. Chair, and I accept that from Mr. Julian, I would love for him to tell me what the official amount of time is. He said 20 seconds. Is that written down somewhere, or is that his anecdotal perspective? Or is that how long it takes him to stray? I guess as long as Mr. Julian can stray for 20 seconds....
Sorry, Mr. Chair, but your microphone is way up. I can't hear you trying to interrupt.
Liberal
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
You've had quite a bit of time to rebut the remarks of Mr. Julian, and I think that's fair ball. If we could get back to the amendment and why you are proposing it and supporting it, that would be great.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Well, I didn't get to finish it. I am not as skilled as Mr. Julian. I haven't had the years of experience he has had to be able to summarize thoughts in 20 seconds or less. I apologize if it takes me longer to do that. I'm not as skilled a politician as he is.
I don't think it's appropriate for Mr. Julian to set arbitrarily time limits for how long one is able to stray off topic. Either you're allowed to, or you're not allowed to. Mr. Julian was allowed to, but I guess it was only 20 seconds, so he was okay. Now I'm trying to address what he said, and I'm being called out of order by him for doing that. I take exception to that, Mr. Chair.
I'll leave it at that, and I'll turn the floor back over to you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
That's good, Mr. Gerretsen.
Mr. Julian may not be able to set time limits, but as chair, I can, so let's get back to relevance.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We have Ms. Dzerowicz and then Mr. Fraser.
We're on the amendment to the amendment; keep that in mind.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
Yes, thank you. One can get lost in all these, yes.
The reason I support the amendment is that it will ensure that the package of documents we have been provided a link to is complete and that the transmittal letters are included, and that is a fundamental reason I am supporting the motion of my colleague Mr. Gerretsen.
I also want to point out that perhaps if there is some question as to whether the documents were redacted properly, I think the committee should get to hear from the public servants who did the redactions and from the law clerk and the parliamentary counsel, because right now I think we have to ensure that due process is provided to them. If after the committee has heard from these witnesses it is still not satisfied, then it can take whatever action it deems necessary, but at least we will have afforded due process to allow those who redacted these documents to speak to them.
I would also point to some remarks that Minister Rodriguez's parliamentary assistant Kevin Lamoureux made in the House in September.
He said the following:
...I want to make it clear that when the finance committee restarts on October 8 or 9, if it readopts the motion and is not satisfied with the way the government has provided documents to the committee, the government is prepared to work in good faith with the committee to address any concerns that it may have.
I also want to point out again what the Harper Conservative government said in 2010 in response to the 22nd report of the public accounts committee. It's a government where Mr. Poilievre and indeed a number of MPs currently at this meeting served as MPs.
The Government believes that the departmental officials acted lawfully and diligently in these circumstances and that the House and Canadians should be concerned with the committee’s exercise of a claimed privilege in these particular circumstances. Necessity is the principle that underlies parliamentary privilege, which itself is “a gift from the electorate” to safeguard their rights. In the Government’s view, even if privilege were to extend so far, a very strong justification would be required for demanding the personal information of individual citizens, which in this case comprised twelve seconds of tape. In the same vein, the supplementary opinion of the 22nd report raises concerns that the committee “did not consider the public interest when demanding the production of these audiocassettes.” Regardless of the scope of the committee’s powers, the Government believes that parliamentary committees and all parliamentarians should, as a general principle and as a matter of convention, exercise restraint in the exercise of their privileges, particularly when the interests of individual citizens are affected.
Those are my comments so far, Mr. Chair, and that will feed over to Mr. Fraser, who was after me, I believe.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Mrs. Jansen, did you have your hand up, or were you just giving a wave?
