Evidence of meeting #5 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.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Mr. Chair, if I may, this could simply be considered an amendment to the previous motions and thereby supersede them.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Yes, I understand that, but we can't take an amendment. We already have a motion, an amendment and a subamendment. We can't take another amendment.
Mr. Julian has his hand up.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
You can take as many amendments as you like. You can have a thousand amendments to a motion, Mr. Chair.
November 17th, 2020 / 4:10 p.m.
Liberal
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
If I have missed.... We have a point of order. Then I think Mr. Julian is going to speak.
Point of order, Mr. Fraser.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
There are two issues that I want to raise.
The first is of a purely technical nature. I saw a couple of notes coming through staff members stating that there was an issue with hearing the phone line. I don't know if that's been resolved. I just wanted you to confirm that's okay.
The second issue, though there might be a procedural snafu, is that I haven't actually seen the suggested motion. It might make sense if we could get our hands on a copy so that we could actually read it before we decide what to do with it. Would a 10- or 15-minute suspension be okay with committee members so that we would have an opportunity to review what has just been proposed?
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I'll see if people are willing to do that.
Did we get a copy?
Mr. Poilievre, we haven't got a copy of that yet. You can ask your staff to get it to us.
I'll take your point of order under advisement. I think we could possibly suspend.
I want to go to Mr. Julian first, though, to hear his comments. I expect this is related to the same issue.
Go ahead, Peter.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Yes, Mr. Chair, but I think the path forward, if government members are amenable to this compromise, is that the government would withdraw its subamendment, which would allow the amendment that was proposed earlier to be.... This would be the subamendment to the amendment to the motion. Procedurally, there is a way forward, but the government members would have to get the ball rolling by withdrawing their subamendment.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Procedurally, there are a couple of ways forward: to do as you suggest, Mr. Julian, or to adjourn debate on the motion as a whole and consider this proposal.
Are we agreeable to suspending until 4:30 p.m., Ottawa time? Hopefully, we have a copy here so that people can look at it and we can resolve this issue. Are we agreed? Okay.
Before I suspend, Mr. Poilievre, did we get the copy?
The clerk now has the copy, so we will get it out to everybody. We'll reconvene at 4:30.
Thanks, all of you. The meeting is suspended until 4:30.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We shall reconvene and see where we are on this particular issue.
Mr. Fraser, you are on deck.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Mr. Chair, I hope you'll be forgiving in the procedural scenario, because I don't plan to address the subamendment but I do want to have a conversation with committee members.
Thanks, Pierre, for putting something forward. I think there's a starting point for us to work with. I have questions about a couple of things and I don't know if I'll be satisfied about them in the next hour.
Your motion, towards the end, mentions having the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Ethics Commissioner appear. Was that supposed to say the law clerk?
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Okay.
There are a few technical issues on the timing of what's feasible for the government to get their hands on and get to the law clerk. I'm not sure about whether.... I don't want to set up a potential violation of privilege by saying that documents have to arrive by Friday if in fact they can't get them for a few days after that.
The bigger thing here—and I don't know how committee members will react—is that I could use a little bit of time just to make sure I understand the motion and that we're not being rushed to the point that I make a mistake in my understanding of it.
I'm curious to know if committee members would be amenable to suspending until either our next meeting or the next available meeting slot, whenever it may be, in hopes that we can use this suggested language as a starting point for a solution to move on with the committee's work.
Is that something the committee members would entertain?
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I will first go to Mr. Poilievre and see where the others are following that.
Mr. Poilievre, do you have some comments you want to make? We're certainly out of procedural order, but given the amount of time we've been spending on this issue, I don't think anybody will challenge the chair on that.
Mr. Poilievre, respond in kind if you could, please.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
On the procedural question, as you know, Chair, committees are their own masters, so it is possible for us to do whatever we want from a procedural point of view if we all agree.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We can, with unanimous consent. It's not a problem.
On Mr. Fraser's point that he needs some time to go back to his colleagues, the government as a whole, are we amenable to that to see if we can come to some agreement?
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
I don't know. I don't want to commit to being back here in 90 minutes, which is the ordinary schedule for our meeting. I would suggest we look at whatever the next available slot is for the committee to sit.
I do want to solve this problem, and I don't want to continue to kick the can down the road. Ideally, if we can reach a solution, we are looking at having the Governor of the Bank of Canada here as soon as our next meeting. I would love to be able to solve this problem before that.
Obviously, this is not something I control. It's a committee decision, and I'm here in good faith. I do want to solve this problem, and I appreciate efforts of different committee members, Pierre in particular. I think what you're trying to do is put forward something productive, and I would like to work with it.
I haven't even had the chance to review section 69 of the Access to Information Act, since we got your motion just after this meeting started. I really do want to find a solution here, so I would take the next available slot in hopes we can solve this problem and still have the governor attend our Thursday meeting.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Our next regular slot is Thursday. Certainly, if there's any availability tomorrow,,,, There's no availability, Madam Clerk.
That's one of the problems we have in the world we live in now. Normally, we would be able to find some time tomorrow. Unless another committee forgoes their spot tomorrow, it would be our next regular meeting.
I would suggest, if there are also some backroom discussions, to see if we could be relatively certain when we got to committee that we're going to solve this impasse. I think we could still deal with getting the pre-budget consultations lined up and probably hear the Governor of the Bank of Canada and the deputy governor in the second hour on Thursday, if behind the scenes discussions look like this could be solved.
You can think about that, Mr. Poilievre.
Mr. Julian had his hand up.
Peter.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Chair, I'm a little perplexed because this compromise proposal basically corresponds to things that government members have been offering for weeks. I'm a little surprised when the documents have already been provided. We already know which documents are subject to cabinet confidence so the deadline of this Friday should not be a problem.
The issue around the Privy Council and the Ethics Commissioner is upon invitation. That shouldn't be a problem either.
I'm a little perplexed. This is a compromise that seems to meet the government more than halfway, maybe three-quarters of the way, and we have not had a functioning finance committee since August, as you know, Mr. Chair, since the Prime Minister abruptly prorogued Parliament and shut down all the committees.
I don't understand why we would take more time to meet what the government members have already offered. I think we should be able to resolve it at this meeting.