Evidence of meeting #27 for Public Accounts in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was information.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly Block
Thank you very much for the motion.
Would you like us to deal with it right now during your time, Mr. Berthold?
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
I think you have to stop my time, because I moved a motion, but I want to discuss it right now.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly Block
All right.
Colleagues, we have a motion that I believe is in order. I will open it up for comments.
Go ahead, Mr. Longfield.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
I would like to see a written copy of the motion. It would be good to have it during committee business so we can prepare to discuss it. I mean, we are mid-pandemic and we're looking at an audit that was done mid-pandemic. We are also looking into doing further studies post-pandemic. Some of those have come out of the testimony today and would be coming forward in 2022.
I would like to see a written copy of the motion before we go any further with it.
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I believe I recall my friend Maxime trying to bring a motion to this committee that would require things at hand to be given in writing in advance. I believe we voted it down for the reason that when these types of issues come up, they're to be dealt with using the resources that we have—that is, interpretation.
I find it a bit strange that some of the folks who, if I recall correctly, voted against Maxime's motion—and I was one of them, because I wanted to maintain the ability to do things at hand—now want to use the idea that things must be in writing. The whole purpose of voting down the Bloc's motion, in my opinion, was to allow for these general discussions to happen in ways that are particular to the matters at hand, and I fully support that this is a matter at hand. I will even go further and say that if the government continues to use cabinet confidentially as a lock and key to all government information pertinent to the public, we're going to have problems with the so-called open-by-default nature of this government.
I support the motion, and I believe that if we look back at the record, we would see that many of the people who voted against the Bloc's motion did so on principles that my colleague is now against.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Fergus. I acknowledge your considerable diplomacy. That's very kind.
First, I have just sent the clerk a written version of the motion in English and French.
Madam Clerk, would you please distribute it to the members of the committee?
12:25 p.m.
The Clerk
Yes, I will do that shortly.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Great.
The point Mr. Green raises is entirely relevant. However, we've had time to translate and distribute the motion. So you'll have a written version of it.
The second reason why I wanted to address this subject immediately is that it must be clearly noted that the committee needs this information, these figures, to analyze the Auditor General's report. She has come to certain conclusions regarding information to which we don't have access. However, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, in particular, must be able to access figures, data and recommendations that supported this program's implementation. This is essential.
Once again, it might simply show that the Department of Finance and the Canada Revenue Agency did their job and that they did it correctly. We might know that if we had that information, but we don't have all the necessary figures for the moment. The goal here isn't to find a guilty party but rather to form a clear understanding of what motivated certain decisions, particularly the decision not to use social insurance numbers and not to calculate the risks immediately. More especially, we'd like to know the timeline that was followed in developing the program. That information is essential if we're to prepare a report that reflects the actual situation.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I was going to say I wanted to get hold of the motion too. I heard what Mr. Berthold said, but I'd nevertheless like to be able to read the written version. From what I understand, Madam Clerk is in the process of sending it to us.
The motion is entirely admissible since it deals with the subject we're discussing. However, I'd like us not to waste time while we have witnesses here. I'd like us to listen to our colleagues' other questions and to the witnesses' answers.
Madam Chair, you asked that we set aside 10 minutes at the end of our meeting to discuss current business. I think it would be entirely appropriate to consider the motion at that time. That way, we can listen to the witnesses and ask them questions, and focus on the motion afterwards. I think that's important.
I therefore move that we continue this debate during the portion of the meeting reserved for committee business once our guests have completed their testimony.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
12:25 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I just want to remind the committee that I believe a motion has been submitted and duly put to the floor. I think that to try to arbitrarily backtrack from that may be against procedural rules. I would just put it to us that we should respect the fact that this motion has already been put.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly Block
Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Green.
The motion is in order, as I already stated. Therefore, we will continue debating the motion that is on the floor.
I will go to Mr. Blois.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Kody Blois Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I recognize, as has already been articulated by Mr. Green and others, that the text of the motion is in order, but before I continue with my remarks, perhaps you can clarify with the clerk as to whether or not it is a usual practice to recognize that we have witnesses here who are talking about this subject and that we should carry on with that practice and then continue this debate in literally 20 minutes' time? Can you check with the clerk on that before I carry on with any more remarks?
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly Block
Absolutely.
Madam Clerk, I don't believe we have committee business scheduled at the end of this meeting. Could you clarify that, and then clarify with regard to the question?
12:30 p.m.
The Clerk
Madam Chair, that is correct.
The motion as moved is in order, and debate should continue until the committee has made a decision on the motion. It's appropriate to do that even though there are witnesses in the room.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Kody Blois Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that clarification.
When I look at the text of the motion, I understand some of the concerns that have been raised by my colleagues. As Mr. Sabia has mentioned, we do have this convention about cabinet privilege, and the idea that we're going to request all documents that relate....
Let me read the text of the motion:
The committee request that the Department of Finance and the Canada Revenue Agency provide the committee will all studies, data and analysis used for the implementation of the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy.
That's a very large expedition. We're going on to ask the government, in the middle of a third wave in this country and in the middle of trying to make sure we have programs in place, for all studies, data and analysis that were used. There is no mention about protecting cabinet confidences and no mention of narrowing the focus of what we're actually trying to get at.
Perhaps Mr. Berthold can explain. I know he's done so to a certain extent, but can he explain what exactly it is that he's seeking? Why are all documents related to the entire program absolutely necessary at this point, when we're actually, as parliamentarians, holding the government to account right now at this committee?
What exactly is he looking for? Maybe we can propose some amendments to make this something a bit more palatable, by all accounts.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly Block
Thank you very much, Mr. Blois.
We have others with their hands up. Perhaps at the end of their interventions, we can go to Mr. Berthold for that answer.
Mr. Lawrence, go ahead.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would repeat many of the things that have been said by my colleagues Mr. Blois and Mr. Fergus. We need to go to a vote. Let's not take up any more time with questions. It's a simple amendment. Let's just move to a vote. We're taking up extra time. It's been clear that....
I've been frustrated by the Department of Finance, candidly, with the lack of information they provided and I don't mind that Mr. Sabia is here. We need that information to make decisions. I was elected by the people of Northumberland—Peterborough South to represent them. That's my intent, and I can't do it without the information, so let's vote.