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.
9:30 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
We need to make sure they're given an opportunity to speak here, Mr. Chair.
This is the end of those formal remarks, Mr. Chair. I have other points—
9:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I will hear the point of order first.
Go ahead. Are you calling for relevance there, Mr. Julian?
9:30 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
It's about repetition, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Fragiskatos is disadvantaged by the fact that I've heard his previous speeches, but the reality is that he's repeating himself. If he has nothing further to say, let's get to the vote.
9:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I believe Mr. Fragiskatos said he was done with that portion of his speech.
You're going on a little further and it isn't repetitive, I understand. Is that correct?
9:30 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
No, it's not, Mr. Chair. I won't lose an opportunity—
9:30 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
It is not the same speech that you claim you've heard, Mr. Julian. If you want to prevent me from speaking about the importance of public servants and saying, in effect, that the Liberals are the ones defending the public servants here, then I'll do that, but I know you respect public servants. I'm simply making the case that we ought to hear from them.
I ask you to consider that subamendment and side with Liberals here at committee today and tonight.
Mr. Chair, I want to continue. This is on a point that I raised earlier. I asked you, and the clerk as well, to provide the committee with thoughts on what happens when Standing Order 83.1 is not respected by the committee. Is there a precedent that could guide committee members? Do we know what would happen, what would result?
I know there are other members here tonight who don't regularly sit on the committee. This is for their benefit, to make sure they know what Standing Order 83.1 is all about. It calls on the finance committee to carry out pre-budget consultations by a particular date.
9:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I see that Mr. Julian's hand is up.
I know I've read 83.1 before. I'm not sure that you have. Have you read it, Mr. Fragiskatos?
9:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
That would be repetitive, according to Mr. Julian, so we'll have to get you to skip that—
9:30 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
The question was what happens when it is not followed. I raised this earlier, but I asked that at some point tonight you provide us with an answer.
If you don't have that answer right now, Mr. Chair, that's fine.
9:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I don't have that answer. It's something that has never happened before. We'll probably have to go to the House Speaker or somebody on the Clerk's desk in the House to get an answer to that question, and we will do that overnight or early in the morning.
9:30 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think it's important for committees to follow the Standing Orders and for all members to recognize the importance of standing orders.
Obviously this subamendment, Mr. Chair, makes very clear the need to invite public servants to this committee. We can't simply speak about public servants and muzzle them. We need to hear from them.
I talked in my earlier remarks about the inextricable link between fairness and justice. There are other conceptions of fairness and justice, however, that we ought to consider.
Aristotle famously said that justice is based on a notion, a very important one, that “equals should be treated equally”. This quotation stands out because, if we take a step back and think about us as members of Parliament and those in the public service, what do we share in common? Well, we are equals for many reasons, abstract ones but also very practical ones. We both serve the Canadian public, so equals should be treated equally here. We cannot muzzle the public service. We have to give them an opportunity to come to speak.
The Conservative colleagues on the committee are following the precedent of the Harper government by not wanting to recognize the importance of not just the public servants and the public service but also the principle that they should be allowed to express themselves. That's all we're saying. Unfortunately, it is not being heard and also, up to this point, has not been heard by my colleague in the NDP, and we'll see what the Bloc wants to do, Mr. Chair.
In earlier remarks, I also referenced John Rawls and his conception of a fair and just society being based on a number of principles, including fair legal treatment for all citizens. That is Rawls speaking in a very general sense, but I wonder, Mr. Chair—and here is another question for you and the clerk to take back and to consider—what would happen if we did not hear from public servants, if we proceeded in the way the Conservative colleagues of ours on committee want to go ahead with, and that is excluding public servants. Would we be compromising ourselves in any way by forcibly excluding the opportunity of free individuals to put their thoughts on the record and in effect defend themselves? I have a strange feeling—it's not a strange feeling; it's a truism—that the Conservatives in particular would attack public servants as they have in previous meetings of this committee and other committees. In fact, in the House we see this happen regularly. Again, they have had two new leaders and still Stephen Harper's legacy is very strong.
Public servants in that context, Mr. Chair, should be allowed to defend themselves. What if this committee does not go for that? What if we do follow Mr. Kelly here, and Mr. Poilievre and others on the Conservative side, and prevent public servants from testifying? I don't think we would be showing fair legal treatment in the Rawlsian sense, and also as a matter of Canadian law.
I'm not a lawyer. I know we have lawyers, eminent and capable ones, on the committee, but I think it's something we need to consider, so I leave it with you to look at as well, Mr. Chair. I underline again for my colleagues that “equals should be treated equally”. Aristotle's conception of justice is tremendously influential. In fact, it has been said that much of philosophy is simply a commentary on the thoughts of Aristotle, and of Plato as well, but especially of Aristotle.
Let's not ignore these very basic principles, Mr. Chair. If we do, what does that say about us as parliamentarians?
I spoke before about partisanship. Partisanship plays a role, and I meant what I said when I said that sometimes that role can be positive. What are political parties if not organizations that congregate based on different constellations of ideas? The Conservatives have a particular conception of what makes a just society, usually by putting business—and under this iteration of the Conservative Party, big business—at the core of their focus.
The NDP puts social justice and workers at its very core. I won't take that away from them. How they engage in public policy and the issues they decide to champion, and how they decide to champion those issues, I can disagree with from issue to issue, but the NDP plays a reasonable role in Parliament and brings up good ideas.
The Bloc, in the form of Mr. Ste-Marie, is very passionate and has offered a social democratic vision of what is just, what a fair society should look like, in all of his testimony.
Liberals seem to be in the middle, a party of moderation, Mr. Chair.
9:40 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
It is not relevant to go through the political platforms of each political party on the subamendment.
9:40 p.m.
NDP
9:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Mr. Fragiskatos, it might not hurt for you to look at the subamendment, which I know you wanted to read, to refresh your mind there again. It is pretty wide-ranging when you look at the package of documents provided by the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, as well as other packages that went forward. It wouldn't hurt for you to look at it and stick to that and the transmittal letters.
9:40 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
I'm sticking to the subamendment, Mr. Chair. Respectfully, I'm making arguments by looking at general points and principles that I think will serve to remind my colleagues about the importance of our job here.
I talked about partisanship. Let's put partisanship aside and embrace the very important idea at the heart of parliamentary democracy, and that is that we have a job and duty to serve the country. When we...and I fear we do this if we get behind the Conservative proposal, and that's why this subamendment is so important.
Let's allow public servants to speak. They serve the country. They serve all Canadians, all our constituents, regardless of whether those constituents voted Conservative, Bloc, Liberal, NDP or Green. Those public servants deserve our respect. Having them come to committee does not compromise the principles I spoke about before, which hold together each party.
The business class and business interests and advocacy groups that stand up for large business and small business—and I especially care about small business—won't be offended if we have public servants come to committee.
Unions will not be offended. Mr. Julian is a champion of unions. PSAC, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, will not be offended. I don't think they'll be offended if public servants come to committee.
9:40 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
It's getting a bit ridiculous, Mr. Chair. I'm trying to make a point.
9:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I will agree with Mr. Julian on this one. I remember you saying those words previously. I expect that was his point.
Do you want to make your point there, Mr. Julian?