Government Operations Committee on Oct. 26th, 2020

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

And I had the floor at that time.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

No, I restarted during this meeting. You can't have it both ways.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Matt for chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

I would agree. I've recognized Mr. Green on that debate on the amendment. We're debating the amendment.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

So we're debating the amendments as read out by the clerk earlier.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Mr. Green will be able to speak to that first.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

It's over to you, Mr. Green.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you for that gracious recognition.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Go ahead, Mr. Green.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'm trying to find that happy place, Mr. Chair, because what I've experienced here since the resumption of Parliament has been straight out of the Harper government playbook. You'll recall that back in 2007 there was an actual book, a 200-page handbook, on proof of the toxic atmosphere that paralyzed Parliament. You'll recall that, at that point in time, there were actually reported instructions on how to filibuster and otherwise disrupt committee proceedings and, if all else failed, to shut down the committee entirely. That has been my feeling, both as it relates to my particular motion—which would have been a routine motion at any other committee, to simply resume the work that we were supposed to do, all the points of the work that we were supposed to do—and all of this talk, Mr. Chair, about trying to adjourn this debate, to then go back to schedule what?

I am unclear, Mr. Chair. Through you to members of this committee, when you look back at all the playbooks and all the tactics that the Harper government used, the only thing the New Democrats and the Liberals agreed on at that time was that the dysfunction was part of a long-term strategy to persuade voters that minority parliaments don't work and that they need to elect a majority. I'm starting to feel as though that's the case now. I'm starting to feel as though much of the disruption with these frivolous points of order and these shenanigans that are coming is really set to frustrate the processes of committee work.

Mr. Chair, my motion was very clear. In fact, I thought I was pretty graceful in entertaining some potential to revisit, in some of my conversations with my Liberal friends, what the scope of work was, whether it was before COVID—which I was fine with—or whether it was up to the date in question. However, if one thing has been made clear by the motion by my friend Mr. Paul-Hus, it's that there is absolutely no interest on the part of the government to revisit the work we've done prior to this committee in substantive ways that would present some kind of accountability.

We have significant issues with procurement. We've heard today, Mr. Chair, people talk about how much PPE has been produced. Nobody's talking about the national emergency stockpile and all the PPE that was thrown out, or the blunder in procurement of the first four months of this pandemic, or the 11 million items of PPE that were purchased, nine million of which were garbage. We couldn't even use them. We still, to this day, don't know what the national standards for the national emergency strategic stockpile are. We still have no clear picture about where we're spending money, whom we're spending money with and what we're investing in as it relates to procurement. Yet, we have these scenarios, these self-owned.... The only reason we're caught in the quagmire is that it seems this government can't help itself from helping itself.

Frank Baylis is a significant issue. Two hundred-plus million dollars is not immaterial when it comes to contracts. Morneau losing his job as the finance minister is not immaterial when it comes to ethics and overview.

If the question being put by government is “Why are we dealing with this stuff?”, the question back is simply “Why did you have to go down these paths of very grey-area politics, which at first blush of the public wouldn't pass the sniff test?”

Mr. Chair, the only saving grace I have from today's meeting is the fact that we're not in camera, because, as my old football coach used to say, the eye in the sky doesn't lie. In all the chaos that was the first hour of this meeting, with trying to get to a point where we could get some business done, people know who was speaking. People know who took up the vast periods of time and people will also recognize, Mr. Chair, who tried to move immediately into another adjournment.

I'm not sure what the prerogative of the government is. As a New Democrat, I'm going to share with you that we fought to continue to allow this government to work, despite the best or worst efforts—depending on whom you're talking to—of Liberals and Conservatives to trigger an election. I'm going to say this, that my gut feeling right now—

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Mr. Green, hold on just a second.

Go ahead on a point of order, Mr. Drouin.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I understand the member's passion, but we are debating the subamendment. Is he in favour of the date, and is he in favour of the amendment that was proposed by Mr. MacKinnon? That's the amendment we're debating, not the entire motion.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Right, and the reason we're in this scenario with the amendment is that you prorogued Parliament, and then came back and filibustered committee. That's why we have to extend the date. If this government ran as it should have in the middle of a pandemic, absent of corruption, then these documents would have been provided to me back in August. But no, a week before I was supposed to receive these documents, the government was prorogued, and everything was put on pause, so we're back in this place.

I am open to retracting the dates, to have the demand on the documents placed just before we come back. That would suffice for me. My concern, and the reason I'm talking about the future prospect of a snap election called by this incompetent government, is that my gut tells me they're asking for December because they know we're going to be back at the polls before then. That's what my gut is telling me right now. I'm going to call it early. I think this government is just begging for a snap election, so it would be very convenient for the production of papers to have a due date that goes beyond their election call because they know that after prorogation, when they go and make that walk of shame to the Governor General and call a snap election on Canadians, all the studies disappear.

I am unwilling, Mr. Chair—and I don't want to hear anything about a filibuster; I'm going to have my moment right now—to move from...any amendment that would result in the imminent delay of production of documents that should have come back in August. If they are in good faith, then they will see fit that we come up with a scenario that allows an immediate production of the documents as requested by myself back in June, May or whatever godforsaken day it was before the prorogation.

This kicking of the can on accountability leads me to think that we're hankering for another snap election, and I'm agitated because we just want basic, simple answers. I don't want to go back to the polls. If I have to go back to the polls, Mr. Chair, and express to my constituents that I sat on this committee for an entire year and we didn't get to one study because of this government, I will be furious. If you think this is passionate now, just wait until I'm unleashed on the doors. I will pull the clip from this particular meeting, and I will put it on repeat on social media. I will advertise it as to the kind of obstruction we've had here.

With that being said, I will share that I am open to withdrawing subsection 13, to allow it to be kicked to whatever committee is going to deal with that circus, but as it relates to the production of papers and as it relates to the priorities that we set prior to prorogation, I'm unwilling to budge on any amendment from the Liberal side that would have us kick the can beyond the date of the next snap Liberal election.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Green.

We have Mr. MacKinnon next, then Mr. Lloyd, Mr. Drouin and Mr. Kusmierczyk.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Well, I'm looking at my colleagues. I want to acknowledge Mr. Green and his passion. I come to this job with the same amount of passion that he brings to this job. I am here to get things accomplished for the people of Gatineau, just as he, I assume, is here to get things accomplished for the people of Hamilton Centre. Both of us want the best for all Canadians, as I hope all of us do.

The question is how we transparently and openly proceed to a schedule of work in this committee that is realistic and does not unduly burden the first responders in the federal government who are out doing procurement, supplying the provinces and doing the work of this pandemic.

The House of Commons has just adopted a motion that contains 28 items, calling on our counterparts on the Standing Committee on Health to conduct an in-depth study of virtually all the government's actions during the pandemic and to obtain documents that will take trailers to deliver and years to review. That's what Parliament did.

What are we debating here? Let's be realistic. Mr. Green can accuse the government of all kinds of things, the opposition can accuse us, and we can accuse the opposition. However, at the end of the meeting, what will we have done to further the interests of our constituents?

The key issue is that the committee must figure out how to organize its work. It's that simple.

Mr. Chair, we've already adopted several motions. We can move on to scheduling meetings to study these motions. You can ask the committee members to move on to the consideration of these topics, which are important.

Mrs. Vignola, Mr. Green, Mr. Paul-Hus and Mr. McCauley have all proposed study topics, which we're prepared to consider. We look forward to doing this. We want to ensure that Canadians have a better understanding of these topics. This is critical.

I'm a little offended by Mr. Green's outrage. We're also here to get things done for our constituents and to ensure that they can access the information that they need and that they have a right to obtain.

I moved two amendments. Perhaps other committee members have some to move as well. Mr. Green is basically proposing to take everything that we agreed to debate and put it into one motion. On top of that, he's making two fairly cumbersome requests regarding the submission of documents and requiring that the documents be delivered within a week, in five days, which I think is quite unrealistic.

Instead, I'm moving an amendment before the committee that would significantly lighten the workload proposed by Mr. Green.

Mr. Chair, I want to ask you in particular and our colleagues on the subcommittee to organize the committee's work so that we have an orderly and workable schedule. We'll then be able to tell our constituents that we have a feasible workload, that we'll provide the information requested, and that we'll consider and gain a deeper understanding of various key topical issues and then report our findings to the House of Commons.

That's our job. That's all we want, on the government side. We want to look at important topics and report our findings to the House of Commons. This isn't about introducing, at each meeting, surprise motions or sensational motions drawn from the headlines to rearrange this committee's entire work schedule by adding an urgent matter, a new unrealistic date.

Mr. Chair, on the contrary, we should be organizing our work. Let's make sure that the four parties represented here can meet collectively as a subcommittee to plan our work, as set out in the Standing Orders. That's why I moved my amendments to the motion. If necessary, I'll make the same point when we continue the debate on the main motion. Canadians must see our passion here, on the government side. We want to get things done for Canadians and make progress on issues for our constituents. We have a great—

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

One minute, please. We appear to have lost translation.

Do you want to continue? I believe we should have it now.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

I'm about to conclude my comments anyway, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. MacKinnon.

Mr. Lloyd—

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

I haven't finished, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

I misunderstood; you said you had concluded, so—

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

I said that I was about to conclude my comments.

With this in mind, we're reaching out, once again, to our colleagues and friends in the opposition to allow this committee to do the work that it has been called upon to do. I hope that this work can be done in a subcommittee. I move that we adjourn the debate on this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

On a point of clarification, Mr. MacKinnon, you're proposing to adjourn the debate on your amendment. Is that correct?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

That's correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Just for clarification, adjourning the debate on the amendment adjourns the debate on the whole motion.