Point of order.
Evidence of meeting #4 for Finance in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was documents.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #4 for Finance in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was documents.
A video is available from Parliament.
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
6:45 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Fragiskatos two weeks ago was raising the Italian city states and Machiavelli—
6:45 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Yes, so it's a question of repetition in this case, Mr. Chair.
I would also suggest that it's a question of relevance on this as well. If he doesn't have anything further to contribute on the subamendment, we should proceed to a vote.
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I believe that a couple of weeks ago someone—I'm not sure it was Mr. Fragiskatos—was talking about Aristotle and a couple of others, but I don't believe that it was this particular portion on city states.
The floor is yours, Mr. Fragiskatos.
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
I appreciate that, Mr. Chair.
I'll plead guilty. It was I who was speaking about Aristotle, but Machiavelli is very different, as we all know. I simply make the point—and Mr. Julian has opened the door for me to speak to this—that when I talk about the need for a professional public service that can provide advice, I'm putting the matter into context so that Mr. Julian can understand what's at stake here.
Public servants have contributed a great deal not just to Canadian democracy but to the development of societies going back to time immemorial.
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
It's simply putting it into context. I'm glad to speak to the issues, but I continue to be interrupted—
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
6:50 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
He says it very well, but it's still repetition. He's still coming back to the same points. If he has nothing new to add, we should proceed to a vote.
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
But could he not be putting this into a historical context, going back to the city states?
6:50 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I think he veered away from the city states and went back to similar comments that he made last week.
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
No, Mr. Chair, I respectfully disagree with that.
Again, there is nothing wrong with putting a matter into context for the benefit of committee members, and this is not to do so in an arrogant way. I respect that every single member of the committee has something to offer based on their interests and background.
If it is offensive somehow for me to talk about Italian city states and the place of Niccolò Machiavelli as an adviser to various Italian leaders in his day, I could point to other examples to put the matter into context without even reference to Aristotle, who was an adviser in his own—
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I would ask you, Mr. Fragiskatos, to show us how this is relevant to the current discussion.
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Yes, and that's where I'm getting, Mr. Chair.
In parallel, as I was talking about before, it didn't begin this way, but it was an evolution. The public service in modern society has evolved. There was a very clear recognition beginning really from the transition of agrarian societies to the industrial revolution that you needed a non-partisan public service that would not represent the interests of a particular class, and that would not represent the interests of a particular political party, but would be a non-partisan public service that would provide the technical advice and expertise necessary for elected officials, such as we are, to make decisions that would benefit the whole, that would serve the common good.
When I hear colleagues...and again, it's tremendously surprising that Mr. Julian is standing in the way of public servants coming to this committee. Here, we have an opportunity to hear from Mr. Shugart, and this opens the door for him and for other colleagues to ask relevant questions that are on their minds. It wouldn't be only Mr. Shugart. We would be very happy to hear from the law clerk. The subamendment calls for that. I'm not sure where the NDP is coming from on that particular matter.
I have respect for all public servants in this country at every level of government, federally, provincially and municipally, but this is the Clerk of the Privy Council. This is the most important public servant in all of Canada, and by not allowing him to come to committee, opposition colleagues are in effect silencing him. We've used the word “muzzling” here before at committee as well. There is an enormous problem with that. When I see a letter addressed from the clerk asking us to open ourselves, to make ourselves available to listen to the clerk, and we say no, what does that say about the direction of this committee?
Why are we denying Mr. Shugart and other public servants that right?
6:50 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Fragiskatos is not touching on the subamendment and not a single member of this committee has said that we are denying or voting against having the Privy Council clerk come to committee.
We are on a motion of privilege. There is a subamendment. He should stick to that. If he has nothing further to add, let's go to the vote.
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Chair, if I could, allowing the clerk to attend committee offers the clerk an opportunity to speak to the matters at hand. If there are misunderstandings, if there are questions about why and what has happened with respect to the CSSG and documents and redactions, the clerk can speak to those issues.
We need to hear from him, and right now opposition colleagues are preventing that from happening.
In so doing, we are also preventing something that is tremendously vital from moving forward, which is pre-budget consultations. Here we are debating this when we could be discussing the issue of the budget and what Canadians expect. The opposition's efforts here are standing in the way of our fulfilling our obligations under Standing Order 83.1, which this committee still has not considered.
It still has not considered what happens in instances where we don't fulfill that standing order, which is arguably the most important standing order related to the functioning of this committee. We have not considered that as a committee, because we have been embroiled in discussions and the intransigence of the opposition preventing us from moving forward.
I'm quite interested in moving forward with pre-budget consultations so that we can hear about the needs of the country at this time. Every single one of us on this committee, every single member, will bring with them a set of experiences that will inform the work of the committee on pre-budget consultations.
I'm looking at Mr. Julian. He has an interest in not-for-profit organizations. He has worked in that sector. They have a tremendously important role to play right now.
I'm looking at Mr. McLeod, who is very passionate about Canada's north and would be able to invite witnesses to speak about the needs of Canada's north during COVID-19.
I'm looking at Mr. Fraser—
6:55 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I have a point of order.
It's on relevance, Mr. Chair. If he has nothing further to add that is relevant to the subamendment, we should proceed to a vote.
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Mr. Fragiskatos, keep relevance in mind. Tie your remarks back to the subamendment, if you could.
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Mr. Chair, I simply make the point that when we are embroiled in discussions of this nature, when we can't come to agree that it is important for us to finally say yes to hear from public servants who can answer these questions that opposition members and all members of the committee have, then we are standing in the way not just of public servants and their ability to be heard, but of this committee fulfilling its duty to hold pre-budget consultations.
I was simply making the further point that I'm looking around at this committee, which has all of the potential in the world to work together as a team to find ways to suggest to the government relevant policy recommendations pertaining to what should be in the next budget. I pointed to Mr. McLeod. I pointed to Mr. Julian.
I was looking at Mr. Fraser. I know Mr. Fraser has a law background. He has studied genocide if I'm not mistaken. I think he did his master's degree in that area of law, looking at international law as it pertains to genocide. I would think he would have suggestions about international development organizations that could come and speak to our committee about the impact COVID-19 is having across the world, particularly in developing countries.
I see Mr. Falk, who is a rural member, as I understand it, and would be able to put forward suggestions based on expert testimony about what direction we ought to take in Canada with respect to agriculture, looking at how COVID-19 is impacting farmers right across the country.
Mr. Chair, I know you're passionate about agriculture as well.
I see that Ms. Vecchio is sitting in, and she will know southwestern Ontario very well. I know she shares an interest and a passion for it as much as I do. If she wished to sit in on pre-budget consultations, she could do the same.
The point I'm making is that the more we prevent public servants from coming to this committee—the more we engage in debates around that—the more we are prevented from actually doing the work that Canadians have entrusted to us and that constituents expect of us.
I talked about the importance of the public service before. It has evolved through history. It has taken, in modern and democratic societies, a non-partisan shape and form. That is something that impacts Canada in very important ways. Why are we trying to ignore that? What are we so afraid of, if Mr. Shugart and other public servants come to the committee?
I said before that perhaps there is something to be afraid of, not on the side of the Liberal members but perhaps opposition members are worried that what will be put on the record by public servants will not fit the narrative that is coming from their party leadership about how to score political points. That is not what we should be doing at this committee.
We should be engaging in the issues of the day. I'm looking right now at members of the committee, those in the opposition in particular, and pleading with them. If they want to hold back the opportunity for non-partisan professionals to come and tell us and in turn tell Canadians—of course the hearings would be televised, I'm assuming—how decisions were made around these issues pertaining to the CSSG, they'll have to answer that question to their constituents, because their constituents are not so interested, I would think, in the matters the opposition continues to put on the table here today.
Their constituents are absolutely focused on tomorrow because tomorrow their rent could be due. Tomorrow, their kids need to go to school, and parents want to make sure those kids come home healthy. COVID-19 continues to impact society in ways that we're only starting to see. Of course, there are even long-term effects from COVID-19 that are now starting to be understood. Constituents are worried about their businesses. Constituents are worried about workers. They are worried about the progress, or lack of progress, that Canada could see in the coming years if we aren't careful.
This committee has an opportunity to engage directly with government. One of the first things I'd like to see is for the Governor of the Bank of Canada to come back to committee. He was good enough to come in the previous session.
7 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I have a point of order.
Obviously Mr. Fragiskatos, as eloquent as he is, has run out of things to say. He's not relevant, so let's proceed to the vote.