EVIDENCE

Standing Committee on Finance NUMBER 001 2nd SESSION 43rd PARLIAMENT Thursday, October 8, 2020 Le jeudi 8 octobre 2020 Standing Committee on Finance CANADA [Recorded by Electronic Apparatus] EVIDENCE October 8, 2020 Committee NUMBER 001 NUMBER 001 NUMÉRO 001 01 08 10 2020 2020/10/08 15:30:00 House Of Commons Comité permanent des finances Standing Committee on Finance FINA Chair The Honourable Wayne Easter 2 43

(1535) [ English ]

Procedural Clerk (Ms. Evelyn Lukyniuk) :

Honourable members of the committee, I see we have quorum. I must inform members that the clerk of the committee can only receive motions for the election of the chair. The clerk cannot receive other types of motions, cannot entertain points of order, nor participate in debate. We can now proceed to the election of the chair. Pursuant to Standing Order 106(2), the chair must be a member of the government party. I am ready to receive motions for the chair.

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos (London North Centre, Lib.) :

Madam Chair, the Liberal side wishes to nominate the honourable Wayne Easter.

Ms. Evelyn Lukyniuk :

Thank you. It has been moved that Mr. Easter be elected chair of the committee. Are there any further motions? I declare Mr. Easter duly elected chair of the committee. You may take the chair.

The Chair (Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.)) :

Thank you, all. It should be interesting times going ahead. Certainly, thank you for your support. I welcome the new members to the committee. Pat Kelly has been on the committee before and has often served as associate to Tamara Jansen. Welcome. Ted Falk has been around for a little while, too. Ted, it's good to see you here as well. Welcome. I welcome the new clerk, Evelyn Lukyniuk. As everyone knows I'm a real name pronouncer, so I hope I got that right. Before we go to regular proceedings, is there basically consent to go to the nomination of vice-chairs?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Madam Clerk, I'll turn it back to you.

Ms. Evelyn Lukyniuk :

Thank you. Pursuant to Standing Order 106(2), the first vice-chair must be a member of the official opposition. I am now prepared to receive motions for the first vice-chair.

Mr. Pat Kelly (Calgary Rocky Ridge, CPC) :

I nominate Pierre Poilievre as first vice-chair.

Ms. Evelyn Lukyniuk :

It has been moved by Mr. Kelly that Mr. Poilievre be elected first vice-chair of the committee. Are there any further motions? Seeing none, I declare the motion carried and Mr. Poilievre elected vice-chair of the committee. We may now proceed to the election of the second vice-chair. I'm prepared to receive motions for the election of the second vice-chair.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP) :

Madam Clerk, I would like to nominate Gabriel Ste-Marie as the second vice-chair of our committee.

Ms. Evelyn Lukyniuk :

It was moved by Mr. Julian that Mr. Ste-Marie be elected second vice-chair of the committee. Are there any further motions? I declare the motion carried and Mr. Ste-Marie elected as second vice-chair of the committee.

[ English ]

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

Mr. Chair, now that the election of vice-chairs is through, I wonder if I could put forward routine motions.

The Chair :

Madam Clerk, are we done with the vice-chairs? We are complete?

Ms. Evelyn Lukyniuk :

Yes, we are done. Thank you very much.

The Chair :

Thank you very much, Madam Clerk. We'll go to routine proceedings. Go ahead, Peter.

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's great to see colleagues again, and I'm looking forward to working with new colleagues along the way. First of all, on analyst services, I move:

That the committee retain, as needed and at the discretion of the chair, the services of one or more analysts from the Library of Parliament to assist it in its work.

The Chair :

Is there any discussion? I don't see any dissent. The motion is carried. Go ahead, Peter...Mr. Fragiskatos.

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

Mr. Chair, Peter is fine, too. The second routine motion to be introduced here is for the subcommittee on agenda and procedure:

That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be established and be composed of five (5) members, namely the Chair and one member from each party; and that the subcommittee work in a spirit of collaboration.

The Chair :

Is there any discussion? Mr. Julian.

Mr. Peter Julian :

For further clarification, it's one member from each recognized party.

The Chair :

Okay.

Mr. Peter Julian :

That's probably a friendly amendment. Mr. Fragiskatos.

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

If Mr. Julian wants to emphasize that the NDP is indeed still a recognized party, that's fine with me.

The Chair :

Are we all agreed to the friendly amendment? (Motion as amended agreed to)

The Chair: Mr. Fragiskatos.

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

This routine motion relates to meetings without a quorum:

That the chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence and to have that evidence printed when a quorum is not present, provided that at least four members are present, including two members of the opposition and two members of the government, but when travelling outside the parliamentary precinct, that the meeting begin after 15 minutes, regardless of members present.

(1540) The Chair :

Is there any discussion? Mr. Julian.

Mr. Peter Julian :

If Mr. Fragiskatos is saying that in the case where we are travelling across the country for pre-budgetary hearings that it start regardless, then I would agree. I'm not sure I want to give a blanket ability outside the parliamentary precinct, but I believe what he's proposing is in the case of pre-budget hearings where it does make sense. Outside of the parliamentary precinct during pre-budgetary hearings, I would support that if he accepts it as a friendly amendment.

The Chair :

Is there any discussion? I am not sure what other committees do in this regard, but we only travel for pre-budget anyway. Are you okay with that, Peter?

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

I am.

The Chair :

Mr. Julian is basically saying that when travelling outside the parliamentary precinct on pre-budget hearings that the meetings begin. Are we okay with that?

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

Yes, that is very much in line with what we had in the previous session under the same routine motions for this committee.

The Chair :

All those in favour? There's no one opposed. (Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Mr. Fragiskatos.

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

This relates to time for opening remarks and the questioning of witnesses:

That witnesses be given five minutes—

—which was previously 10 minutes in the last session—

—for their opening statement; that, at the discretion of the chair, during questioning of witnesses, there be allocated six minutes for the first questioner of each party as follows: First round: Conservative Party, Liberal Party, Bloc Québécois, New Democratic Party; For the second and subsequent rounds, the order and time for questioning be as follows: Conservative Party, five minutes, Liberal Party, five minutes, Conservative Party, five minutes, Liberal Party, five minutes, Bloc Québécois, two and a half minutes and New Democratic Party, two and a half minutes.

The Chair :

I see Mr. Julian first, and then we'll go to Mr. Poilievre and then Mr. Ste-Marie.

Mr. Peter Julian :

I don't have any problem with the time allocation, but what procedure and House affairs has adopted, and what committees are being urged to adopt is for the second round. The first round is fine. The second round would actually be Conservative Party five, Liberal Party five, Bloc two and a half minutes, NDP two and a half minutes, and then Conservative Party five, and Liberal Party five. That would be the amendment I would propose to Mr. Fragiskatos. That's what procedure and House affairs has adopted. Hopefully, it'll be a friendly amendment.

The Chair :

Just to be sure I got this right, the first round would be as is, six minutes. The second round would be Conservatives five, Liberals five, Bloc two and a half, NDP two-and-a-half, and then into the next round starting with Conservatives five and Liberals five.

Mr. Peter Julian :

Yes.

The Chair :

Okay, we'll leave it at that. Mr. Poilievre, you had your hand up.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Carleton, CPC) :

Before I speak, can I just confirm, has Mr. Fragiskatos accepted that friendly amendment?

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

I have not, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

Okay, so you're going onto another issue. Is there a discussion on the amendment as proposed by Mr. Julian? We'll go to Mr. Ste-Marie and then Ms. Dzerowicz.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wanted to raise the same point as Mr. Julian. I will support his amendment, as agreed to by the whips. I believe this is the way the committee should proceed.

(1545) [ English ]

The Chair :

Ms. Dzerowicz, are you speaking to this amendment?

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz (Davenport, Lib.) :

Yes. I just need to understand why the proposed change, Mr. Julian? Things went so swimmingly in our first part of the year. Everything went well.

The Chair :

Go ahead, Mr. Julian.

Mr. Peter Julian :

The reason that procedure and House affairs adopted that format—even though the third and fourth party have much less time—the way the rotation worked, they are suggesting this and committees are adopting it this way for the second round to ensure that those two and a half minutes actually make it. If you put it right at the end, it's doubtful that the second round actually could be completed,

whereas this way, the third and fourth party actually get a second way to ask questions. That's why procedure and House affairs proceeded this way. It's basically a supplementary round for things that come up. That's why it was proposed by procedure and House affairs. That's why other committees are adopting it that way. We've already seen a number of them over the past. I don't think finance should be an outlier. We deal with very important issues, so having that supplementary question can make a difference, even if it's only two and a half minutes.

The Chair :

Ms. Dzerowicz.

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My understanding, Mr. Julian, is that the chair can be empowered to shorten the time to ensure everybody gets two rounds. I think it was traditionally done so that the government party gets first crack at the second round and then the leading opposition gets second crack. I believe maybe PROC, for some reason, specifically decided to agree to this, but I'm not sure that all other committees are going to follow suit.

The Chair :

Peter.

Mr. Peter Julian :

The ones that have so far, yes, they have. You can certainly talk to your whip about why procedure and House affairs recommended that format. I'm sure it came through discussions. My point is that if procedure and House affairs is recommending it, all parties agreed to it for procedure and House affairs, and other committees are adopting it this way, why would finance then put the third and fourth party possibly without the ability to ask any supplementary questions? In a minority Parliament all parties have to work together. That's why procedure and House affairs is strongly recommending the format that I proposed. I'm sure Mr. Fragiskatos was aware of that as well.

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

Mr. Chair, Mr. Julian has made it seem that the endorsement from PROC was a unanimous one. It was not. This is an independent committee. Committees are masters of their own destiny, as we all know. This was—and when I say “this was”, I mean what I originally suggested a few moments ago prior to Mr. Julian seeking to put in place a friendly amendment—an approach that we followed in the previous session and it worked quite well. Everybody had the ability to be given time. Time was allocated very fairly under your leadership, Mr. Chair. I really don't see why that would be a problem henceforth.

I think that what was originally suggested, with due respect to Mr. Julian and Mr. Ste-Marie, is completely fair. I'm not sure why they want to keep pressing this point.

The Chair :

All right, there doesn't seem to be an agreement. Is there any further discussion? Then we'll have to go to a vote on it. We'll have Mr. Ste-Marie, and I think Mr. Poilievre wants in. Gabriel.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would say to Mr. Fragiskatos that, so far, it hasn't worked very well. During the consultations regarding COVID-19, my colleague Peter Julian and I were given our first two-and-a-half-minute slot. However, because there were so many guests and witnesses and we were discussing very important issues, it was not uncommon at the end of the meetings, if we were lucky, that we could only get a short question because the chair didn't have time to give us our second two-and-a-half-minute slot.

What is being proposed and what has been passed in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs aims to finally secure those two and a half minutes, as my colleague Mr. Julian says. In my opinion, it is not true to say that it has been working well and that, so far, it has been fair. Committees are independent and can determine their own procedures, but sometimes their operation can be cumbersome, lengthy and painful.

(1550) [ English ]

The Chair :

Okay. I do think, unless I see agreement, we will have to go to a.... Oh, sorry, Mr. Poilievre. Go ahead.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

I gather the only difference here is that in the second round, the Bloc and the NDP would split five minutes right smack in the middle of the round. Do I have that right?

The Chair :

Yes.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

That is effectively the only difference versus what we have right now. I just want to make sure we understand what we're voting on here. Under Mr. Fragiskatos' motion, the first round is six minutes for the Conservatives, the Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP. The second round is five minutes for the Conservatives, five minutes for the Liberals, five minutes for the Conservatives, and five minutes for the Liberals. The third round is when the Bloc and NDP get their last opportunity to speak. Is that what Mr. Fragiskatos is proposing?

The Chair :

Well, following that we're back into Conservative, Liberal, Conservative, Liberal. I believe when we've had time, we've brought in the NDP and Bloc after that. It's basically up to the chair, but in the third round normally we're back to the regular order as in the first round, only with less...and often we split that down to three minutes instead of five, depending, in trying to get everybody in. Mr. Julian.

Mr. Peter Julian :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The difference, Mr. Poilievre, is that if we lose the five minutes, as we often do when we're doing our rounds, in the case of Mr. Fragiskatos' proposal it would be the Bloc and the NDP that would lose their supplementary question. If we lose that five minutes, there's no possibility for two of the three opposition parties to ask supplementary questions. With what I'm proposing as an amendment, every party gets supplementary questions. If we lose that five minutes, it's the government who chairs the committee, and the chair intervenes quite often.

The Liberal Party will have several rounds before that. It's a difference of equity. Either the government loses the five minutes or two of the three opposition parties lose the five minutes. That's actually a pretty substantial difference, I would suggest. That's why procedure and House affairs has made the recommendation, which I believe we should follow.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Peter, just to clarify, you're saying that under the Fragiskatos model that we followed before, the Bloc and NDP only get their two and a half minutes after the first two rounds are completely finished, and only if the chair finds there's time for that to happen.

Mr. Peter Julian :

If we're doing an hour-long hearing, depending on the number of witnesses, and we lose that last five minutes from the second round, with the Fragiskatos proposal it's two of the three opposition parties who lose that opportunity also for a supplementary question. Under my proposal, it may mean that the government gets one fewer round, but they will have had several rounds earlier. That's the difference. It's whether you believe the government should basically override, if we have to lose five minutes, or if the two opposition parties should be able to ask supplementary questions in that same time.

The Chair :

Ms. Dzerowicz, do you want in on this one?

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz :

I just want to point out a few things. I love that we're calling it the Fragiskatos motion or method. It's great. I think we should trademark it. My understanding is that this is just the traditional format that has always existed. My sense is that it is because the governing party tends to have first crack and then the leading opposition party has the second crack in the third round. I think it really is just because we have a majority rules government and that's the format that has always existed. I know that Mr. Julian has pointed out a number of times that PROC has approved it.

I will tell you that the Liberal members did not support it. It did not receive unanimous support. It was not meant to be seen as setting a precedent for all the committees. Those were the two points I wanted to make, Chair.

(1555) The Chair :

We'll go to Mr. Fragiskatos, then maybe we'll have to go to a vote.

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

Thank you, Chair. I appreciate the call for a trademark. Perhaps I'll be accused by my colleagues across the way for being quite rigid here, but I still fail to see and have not heard a compelling reason as to why we can't follow the convention from the previous session which worked very well, Mr. Chair. Why can't we leave it in your very capable hands to make sure that two rounds come to completion? In the previous Parliament, I don't recall one single time where opposition members complained about not having fair time.

This was a committee that dealt with some very challenging issues as far as COVID-19 and the economic response was concerned, and of course we dealt with WE Charity. As we all saw, the opposition was very able to raise issues in any way they wished. We have an existing format that worked well then. Suddenly you come here and now propose a change. It's not about anything that I proposed. I appreciate Mr. Julian and Mr. Poilievre characterizing this as the Fragiskatos approach or structure or whatever they called it. It's not about me here. I think we have a tradition that we followed on this committee.

Why not simply continue with that? It's a bit perplexing, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

I see Mr. Poilievre has his hand up, too. I was going to go to you, Mr. Julian, for the last word, so I'll go to you, and then to Mr. Poilievre and Ms. Jansen. Hopefully then we can go to a vote. Mr. Julian.

Mr. Peter Julian :

Thanks, Mr. Chair. Mr. Fragiskatos has put a very eloquent argument forward for my amendment, which is that you, Mr. Chair, do have the ability to ensure that government members get that final question in. That's terrific. I think the third and fourth parties have very clearly spelled out that they believe they need to have that guarantee of a supplementary question. Mr. Chair, as you know, the reality is that often you're not able to provide that, so you're very effective in juggling things. If Mr. Fragiskatos believes in what he just said, he should vote for my amendment.

Then we can lock in what procedure and House affairs is recommending we do and what other committees are doing as well, in the interest of fairness in a minority Parliament.

The Chair :

I'll go to Mr. Poilievre and then Ms. Jansen. Before the vote on the subsequent rounds, I'm going to ask you, Mr. Julian, just to explain to me where we are on that, so at least I understand whichever way it goes. Mr. Poilievre.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

I appreciate Mr. Fragiskatos' humility and modesty in turning down the namesake of the motion, which we tried to ascribe to him. That appellation, I think, is something he could have been proud of and even advertised amongst his constituents: that he has created and invented a procedural innovation at a parliamentary committee. Not many Canadians can say that. On to the substance of the matter, I think that there is nothing wrong with giving our two opposition compatriots—I hope the Bloc doesn't mind being called a compatriot—an extra two and a half minutes each.

I know that the Liberal party would be charitable enough to grant that. The argument that the Fragiskatos model is more established would suggest that we can never improve, but a wise man once said that in Canada, better is always possible. I think there is some room for improvement. We hope that the NDP, in using that 2.5 minutes, won't simply serve Liberal purposes with it. We are trusting that they will honour their constituents who voted for an opposition party when they elected New Democrats in some of the ridings of the country.

We know that they will be mindful of that when they speak out, because we certainly don't need anymore fealty to the government from opposition parties. I'm inclined to vote in favour of that amendment from Mr. Julian. Hopefully, it will lead to an even more productive finance committee in this Parliament than the one that preceded prorogation.

(1600) The Chair :

All right, we have Ms. Jansen and then Mr. Fraser. Mr. Falk, was your hand up? You were just waving papers.

Mrs. Tamara Jansen (Cloverdale—Langley City, CPC) :

I was wondering if it's possible that we raise hands rather than waving at the cameras. It feels very disorganized because people are waving. It's difficult to work like that.

The Chair :

You can use that little hand thing if you like. The problem here is that I'm working from a small screen, on a Surface Pro.

Mrs. Tamara Jansen :

I'm just wondering if we could use that as a regular way of doing business. It's a bit confusing when people are waving and I'm looking at the list of hands and they're not up. I just think it will ensure that everybody is given the right turn in the right order.

The Chair :

We can do that. Mr. Fraser.

Mr. Sean Fraser (Central Nova, Lib.) :

I have a question for Mr. Julian. During your presentation for the proposed amendment, you indicated that there was a precedent set, more or less, that committees are being encouraged to adopt. I'm curious if there's been any movement or discussion around the practice that committees have adopted where the chair is a member of the opposition and whether, in those circumstances, to meet the suggestion that the chair could accommodate, the same precedent would apply within this case, given where we are in Parliament with the Conservatives last in the round that we're discussing. Has that been discussed in other committees?

The Chair :

Mr. Julian.

Mr. Peter Julian :

I don't actually know the answer to that question. What we're proposing here doesn't have the Conservatives last in that second round. It has the Liberals last in that second round. For subsequent rounds it would be the same. I think the chair was asking that question earlier. It would be the same for subsequent rounds if we were going for a two-hour session. It would be Conservative for five minutes, Liberal for five minutes, Bloc for two and a half minutes, NDP for two and a half minutes, Conservative for five minutes and then Liberal for five minutes.

The Chair :

Go ahead, Mr. Fragiskatos.

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

I'm sorry to interrupt, Mr. Chair. I'm still trying to figure out where the “raise hand” function is. I've used it a few times on Zoom, but that's why I interrupted there. I think that Mr. Fraser's question is a very relevant one. I'm not sure if Mr. Julian understood it, with all due respect to him. As I understood him, Mr. Fraser was talking about what happens in cases where the opposition holds the chair if, as in our case and most committees' cases, a Liberal chair is in place. What Mr. Julian is calling for here, and one would assume in other committees, is that the Liberals finish off questioning.

In cases where the opposition is in chairmanship, is he also calling for the opposition, in the form of the Conservatives, to wrap up questioning there, too?

Mr. Peter Julian :

It's a red herring. I don't have the answer. I'd prefer to go to a vote, Mr. Chair.

(1605) Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

Mr. Chair, I would remind my honourable colleague that he is helping to establish a bit of a precedent. I'm not sure it's a precedent that he would be entirely comfortable with.

The Chair :

We're ready for the vote. Did I see you shaking your head, Mrs. Jansen?

Mrs. Tamara Jansen :

I'm sorry, but I do still see hands up.

Mr. Pat Kelly :

Mr. Chair, I had my hand up. I don't want to debate this too much further, but Mr. Julian's point is correct. It's a red herring in terms of us setting a precedent for an opposition-chaired committee. That will be a question for opposition-chaired committees to determine. I also agree with Mrs. Jansen that just for order on this, monitoring the participants' hands up would be an orderly way to keep a speakers list.

The Chair :

Are we ready for the question? Madam Clerk, perhaps we could turn to you, on the amendment by Mr. Julian. (Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [ See Minutes of Proceedings ])

The Chair: We'll go on to the next motion. That will be the new order. Mr. Fragiskatos.

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

Mr. Chair, the proposed routine motion here is on document distribution. It is as follows:

That only the clerk of the committee be authorized to distribute documents to members of the committee only when the documents are available in both official languages and that witnesses be advised accordingly.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair :

Peter.

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

The next routine motion is on working meals.

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz :

On a point of order, did we vote on the original motion as amended?

The Chair :

No, we didn't. We'd better do that. Thank you, Julie. We'll go back a step and vote on the original motion as amended. (Motion as amended agreed to)

The Chair: Okay, now we're on working meals.

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

Mr. Chair, the motion reads as follows:

That the clerk of the committee be authorized to make the necessary arrangements to provide working meals for the committee and its subcommittees.

(1610) The Chair :

Is there any discussion? (Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Next is travel accommodations.

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

Thank you, Chair. The motion reads:

That, if requested, reasonable travel, accommodation and living expenses be reimbursed to witnesses not exceeding two representatives per organization; provided that, in exceptional circumstances, payment for more representatives be made at the discretion of the chair.

The Chair :

Is there any discussion? (Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Next is access to in camera meetings.

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

On access to in camera meetings, Mr. Chair, the motion reads:

That, unless otherwise ordered, each Committee member be allowed to have one staff member at an in camera meeting and that one additional person from each House officer's office be allowed to be present.

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz :

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I'm looking at the raised hands and there are three raised hands. Are they because there are questions, or is it...? I know in my case I've raised my hand because I would like to present a motion after the routine motions are over, but I don't know whether that was the appropriate thing to do.

The Chair :

I have three requests following the business: one from Ms. Dzerowicz, one from Mr. Julian and one from Mr. Poilievre.

Mr. Peter Julian :

On a point of order, my hand was up first, so I just want to remind you of that, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz :

I think my hand was up first, Mr. Julian.

The Chair :

We'll argue about that later. Let's get back to the routine proceedings. Go ahead, Mr. Fragiskatos.

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

Mr. Chair, if it's helpful, I think I did see Ms. Dzerowicz's hand go up first, but in any case, as you said, we can discuss that in a moment. This is the second-last motion. It relates to transcripts of in camera meetings:

That one copy of the transcript of each in camera meeting be kept in the Committee clerk’s office for consultation by members of the Committee or by their staff.

The Chair :

Is there any discussion on that? (Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Now, we'll go to some motions.

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

Mr. Chair, as you know, this one, on notice of motion, is a lengthier one, so just bear with me here:

That a 48 hours’ notice, interpreted as two nights, shall be required for any substantive motion to be considered by the committee, unless the substantive motion relates directly to business then under consideration, provided that (1) the notice be filed with the clerk of the committee no later than 4:00 p.m. (EST) from Monday to Friday; that (2) the motion be distributed to Members in both official languages by the clerk on the same day the said notice was transmitted if it was received no later than the deadline hour; and that (3) notices received after the deadline hour or on non-business days be deemed to have been received during the next business day and that when the committee is travelling on official business, no substantive motions may be moved.

The Chair :

Is there discussion on this one? I see none. (Motion agreed to)

Mr. Peter Julian :

Point of order.

The Chair :

I do have the three other motions on the screen. Mr. Julian's hand came up first. I was informed first by Ms. Dzerowicz. Mr. Fraser, you have your hand up too.

Mr. Sean Fraser :

I do, for a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Peter Julian :

My point of order, Mr. Chair, is that with the “raise hand” function, you can actually see the order in which people raise their hands, so all members of the committee can see that I'm first up after the routine motions.

(1615) The Chair :

I'll be honest with you, Mr. Julian, that I haven't figured this system out yet and I lost you once. I'm going to go offline and try to figure this system out when this meeting is over. There is a point of order from Mr. Fraser first, if it's a point of order.

Mr. Sean Fraser :

It's actually on the same point of order, Mr. Chair, about going through the “raise hand” exercise, which I think could be a good practice, though one we're not used to. I thank Mrs. Jansen for the suggestion. I used the “raise hand” function myself to make a previous comment when I posed a question to Mr. Julian. After I had asked that question, I saw that Ms. Dzerowicz had her hand up as well previously. They were both cleared. I didn't clear it myself. I'm curious to know whether the chair or someone else has the ability to do that. Both of ours were removed and Mr.

Julian used the “raise hand” function subsequent to that. What I don't know is whether Ms. Dzerowicz's initial hand raise was for her intended motion or for a comment she was making in the previous debate. It's obvious this is not a rule that existed. We don't really know how to work this, but I thought I would offer my own testimony, I suppose, because I checked when Mrs. Jansen said we had to lower our hand and mine had already been lowered.

The Chair :

Okay.

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz :

Can I just answer the—

The Chair :

I'm going to let Ms. Dzerowicz come in here, because I was informed by Ms. Dzerowicz first by the old way of doing things, and now we're into a new way of doing things. Go ahead, Ms. Dzerowicz, and make your point, and then we'll have to make a decision here on which one we're going with. I have Mr. Julian up as well. I want to be fair.

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz :

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. To be after routine motions, I did raise my hand. Then Ms. Jansen mentioned we should raise and drop and raise and drop. I think there was a bit of a use there of the raise and drop. And then I put it back on again, and then—this is to Mr. Fraser's comment—I think it was taken down. I think I had spoken, but whoever took it down didn't understand that I was trying to raise my hand to speak as soon as the routine motions were over. It's unfortunate that we're left where we are here, but it was very genuine.

I actually had it up for the most part even before anybody else was putting up their raised hand, and then I think it was eliminated when we were going into the raised hand and dropping hand. Once I noticed it was eliminated, I put it back up right away, so I've been there from the beginning.

The Chair :

I really see no reason why we can't deal with all three. We have committee time till what time, Madam Clerk?

Ms. Evelyn Lukyniuk :

The notice of meeting per se says 5:30.

The Chair :

Okay.

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, we're talking about the “raised hand” function, which as far as the efficiency of meetings is concerned could prove to be a very valuable tool. However, where in the Standing Orders, where in the very good text that all members of Parliament are assigned when they become MPs, in the

chapter on committees, does it say anything about the Zoom “raised hand” function? That sentence has never been spoken in committee before, Mr. Chair, which proves the point that we can't make rules on the fly, as Mr. Julian is trying to do.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

A point of order.

The Chair :

On a point of order, Mr. Poilievre, I'll hear you, but getting to the first motion as quickly as possible and then maybe dealing with all three is where I'm trying to go. Mr. Poilievre.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

I'm sure our constituents would be very proud to see us dealing with this important matter of state. I'm reminded that the definition of a committee is a group of people who by themselves can do nothing and who together agree that nothing can be done.

The Chair :

I don't believe that is a point of order. I am going to go to Ms. Dzerowicz first, then Mr. Julian and then Mr. Poilievre. Ms. Dzerowicz.

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz :

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I'd like to present a motion on pre-budget consultations. As Mr. Poilievre said, those witnessing us today will probably find this to be a very important motion for us to be presenting. I do have it translated into both languages and my staff should be sending this over to the clerk as we speak. I'm happy to read it in French as well. [ Translation ] I can speak both languages. In addition, it allows me to practise my French. [ English ] It goes as follows:

That, pursuant to its mandate under Standing Order 83.1, the Standing Committee on Finance begins the Pre-Budget Consultations 2021 on Tuesday, October 13, 2020, and that

a) the Deputy Prime Minister and departmental officials appear before the committee;

b) the evidence and documentation received by the committee during the first session of the 43rd Parliament on pre-budget consultations be taken into consideration by the committee in the current session;

c) the committee allow witnesses to change their testimony if they feel so obliged based on the rapidly evolving situation around COVID-19;

d) each party submit a preliminary witness list no later than 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 14, 2020;

e) each party submit a final witness list no later than 6:00 p.m. on Friday, October 16, 2020; and

f) the committee request permission from the House to table its report on Pre-Budget consultations no later than Tuesday, December 8, 2020

I wonder—

(1620) Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Point of privilege, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

There is no point of privilege, but go head.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

There is a point of privilege, and I gave notice to your office that I would be raising one.

The Chair :

Yes, you gave me notice a little while ago. I have three notices of motions: one from Ms. Dzerowicz, one from Mr. Julian and one from you.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

My point is with regard to the breach of privilege that the government has carried out with respect to the finance committee. I do have the floor, and this is in order. The Speaker has referred this matter back to the finance committee for it to be dealt with here. This is the proper forum, and privilege is the proper point under which it should be raised. So it is a point of privilege, and that grants me the floor to raise it.

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz :

Point of order— I think that is out of order.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

I will proceed. Points of privilege take precedence over points of order.

The Chair :

They do take precedence, Ms. Dzerowicz, so we will allow it to go to the point of privilege, I believe.

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz :

But is the point of privilege actually a point of privilege?

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Yes, it very much is.

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz :

Well can we maybe have the clerk define that, as opposed to the person who is raising the point of privilege?

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

If I may, it's impossible for the clerk to rule on whether it's a point of privilege until the clerk has heard the point of privilege.

The Chair :

Okay, let's hear your point of privilege.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. This committee, prior to prorogation, required that the government provide a series of documents in relation to the WE scandal. That request was very specific. It included a long list of items that would be required to fulfill the motion. The motion specified that it would be the law clerk of the House of Commons who would be responsible for redacting any documents that were necessary to redact as a result of national security, cabinet confidence or any other legitimate purpose. As you can appreciate, Mr.

Chair, members of the committee were extremely disappointed and shocked to see that the documents submitted to the law clerk of the House of Commons were preredacted. Members of the government had covered up hundreds of sentences and at least dozens of pages through redactions, with black ink on page after page after page. The Prime Minister promptly prorogued Parliament before this matter could be addressed at this committee, preventing me from bringing this motion then. Thus, I am bringing it forward now.

The member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands, Michael Barrett, raised a point of privilege on the floor of the House of Commons in respect of this matter. The Speaker responded by saying that the matter had to be raised at the aggrieved committee, which is this one. This represents a breach of the privileges of parliamentarians to receive any and all documents that the committee requests. Parliamentary privilege is absolute. The government does not have the right, in our system, to withhold information that Parliament has requested.

I note that the original request was extremely generous towards the government, in that it provided a mechanism for the law clerk, who is bound by solicitor-client privilege, to remove or redact any information that would violate the government's right to cabinet confidence, protection of national security, commercial sensitivity and personal privacy. We have a respected legal team. We have, simply put, a lawyer for the House of Commons whose job it was to carry out that work.

The law clerk has informed the House that the office of the clerk was prevented from doing that job by the government's decision to do the redactions before the documents were ever handed over. As remedy, I have a motion that I wish to introduce into the record for committee members to vote upon. Let me begin reading it.

That the Chair be instructed to present the following report to the House forthwith, provided that dissenting or supplementary—

(1625) The Chair :

Mr. Poilievre, before you go to your motion, I want to have this straight, because if it's a point of privilege, I have to allow it and go to the motion. But your point of privilege, if I understand what you said, is that you're saying the request that the finance committee made for documentation in the last Parliament was not abided by as we had requested that it be abided by. Is that what your point of privilege is?

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Yes, and thus the privilege of committee, which is a privilege of Parliament, was breached. The government breached the privileges of committee, the committee being a creature of Parliament, and thereby breached the privileges of parliamentarians. That is the basis for my point.

The Chair :

Okay, but what I need to know, before I rule for or against the point of privilege, is this: What part of the motion are you saying wasn't adhered to?

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

The documents requested were redacted before they reached the law clerk, and therefore Parliament's unlimited ability to acquire documents from the Government of Canada, or any other entity for that matter, was breached.

The Chair :

And your evidence for this is what the law clerk said?

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Yes.

The Chair :

Okay.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Furthermore, my motion actually contains additional evidence that will be read into the record formally, as soon as you allow me to continue.

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz :

Could I have point a order?

The Chair :

No, you can't. Can we suspend for two minutes? I want to confer with the clerk on this one; I really do.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Well, no, I don't think there is unanimous consent to suspend the meeting.

The Chair :

Well, I can suspend the meeting and confer with the clerk, so I am going to do that. I want to be sure I am on safe ground with where I'm going here. I don't want to deny your motion if it shouldn't be denied, and I want to approve it if it should be approved under the rules. I am going to suspend for two or three minutes and talk to the clerk.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Okay.

The Chair :

The meeting is suspended for a couple of minutes.

(1625) (1630) The Chair :

All right. I will allow the motion. Go ahead.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It reads as follows:

That the Chair be instructed to present the following report to the House forthwith, provided that dissenting or supplementary opinions, pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(b), shall be filed with the Clerk of the Committee within 24 hours of adoption of this motion.

The Chair :

Mr. Poilievre, could you slow down a little? We do have to write this down.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Absolutely. I'll be happy to provide the motion in writing to your office thereafter so that you will have a copy. My staff is in the process right now of emailing it to your team and to the clerk so that you will have a copy. The motion continues as follows:

The Standing Committee on Finance, pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a), has agreed to report the following. Standing Order 108(2) empowers your Committee—

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos: Point of order, Mr. Chair.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre: It continues:

“to study and report on all matters relating to the mandate, management and operation of the department or departments”—

The Chair :

I can't take a point of order until we get through the motion, Mr. Fragiskatos. Go ahead with the motion.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

I will have to reread that sentence, then:

Standing Order 108(2) empowers your Committee “to study and report on all matters relating to the mandate, management and operation of the department or departments of government which are assigned” to it, among other things. Additionally, on May 26, 2020, the House adopted an order of reference permitting your Committee to meet virtually to consider matters “related to the COVID-19 pandemic and other matters” and empowering it, “in relation to [its] study of matters related to the COVID-19 pandemic”, to “receive evidence which may otherwise exceed the [committee’s] mandate under Standing Order 108”.

(1635) [ Translation ] On July 7, 2020, the committee held a virtual meeting. It adopted the following motion:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a), the committee order that any contracts concluded with We Charity and Me to We, all briefing notes, memos and emails, including the contribution agreement between the government and the organization, from senior officials prepared for or sent to any minister regarding the design and creation of the Canada Student Service Grant, as well as any written correspondence and records of other correspondence with We Charity and Me to We from March 2020 be provided to the committee no later than August 8, 2020; that matters of cabinet confidence and national security be excluded from the request; and that any redactions necessary, including to protect the privacy of Canadian citizens and permanent residents whose names and personal information may be included in the documents, as well as public servants who have been providing assistance on this matter, be made by the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons.

[ English ]

On or about August 8, 2020, several deputy heads of government departments provided the Clerk of your Committee with documents in response to the order for document production. These documents were, in accordance with the order, referred to the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel for review and redaction. On August 18, 2020, the documents were released to the members of your Committee. The Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel also wrote to the Clerk of your Committee stating, in part:

the letters and documents indicate that the departments had also made redactions to protect personal information in accordance with the Privacy Act, to protect third party information and information on the vulnerability of their computer or communication systems, or methods employed to protect their systems. These latter grounds for exemption from disclosure are contained in the Access to Information Act. .

Upon reception of the documents on August 9, 2020, you provided them to my Office so that we could make the necessary redactions to protect the privacy of Canadian citizens and permanent residents, as well as public servants as contemplated by the production order. However, as mentioned above, the documents had already been redacted by the departments to protect personal information and on other grounds. As my Office has not been given the opportunity to see the unredacted documents, we are not able to confirm whether those redactions are consistent with the order of the Committee....

It goes on:

As mentioned above, the departments made certain redactions to the documents on grounds that were not contemplated in the order of the Committee. We note that the House’s and its committees’ power to order the production of records is absolute and unfettered as it constitutes a constitutional parliamentary privilege that supersedes statutory obligations, such as the exemptions found in the Access to Information Act. The House and its committees are the appropriate authority to determine whether any reasons for withholding the documents should be accepted or not.

[ Translation ]

Parliament was prorogued on August 18, 2020, preventing your committee from meeting to study the documents and the government's failure to comply with the July 7, 2020 order. A question of privilege was raised in the House on this matter at the beginning of the new session of Parliament. In his decision of October 1, 2020, the Speaker of the House said:

As of today, it is not possible to know whether the committee is satisfied with these documents as provided to it. The new session is now under way. The committee, which has control over the

interpretation of its order, has an opportunity to examine the documents and decide what to do with them.[...] Given these facts and circumstances, it is my view that this is a matter for the committee to consider. If it believes that its privileges have been breached or has any other concern with respect to the situation, it can report to the House.

[ English ]

At its October 8, 2020, organizational meeting, your Committee considered the government’s response to the July 7, 2020, order. Your Committee has concluded that the government’s response failed to comply with the order, and, accordingly, wishes to draw the attention of the House to what appears to be a breach of its privileges by the government’s refusal to provide documents in the manner ordered by the Committee.

Your Committee, therefore, recommends that an Order of the House do issue for the unredacted version of all documents produced by the government in response to the July 7, 2020, order of the Standing Committee on Finance, provided that these documents shall be laid upon the Table within one sitting day of the adoption of this Order.

That, Mr. Chair, is my binding motion. Having concluded the filing of that motion and having instructed my staff members to provide your and the clerk's office with a full copy of it in order to ensure rapid precision in its recording, I will state the rationale for the motion very briefly. We asked for documents. The documents were blacked out. We have the right to see those documents unredacted. We have a law clerk, a lawyer, who represents all of us, who has the ability, the expertise, and the confidence of this committee and our House to determine what we should and should not publish.

That is the role of Parliament. My motion is now before the committee. I look forward to our going to an immediate vote on it.

(1640) The Chair :

I have to go back to a point of order by Mr. Fragiskatos, and then I need a clarification from you on your motion. Mr. Fragiskatos, you have a point of order. I had to wait until Mr. Poilievre was done reading the motion. What's your point of order?

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm having a difficult time understanding the substance of Mr. Poilievre's motion. The reason for that is that we're in a new session of Parliament. Since this is our first meeting, there has not been, by definition, a motion adopted to review any documents. There haven't been, as far as I know, documents received by the committee. The clerk has not received a relevant letter. The member, Mr. Poilievre, talks about a breach of privilege, which the Speaker did not find on the matter that he raises. When such issues come up, Mr. Chair, even in a case of a point of privilege, they go to the—

The Chair :

I think, Mr. Fragiskatos, you're more into debate than a point of order. The motion is debatable. I'll allow those points to be made in debate. However, before I get into debate, Mr. Poilievre, I just want to be clear so I understand it. Here in your motion, you say at one point—and for committee members, the clerk has now sent that motion to members on their units, so you should have it—that the documents be unredacted. You mean unredacted as they go to the law clerk, because there have been some motions floating around, which I've seen here and there, that basically said cabinet documents, etc., unredacted.

Maybe I can explain it this way. You're saying that the original request, after the finance committee met, was that the documents that would go to the law clerk be unredacted and that the law clerk could make the decision regarding what's redacted and what is not. Is that correct?

(1645) Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

I will quote directly from my motion so that you don't rely on a secondary

interpretation of it. It says in the final paragraph:

Your Committee, therefore, recommends that an Order of the House do issue for the unredacted version of all documents produced by the government in response to the July 7, 2020, order of the Standing Committee on Finance, provided that these documents shall be laid upon the Table within one sitting day of the adoption of this Order.

Therefore, with the possession of these documents, the committee then can have the clerk remove any information that would violate personal privacy or national security rules, though I suspect there is no such information, and then the rest can be made public.

The Chair :

Okay. The motion is debatable. Please raise your hands, because I still haven't figured out this hand thing. My apologies for that. I have Mr. Fragiskatos first, Mr. Julian second, and Ms. Dzerowicz third, and we'll go from there. Mr. Fragiskatos.

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

Pat Kelly is next.

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. The motion makes reference to the Speaker's ruling on October 1, but it neglects to mention the part of the ruling that said “the Chair cannot”—cannot—“find that there is a prima facie question of privilege”. That, I think, is a very relevant point in addition to everything I raised earlier. There was a bit of commotion there, so I'll repeat what I said: We are in a new session of Parliament. A motion has not been adopted to review documents. The committee has not received relevant documents. The clerk has not received any relevant letter.

I would also remind the member, who's an experienced member, that these matters, as we know from the guidebook on parliamentary procedure specifically relating to the conduct of committees, are issues to be taken up by the Standing Committee on Procedure, the PROC committee. I think that's a highly relevant point. I would point my honourable colleague to a relevant

section in the

chapter on committees and also relating to questions of privilege. It says as follows: “If the Speaker finds there is a prima facie breach of privilege”—again, he did not find it in this case, but the text is making a general point—“the member raising the question of privilege is asked to move a motion, which is debatable, usually requesting that the matter be examined by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.” That is the convention, Mr. Chair. Mr. Poilievre wants to bring these matters to the finance committee.

Again, I made this point many weeks ago, when we were meeting in the previous session. Canadians are deeply anxious right now about COVID-19 and its economic impact. I think that's where our focus ought to be. We are again today embroiled in a debate over documents, over technical matters. I'm not dismissing the substance of those. As I put on the record many times during the WE hearings that we had, I thought serious questions had to be asked of the government. I asked, along with other Liberal colleagues, very serious questions of the government.

We did not hide from that responsibility or shirk that responsibility. However, I worry that here again too we have given in, or could be giving in, to a tendency to look at matters that are not specifically relevant to the committee on finance. We need to begin to think about the pre-budget deliberations that are going to, or ought to, seize this committee. In fact, that is a responsibility of the committee if we follow the Standing Orders. I think colleagues around the table will hold that same view.

If they wish to raise their perspective on this matter, on the matter of pre-budget deliberations, I would welcome that. It would be great to get that on the record. I think it's a very relevant point. I know that a number of stakeholder organizations have expressed a deep interest in letting this committee know about where the country ought to go, where the federal government should go and what advice this particular committee should provide to the government on economic matters going forward. For all these reasons, Mr.

Chair, I have a tough time understanding the special relevance of the motion introduced by my honourable colleague. He knows conventions very well. I think it would have been more instructive and appropriate for him to raise these matters, or rather for a Conservative member to raise these matters, in the PROC committee. I'll leave it there for now, Mr. Chair. I'm glad I had a chance to put my views on the record.

(1650) The Chair :

Okay. I will find the hand function before the next meeting, Ms. Jansen. Next on my list are Mr. Julian, Ms. Dzerowicz, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Jansen and Mr. Fraser. Do any others want in? Ms. Koutrakis and Mr. Poilievre do, hopefully to wrap it up. Then we'll go to a vote. Mr. Julian.

Mr. Peter Julian :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate being recognized. I will start off by giving the committee a notice of motion. The notice of motion is for a subsequent committee meeting:

That, in light of troubling allegations of misuse of public funds by the government during the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada, the House appoint a special committee with the mandate to conduct hearings to examine and review all aspects of the government’s spending in response to the pandemic, including, but not limited to—

An hon. member: Chair, a point of order.

An hon. member: A point of order.

The Chair: If I could—

Mr. Peter Julian: It continues:

the Canada Student Service Grant, the Canada Emergency Commercial Rent Assistance program, and the procurement of personal protective equipment:

The Chair :

Mr. Julian, we're in a debate on the motion that is before us—

Mr. Peter Julian :

Yes, and it is absolutely in order to read a notice of motion, Mr. Chair, as you know. So I'll just complete that and then I will speak to the motion.

The Chair :

Okay, but the points you're raising with your motion relate to the subject we're on?

Mr. Peter Julian :

No. Well, yes, it's a notice of motion that—

The Chair :

If it relates to this debate, you're on and you're basically suggesting whatever, and that yours is better. Okay, let's hear it.

Mr. Peter Julian :

It continues: (

a) that the committee be composed of 11 members, of which five shall be government members, four shall be from the official opposition, one shall be from the Bloc Québécois and one from the New Democratic Party;

(

b) that changes in the membership of the committee shall be effective immediately after notification by the whip has been filed with the Clerk of the House;

(

c) that membership substitutions be permitted, if required, in the manner provided for in Standing Order 114(2);

(

d) that the members shall be named by their respective whip by depositing with the Clerk of the House the list of their members to serve on the committee no later than November 15, 2020;

(

e) that the Clerk of the House shall convene an organization meeting of the said committee for no later than November 20, 2020;

(

f) that the committee be chaired by a member of the official opposition;

(

g) that notwithstanding Standing Order 106(2), in addition to the Chair, there be one vice-chair from the government, one vice-chair from the Bloc Québécois and one vice-chair from the New Democratic Party;

(

h) that quorum of the committee be as provided for in Standing Order 118 and that the Chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence and to have that evidence printed when a quorum is not present, provided that at least four members are present, including one member of the opposition and one member of the government;

(

i) that the committee be granted all of the powers of a standing committee, as provided in the Standing Orders;

(

j) that the committee have the power to authorize video and audio broadcasting of any or all of its proceedings;

(

k) that the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister of Health, and other ministers and senior officials be ordered to appear as witnesses from time to time as the committee sees fit;

(

l) that the committee report no later than February 15, 2021.

Mr. Chair, on the point of privilege, it is very clear the direction we've received from the Speaker. He stated on October 1 that this committee, the finance committee, which has control over the

interpretation of its order, has an opportunity to examine the documents and decide what to do with them. As you have stated, this motion of privilege is in order and I'll be supporting it.

(1655) The Chair :

Ms. Dzerowicz is next and then Mr. Kelly. Ms. Dzerowicz, you may speak on this motion.

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz :

Just to be clear, we're debating a motion read after a point of privilege after I introduced a motion. So I feel we're several levels down.

The Chair :

No, the motion relates to the point of privilege. When a member makes a point of privilege, if the point of privilege is allowed, we're obligate to allow the member to move a motion related to that point of privilege. Once this is out of the way, we will go back to your motion.

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz :

All right.

The Chair :

But we will have to make a decision on the motion that relates to the point of privilege. So, on Mr. Poilievre's motion related to the point of privilege, you're on.

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz :

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I want to also reiterate that we have prorogued. We have just reconstituted our committee today. We have you as chair, and we have vice-chairs. My understanding is that we as a finance committee have not accepted the documents that were indicated by Mr. Poilievre. I don't think there is any question of privilege that should be considered at this point. I want to indicate that there was a substantial amount of time allocated to looking at the CSSG and the WE situation. It was important for us to do.

It was important for us to make sure that we validated whether there was any money misspent or wasted. We've confirmed and proven that was not the case. We have also eliminated a number of the myths that were promoted by the opposition throughout the summer, including that the Liberals were giving money to their friends. That was completely not true. That the Prime Minister or the ministers had picked WE intentionally was not true, and that was confirmed by a number of our very senior leaders and bureaucrats within the government.

There were a number of other things that we completely dispelled throughout the many hours during which we actually looked at this particular motion. I don't know why the opposition would want to bring this back onto the table. I agree with my colleague Mr. Fragiskatos that we as the finance committee have an obligation to hear from stakeholders on pre-budget consultations. I don't know why this would not be the absolute number one priority for all of my colleagues in opposition on this committee. It's my understanding that almost 800 submissions have been made.

To my understanding, the number of submissions made is historic. There are many people who are very anxious to present to our committee. I know many of them have called our offices. I know many of them have ideas on how we can ensure that Canada has a competitive economy going forward as we come out of this pandemic. They have ideas on how we can attract more direct investment, how we can accelerate growth and how we can invest in productivity-enhancing capital, many ideas.

I know they want to make sure that, after they've heard about the Speech from the Throne, after they've heard about our vision and our direction and what our goals are moving forward, there are a number of specifics they want to be able to provide to us in terms of information, in terms of things they think we might have missed. They have ideas about how we can implement the specific commitments we've outlined in the Speech from the Throne. Mr. Chair, I truly believe this is where we should be focusing our attention.

I'm very disappointed with our opposition members that this is not what they want to be focused on. We also know there are many industries that are disproportionally impacted by the COVID pandemic. We need to hear from them. While I'm hopeful that our government has plans under way to help them in the interim, we need to hear from them on how we can help them pivot after this pandemic. We also know there are a number of industries that are in transition. We heard an announcement by Premier Kenney last week about new industries that Alberta wants to be transitioning into.

I think there are many who want to relay to us the kind of support they'd be looking for and that they need in the transition. The world is changing. We will have changed after this pandemic. We all want to be getting the very best ideas and providing the platform that's needed so that we can hear back from stakeholders, whether our industries, our companies or our non-profits, about how we can get Canadians and Canada back on track to succeed in a more sustainable and equitable way. Mr. Chair, I'll end there.

(1700) The Chair :

There will probably be other opportunities to come in. We have Mr. Kelly, followed by Mrs. Jansen.

Mr. Pat Kelly :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Both of the interventions we've had from the governing party members have really not addressed the question of privilege raised by Mr. Poilievre. Both spoke at length about the necessity of this committee dealing with COVID response measures, for example. That's a bit of a rabbit hole to take away from the motion itself. I'm going to go there and point out that the questions raised by the WE debacle are very much questions of COVID response measures.

The government had announced these measures as part of its COVID response, and Canadians need to know the extent to which corruption and the rewarding of friends have extended into its COVID response measures. This is an important question. This question of privilege is directly tied to how the Government of Canada addresses the COVID emergency.

When we are talking about the disruption of the absolute and unfettered privileges of a committee to examine and receive evidence, this is not something that can simply be shrugged off because the government and its caucus members on this committee would simply rather talk about something else. The Speaker, in his ruling, referred the matter back to this committee, and this committee is going to consider this. I wanted to make that point quite clearly. These issues are all tied together.

For Canadians who want and need their government to look at the emergency response measures, the manner in which money is put out and the lengths to which the government would go to deny a committee the evidence that it needs to examine this matter cannot just simply be shrugged off. This committee is an appropriate place to have this discussion.

The Chair :

Next is Mrs. Jansen, followed by Mr. Fraser, Ms. Koutrakis, Mr. Poilievre, Mr. Ste-Marie and Mr. Falk.

Mrs. Tamara Jansen :

Coming from the health committee, I want to give an example. We had a very similar situation there. I know Ms. Dzerowicz is wondering why we would be doing this. It's because the Liberals had started making it a norm to hide information. They did the exact same thing. They redacted before it went to the law clerk. We're in the middle of a pandemic. We want Canadians to trust us. If we want Canadians to trust us, then we need to be transparent with our information. Mr. Trudeau consistently says he wants to be transparent.

In December 2015, he said, “We are committed to open, honest, transparent government.” On April 3, 2019, he said, “We believe strongly in the importance of access to information and transparency”. On May 1, 2019, he said, “Under my leadership, we have raised the bar on transparency.” On June 10, 2020, he said, “We will continue to demonstrate openness and transparency.” On June 16, 2020, he said “Mr. Chair, throughout this unprecedented pandemic, we have been open and transparent about all of the measures we've put forward.” I said the same thing at the health committee.

This is not transparency when you redact and you do not allow parliamentarians the privilege of seeing the documents as they were written. There appears to be secrecy that absolutely needs to stop if we want Canadians to trust that we are doing our very best for them. We have got to support this motion.

(1705) The Chair :

Thank you, Mrs. Jansen. Next is Mr. Fraser, followed by Ms. Koutrakis.

Mr. Sean Fraser :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll cut to the chase. I don't really care what information gets shared if it's within the rules. I do want to get on with the pre-budget consultations. It's my view, after having looked at Bosc and Gagnon's

interpretation of privilege debates before committees, that we don't actually have the authority to consider this as a point of privilege. I don't intend to take too much time. It will take me a couple of minutes. I'll read the relevant

section where it discusses specifically matters of privilege raised before committee.

Unlike the Speaker, the Chair of a committee does not have the power to censure disorder or decide questions of privilege. Should a Member wish to raise a question of privilege in committee, or should some event occur in committee which appears to be a breach of privilege or contempt, the Chair of the committee will recognize the Member and hear the question of privilege, or, in the case of some incident, suggest that the committee deal with the matter.

Mr. Chair, I would suggest that you've carried out that portion of your duty by allowing Mr. Poilievre to make his motion. I'll continue with the language:

The Chair, however, has no authority to rule that a breach of privilege or contempt has occurred. The role of the Chair in such instances is to determine whether the matter raised does in fact touch on privilege and is not a point of order, a grievance or a matter of debate. If the Chair is of the opinion that the Member's interjection deals with a point of order, a grievance or a matter of debate—

Here's the key part:

—or that the incident is within the powers of the committee to deal with, the Chair will rule accordingly giving reasons. The committee cannot then consider the matter further as a question of privilege.

The remaining part of the argument has actually already been made by members of the opposition. Mr. Poilievre, I believe, pointed out the good work of the parliamentary law clerk and counsel, who previously indicated in the letter that was referred to—I'll read from that letter if I can bring it up here momentarily—that:

In the circumstances, it is for the Committee to determine whether it is satisfied with the documents as redacted by the departments.

Further, both Mr. Kelly and Mr. Julian correctly pointed out that the chair in the House, who is master of this committee, save and except in its own uncertain circumstances, has actually referred this matter specifically to the committee. Under my

interpretation of the plain language explanation outlined in Bosc and Gagnon, you are required, Mr. Chair, to determine that this is within the power of the committee and not to be the subject of a report subjected to the House. Moreover, Mr. Chair, should you not accept my argument, I would like to propose a simple amendment to Mr. Poilievre's motion. I would propose that, at the bottom of the motion, we add the words, “and that pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests a government response to the committee's report.” However, that's only required should you find against my argument.

The Chair :

I've already allowed the motion. You can always challenge the chair as well, but your amendment is in order.

Mr. Sean Fraser :

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. I'm not sure that your allowing the point of privilege and motion to be put is conclusive in the present instances. I believe that you were correct to allow the motion to be made and to have it be debated. Having had the debate, I believe you would be entitled to find—and, in fact, are required to find—that if the issue of the redaction of the documents is within the power of the committee, then this can't be heard as a point of privilege. That's my

interpretation of Bosc and Gagnon. It doesn't take much interpreting; that's actually what it says.

(1710) The Chair :

You and I will have a debate here. What you're suggesting, then, Mr. Fraser, is that the issue of whether the documents were redacted beyond what the committee requested—or improperly redacted—is within the authority of the committee and should not be a point that is going to the House. Is that what I'm hearing you say?

Mr. Sean Fraser :

That's precisely the point. The rule says that if it's within the power of the committee to deal with—and I'm paraphrasing here—then the point of privilege must be dismissed. The committee would be free to deal with the substance of that issue in due course. However, in this instance, we have both the letter from the law clerk and the direction coming directly from the Speaker of the House of Commons that, in fact, this matter should be dealt with by the committee.

That direction should prevent this committee from going through the exercise of finding that there should be a report submitted for the House to then consider. The whole point of both the Speaker's and the law clerk's directing the issue to the committee is for the committee to deal with it, not for the committee to bring it back to the House. There's a reason that these rules exist. This is not procedural trickery. We're actually trying to have the right group or person make the right decision.

In this instance, the committee should be empowered to find whether the redaction complied with the order that has been issued by the committee. According to Bosc and Gagnon's description of the rule, you should be required to find that this is beyond what should be permitted through a motion that's been debated on a point of privilege.

The Chair :

We're going to need more information from our own clerk to get into that kind of discussion, I feel. Where are you suggesting we go, that we leave this with the committee, that the committee would hold the meetings, get the original request, the original documents, the orders from the Speaker, and then make a decision as a committee as to whether what we had asked for was abided by?

Mr. Sean Fraser :

Mr. Chair, I don't think that's quite what has been suggested. I believe it's already been made clear by the Speaker that this is a matter for the committee to determine. If the committee does not believe that the government complied with the order, then when there's an opportunity for us to have that debate, we can do so. My point is that using a point of privilege to effectively jump the queue is not permitted under the rules of the House of Commons. I think there was an attempt by Mr. Poilievre to put this on the agenda, knowing that there was a motion coming forward to conduct pre-budget consultations.

In fact, the rules have contemplated this specific kind of use of procedure and do not allow it, unless it's a true point of privilege and not instead something that the committee is empowered to deal with. When both the Speaker and the law clerk have indicated that this is squarely within the powers of the committee to deal with, I think the conclusion is obvious.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Mr. Chair, can I just ask a question of Mr. Fraser to determine whether or not—

The Chair :

Yes, you can ask a question. I think Mr. Fraser made an interesting point, but we're into it now. Go ahead with your question to Mr. Fraser. I'll hold the order for others.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Mr. Fraser, are you saying that the Speaker referred the matter to the committee but he did not want the committee to refer it back to the House? Is that what you're saying?

Mr. Sean Fraser :

I'm saying that both the Speaker and the law clerk indicated it is within the power of the committee to deal with this issue. I'm saying that Bosc and Gagnon says that what is within the—

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

No. To be clear on that, though, are you saying that the Speaker indicated that, because it's with the committee, it should not be reported back to the House? I'm just clarifying.

Mr. Sean Fraser :

No, I don't believe the Speaker made that ruling.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

The Speaker is all right with us reporting the matter back to the House, then.

Mr. Sean Fraser :

Mr. Chair, I don't think they've specifically made that...either. I think they've—

(1715) Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Actually, they have. I'm quoting the Speaker now: ““If it believes that its privileges have been breached or has any other concern with respect to the situation, it can report to the House.” I'm quoting from the Speaker. You're quite wrong. The Speaker did rule on that matter, and I am acting in accordance with his ruling.

The Chair :

We're going to go back to the list. I believe that Mr. Fraser is right. I don't have the right to rule on the question of privilege, and I don't intend to, but we do have the right to debate the motion and report back to the House. I'll go back to you, Mr. Fraser, unless you're complete. Did you not make another amendment at the end of your remarks?

Mr. Sean Fraser :

I proposed an amendment to the motion as well.

The Chair :

If we didn't overrule the privilege point.... Go ahead. What's the amendment, so that we have that, and we'll see where that goes?

Mr. Sean Fraser :

Certainly, Mr. Chair. Let me just bring up the simple language again. I've already moved the amendment to Mr. Poilievre's motion, that it simply add the language “and that pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests a government response to the committee's report.”

The Chair :

Okay. Would that be a friendly amendment, by chance, Mr. Poilievre?

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

It would not.

The Chair :

We are on the amendment, and I see that Mr. McLeod's hand is up to speak. I'll go back to my list and then come to the amendment. Ms. Koutrakis.

Ms. Annie Koutrakis (Vimy, Lib.) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Where do I begin? At the risk of repeating what many of my colleagues have already said, as per the Speaker's ruling and as of today, it is not possible to know whether the committee is satisfied with the documents it was provided. The new session is now under way. The committee, which has control over the

interpretation of its order, has an opportunity to examine the documents and decide what to do with them. On September 23, the House adopted an order setting out a specific procedure to re-establish committees, including the Standing Committee on Finance. Given these facts and circumstances, it is my view that this is a matter for the committee to consider. If it believes its privileges have been breached or has any other concern with respect to the situation, it can report it back to the House. For these reasons the chair cannot find there is a prima facie question of privilege.

We have not received the documents. The documents were released on August 18, which was the same day Parliament was prorogued. As a consequence, the committee could not sit, could not review the documents nor report to the House, so the documents have not been reviewed by the committee. All Canadians are watching us. We're in the second wave of COVID. They're concerned about their families. They're concerned about their health. The finance committee has very important work to do. As my colleague, Ms. Dzerowicz, mentioned earlier, we've received just south of 800 requests to appear before our committee.

There is a deadline to report to the House. I can't believe, and I'm disappointed actually, to see that parliamentarians who were so hard at work throughout the whole summer.... In the previous session, this finance committee did very important work, and we received a lot of relevant comments. It's time to start working on the very important work we have before us, without getting caught up in points of privilege and technical issues. The average Canadian is looking to us for leadership. They're looking to us for solutions. They're looking to us to help them through this difficult time.

They're looking to us to come up with recommendations on how we're going to recover from this terrible time. I respectfully request that everybody around this table, including colleagues on my side of the aisle and all my colleagues around the table, do the important work Canadians have asked of us. It's time to move on. It's time to stop trying to trip each other up over technicalities and get to the real work that Canadians are expecting from us.

(1720) The Chair :

In order for me to be proper on this, we really need to debate the amendment before we come back and make a decision on the proposed amendment. If I could have Mr. Fraser read the amendment again, I'll take a speakers list on that, or we'll go to a vote on the amendment and then come back on the motion as amended. It was basically that the government report back to the committee. Is that right?

Mr. Sean Fraser :

It was, yes. That's effectively the proposed amendment.

The Chair :

Is there any discussion on that, or are we going to a vote on the amendment? Mr. Poilievre wouldn't take it as a friendly amendment, so we're going to have to debate it.

Mr. Sean Fraser :

The reason for the proposed amendment is with regard to the accusation that the government's conduct violated members' privileges. It would be appropriate, in our parliamentary democracy, to give the government an opportunity to respond to those allegations.

The Chair :

Any further discussion? Seeing none, we'll vote on the amendment. (Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

The Chair :

Going back to the list on the original motion, we have Mr. Poilievre, followed by Mr. Ste-Marie, Mr. Falk and Mr. McLeod.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

It feels like we're back in Nineteen Eighty-Four . Let's start with the circular logic. The Speaker of the House received a point of privilege about the cover-up of these documents. He said he couldn't deal with this and that it should be sent to the committee. Here we are at committee, and now Liberal members are arguing that the committee can't deal with this and to leave that with the Speaker. In Orwell's great work, these loudspeakers used to yell out to get people into the rhythm of circular thought and confuse them. The poem they would repeat over again was:

Under the spreading chestnut tree I sold you and you sold me: There lie they, and here lie we Under the spreading chestnut tree.

Here we are, under the spreading chestnut tree, listening to the circular logic of Liberal members who try to bounce this issue back and forth, keep it out of everyone's hands so that it's nowhere and nothing. We want the truth, and we're going to pursue the truth. Speaking of the truth, the second argument of our Liberal colleagues here is that the truth no longer exists because of prorogation. Not only did prorogation shut down the debate, but it erased history. Now they are telling us there never were any documents, they didn't exist, the committee never received a thing, and what are you talking about?

That page of history has been erased by the ministry of truth. The officials there went through and erased that out of existence. There have been no documents. There is no WE. The Kielburgers, we don't have any record of their existence. “Everything faded into mist. The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth.” That's what we have before us right now. Mr. Chair, if you are still with me here in the real world, I think you will agree that we did receive documents, they were covered in ink, they did not respect the will of this committee, and a breach of our privilege has occurred.

It is now only up to us to report it to the House, where it can be voted upon by members and ruled upon by the Speaker. Let us go forth and do our job. Let us put an end to the circular logic, the erasure of history and the silly games played by the members of the governing party.

(1725) The Chair :

Next is Mr. Ste-Marie, followed by Mr. Falk.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie :

Mr. Chair, these are a critical times. The pandemic is having unprecedented health and economic consequences. Millions of people and hundreds of thousands of businesses are experiencing great difficulties and we have a duty to listen to them and ask the government to better adapt its programs. All the members of this committee are convinced of that. This is our raison d'être and this is what we do. It's not just the job of Liberal MPs to do that. At the same time, because the government is managing programs of unprecedented magnitude, it must be trustworthy.

Did the government act ethically, beyond all suspicion, to avoid creating doubt in the population? This is another issue that is crucial and essential. It is our duty as committee members to address it. We have asked the government to provide us with documents, and they have provided us with documents that have been redacted and censored. Hence the motion of privilege that has been moved by our colleague Mr. Poilievre, which is entirely appropriate and which I will be supporting. Will the committee suggest, as Mr.

Julian asked earlier, that the House be asked to create a special committee to continue to shed light on the We Charity scandal? I would like us to move and adopt this motion so that we can look at the pre-budget consultations and continue to hear from stakeholders on the economic impact of COVID-19. All of this is essential, but we must not forget—this is really important—that the government must be trustworthy and beyond suspicion. This includes the documents we ask for. We want it to provide them to us, not redacted or censored. That is why I fully support the motion presented here by our colleague Mr.

Poilievre.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Ste-Marie. We'll hear from Mr. Falk, Mr. McLeod, Ms. Dzerowicz and then Mr. Fragiskatos.

Mr. Ted Falk (Provencher, CPC) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, too, want to draw attention to the fact that we are in a time of COVID and that this committee was seized with very important work. It's certainly part of the mandate of this committee to explore whether government monies, whether the funds allocated for specific projects, were properly dispatched and whether there was any corruption involved in the dispatch of those funds. The committee made a request of the government to provide documentation. The government didn't respond in good faith. In fact, the government tried to hide the truth.

It's incumbent upon this committee to get to the truth. A point of privilege was raised in the House. On October 1, the Speaker made a ruling that this committee needed to deal with the point of privilege. A point of privilege was made. Mr. Chair, I think you've recognized that. A subsequent motion was made that this committee continue on its quest for truth and ask to see a copy of those unredacted documents presented to the committee in the time frame of one day. I am going to be supporting the motion. I think it's the right thing for this committee to do. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

(1730) The Chair :

We go to Mr. McLeod followed by Ms. Dzerowicz.

Mr. Michael McLeod (Northwest Territories, Lib.) :

Mr. Chair, I want to point out that I'm not having much success using the robotic hand to wave at you. I keep pushing it and it doesn't seem to work. I had to do it the old way and use my own hand to get your attention. I also want to say welcome to all the new members who have joined us. It's good to see some new faces around the table. Some are not so new, but welcome. It looks like we're back in business with the finance committee. We've spent the last two hours talking about rules and procedures and documents, and about what's not a document and what should be on the table.

Of course, we're in the middle of a pandemic, and COVID-19 should stay at the forefront. We also need to do the budget consultations. That can't be pushed to the sidelines. We've had many, many submissions made on pre-budget consultations. I don't want to lose sight of that. I think people who are watching us are probably assuming that in the last session we had an opportunity to sit down and really analyze the documents, the response that the government made on the request for the WE Charity issue.

I think it should be clear that our committee at that time, during that session and now, since it is our first meeting, has not had the response tabled, put in front of us as a committee, where we walk through it, analyze it, make comments and where we see things that are redacted that maybe shouldn't have been or anything of that nature. In my opinion, that step is important. I think Pat Kelly indicated that a lot of this is tied to what the government response is. Well, let's take a look at what the government responded to. We did prorogue. That, of course, throws a twist into what this means.

Prorogued means that all committee work and everything on the table comes to a standstill. I think the motion, the point of privilege, is premature. I don't think we have taken the necessary steps to make a full assessment of what was provided. We have some new members. It's unfair to them to be voting on something where they didn't have an opportunity to really have a good number of sessions to get together and really get into the detail of this. If there's going to be a forensic look, then let's do it together as a committee. That's my point. I think we jumped a couple of steps ahead of what we need to do.

I hear what the Speaker has said, that he can't deal with it and it has to go back to the committee, but how can the committee make a determination about documents that were really not formally discussed in this committee at this point? Those are my comments, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Ms. Dzerowicz, Mr. Fragiskatos and then we'll have Mr. Julian. Hopefully, that will wrap it up.

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz :

Mr. Chair, I'm going to start where Mr. McLeod ended off. A key point is that we at finance committee can't assess what we have not yet received. That's the first point. The second point is that I have heard a couple of comments from Mrs. Jansen and other members of this committee about transparency. I will tell you those are not just quotes about us being transparent. I think we sometimes have a bit of a short memory and the prorogation might have shortened our memory even more. There was an enormous amount of transparency around the dollars we have spent through this COVID crisis.

There was an extraordinary effort by our former minister of finance to ensure that we had a biweekly report on every single dollar that we spent. It was given to us every two weeks, On top of that, our minister of finance came before this committee to answer any questions about the spending. Then we had government officials stay an extra hour, which was extra time to answer even more detailed questions. There has been accountability. I don't want any Canadians listening to think that the federal government has been spending upwards of $300 billion with zero accountability.

There has been a lot of accountability, and there will continue to be. It will be accountable; it will be transparent, and it is a huge commitment of our government. It's not just in words; it's also in action. I will also say that we gave a lot of time to the Canada service grant matter. There were some very legitimate questions about whether or not there was wasting of money and whether there was any attempt by certain government leaders to select WE Charity on the side. There were some legitimate questions about why WE was selected. An extraordinary number of hours were spent on answering those questions.

We brought senior bureaucrats before this committee. For a historic moment in time we brought the Prime Minister of our nation before this committee. We have heard very clearly—it is documented in the record of this finance committee—that there was no money wasted. It all came back. There was no money misspent. Even in the agreement that was signed with WE Charity there was no way for them to profit from it. It was also very clearly stated that the Prime Minister and the ministers had zero hand in selecting WE Charity. We heard from the Clerk of the Privy Council, Ian Shugart.

We heard from Rachel Wernick and we heard from Gina Wilson, who are both very senior bureaucrats within our civil service. We also heard from the Kielburgers under oath that none of the ministers, nor the Prime Minister, nor anybody, directed anyone to pick WE. We responded to every single point that was brought forward. It was responded to. It is documented and it remains as part of the official record. Did we behave in an ethical manner? I believe that the people who should make that determination are not a partisan committee such as ours.

A couple of very important people, who are independent, highly competent and outstanding public servants, are looking into this matter. Can I please remind everyone that we have the Auditor General looking at our finances and how we are spending it; it's an independent person who is doing that. We also have the Ethics Commissioner looking to see whether or not any unethical actions were committed on behalf of our Prime Minister as well as our former minister of finance, or anyone else.

On the issue of the redaction, it seems like what has come up in the last go-round is that there is a desire from some members for us to convene another special committee, external to this body, to further investigate the WE Charity matter. I think this may be a good idea. If there is a group that believes this needs to be looked at even further, my humble and personal belief is that there is not one person who has approached me over the last few weeks who has any more questions about the WE matter right now.

(1735) What people care about right now is their kids going to school, keeping them safe, having a safe Thanksgiving, being able to continue to keep their jobs, and somehow being able to give someone a hug after this.... That is the hope. That is the stuff they care about right now. If there is a desire for a special committee, that is something that needs to be decided outside of this committee. At committee, I proposed a motion to begin pre-budget consultations, which is what Canadians want us to focus on.

They want us to focus on how to restart our Canadian economy in the best way possible, and to listen to over 800 groups. People are knocking at our door and saying they have some really great ideas. They want to make sure we have the information we need, so we can not only restart our economy in the strongest fashion possible but also build a better, more equitable, more sustainable future for our country. I will leave it at that. I really hope we can get back to my pre-budget consultation motion, and back to work on what Canadians are asking this committee to focus on.

(1740) The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. Dzerowicz. Hopefully, we will get back there. Mr. Fragiskatos.

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos :

Ms. Dzerowicz raised a pertinent point toward the end of her comments when she talked about special committees. I would just advise all members, as I am sure they know, that anything relating to the creation of a special committee cannot be decided upon by a committee. That is a matter to be decided on by the House. That is really critical in case colleagues in the opposition are contemplating that. Again, it's not about trying to avoid difficult issues, but from a procedural perspective, any discussion of a particular focus through a special committee needs to go through the House.

I again refer to Bosc and Gagnon. As we just heard, matters of privilege raised at the committee level are difficult, and it is difficult for me to understand the relevance of Mr. Poilievre's motion. I will read directly from the text itself. With respect to matters of privilege being brought forward at the committee level, it reads:

Since the House has not given its committees the power to punish any misconduct, breach of privilege, or contempt directly, committees cannot decide such matters; they can only report them to the House. Only the House can decide if an offence has been committed.

It continues:

Most matters which have been reported by committees have concerned the behaviour of Members, witnesses or the public, or the disregard of a committee order. Committees have reported to the House on the refusal of witnesses to appear when summoned; the refusal of witnesses to answer questions; the refusal of witnesses to provide papers or records; the refusal of individuals to obey orders of a committee;

—and it gives other examples. We are going around and around discussing a matter that has been brought forward on a question of privilege. Again, the committee cannot examine what it has not seen, and we are in a new session of Parliament I put this to you, Mr. Chair, and to my colleagues on the committee, that we're not in a position to be debating these matters. The motion introduced by Mr. Poilievre is of questionable relevance for all the reasons outlined.

The Chair :

Does anyone else want to speak? Mr. Julian.

Mr. Peter Julian :

Mr. Chair, I have to say that I disagree with my Liberal colleagues on virtually every

interpretation they have tried to put forward in terms of what privilege means and what committees are supposed to do to deal with that. It's almost like there needs to be a remedial course on rules of order. The reality is that the Speaker gave to the committee the ability to report back on this question of privilege. That's point one. We have that responsibility to choose to report or not. That's the committee vote. I think the majority of committee members have said that they believe privilege was breached. That is sufficient to report to the Speaker and to report to the House.

Also, we have had a number of months now to look through the documents. I've looked through the documents. There is no doubt to my mind that over a thousand pages that have been completely or substantially censored is simply inappropriate for any committee. As members of this committee, we have a number of responsibilities. It's true that we wear a number of hats. However, one thing that is foremost, and that should be foremost in the minds of every single committee member, is the importance of maintaining our parliamentary institutions.

Committees have the right to request documents, and the government does not have the right to intervene and censor those documents, particularly when a motion directs that any redaction that takes place takes place through the law clerk. We have a responsibility to report to the House and a responsibility to say that this was a breach of privilege. There is no question. I think we will find that the Speaker will take a report from this committee very seriously, and I think we will see the

interpretation that he makes based on parliamentary precedents. My final point is this. A number of members have indicated that they are supportive of the idea of a special committee to investigate allegations of misspending. I'm very cheered to hear that. I just gave notice of motion, and I will be bringing this forward forthwith so that we can put in place a special committee. Now, how does that happen? Mr. Fragiskatos is absolutely right. We report to the House.

The House will have a concurrence debate, and a majority of the members of the House of Commons will decide whether or not that special committee is put into place. It's two stages. We have now given notice of motion. Hopefully at our next meeting we will be able to have that debate, make that decision and then report to the House. That would be important to do what Ms. Dzerowicz has talked about, which is to get to the pre-budget hearings as well.

I would say, though, that we would be doing pre-budget hearings now if it weren't for the fact that the Prime Minister prorogued this committee and prorogued Parliament back in August. We would already be doing that. That's all I have to say. I will be supporting, of course, the motion of privilege. It's defending our committee responsibilities and rights.

(1745) The Chair :

I do not have any other speakers on the list. The—

An hon. member: Go to the vote.

The Chair: We will go to the vote. I just want to read the two points at the end:

Your Committee has concluded that the government’s response failed to comply with the order, and, accordingly, wishes to draw the attention of the House to what appears to be a breach of its privileges by the government’s refusal to provide documents in the manner ordered by the Committee.

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz :

Mr. Chair, there are a couple of speakers.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre: We're prorogued. It's too late.

An hon. member: Mr. Chair—

The Chair :

Just hold on:

Your Committee, therefore, recommends that an Order of the House do issue for the unredacted version of all documents produced by the government in response to the July 7, 2020, order of the Standing Committee on Finance, provided that these documents shall be laid upon the Table within one sitting day of the adoption of this Order.

Did I miss someone on the speaking list?

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

No. The speaking list was exhausted. We're in voting. It's too late.

The Chair :

No, I didn't call the vote. I was reading the motion.

Mr. Sean Fraser :

On a point of privilege, Mr. Chair—

The Chair :

It's not a point of privilege; at this stage it might be a point of order.

Mr. Sean Fraser :

In any event, it may come back to the “raise hand” function we discussed. I see there are currently five hands up on the list, if you weren't monitoring that. I know that some members, after Mrs. Jansen's suggestion at the outset of the meeting, have been using that function.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

On a point of order, Mr. Chair—

The Chair :

I wanted to be sure people knew what they were voting on, if we get to the vote, because it's been a long while since people heard the meat of the motion. I do see Mr. Sorbara.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

I have a point of order.

The Chair :

What's your point of order, Mr. Poilievre?

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

The meeting cannot be adjourned until there's a vote. The opposition will not grant consent to adjourn, thereby ensuring that no matter how many speakers we have, there will be a vote before we adjourn. I just wanted all members to get their coffee and get comfortable, because we can be here for as long as they want to talk.

The Chair :

From the chair's point of view, I do want to go back and deal with Ms. Dzerowicz's motion, even if it's at midnight.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

It probably will need to be.

The Chair :

Mr. Sorbara, we have you first.

Mr. Francesco Sorbara (Vaughan—Woodbridge, Lib.) :

Mr. Chair, first of all, it's great to be back with my colleagues on the finance committee. I remember this from the summertime. Pierre, it's nice to see you again. It's always a pleasure. Mr. Chair, it's always a pleasure. I see Mr. Kelly there, MP Kelly, and many good friends, so hello to everybody. There's Mr. Julian. It's wonderful to see everyone. I do have a question. I've been following along this afternoon. This is my second committee of the day, so it seems that a lot of procedural things have been going on.

We've made some headway in some committees, and in some committees it's sometimes like making sausages. You love eating the sausage, for those of us who like to eat sausages, but in order to get there, it requires a little work and effort, that's for sure. I do wish to ask the clerk this. Is the committee in possession of or in ownership of these documents?

(1750) The Chair :

Madam Clerk, can you answer that question? I can't.

Ms. Evelyn Lukyniuk :

Right now, in the 43-2 session, the committee does not have the documents.

Mr. Francesco Sorbara :

What are the implications of not having these documents? Wouldn't it require a new motion to be put forward, or something to that extent, to obtain these documents? It's not like you can just go out to the next room and pick them up.

Ms. Evelyn Lukyniuk :

A motion could be adopted by the committee to have the evidence from 43‑1 brought forward to 43‑2.

Mr. Francesco Sorbara :

Okay. I just needed to clarify that the clerk is not currently in any sort of position to have these documents and does not have these documents. This leaves me, in listening to this conversation today...and I do believe in transparency and accountability on all levels. Obviously one of the reasons I ran to be in politics and to be a public servant is that I believe in representing my constituents to the best of my ability and obtaining all the answers I need to obtain. Having participated in the proceedings in the time we spent over the summer, a lot of information came out.

I believe a lot of information came out that the Prime Minister's Office did a lot of due diligence on the Canada service student grant. It asked a lot of very, very tough questions, a lot of secondary questions, I would say. Where I worked in a prior life we would say it was a “data room”. You went through the data and you answered and made some tough questions and looked at things from top to bottom. The impetus for this committee, I believe, is to really get at these documents that are related to the pre-budget hearings, to start looking at that.

That should be the focus for the committee, to look at the submissions from all of these organizations from coast to coast to coast, at the submissions from our wonderful energy sector, how we can ensure a competitive energy sector as we move forward in Canada, whether it's in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland or northeastern B.C. I grew up in Prince Rupert, where we have the grain elevator and coal port. Also, Pembina has a facility there. AltaGas has a facility there, exporting liquefied—what are they—the secondary condensates, the secondary derivatives.

There are a lot of good things happening in our economy. At the same time, we need to ensure that we remain competitive. The world is changing and innovation is driving that. The onus is on the committee members to continue on that track even more so. We've seen across the world, in developed and developing countries, fiscal policy, monetary policy working to support our economy, support Canadians. I reference this, and I'm understanding that there's been some noise about forming a special committee, in terms of looking at programs that were put in place.

This takes me back to a conversation I had with the committee when I sat in a few months ago when they were looking at investments we were making in the corporate sector. I brought up one sort of investment that we made in Mastercard, creating several hundred high-tech jobs in Vancouver, and how it was important for us as a government to partner in that. Fast forward to today, and I don't think any of the opposition MPs would complain about or object to the investment made by the Province of Ontario and our government into the Ford motor facility in Oakville, Ontario.

I look today to the pre-budget submissions we've garnered here on committee, and the number of ideas and suggestions is incredible. I look at the programs we've put in place, which have been referenced by our opposition members, and suggestions that have come from constituents across this country, coast to coast, not just public servants, not just elected officials. I look at the Canada emergency response benefit, the Canada emergency wage subsidy, the regional relief recovery fund.

I look at all of those programs and how we've supported business—the Canada emergency business account—and how we continue to support businesses. As a finance committee, we need to go through those submissions to now, in this recovery phase, move forward. I think that should be the focus of the committee. Nonetheless, if there are questions asked on what this government has done in the last seven or eight months for Canadians, again from coast to coast to coast, I'll be very happy to participate in that endeavour.

I'll be very happy to point out how we've helped Canadians receive benefits of $2,000 a month on an advanced basis, and how we transitioned the income support system we have here in Canada, the recovery benefit on the EI side, the sickness benefits.

(1755) As someone who's an economist and has worked in the financial markets for 20-some years doing many things, I'm very pleased to see what our government has done not only in terms of the supports on the income support side but also in terms of making sure our economy is competitive and moving forward in the right way. Mr. Chair, with regard to the motions today, first going back to what Mr. Poilievre was referencing this afternoon, I always find Mr. Poilievre to be a very eloquent individual from whom I learn quite a bit and for whom I have a great deal of respect.

We're friends and so forth, and I always wish him the best in all of his endeavours, but sometimes I think that the focus needs to be on what everyday Canadians are thinking and experiencing and what their worries are when they go home to their families at night. Their worries are about where we are going with this economy and how all levels of government can work together. We're seeing that happening with the Ontario government headed by Premier Ford and our Prime Minister and our Deputy Prime Minister all working together with our regional partners and our municipal partners. We continue to do that.

That's what the focus should be for the finance committee. It should be how finance committee members can generate ideas to move this committee forward, drive the economy forward and create those good middle-class jobs, independent of sector. It doesn't matter to me where we create those jobs, but we need to be creative and we need the private sector to grow. We need them taking risks and we need them investing. We need to ensure that those conditions are present in this economy.

Yes, we have opened up our fiscal firepower to assist Canadians and assure Canadians that we've built a bridge, and we've solidified that bridge until we come out of COVID, but we are seeing the second wave, Mr. Chair, across the world, whether it's Europe, the United States, or Southeast Asia, and we need to prepare for that. Our testing is ramping up today in the province of Ontario. There were 48,000 tests completed. We are doing that. We are working expeditiously. Obviously we are in a brave new world. That's why you're seeing this fundamental co-operation.

I keep referencing that, Chair, because I think the committee, in its endeavours over the next few months.... I've done pre-budget consultations, I believe, for five years in a row on this committee. I enjoyed every single minute of it, because I got to travel the entire country and see it from coast to coast to coast, and I say literally from coast to coast to coast, because we did go up to see Deputy McLeod, and I want to congratulate him on becoming a grandfather; that's awesome. We did go there and listened to those stakeholders. It's important that we continue as a committee to do that.

Now, if the opposition members—and I don't blame them, since that's their job—wish to ask other questions and focus on things that Canadians are not focusing on, that's their prerogative, and they make those decisions. I am an MP who tries to work across party lines, chat and have conversations with all members of Parliament. I see Ms. Jansen. Ms. Jansen, you seem to be on my screen. It's like you're looking at me right now. It's kind of weird. Everybody else has gone, so I'm not sure what's gone on, but you seem to be there. I tend to work well with everyone. I think that's what this committee does. Mr.

Chair, I can go on for a while longer, but I'm hoping that we can continue this conversation. I would like to suggest that we suspend for five minutes, Mr. Chair. Would that be all right?

The Chair :

I'm thinking of that because I need a washroom break, to be honest with you. I'm going to suspend for about eight minutes.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

I would be happy to take the chair.

The Chair :

No, we will suspend for eight minutes—

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

I don't mind.

(1800) The Chair :

—and come back to the next speaker. I know you don't mind, but I remember one time when my lights went out, Pierre. With that we will suspend for eight minutes.

Mr. Francesco Sorbara :

I can recommence when we get back, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

No problem. We're suspended.

(1800) (1825) The Chair :

We'll reconvene. I want to make sure everybody is on. Do I have everyone? Okay. I've had a little break. I've also had some communication with the clerk. There is some question about whether the motion is procedurally in order. I am going to have to get further advice from some of the clerks to find out where we're really at technically. With that, I'm suspending the meeting until further notice—

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order—

The Chair :

The meeting is susp