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
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Mr. Chair, would it be something that the clerk maybe could look at doing, taking it under advisement and getting back to the committee?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Yes. Getting back to the committee, the question is when? The motion stipulates, “shall be filed with the Clerk of the Committee within 24 hours”. We could ask her to do that.
I think what Ms. Jansen's question related to is whether this can be done in a pretty expedited fashion so that the information would be available and that doing this would not slow down the process, at least too much, in terms of getting the report to the House.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Mr. Chair, I raise the point because it would be difficult to move towards a vote without that [Inaudible--Editor].
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I'm not hearing a lot of discussion on this subamendment.
Are you ready for the vote?
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Yes, Mr. Gerretsen, we're voting on your subamendment.
I don't believe members have changed. Well, maybe they have.
Madam Clerk, you'd better check your list, because Mr. Kelloway might have replaced Mr. Fraser. I'm not sure.
Mike, have you replaced Mr. Fraser?
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
Just as a point of information, does Mr. Fraser have to be logged off to be able to have Mr. Kelloway on the vote, or can he stay on like that?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
No, members are certainly allowed to attend. It's their right, as a member, to attend. The important factor is who signed in to vote.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Madam Clerk, do you want to go through the vote?
(Subamendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
I see that Mr. Kelloway is into virtual voting on committee, the same as we do in the House. Way to go, Mike.
We're back to the amendment to the original motion.
Does anybody want it read, or do we know where we're at?
Madam Clerk, it comes right in after the first “that”, and it's about pulling up the documents from session 1 of the 43rd Parliament. Could you read that amendment into the record so that people know what we're discussing, and then we'll get on with it?
Evelyn Lukyniuk
The amendment reads, “That the evidence heard and papers received by the committee during its study on government spending, WE and the Canada Student Service Grant during the first session of the 43rd Parliament be taken into consideration by the committee during the current session and accordingly”—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay, we all know what the amendment is now.
I have on my original list: Mr. Gerretsen, Ms. Dzerowicz and Mr. Fragiskatos. They're the only three.
Does anybody else want on the list?
Are you ready to go, Mr. Gerretsen? You're the one I have on the....
Oops, now he's off and Ms. Dzerowicz is first.
Are you ready to roll, Julie?
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
The list is now Mr. Fragiskatos, Ms. Koutrakis, Ms. Dzerowicz and Mr. Gerretsen.
Go ahead.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
On a point of order, have we voted on the amendment yet, which is the amendment that was originally put forward by Mr. Kelly?
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
We're on the amendment. My hand was raised for the original motion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We are now debating the amendment to the original motion that the clerk just read.
We'll start with you, Mr. Fragiskatos, and then we'll go to the list that I see before me.
People, put your hands up so I can see them.
Mr. Fragiskatos.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
It's unfortunate. We had what I thought was a very elegant solution on the table because of Mr. Gerretsen's initiative to put forward an amendment to the amendment. We are seemingly running around in circles. Either way, sometimes that's what you have to do to get to a good outcome. Mr. Gerretsen had put forward something that I thought was quite reasonable. I wonder why opposition colleagues have not supported it. Here we are again debating an amendment that a number of us were rightly concerned about—an amendment that comes close, if not entirely, to breaching privilege.
With that said, Mr. Chair, I still have great hesitation here. I think we have to think very carefully about the way to proceed.
Let's not forget that all of this debate is obstructing what must be the fundamental focus of this committee, especially right now. That is COVID-19, pre-budget deliberations and inviting the nearly 800 stakeholders who want to come to this committee and make their case as they see it. We are continuing to dither on that.
As I've said here before today and I'll put on the record once again, Standing Order 83.1 calls on the committee to commence pre-budget deliberations, which should take place over a number of weeks with a defined timeline. It has to end by a particular date.
Mr. Chair, perhaps you could confer with the clerk on this: What happens if that standing order is violated? The more we continue to see the opposition play politics in this way, the more likely it is that standing order is violated. What happens if the committee is in violation of 83.1? What are the consequences for the committee? I think that needs to be understood by all members.
This is not an effort to sidestep issues around WE Charity and some of the mistakes that happened on that particular issue. I've been a member of this committee for some time, including during the summer, when we had a number of hearings on the matter. These are important questions no doubt, but I can tell you, and I think every single member of this committee would echo the sentiment, that there are people in our communities who want this committee to be serious about the work that it's doing. There are any number of questions that we would look at. I would think that we examine very closely issues related to COVID-19 without any hesitation.
The more the opposition wants to put forward amendments—or motions, to begin with, and then amendments to motions—that really have nothing to do with the issue of our time....
When I get up, I'm thinking about constituents. I know that MPs around the table are thinking about constituents, too. What are those constituents thinking about, Mr. Chair? They're thinking about the challenges they're facing because of COVID-19. They're thinking about paying their rent. They're thinking about paying their mortgage. They are thinking about putting groceries on the table. We have seen government programs really provide a lifeline. They have helped in so many ways to serve as a safety net for Canadians across the country, whether as individuals or as Canadians who own businesses.
The CFIB, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, says that it wants to see this committee be serious about moving forward with thoughts on and advice to the government based on expert testimony, which it would be included within. I would love to hear from the CFIB, even though it's been critical of the government on a number of points. It has made some cogent points throughout this entire experience of COVID-19.
That is also true of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, which is another organization with an important voice that I know my Conservative colleagues certainly respect. Where is it on this? It wants to see this committee carry out very important work.
Restaurants are ailing right now. The more we debate amendments to motions and motions to do this, that and the other around the WE Charity issue, the more we are obstructed from helping those folks on the ground. I mentioned restaurants in particular. My family has great experience in restaurants. My parents recently retired from the sector, but I know that family members and friends who are still in it are facing real problems.
Take a look at what Todd Barclay recently said. He is, as you know, the president and CEO of Restaurants Canada. He said, “We appreciate the federal government acting on this critical recommendation” of stepping up to support Canadians during COVID-19, “among other new support measures announced—”
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I think you're anticipating the point of order.
Mr. Julian, what is your point of order?
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I have no objections to Mr. Fragiskatos's carefully prepared arguments. I just wanted to verify with the clerk that the papers for Alistair MacGregor, the MP for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, a very dedicated guy who will be taking my place, have been submitted so that he can take over for me for the next few hours. I'll be back this evening to enjoy this filibuster in its second or third round.
