Finance Committee on Nov. 5th, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We are waiting for the clerk to give me clarification on that point. I don't believe it's allowed, but go ahead with your point of order.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I wonder if text can be sent. Mr. Julian did read that, but it's always easier if the text is made available to members, so that we can further consider.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Yes. Could you read your amendment to the subamendment again, Peter, while the clerk is clarifying this point?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

From the word “until” to the end—

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I'm a little lost. You're removing before “until” or after after ”until?”

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Including the word “until” right to the end of the subamendment, I'm striking that and replacing it with “and the committee move immediately following the vote on the motion of privilege to consideration of the pre-budget hearings”.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I have a point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I'm going to need clarification from the clerk before we do anything.

What is your point of order?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I was simply going to ask if that is available in French as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

The motion is to strike everything from the word “until” and to add a point that asks the committee to move immediately to consideration of the pre-budget hearings, following the vote on the motion of privilege.

Mr. Ste-Marie will say that it's not a perfect translation, but it's the best I can do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Madam Clerk, I think I have to rule the amendment out of order, but I'd like clarification from you.

[The Clerk]

Thank you.

I'll just draw your attention to pages 542 to 543 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition. At the last line it says, “Since subamendments cannot be further amended, a Member wishing to change one under debate must wait until it is defeated and then propose a new subamendment”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

It is out of order, Mr. Julian. This one will have to be dealt with. It's amending the subamendment, so I guess you'd have to start in a new place.

Mr. Julian, the floor is still yours.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

We've been hearing from Liberal members all along that it's something about having the Clerk of the Privy Council before committee. That is obviously not the case.

Their subamendment kills the motion of privilege. The core of the problem is that for a month we've had Liberal members absolutely stonewalling and stopping the work of the finance committee and refusing to proceed to pre-budget hearings. The reason they are doing that isn't because of some differences around witnesses. I don't think there is a single member of the committee who objects to hearing from the Clerk of the Privy Council or the law clerk on this. It's to kill the motion of privilege. This is the core of the issue.

The Speaker, who is elected by all members of Parliament, has the ability to rule on this motion of privilege. All the committee is doing is flagging what is a grave concern. The grave concern is the censorship, substantially, of 1,500 pages of documents. That is what was delivered to the finance committee in response to the motion that I tabled on July 7, which was voted on by the entire committee.

We have substantial censorship and redaction of the documents. The law clerk drew our attention to this immediately. We have a motion of privilege that is a very valid motion, but government members refuse to have this committee rule on that and actually have a vote. Why? What is in the documents that they don't want us to see?

The issue is not, as the government members have tried to put forward, whether or not the Clerk of the Privy Council comes to committee or whether or not the law clerk comes to the committee. The issue is trying to kill a motion of privilege. As you know, Mr. Chair, when a motion of privilege is submitted to the Speaker it has to be in a timely manner.

With the filibuster that the Liberals have undertaken for the last month we can justify not submitting it to the Speaker in a timely manner. For the committee to decide—

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I have a point of order, Chair.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

—that it is not going to proceed with it, that means the motion of privilege is killed—

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Julian, I do have a point of order. I'll have to take it first and then I'll let you proceed.

Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm listening to Mr. Julian and he is implying that improper redactions have occurred. That's quite the accusation, so I have a hard time following the argument without disagreeing very strongly—

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Fragiskatos, I don't believe that is a point of order. If you want to enter that into debate, you're more than welcome to, because Mr. Julian has made that point. I'll go back to Mr. Julian, because that is debate.

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The reality is that I do feel it was improperly censored. A lot of members of this committee feel the same way. It is not up to me or to any member of this committee to voice their opinion. All we can do is inform the Speaker of our consideration around this, and it is up to the Speaker to judge. That's the issue here. We believe we should be referring this matter to the Speaker.

Government members have been stonewalling now for a month, destroying any possibility of having the thorough pre-budget hearings that committee members would like to have engaged in. They are basically stonewalling the progress of the committee.

If government members feel there is a way through this, it is exactly the amendment to the subamendment that I just tabled. If government members really just want to hear from the clerk and the law clerk, then they should amend their own subamendment, allow for the motion of privilege to be voted on and refer it to the Speaker. The Speaker determines—none of us—whether or not there are grounds for a violation of privilege. That's up to the Speaker, elected by all of us.

If government members are saying they have no confidence in the Speaker, I would be very surprised. In fact, I would be stunned that they would be that critical of the officer of Parliament, the Speaker, who we have chosen collectively as members of Parliament. I have confidence in the Speaker. I have confidence in his ruling on this in an independent way based on what the committee refers to him.

If government members really want to proceed to the pre-budget hearings, if government members really have confidence in the Speaker, and if they are saying, also, they'd like to hear from the Clerk of the Privy Council and the law clerk, I'm fine with that, of course. They then have to amend their subamendment, pull out the part that kills the motion of privilege, that no longer makes it timely, that no longer allows this committee to report back to the Speaker, and ask the Speaker his opinion on this matter. They should amend it as I've suggested. They have the power to do so, and I hope they do so, rather than continuing to engage in this filibuster, which has stopped the work of the finance committee now for over a month.

They have many different paths they can take to work with the opposition members. They have refused all so far because their intent is to kill the motion of privilege. Their intent is to withdraw the right of the Speaker to rule on this issue. I am in complete disagreement with their approach and I find disingenuous their speeches this evening.

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

I believe now on my list is Ms. Koutrakis first, followed by Ms. Khalid.

Ms. Koutrakis, the floor is yours.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank my colleague Mr. Julian for his comments. We, too, have confidence in the Speaker of the House, as does he and all of our colleagues in the House. We also have a lot of confidence in the law clerk to make the judgment based on fact. I think both arguments can be made and should be considered before we make a final decision on how to proceed.

I can remember a time not long ago, watching the proceedings of this place, where members of Parliament were able to set partisanship aside, work together and come to a consensus on how to handle the issues of the day. It really is a shame to see the polarizing politics that have taken hold in other countries throughout the world continue to creep into our own Parliament of Canada.

Unfortunately, this is most present in the tactics or strategy of my colleagues from opposition parties. Before Mr. Julian begins to play defence for Mr. Poilievre and tries to call relevance on me, I'm hoping for a few moments of latitude because I will be coming to my point in regard to the subamendment, not the subamendment of the subamendment that Mr. Julian discussed, but the first one. However, it requires a few moments to lay the track before arriving at that station.

It is so clear in the attitude of my Conservative colleagues, especially, that they have fully bought into the misinformation tactics of the extreme right. It's never been more present than in the initial purpose for the debate that we're having here today. We are here on Mr. Poilievre's privilege motion, and in debating that we have an amendment and further a subamendment on the floor, and perhaps another one now in regard to that motion. The initial motion is what is key here. It is the reason behind the subamendment before this committee today.

The Clerk of the Privy Council is an expert witness on the release of cabinet confidence. It was Mr. Shugart who agreed to release all documentation related to the Canada student service grant, even prior to this committee making any requests. The appearance of the Clerk of the Privy Council really is important as it relates back to Mr. Poilievre's initial motion. The truth is, this matter of privilege raised by the honourable member is nothing but what appears to be a cheap partisan stunt. It is complete mistruth wrapped in a procedural bow meant to further the narrative of the Conservatives. That is a tactic of the extreme right, which we have seen throughout the world as of late—this penchant for casting the truth aside and continuing to make an argument that has no basis in reality.

As many of my colleagues have said before this committee, over 5,000 pages of documents were released by the Government of Canada with all information relating to the design and implementation of the Canada student service grant present and accounted for. I think the opposition was just plainly dumbfounded at the level of detail that the non-partisan public servants left unredacted. Mr. Poilievre must have been completely stunned to see that documents stamped “Secret” and “Confidence of the Queen's Privy Council” were actually included in the documents and unredacted. We can find out exactly why those documents were included if we have the clerk come before us and testify about that, yet for some strange reason my opposition colleagues are blocking that attempt.

It's a whole new world, when opposition members are blocking the appearance of the non-partisan head of the public service. It's truly a real shame.

Getting back to my point, I'm very sure that my colleagues were shocked at the level of detail included in these documents. At this point, the Conservatives and perhaps other opposition colleagues had a problem. They were likely sitting there thinking that since all the documents were actually released, between that and the testimony, they have nothing.

I cannot imagine the sinking feeling they had when they realized this, yet what is the truth? To my colleagues on the other side, truth is in the eye of the beholder. Taking a page from these extreme-right groups that have sprung up around the world, they have perhaps decided to obfuscate and create their own narrative. When you think about it, this explains why colleagues do not want the Clerk of the Privy Council to testify before us today, because his testimony would very likely crush the narrative that they have been trying to peddle for weeks now.

As I noted earlier in my remarks, there was a time when civility would win out and parliamentarians would work together to fix the problems of the day. There was a time when the truth would have been accepted when the facts were presented. Unfortunately, we no longer live in those times. We now live in a time when, if, after being presented with the facts, your argument is disproven, you double down anyway. When you are presented with expert witnesses—

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

I have a point of order.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

—you attack their credibility or stop them from speaking.