Evidence of meeting #2 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 video is available from Parliament.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Certainly, and perhaps I'll address that point before I'm done as well.
Where I was going with this point is that if we were to adopt the main motion or the amendment without the subamendment, we would not only be denying the opportunity for the civil service to explain why the redactions were made, but we would also specifically be excluding from evidence the explanation it had already given to this committee, but which has nevertheless not made it onto the evidentiary record before the committee. I don't think that's fair.
The rule at play here is one of due process. There's no question that this committee in Parliament, I should say more broadly, has the ability to control its own internal processes. However, I think we should refrain from disembarking from a long history, both in parliamentary democracy more broadly and our system of justice protecting due process. In fact, instead of dumping off the analysis without seeing complete information, I think the appropriate thing would be to ask the ministers responsible to make what disclosures remain outstanding.
The situation that we have here is impugning our professional public service, who remain non-partisan, for the jobs they have done. We heard directly from the Prime Minister, from the Prime Minister's chief of staff, from the then finance minister, from the Minister responsible for ESDC, and from staff. The process of accountability and, frankly, the transparency built throughout, is the kind of thing we had the opportunity to ask the ministers responsible about already. Now we're trying to pass judgment on the government's alleged violation of the committee's privileges based on documents from individual public servants who don't even have an opportunity to defend themselves, and without giving the opportunity for the minister responsible to actually offer the defence.
I know that honourable members on this committee are familiar with the concept of ministerial responsibility. In fact, the member from Carleton, in a previous Parliament, I believe it was in 2010, during a committee meeting said:
My comments will continue to focus on the conduct of political staff members and the importance of ministerial responsibility for that conduct. That is entirely pertinent to this motion, and if committee members disagree they will discard my arguments. I'm going to quote continually the rules as they are written: The individual or personal responsibility of the Minister derives from a time when in practice and not just in theory the Crown governed; Ministers merely advised the Sovereign and were responsible to the Sovereign for their advice. The principle of individual ministerial responsibility holds that Ministers are accountable not only for their own actions as department heads, but also for the actions of their subordinates....
He went on, and I'm reading from the original quote:
The principle of individual ministerial responsibility holds that Ministers are accountable not only for their own actions as department heads, but also for the actions of their subordinates; individual ministerial responsibility provides the basis for accountability throughout the system. Virtually all departmental activity is carried out in the name of a Minister who, in turn, is responsible to Parliament for those acts. Again: Virtually all departmental activity is carried out in the name of the Minister who, in turn, is responsible to Parliament for those acts.
This is a continuing quote from the member in this committee. He continued:We are Parliament in this committee, and it is ministers who are accountable to Parliament, according to the rules.Ministers exercise power and are constitutionally responsible for the provision and conduct of government; Parliament holds them personally responsible for it. The principle of collective ministerial responsibility, which is of a much more recent vintage, evolved when Ministers replaced the Sovereign as the decision-makers of government. Ministers are expected to take responsibility for, and defend, all Cabinet decisions. The principle provides stability within the framework of ministerial government by uniting the responsibilities of the individual Ministers under the collective responsibility of the Crown.
That latter point explains why Minister Baird is here to explain the conduct of a member of the Prime Minister's Office. Under the principle of collective responsibility, he, as a minister, a servant, is responsible in our system for defending the conduct of subordinates in this government. He has been so designated by the Prime Minister, who makes those designations by historic convention.
This is the foundation of our democratic system of government, Mr. Chair. It is not something that can be thrown away at a whim or dispensed with when a coalition of parties, through their numbers, seeks to undermine it in order to score a few short-term and myopic political points.
In the aftermath of the 2008 election, the coalition parties attempted to reverse the results of that vote. Now we are seeing them attempt to reverse the results of roughly 300 years of parliamentary tradition and replace it with a kangaroo court that would intimidate political staff members, whose responsibilities to this House flow through the ministers
Mr. Chair, the quote, I think, was well articulated at the time and is applicable today. What this committee is seeking to do, in the absence of the subamendment forming part of the motion to ultimately be adopted by this committee, is to attribute responsibility for violating the privileges of members of Parliament who serve on this committee to civil servants, by virtue of the evidentiary record that includes only testimony and emails that come specifically from civil servants. They won't even allow evidence from the head of the relevant departments or indeed the head of the civil service, the Clerk of the Privy Council, to be adduced into the evidentiary record. This would fly in the face of holding the minister responsible. I don't think it would be fair, frankly, to avoid an explanation from the government by the minister responsible by referring only to the documentary evidence that has been partially disclosed to this committee as a result of a technical difficulty during the uploading of the documents. Again, I'm referring specifically to the exclusion or attempted exclusion of the transmittal letters from the body of evidence that's before this committee.
With respect to the appropriateness of the redaction, I think the opportunity to explain is key. I think the transmittal letters would be essential, and I think that the government has demonstrated a willingness to work with this committee formally or informally, specifically when the Parliamentary Secretary to the House Leader made the invitation to say that if this committee is not satisfied with what it's received, the government would work in good faith with it.
There hasn't been an opportunity to even have that conversation directly with the government because there's this effort to have only a portion of the evidentiary record from the previous session of this Parliament introduced into the evidence currently before this committee.
The NDP had made the argument previously—and Mr. Poilievre has hinted at this as well—that because we have a supremacy over our ability to produce records, in fact...and the parliamentary law clerk made an allusion to this in the letter sent to members of this committee, but we also have letters specifically from the head of the public service, who explained that there are certain rules they are bound by. I think that attempting to reconcile those two points of view through conversation may in fact be a productive thing.
Specifically, Mr. Chair, the kinds of things that we're dealing with...and my colleague, Mr. Gerretsen went to great lengths to make these points during our previous meeting. If you read the transmittal letters, a lot of them say very similar things. The head of Canada's public service and the head of different departments have by and large explained that there were two kinds, two buckets, of documents each of which were treated differently by the motion this committee adopted back in July. Specifically, the motion states:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a), the Committee order that any contracts concluded with We Charity and Me to We, all briefing notes, memos and emails
—including the contribution agreement between the department and WE Charity—
from senior officials prepared for or sent to any Minister regarding the design and creation of the Canada Student Service Grant, as well as any written correspondence and records of other correspondence with We Charity and Me to We from March 2020 be provided to the Committee no later than August 8, 2020; that matters of Cabinet confidence and national security be excluded from the request;
—which is going to be important in just a moment—
and that any redactions necessary, including to protect the privacy of Canadian citizens and permanent residents whose names and personal information may be included in the documents, as well as public servants who have been providing assistance on this matter, be made by the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons.
The two categories outlined in that motion include, first, the documents that would be subjected to cabinet confidence or that may have national security implications. The second would be redactions that are designed to deal with the privacy and personal information of individuals who are not members of this committee.
The first category is an important one. Each of the transmittal letters indicated that no redactions were made for national security purposes, so that is not really an issue before the committee, and I don't think anyone would dispute that, but I've been surprised before.
The second heading under that bucket, if you will, is cabinet confidences. There are explanations in each of the transmittal letters that certain redactions had been made for the purpose of protecting cabinet confidence, but, in fact, we never requested documents that touched on cabinet confidences.
You'll recall, Mr. Chair, that our colleague Mr. Poilievre, during the middle of the summer, was waving around pages that, in fact, were heavily redacted. I won't dispute that; in fact, pages were redacted. I think that's obvious, but what he didn't tell anybody is that those were documents that specifically weren't asked for because they were subject to cabinet confidence. I think that's pretty important.
The reason that we redacted pages at all was that we chose to produce.... I shouldn't say “we”; the government chose to produce documents that were not asked for even though they were subject to cabinet confidences and produced the portion of it that were relevant to the WE Charity matters that this committee had been looking at.
If you go through the document, you can see details of cabinet meetings that were revealed to this committee even though we specifically said we did not want them. The remaining pages that follow some of those were, in fact, heavily redacted, but again, they may have touched on anything from—
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I believe that if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That the committee immediately move to votes on the subamendment, the amendment and the main motion that resulted from my earlier point of privilege—
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think you're procedurally correct in your assessment of the proposed motion.
In any event, we've covered the cabinet confidences and national security, which I think, as Mr. Gerretsen pointed out, cover many of the more heavily redacted versions. Again, for the sake of clarity, the reason that most of those redactions would have taken place is that they are subject to cabinet confidence, but in any event this committee, or I should say the finance committee in the previous session of this Parliament, specifically told the government that it didn't want documents that fell into that category.
The remaining category of redactions is really the only thing that is in dispute at this committee. Redactions were made that the motion suggested ought to have been made by the clerk. However the relevant deputy ministers, in accordance with the legislation they referred to in those transmittal letters, explained why those redactions took place and what efforts they made to obtain consent to divulge information that the statutes bar them from divulging.
For the most part it was personal contact information. Mr. Gerretsen went through at great length, page-by-page to demonstrate that among the redacted documents this committee asked, the redacted parts largely touched on the personal contact details of the independent public servants. Although I know Mr. Gerretsen had some fun during the committee meeting imputing motives in at least one instance, I don't think why someone may have been trying to—
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I'm not sure if it was the audio on my end, but could you have Mr. Fraser repeat the previous statement he made regarding personal information. I didn't hear it.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Peter, I trust you don't want me to start from the beginning, so I'll pick up at the last sentence.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Mr. Chair, I want just the previous few sentences.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
No problem. I am coming near the end of my argument.
In any event, aside from the cabinet confidences, which we did not ask for but were provided anyway, the remaining category of redactions largely touches on personal information. I don't think this committee needs to see the phone numbers of public servants. I think it would be inappropriate. I do think that the public would benefit from going through the documents that have been provided to see the redactions for themselves.
Aside from those pages that we didn't ask for, these are minor redactions that touch on the personal information of Canada's professional and independent public service. I'd be happy to get into the redactions more specifically and in depth if we need to. I hope we don't need to go there.
For the time being, for those reasons, I think it's essential that the committee support the subamendment. It will allow us to see the total body of evidence, to quickly move to pre-budget consultations and return to the controversy on the specific motion as soon as we are done. Hopefully, it will allow the government an opportunity to work with this committee to give it the information it needs to bring a level of oversight to whichever spending programs we desire to review. In this particular instance, I don't think it's necessary to disclose the personal information of public servants as part of it.
Those are my comments for now, Mr. Chair.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Thank you, Mr. Fraser.
Next on my list is Ms. Dzerowicz, followed by Mr. Fragiskatos.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
It's nice to see everybody.
I want to start by just addressing this off the top. I believe there was a comment earlier about the Prime Minister instructing us to do this filibuster. I don't know how other parties work, but our Prime Minister doesn't instruct our committees. I just wanted to indicate for the record that this is absolutely not true.
I can also personally say that I have zero desire to have this meeting go any longer than it needs to. I only have a great desire to move as quickly as we can to pre-budget consultations, which is why I was delighted that you, Mr. Chair, suggested right off the bat that we move right to a pre-budget consultation motion. You asked for unanimous consent, and I do want the record to formally show that there was no support from the Conservatives, no support from the NDP and no support from the Bloc Québécois for your ask in terms of unanimous consent for us to move directly to pre-budget consultations.
I also want to address a few of the comments that Mr. Poilievre started off with. He talks about a WE scandal. Saying one million times that there's a WE scandal doesn't make it true. There was no WE scandal. There were some legitimate concerns when WE was selected about how WE was selected. There was a motion that we as finance committee had agreed to study it in terms of how the decision came about and how much money was actually spent in providing that contract over to WE.
I want to remind everybody once again—I know I said this last time, but sometimes repetition is important—that for almost two months over the summer we met to actually deliberate on those questions. Again, transparency and oversight are absolutely critical. If there are questions, or if people think there are mistakes, it's absolutely important for us to be looking at that.
I do also want to remind the public, the media and anybody else who's listening that it isn't typical for committees to meet during the summer, but it was extraordinarily important for us. We're in a pandemic. I think that initially we were meeting as the finance committee to provide proper oversight of the emergency support programs, which is absolutely appropriate. Then, I think, when the decisions around WE being selected for the Canada summer student grant program came up, it was determined that it was important for us to look at it. I just want to remind people of what we heard, because, again, I want to continue to dispel the consistent sorts of statements about WE scandals or WE cover-ups. There was no corruption.
There was no corruption. We heard—under oath—from both of the Kielburgers, Craig and Marc Kielburger. We heard from Prime Minister Trudeau. We heard from Minister Morneau.
We heard that they're not friends. They don't have each other's phone numbers. They don't socialize. There was zero attempt by anybody in our government to be able to select WE for any personal benefit or to benefit people who might have been their friends. They're not personal friends.
We also heard very clearly that WE was selected by our civil servants. I was actually going through Rachel Wernick's testimony again. There was a day when we had Ms. Wernick come in. We had Ms. Gina Wilson come in on the same day, I believe, and we had Minister Bardish Chagger come in as well. Ms. Wernick very clearly stated that, given the fact that we had very specific parameters and very quick time frames, it was suggested by the bureaucrats, by herself, that WE could be the only organization that could actually deliver the program in the timeline and the time frame that we had asked them to do it in. That was validated by Ms. Wilson and also by our Clerk of the Privy Council, Mr. Shugart.
There was no misuse of funds. The other thing we were asked to look at was whether or not.... How much money did we spend on all this? What we heard for all of the monies at the time of our last meeting was that it was about to be returned. I think it was in a bank account, and I think they just needed some final details, but my understanding is that at this moment all of the dollars have been returned. We also heard that there was zero profit to WE. It was just costs that they were covering.
Then the contribution agreement was selected because of the expediency of actually being able to deliver the actual program. I don't know if there were 13 or 17, but there was an extraordinary number of checkpoints to try to ensure that there was accountability for any of the dollars that were actually given to WE for the delivery of the CSSG program and to ensure that it was actually doing what it was meant to be doing.
We talked about why it was rushed. We talked about why it was not a sole-source contract and why it was a contribution agreement. We also gave lots of examples of other contribution agreements. We also proved, time and time again, that it was absolutely for students, that we actually made this decision, in terms of selecting WE, because we absolutely wanted to support our students and that this was just one of many programs in the over $9 billion we've actually allocated to support students in a number of different programs.
During our last session I did read out the names of some of those programs, and if we do have to go on for a long time this evening, I'll continue to read the full list of all the programs a little later. I'll talk a little bit more about this in a minute, although my colleague Mr. Fraser has done an excellent job talking about there being no cover-up in terms of the redacted document.
I also want to continue to remind everyone that there continue to be two independent investigations by two outstanding, long-term civil servants: our Auditor General—who will continue to provide oversight of the spending, including that for the CSSG program, all the other student programs and all the other programs that are currently under way—and the Ethics Commissioner, who is currently investigating both the former Minister of Finance, the Honourable Bill Morneau, and our Prime Minister, to see whether there indeed was any type of ethics violation.
That is what we recall.
I also want to address Mr. Poilievre's other point around a WE cover-up. Again, mentioning a cover-up one million times does not make it a cover-up. There were 5,600 documents were released. It could be a little bit more. Maybe it was 5,693. I'm not quite sure of the exact number. I am just saying approximately 5,600 documents. They were released on the day that our Prime Minister announced the prorogation. Our Prime Minister made sure those documents were actually released publicly before he actually prorogued government.
I want to remind everybody that any of the redactions that were made to the 5,600 pages were made by our independent civil servants. That again has been validated by my colleague Mr. Fraser, or at least we have been reminded us about it. This subamendment that is before us right now seeks to address any issues there might be in terms of any political interference in making the decisions on what was to be redacted.
The subamendment is trying to say to bring forward those senior civil servants, whose job it was to do the redactions. Let's bring them before this committee. Let's also bring forward our parliamentary law clerk, as well as our parliamentary legal counsel, so this committee can actually ask questions, and so they can explain why the redactions happened and answer any questions that maybe have not been brought out into the open. That is what this subamendment to the amendment to the original motion is trying to do.
I want to point out once again the four key parts of this subamendment: the first is to suspend the main motion and the amendment that Mr. Poilievre has proposed. Again, it's just suspending it. It's not eliminating it. It's not putting it away. It's suspending it.
The second is to have the chair authorized to schedule meetings with the witnesses—which is what I had mentioned to you before—and invite the relevant deputy ministers or signatories of the transmittal letters—so those who were actually responsible for the actual redactions—as well as the law clerk and parliamentary counsel of the House of Commons.
The third part of it is that we resume debate, after we do those sessions, to debate Mr. Poilievre's motion once the meetings have actually taken place.
I don't want to have anybody think we're trying to cover up anything. I truly don't believe we're trying to cover up anything. I have complete confidence in all of our public servants. They have, to the best of their ability, sought to only redact those items that deal with cabinet confidentiality and any personal or other items that should not be disclosed, like conference call numbers, or any items that might be completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. I have 100% confidence in our public servants to be able to do that.
Now I want to go for a couple of minutes to what Mr. Julian mentioned, that we are trying to do away with the pre-budget consultations. I want to directly say to Mr. Julian that there was an opportunity at the onset of this meeting to support the chair's suggestion to us to vote on pre-budget consultations so that our clerk and her team could start calling witnesses and preparing for the meetings. We know that we have 793 submissions to come before this committee. There's a lot of work ahead, and it's important work that Canadians need us to do.
I think we have to make a decision as colleagues. Do we want to make our Parliament work? That includes the work here on this committee. I genuinely and truly believe that every one of us ran because we want to serve not only our local communities, but also our country, and we want to make much better the lives of the people we're honoured and privileged to serve. I think this particular moment is especially important because we're going through an unprecedented pandemic. It's a health crisis. It's an economic crisis. Canadians need us more than ever to step up and make our best efforts to help them and our country through this unpredictable time.
This committee can provide that space for the pre-budget consultations so we can hear some of the best ideas from those who are being impacted in both the short and long terms. We can also hear from some of our economic and financial leaders. I truly believe that if we make a decision today to move to pre-budget consultations, you would have very willing partners, at least on the government side, to move forward as fast as possible. I urge us to find a way to unanimously approve going right to a pre-budget consultation motion and moving as fast as possible to pre-budget consultations.
I also want to make reference to a letter that our government House leader has submitted to the House leaders of each the Bloc Québécois, the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party. I know there were discussions behind the scenes about a special committee to oversee the investments in COVID-19. I'm not quite sure whether that's completely off the table. I would like to believe that maybe that could still be on the table. I think it's a really great idea. It's a committee that would do two things. One is to provide continued oversight of COVID-19 spending, particularly since we're spending over $300 million on the 80 programs we've introduced. I think it's really important for us to continue to be transparent and accountable and provide as much oversight not only on federal spending, but I would love us to also be able to ensure that we get accountability for all the dollars we've also sent to the provinces, the municipalities and other groups and make sure money is going to where it needs to go; that if some adjustments are needed, that we're able to do so.
I like this proposed motion for a special committee. I particularly like it because it would allow the finance committee, which had already been doing some of this oversight prior to prorogation, to engage fully and completely in pre-budget consultations, to focus on budget 2021 and the best recommendations and the best ideas and the best thinking out there and have another committee provide that proper accountability and oversight. It also gives the committee a mandate to take over the responsibility for the issue of the document redaction, anything to do with anybody still worried about any of the redactions of the WE documents that were submitted.
I think, if there are some additional steps that need to be taken, I think that is an option and a committee that could be looked at.
I want to end maybe at this point, because I've lots of other things to say, but I'll let some other colleagues talk. I do want to reiterate that there really is zero desire, at least on my side—and I truly believe I'm speaking for the government side—for us to be going any longer than we need to. I think we're trying to find a path to the pre-budget consultations as quickly as possible.
All of these other motions, to be honest, are unneeded diversions. I think they're diversions that we should find a way to maybe withdraw simply because, at this point in time, Canadians need us to step up and do the work at hand on pre-budget consultations and to find a way to restart our economy as quickly as possible and support them as workers, as Canadians, and support our businesses as we try to come out of one of the largest health and economic crisis we've had in almost 100 years.
I think with that, Mr. Chair, I'm going to sign off at this point and allow the next speaker to speak.
Thank you.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, colleagues. I'd especially like to thank Ms. Dzerowicz for reminding us of the importance of pre-budget consultations. I echo that sentiment completely.
I know I put it on the record last meeting, but I think we have to, as members of Parliament entrusted to carry out the will of constituents, really ask ourselves where we are in the country right now. We are seized with the most significant crisis of our time.
Thankfully, we have Standing Orders that lead us in the right direction, or should lead us in the right direction, Mr. Chair, if members want to acknowledge where we are and what needs to be done.
I asked you in the previous meeting, Mr. Chair—and there was also a question for the clerk—about Standing Order 83.1 and what happens in instances where that Standing Order is not respected. Of course, Standing Order 83.1, as we all know, or should know, relates to pre-budget consultations. It calls specifically for the finance committee to carry out pre-budget consultations by a specified date.
Mr. Chair, it's been a few days since that very lengthy meeting, and my memory is a bit foggy. Could you remind me what happens when a committee does not respect a Standing Order, in this case 83.1? What would be the consequences of that? If you don't have that answer immediately at hand, feel free to interrupt—it's the chair's prerogative to do so—and you can provide it to me and our committee. We would need a reminder on that. I think it's an important thing to know as we engage in discussions around this topic.
There is something else that bears emphasizing. I've talked about the Standing Orders and the need to respect them, but let's also keep in mind that these Standing Orders exist for particular reasons. They didn't fall from the sky. They are the legacy of a long-established Westminster parliamentary tradition that over time, over decades and generations, has been built up. Those Standing Orders, which are the rules or the foundation of Parliament, are the constitution by which we engage one another in parliamentary procedure. We have to follow those rules. It's not as if this rule stands on its own and we can choose to respect it or ignore it. It exists for good reason. There are historic reasons behind the existence of standing orders, and I think that also needs to be put to colleagues.
Furthermore, it is so surprising—well, perhaps not surprising judging by the partisanship of the opposition parties, in particular the Conservatives—that it's much more reasonable to engage with my colleagues Mr. Ste-Marie and Mr. Julian. That's not to take anything away from what the Conservative members add to this committee. When we have seen genuine meetings take place, they have contributed. Fair enough, we will disagree from time to time, perhaps most of the time, but I've seen every single Conservative member in the previous Parliament, and I'm sure I'll see that from the new members of the committee, with Mr. Falk.... I've sat in on other committees where Mr. Falk has served. He made an important contribution on the justice committee. Ms. Jansen is a new member of Parliament. I would expect that she will also make a contribution here, and bring ideas, particularly around issues of the environment. I know that she's worked in that field before, as a small businessperson, if I'm not mistaken.
In any case, it is something that I think we can all look forward to. We all bring our own experiences to these discussions, Mr. Chair. However, I will go back to the point that I began with. You might be wondering where I'm going with this.
I'm wondering, Mr. Chair, where was unanimous consent for pre-budget consultations? We're faced with a crisis. I expected that we would put partisanship completely aside to engage on this very important issue before the committee.
Ms. Dzerowicz is quite right, and her constituents are quite fortunate, because they have a serious member of Parliament who recognizes where the country is and what needs to be done. As I've said throughout, we need to have pre-budget consultations. We need to hear from the close to 800 stakeholders.
Correct me if I'm wrong. Again, you can verify this at your leisure, but I believe that is the highest number of requests we've ever seen at the finance committee, period. That is a new record, so to speak, and one that is not at all unexpected. We see a crisis before us, and of course there's going to be an enormous number of stakeholders from right across the country who want to speak to us, and we have to hear them out. We should have seen tonight a unanimous consent motion pass for this committee to engage immediately, without reservation, towards a pre-budget consultation, but here we are. It's tremendously unfortunate.
I will tell you, Mr. Chair, as someone who has served now for a couple of years on the finance committee, that pre-budget consultations aren't simply an exercise. They really provide the foundation for what the finance committee does, which is to put forward opinions and thoughts in the form of recommendations that go directly to the Minister of Finance and directly to the Prime Minister for review.
Now, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have, as their prerogative, the ability to ignore those recommendations. I know that was the case in previous governments, for example. I don't mean to pick on the Conservatives, but a good number—most, in fact, from what I've heard from colleagues who worked on previous finance committees—of the recommendations made by finance committees that operated during the time of Stephen Harper were not adhered to. It was the PMO and the Department of Finance, but especially the PMO under Mr. Harper, that was setting the budget direction. I won't say that's fine, but that's in the past, and I won't dwell on that.
This particular government has taken a different approach, whereby members of Parliament can actually, from across the aisles.... I'm in Ottawa right now, Mr. Chair, and just yesterday I saw a member of Parliament on the Conservative side walk right over to the Minister of Health and hand the minister a letter on behalf of a constituent. The minister accepted that letter. It goes to show that there is this engagement, this openness, which one could argue is in fact a characteristic of the Westminster system and which, as we all know, allows for a direct interaction between the opposition, especially Her Majesty's loyal opposition, and the government.
Mr. Chair, in fact, this reminds me of things that you have said in Parliament yourself. I remember you giving a passionate speech—this was a number of months ago—where you spoke about the ability of members of Parliament to engage directly with the executive, whether it's to hand them a letter on behalf of constituents or whether it is, in previous times prior to the pandemic, to sit down with them and talk about an issue of relevance and importance. This speaks to what the Westminster system allows for—that direct engagement—in contrast to the presidential system. I gave a speech in Parliament yesterday, and at the opening, I talked about how in fact one of the ways that I think the Westminster system stands as a positive contrast is that, unlike the presidential system, where there's not that direct engagement between opposition and government, the Westminster system allows that very direct engagement.
Here we have a committee—I'm speaking mostly to the opposition here—in which we can come together and put forward ideas that will be looked at very seriously by the government, because that principle is built into the system itself. It's built into the Westminster system. The government has to look at what this committee puts forward and opines on in the form of recommendations. As I said before, it is these pre-budget consultations that have helped to really structure—I think that was the word I used—my approach in the finance committee, because the most important thing a government can do, apart, certainly, from respecting the physical security of citizens and ensuring it, is to look at a budget that provides for all their other basic needs, all the other basic needs that citizens rightly expect their government to fulfill. Without a budget, there really is no reason for government, one could argue.
Therefore, I think it's the most important work this committee can do. We had an opportunity tonight to proceed immediately to that, but again my colleagues in the opposition have stood in the way, which is so incredibly unfortunate. I say that again. I am just stunned at where we are.
What did we hear instead? Instead we heard Mr. Poilievre who, by the way, Mr. Chair, I have no personal qualm with. I think Mr. Poilievre has a particular approach to his role as an MP. Some can disagree with it; I know his colleagues will agree with it. He's a long-time and experienced member of the House, and I suppose the style he employs, what he brings to the job and how he engages in it, is based on a recognition, on his part at least, that it's something that works for him, so I won't comment on that.
But when Mr. Poilievre puts things on the record that simply are not true, my colleagues will forgive me for my.... I had a few points of order when Mr. Poilievre was speaking. It was not meant as a way to disrespect the member or disrespect the proceedings of the committee. I just thought that it was relevant to introduce a point of order to make sure that the blues reflect fact.
When Mr. Poilievre says things like the government allocated a certain amount of money to the WE Charity, that is simply false. He said that hundreds of millions of dollars went to the WE Charity. The number he used was $500 million. Perhaps the pandemic has been a long one, and we had a long meeting last week, so perhaps all of that has built up and is affecting of Mr. Poilievre's judgment. I'm not sure.
This is just a reminder that the $500-million figure actually relates to the Canada student service grant. There was $500-plus million dollars that was going to go towards the Canada student service grant to allow that program to function. It was not, absolutely not, going to go to WE Charity. There was $43 million that was going to go to WE Charity so that the organization could administer the program, but all of that money was going to be reimbursed. It's my understanding that any monies that were paid to WE Charity by the government have been paid back.
The long of the short of it, Mr. Chair, on that point is that no money is now in the pocket of WE Charity. When the opposition, as we heard here today with Mr. Poilievre.... Yesterday I was in the House and I heard a number of Conservative MPs speaking to the opposition day motion, which in and of itself is a separate matter. I don't think I'll touch on it here, but it depends.
What a ridiculous motion that was. When we're talking about the issues of the day, talking about the wage subsidy, talking about improving rental assistance, talking about the Canada recovery benefit and the need to support young people, these are the things that—
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Now I'm being interrupted. I had good things to say about Mr. Julian before—
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Mr. Fragiskatos, there is a point of order from Mr. Julian.
Mr. Julian, go ahead.
6:10 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
With regard to relevance, we're going to start cracking down in the filibuster whenever there is a move away from relevance. There is a long-standing tradition that you can take 15 or 20 seconds and deviate, but if what we're hearing now is Liberal members having no new content to add, then we really should proceed to the vote.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Certainly, Mr. Chair.
As we just saw, Ms. Dzerowicz raised the idea of pre-budget consultations. I'm speaking about pre-budget consultations and their importance. In fact, I'm very surprised that Mr. Julian would interrupt. I quite like Peter, Mr. Julian, for the approach that he brings—