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.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
My only concern is that if we don't move on this motion today, we've got to go through these 793 briefs and I want to start to see them.
Ms. Dzerowicz.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
Mr. Chair, I have to confess that I don't completely understand what Mr. Julian has proposed, but I think it's basically that if we still have to submit a report on December 11 and we're not going to meet after that, then we should get the submissions, have the research team start putting together some thoughts on that, and then have meetings with the Deputy Prime Minister, departmental officials, and various other people. Nothing in my motion actually precludes that from happening. The last thing it basically says is that the report will be tabled no later than the week of February 1.
Also, I just sent an updated version in both official languages to include that paragraph, which basically says, “the evidence and documentation received by the committee during the first session of the 43rd Parliament on COVID-19 consultations be taken into consideration by this committee in the current session”. That text is with the clerk right now, and it's the only thing that's been added.
I would propose that we vote on this today, because we have to get going. Let's schedule next Thursday, and if we have the governor next Thursday, then maybe we can have him for maybe the first hour and a half, and then maybe government officials in the second half, and then the Deputy Prime Minister the following week. Maybe we can start with the Deputy Prime Minister for an hour and continue with her the following Tuesday, but I would say, let's get going.
Then there's also the release of the documents. We need to start reading these things, so it would be really good for us to have a sense about what's been submitted and then start thinking about our witness list and if we have only have, say three sessions, who we like to have before us and if there are going to be more sessions, who would be in those additional sessions.
This motion allows us to get going on that work, whether it's with the option that I've proposed, which our chair has suggested might work, or whether it's the alternative that Mr. Julian has proposed. I don't think that precludes it at all.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We do have to deal with the items in the previous motion we just passed, so that will have to be scheduled in too.
Mr. Julian.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Yes, as a friendly amendment, would Ms. Dzerowicz be prepared to strike or suspend paragraph (f) where we would go to the House for what is an extension? We could certainly come back to that. I would like the opportunity to consult, of course, so if we're voting on the other components and not on (f), I'd feel more comfortable.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
It's actually the new (g) because I have added a new paragraph, Mr. Julian, that the evidence and documentation received by the committee during the first session of the 43rd Parliament on COVID-19 consultations be taken into consideration. So it's now the new (g).
What the (g) says is the committee request permission from the House to table its report on prebudget consultations no later than the week of February 1, 2021.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
You're asking for a friendly amendment to take that out. What are the implications of taking that out, though, Peter?
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
We can come back to it next week. The implication is that right now, if we pass the motion with that, then we're requesting of the House... and not only requesting that, but there are other discussions taking place around extending the ability of committees to meet virtually. By taking that out, I think it's more respectful of these other discussions. We can come back to it next week under committee business.
I have no problem at all with the rest, and I certainly understand Ms. Dzerowicz's proposal. I think there are a couple of doors and I think we're closing them if we have (g) as part of the motion, but if she'll accept taking that out temporarily and we come back to it next week, then I would be much more at ease and we could just get moving.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Listen, I think we can address both concerns. The concern that we get down to business is a legitimate one, but so is Peter's concern that we line up our work schedule with the House's plans and give all members the chance to consider the logistics of this proposal. I think we can achieve all of that.
What I would suggest is that we simply get started with the Deputy Prime Minister and departmental officials and the Governor of the Bank of Canada—those should be our next two separate meetings—and that we task the subcommittee to work out all of the details on the plan for the pre-budget consultation and come back to our next meeting with a consensus. That way we can dot all our i's and cross all our t's without any delay, because we'll use the interim period to hear from the finance minister and the Governor of the Bank of Canada. That gives us the chance to work through this and get it right without having any delay. That's my first point.
My second point is that we need the finance minister to be here for three hours. We need the Governor of the Bank of Canada to be before the committee for a separate three hours. There's been so little committee scrutiny of governmental decisions because of the way that the last five or six weeks have unfolded. We need an extra-long testimony so that we can address the minister and the Governor of the Bank of Canada on the enormous public policy developments that have been happening without any scrutiny.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay.
I can tell you that I went up the avenue on the three-hour business, and I know that's impossible because for us as a finance committee what works well is the three-hour meeting where you can have six witnesses per hour and a half. That has not proven to be possible with the structure here with Zoom and where all the whips and House leaders have agreed to committee time frames.
The best we can do on anything, I'm told, until December 11, is two hours, no matter what. We don't even have a say in that. That's the problem.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Well, that's unacceptable. I don't understand. We've been in this pandemic since March. People are organizing Zoom meetings to bring together their Little League baseball teams and other volunteer organizations, and they figure it out. Somehow we haven't been able to figure out how to hold a meeting longer than two hours. I find that hard to believe—
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
The problem, Pierre, is there's no sense in you and I getting into an argument about it because this is beyond us. This is what the whips and House leaders of all the parties have agreed to. It relates to Parliament Hill and the capacity to handle not just our committee but all the committees, and the capacity for interpretation for all.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
There's nothing I, or we as a committee, can do. It's beyond our ability. It's with all the parties in the House of Commons.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
You'll have to talk to your House leader and get Mr. O'Toole or somebody on that one.
Ms. Dzerowicz.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
I think for next Thursday, perhaps we should just go with what was proposed, as we have it. I think that the governor's been very patient with us. I think we've cancelled a couple of times, and perhaps we could already schedule the governor for next Thursday.
Is it possible, Mr. Chair, that the subcommittee, which usually deals with the agenda, set the agenda for whatever the pre-budget consultations...whether we go with option one, option two, the alternative option...? Today I just want to provide a framework that would allow us to get going. It isn't just about the alternatives; it's also about the release of the documents so that everyone can start looking at them and working on them as well.
I don't know, and maybe, Mr. Chair, you might be able to help out on this. To Mr. Julian's point, I wonder if we could say, just to keep everything open, because instead of the committee requesting permission from the House to table this report on pre-budget consultations, we could just put “the committee table its report on Pre-Budget consultations no later than the week of February 1”. That means we don't have to ask anybody; it basically says that would be the latest. It allows for the most flexible, timely motion on our side; it allows for the alternative of Mr. Julian's on the other side; it allows for the release of the evidence and the documentation in terms of pre-budget documentation, as well as the COVID-19 consultations and best ideas to come forward. It allows the subcommittee to actually meet; it allows us to actually move forward and invite the governor for next Thursday, and it allows for a subcommittee meeting to battle it out as to when the Deputy Prime Minister comes in and speaks to this committee, and for how long. I don't mind meeting for seven hours on pre-budget consultations and hearing from our Deputy Prime Minister.
I do want to note, though, that she was already before the committee of the whole for four hours, I believe, last week, so I know that she's been front and centre and trying to be accountable and present and making sure that she is responding to questions that are brought forward by all members of the House.
Thank you.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Are you okay with that bit of a change, Peter? What it would do is get us started. I think we could have a subcommittee meeting.
What day's today, Thursday? You may have to fly or something tomorrow, but could we have a subcommittee meeting tomorrow or Monday? The difficulty on that one is we have to be able to get time as well. Could we have a subcommittee meeting—I'll put it this way—at the earliest opportunity, as soon as it can be arranged? Hopefully, it would be tomorrow, but at the latest, Monday. Then we can do the rest of the planning. The motion that's on the floor with that kind of suggestion would allow the discussion on all of those other options, and still bring forward everything from the previous Parliament, so we have that available in our inbox on our iPads, or on our system that we use.
Would that do the trick and not compromise what your problem was?
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I agree with everything, except the point of requesting of the House, I—
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
I suggested “that the committee table its report on Pre-budget consultations no later”, so we take out the words “request permission from the house”, so it moves “the committee table its report on Pre-Budget consultations no later than the week of February 1”. It leaves both your option and my option open.