I gave a compliment, Mr. Julian.
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.
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.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
6:10 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
This is not relevant to the subamendment. With respect, Mr. Chair, the rules are very clear. Mr. Fragiskatos has to be relevant to the subamendment discussion. If he has nothing further to say on that—
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay.
Speak to the motion on the floor, Mr. Fragiskatos, and tie it in as closely as you can.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
I have much to say. I will talk about the subamendment, Mr. Chairman. I'm about to do that.
I just wanted to acknowledge the comments of my colleague Ms. Dzerowicz, which brought forward the very important idea that we move to a pre-budget consultation. I also wanted to correct the record on some of the things Mr. Poilievre said. I think the parliamentary record should be accurate. I think I've done that now. Colleagues, I think in the House yesterday, I was one who corrected the record of what was exchanged in the House.
But I will leave that there. Mr. Julian should be happy because I'm going to talk about the subamendment here, which I think is eminently reasonable, Mr. Chair, extremely reasonable.
What does it call for? It does not dismiss what the opposition is talking about. That would have been the approach of previous governments. I'm thinking especially of Mr. Harper, but not to pick on him. There are other examples one could cite, but it's very interesting to hear Conservative members go on about democracy and transparency and accountability—
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
I'm about to talk about the subamendment, Mr. Chair. I keep getting interrupted.
6:10 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Chair, we're seeing repetition and lack of relevance. If Mr. Fragiskatos no longer has anything to say about the subamendment, we should proceed to a vote, because he is now repeating comments that he's made previously and he is not relevant to the question at hand.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
I will pick up where I left off. I'm surprised, because I had starting talking about the subamendment, one that I had said before is a very reasonable one. It calls on what? It calls on public servants to testify regarding the redactions made to the documents in question. What is wrong with that? Why would we want to muzzle our public servants, who have performed so admirably during the pandemic?
I had a conversation with a friend of mine earlier today, who was asking me about all of the various programs and how they're actually put together. It is a truism in politics that we, as elected officials, quite often if not always, get credit. That should not be the case. Our public servants deserve so much credit, because they have played such a great role when it comes to the policy design of the various programs, and we know what those programs are.
But what's at stake if we don't adopt the subamendment, if we don't allow public servants to come to explain to our committee why they decided to make certain decisions regarding redactions, I would say to you and say to my colleagues, is that we would violate a very important principle relating to fairness. Fairness is ultimately a question of justice. That is not something that is just a recognition on my part. There's a long-established philosophical tradition in liberalism in general, but I think if you look across the philosophical spectrum, if I can put it that way, you will find conceptions of justice that are ultimately rooted in fairness. Ultimately, when we talk about fairness, we're really talking about justice.
For me, Mr. Chair, it's about John Rawls. I'm passionate about politics for many reasons, but—
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Here we go again, Mr. Chair. I'm trying to speak to the subamendment. I'm trying to put some meat on the bones, Mr. Chairman.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
6:15 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you.
Again, I question the member's relevance on the subamendment and his repetition, Mr. Chair. If Mr. Fragiskatos has nothing new to add, and he is not going to stay relevant to the topic, we should proceed to a vote.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I believe, Mr. Julian, the subamendment relates to the document packages and the evidence that may or may not be in them. I do believe in this case Mr. Fragiskatos is providing background information on that last point.
Go ahead, Mr. Fragiskatos.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
I appreciate it, Mr. Chair.
I was making the point that questions of fairness—and those questions are at play if we deny public servants the opportunity to come to committee, as the Conservatives especially want to do, and I hope we won't. Questions of fairness are ultimately questions of justice. I was talking about John Rawls, who is probably the philosopher who recognized this the most or who's credited with a theory of justice that's rooted in fairness.
I don't mean to quote philosophers in an arrogant way. We all have our interests and passions. Philosophy is one of my interests, but I don't use it as a stick, so to speak, here at committee. It provides me with a foundation for understanding the various questions we are seized with, including the subamendment.
As I said, by calling on public servants to come to speak, it offers them an opportunity to put to us the rationale for their decisions. If we say “no” to those public servants, then we are denying them their ability to speak. We are in effect muzzling them, and I used that word earlier. I think it makes sense to repeat that word. We are denying them free speech, free thought and especially fair legal treatment.
I'm using these words directly from John Rawls in A Theory of Justice, which is no doubt his most famous work, published in 1971 but still extremely relevant. If my colleagues have not had a chance to read Rawls, that's a good place to start.
He asked the question of what makes up a just society, and said a number of things, but key characteristics such as the ability to vote have to be entrenched, as well as the ability to seek office and also free speech, free thought, and especially fair legal treatment, all of which have to be encouraged. All those are the key characteristics of what a free and a fair society looks like and therefore a just society. As I said, Rawls's concept of fairness is ultimately rooted in his notion of justice. I'm bouncing it around, and I'm sorry.
To get directly to it, by denying public servants the ability to speak to our committee, I would submit to my colleagues in the opposition, who are holding this up, that we would not be acting in a just way. As human beings they are entitled to fair treatment, and therefore public servants coming to our committee to put their thoughts on the record should happen.
I think the subamendment is incredibly fair in that regard. What would we say if they couldn't come, if we denied them that right? We would be saying that, in effect, this committee has endorsed the notion that free speech and free thought don't matter. I think that this idea of fair and equal legal treatment that Rawls talks about is especially applicable here. We would be commenting on matters that involve public servants, but not offering them an opportunity to justify decisions and to speak to us.
I don't mean to single out Mr. Julian, but if Mr. Julian can't get behind this subamendment, I would be surprised, because I've heard him speak at great length on his respect and admiration for the public service.
I remember in the summer, when we had the Public Service Alliance of Canada at committee, the union that represents public servants in this country—and I don't think it's the only union that does so, but it is probably the most well known—Mr. Julian spoke glowingly about his respect for that organization and all public servants. He regularly pointed to his appreciation of public servants, who throughout the pandemic have contributed endless hours away from their families in the spirit of designing programs that are ultimately benefiting Canadians.
We are seeing Canadians now enjoying those programs, and I use “enjoy” in context because obviously we are in a pandemic. However, those Canadians are able to provide for their families because of things like the CERB, the wage subsidy and all of the various other programs. Businesses are allowed to exist because of the work that—
6:20 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Again, it's relevance, Mr. Chair, and repetition. The Liberal members are repeating themselves now. They are not relevant to the debate at all. They are holding up a whole range of things, including our ability to schedule pre-budget hearings.
I think if there's nothing left to say, nothing new and nothing relevant, that we should proceed to the vote.
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Mr. Julian, we can see that the subamendment is quite broad if someone wants to read it out. It relates to public servants and to the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel to get testimony regarding the redactions—
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
—so I don't think Mr. Fragiskatos is far off relevance at this time. He has been before, but I don't believe at this time that he is.
Go ahead, Mr. Fragiskatos.
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Mr. Chair, I'll respectfully disagree, but the respect I have for you is such that I won't carry on that disagreement. I believe I've always been relevant, but if colleagues will deviate from that and put forward a different idea, including you, that's fine.
You mentioned something there that is important. You talked about the text of the subamendment. I am very passionate about the issues I'm bringing up here—the ideas of fairness, the ideas of justice—and I won't apologize for that passion, but just so we're on the same page, it would make sense for me to read into the record the subamendment in question so that we're all on the same page. I'll do that now.
The subamendment states as follows:
That the committee requests the complete package of documents provided to the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons by relevant Deputy Ministers or the signatories of the transmittal letters, as well as the final package of documents that the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons approved for release, that both of the document packages be provided to the Committee no later than October 19, 2020, and that after the committee reviews the two different versions of documents, the committee invite each of the relevant Deputy Ministers or the signatories of the transmittal letters, as well as the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons, to give testimony regarding the redactions applied to the documents that were requested and granted in the motion adopted on July 7, 2020—
This is the part of the motion that I was touching on before I was interrupted by my honourable colleague. It continues:
—and that until such a time as this testimony is complete, debate on the main motion and amendment from Pierre Poilievre be suspended and that the Chair be authorized to schedule these witnesses, and convene a meeting to resume debate on Pierre Poilievre's motion once these meetings have taken place.
I think we're all caught up now, if we weren't already. That is the text of the subamendment.
To my honourable colleagues in the opposition, here you have Liberal members willing to put...I won't even say “water in our wine”, because we've never really been against transparency and accountability here. We are absolutely for it, but we raise our points on the basis of a fundamental belief that public servants shouldn't just be talked about. When we're discussing their decisions, we should be able to ask them about their decisions and, on the basis of fairness, on the basis of justice, we should allow those public servants to speak, to share their perspective.
I know that one particular colleague who stands out, Mr. Poilievre, continues to point to redacted documents and continues to draw a line between documents that have been redacted and—only in his mind is it making sense—some sort of a plot on the part of the government to withhold information. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I was very happy to hear my colleague Mr. Fraser talk earlier about how to put things into context and about the importance of recognizing cabinet confidence, which is a long-established principle.
Documents that have been redacted are not documents that the government and public servants were trying to hide from the committee. Redactions happen for reasons relating to cabinet confidence, something that my colleague from Carleton, Mr. Poilievre, recognized. He suddenly forgot it. When he went into opposition, I guess he forgot it, but in 2014, Mr. Chair, he was asked about a briefing book, including the table of contents, if I remember correctly. He was asked a question by an NDP member of Parliament in 2014 about these redactions in documents that were in Mr. Poilievre's purview and possession.
In the response given to the NDP on the issue of redactions, this time not just as a Conservative member of Parliament but also as the minister for democratic reform, which placed Mr. Poilievre in a very good position because, as someone responsible for democratic institutions, he would know all about cabinet confidences and what that means, especially in the Westminster parliamentary tradition, he said as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the decision on what to reveal is made by non-partisan public servants, for whom it has long been a tradition not to reveal cabinet confidences. That has been the case going back to all previous governments of all party stripes.
Mr. Chair, that is a very key point of relevance that we have to acknowledge as a committee. In fact, I want to repeat it, Mr. Chair, because we need to be crystal clear on these points.
Mr. Poilievre replied in 2014:
Mr. Speaker, the decision on what to reveal is made by non-partisan public servants, for whom it has long been a tradition not to reveal cabinet confidences. That has been the case going back to all previous governments of all party stripes.
He recognizes the importance of cabinet confidence. We heard earlier about cabinet confidence in relation to redacted documents. There's nothing nefarious, nothing out of sort, nothing unethical here, Mr. Chair. Cabinet confidence is very important. That's the long and the short of it. It really is absolutely vital that we understand these things in context.
If members of the opposition want to play games and try to trick Canadians by somehow connecting the dots in a certain way and rearranging the pieces of the puzzle so that it creates a particular narrative to suit their interests, I suppose they can do that, but what this committee should be doing is embracing the idea of fairness, number one.
This subamendment that's been proposed allows for the transparency and accountability the government is talking about, but does so in a way that does not exclude the opportunity for public servants to come and speak. We can ask them questions relating to cabinet confidence. It will be interesting to hear the questions that Mr. Poilievre has when he raises it, as I expect he would, seeing that he, at least one time, understood how the principle operated. He could put questions about cabinet confidence to them, and we would see what the matter is and what the opposition is so troubled by.
In fact, what I think we'll ultimately come to conclude, Mr. Chair, is that we're fighting here about the need for cabinet confidence to be held back, and also private information in the form of phone numbers and the names of kids of public servants. I wonder, if the Conservatives were in power and if such issues came up, what side of the debate they would be on. In fact, we just heard what side of the debate they were on in 2014, Mr. Chair.
Let's get back to the issues that are truly important. We need to see legislation passed in Parliament, because these are spending matters, and as a matter of course, they need to be put in place through legislation. I'm talking, of course, about the updates to the Canada emergency wage subsidy. I'm talking, of course, about updates to the Canada emergency business account. I'm speaking of the rent support that Canadians—