Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 13th, 2020

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Chair, can I make a point of order as well?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes, Mr. Brassard.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

I'm going to make a suggestion.

Clearly, we're at a standoff here. I think Mr. Turnbull has heard the significant concerns on the recommendation that he put on the floor. I think there are others who may share those. I think we need a reset here, right now. In order for us to get to that point, I would ask if Mr. Turnbull would consider withdrawing his recommendation. Perhaps we need unanimous consent through you, Madam Chair, to do that. That is something that I think would allow us to get to a point where we could reset, because clearly there is a concern there.

The other thing I would suggest to the members of the committee, if Mr. Turnbull is amenable to removing his recommendation, is that perhaps we can look at and maybe put our minds to a situation that's similar to what we have now, whereby any agreement to adopt any emergency measures should be with all parties. It should include a time frame that's agreed upon and that can only be extended by further agreement. Maybe that is.... What we have now is a simple solution to this.

Madam Chair, I think Mr. Richards was really trying to go in that direction, with an understanding, given the concerns that Mr. Turnbull's amendment or recommendation has. If he's willing to withdraw that, I think we need to step back, reset and then look at where we need to go, and I think where we need to go is similar to what we have now.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Mr. Brassard.

For clarification—and I did previously ask Mr. Richards this, too—if we were to see whether Mr. Turnbull would be willing to take back the recommendation or the amendment to the recommendation, how would we reset? Would we reset by starting with the first recommendation as it's seen in our report, or would we start by having a general conversation about where we need to go? That's something you said at the onset. Where would that reset take us? That's what I'm trying to ask.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Well, unfortunately, I think it would take us back to the first recommendation that we're dealing with. I say “unfortunately” because we're still on it. I'm not going to repeat it. We've expressed our concerns with the issue of “extraordinary circumstances” and “fully functioning”, but I think that if we incorporate something similar to what is in place right now, this may help us get beyond the point that we're in. As I said earlier, what we have in place right now is agreement from the parties, time limits and all of this stuff.

Again, I go back to my earlier point—and I hate to repeat it—but I still think this is forward thinking. This doesn't encapsulate what the context is for what our report is supposed to look like. We could be looking at these things later on, Standing Orders, etc., but I think we need to step back. If Mr. Turnbull is willing to do that, then we go back to LIB 1 and try to find a solution to that, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Richards has the floor right now, so we'll continue with that, and when Mr. Richards is done, we can ask Mr. Turnbull if he would like to do that, after Mr. Richards has finished having the floor.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

I will gladly, if this Mr. Maloney will decide to remove his lack of consent for the Simms protocol, give Mr. Turnbull an opportunity to indicate—

[An hon. member]

I will not—

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

On a point of order, Madam Chair, I take exception to the fact that Mr. Richards is referring to Mr. Maloney in such a way, as “this” Mr. Maloney, as though he's not an appropriate member of the committee. He's been a member of Parliament, despite the fact that Mr. Richards might not be aware of it, by beating a Conservative in 2015, and was re-elected in 2019, so he's certainly been around long enough not to be referred to as “this” member of Parliament.

I would appreciate a little more respect from members as they sit around this table.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I think that's a valid point. I kind of missed you saying that, and it's not appropriate for any of us to refer to each other that way. Mr. Maloney has joined us to substitute for another member. I believe he also chairs a committee of the House of Commons as well, so we all have our own experiences. I think this committee is full of members with tons of good experience and backgrounds.

Mr. Richards.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Madam Chair, just to be clear, I was simply trying to give Mr. Maloney an opportunity to rescind his previous lack of consent. If it was phrased in such a way—and there was no intention of that—that offended anyone's sensibilities, I do apologize for that. There was no intention to offend anybody. It was simply to point out the situation we're in.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

This member was not offended, but I will not rescind.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay.

Mr. Tochor.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

On a point of order, Madam Chair, my Internet was cutting in and out, and I couldn't hear or see. Maybe this has been determined already. Did Mr. Turnbull rescind his proposed amendment or not? I couldn't follow the debate. Did he indicate he would rescind it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Sorry, Mr. Richards still has the floor.

You have your hand up to have the floor next, I believe, and after that will be Mr. Duncan.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

No, no, I had a point of order. I couldn't hear Ryan's—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Oh, okay, so all along your hand was up for a point of order. I was thinking you were next up after Mr. Richards.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

No, I would like to be on the speaking order, but I did have a point of order that my Internet was cutting in and out and I didn't have audio. I had video, though. I just want to confirm where the debate is. Right now we can't move forward unless the proposed amendment is removed by Mr. Turnbull. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Perhaps it's correct. We're not quite clear or sure we would still be able to move forward. That hasn't really been indicated completely. The desire to have it removed has been indicated, but whether any of these would be adopted really is beyond me. We have yet to see.

Mr. Richards has the floor, and then you have the floor, Mr. Tochor, and then Mr. Duncan. Then, if Mr. Turnbull would like to have the floor after that, he would have the floor. He hasn't raised his hand yet.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll just point out to Mr. Turnbull, for his information, that despite his colleague's lack of willingness to rescind his lack of consent for the Simms protocol, he's more than able to grab the floor with a point of order anytime and indicate that he's willing to rescind if he'd like to do that. In the meantime, I hope I don't bore everybody too much. This principle is that important.

It is really unfortunate, and I don't want to be in this position in any way, Madam Chair. I want to make that really clear. This is not my preference. This is not what I came here to do today. I'm shocked that we're in this position. I was shocked and frankly horrified by the suggestion that was made. It kind of came out of nowhere. I'm not sure if there was an intention all along on the part of the Liberals, the governing party, to do this, and this was just a way of doing it as a sneak attack, or whether this was something that was just conceived in Mr. Turnbull's mind as something that he thought might be a good idea, and he is maybe just too proud to admit that maybe it was a mistake, or maybe he feels this strongly that it's not a mistake.

I don't know where he is, and I guess unless he chooses to make a point of order or his colleague chooses to reconsider his ill-advised lack of consent for the Simms protocol, we won't know this, so we'll continue to speculate on what the motivations are here and what the reasons are. That's unfortunate, because I don't want to be speculating on those, and I don't want to be speaking for any length of time to this either. It's unfortunate that we're in this position.

As I said, I do disagree with the idea of going down the road that we're going down and making recommendations for future sittings. I'm just going to read the motion again to remind members, because, even though Mr. Brassard read a portion of it earlier, it seems as though there was still some confusion amongst members. I heard in some of the comments that were made by a few members that there still seems to be some confusion on what we're actually here to do.

I'll read from the motion that was passed by the House. It starts with “notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House”, of course, and there's a series of clauses. I'll read a few that are relevant to us. I won't read the whole thing at this point. Clause (l) states this:

(l) during the period the House stands adjourned pursuant to this order, the Standing Committee on Health, the Standing Committee on Finance, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, and the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology may hold meetings for the sole purpose of receiving evidence related to the COVID-19 pandemic, provided that, at such meetings, (i) committee members shall attend and witnesses shall participate via either videoconference or teleconference, (ii) committee members attending by videoconference or teleconference shall be counted for the purposes of quorum, (iii) proceedings shall be made available to the public via the House of Commons website, (iv) notices of membership substitutions pursuant to Standing Order 114(2) may be filed with the clerk of each committee by email, and further provided that these committees (v) shall each meet at least once per week, unless the whips of all recognized parties agree not to hold a meeting, (vi) may each receive evidence which may otherwise exceed the committee’s mandate under Standing Order 108, (vii) shall meet within 48 hours of the receipt by email, by the clerk of the committee, of a request signed by any four members of the committee;

Then it goes on, in clause (m), to talk about our committee. This next part is very important. It's on what we're here to study: “the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to study ways in which members can fulfill their parliamentary duties while the House stands adjourned on account of public health concerns caused by the COVID-19 pandemic”.

I'll stop there and just give some parenthetical statements. What you didn't notice in that was anything about direction regarding what we would do in future circumstances that might arise and be similar to this or other emergency-type situations. That's important for the purposes of what we're discussing right now, because what we're talking about in these three motions....

I'm just going to read them quickly as well, before I get back to reading from the Standing Orders.

Recommendation LIB 1 is “We should establish an alternative set of Standing Orders to be used in extraordinary circumstances to enable a fully functioning virtual Parliament.”

That is not talking about the current circumstance, that we need to have revised standing orders, an alternative set of standing orders. It's talking about “extraordinary circumstances”, which could mean the current circumstances, one would assume, I guess. Again, I'm not completely clear on that. There hasn't been a lot of indication by government members on exactly the rationale behind this, and that's unfortunate, but one would have to assume that it would also pertain to future circumstances. That's where I have an issue with it, because I really think this is a mistake.

When you're in the middle of a crisis.... I've been through this and maybe I'll come back to it in a minute, but I'll just touch on it briefly. In my riding, in 2013, we faced very significant floods. I'm sure some members will remember them. They were in southern Alberta, and they originated in my riding. They affected a number of constituencies, but mine was certainly one of the affected areas. I know that many of those communities, after the fact, of course reviewed their procedures and their protocols around how they dealt with the situation. They looked at ways they could shore up their communities, with better armour along the banks, for example, things they could do to be better prepared if this situation were to arise in the future.

But what they didn't do during the crisis, while they were trying to deal with the crisis and everything that went with that.... They set up emergency operations centres, and in those operations centres—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Richards, I'm just asking for your permission. I was just clarifying something with the clerk to try to get a better understanding of the procedure here, and I have been told that if I were to interject and ask Mr. Turnbull a question, it would be possible. The Simms protocol means you having a conversation with Mr. Turnbull, but if I were to ask for a point of clarification from Mr. Turnbull, you would still have the floor. It wouldn't be using the Simms protocol. We wouldn't really be going into that without everybody agreeing to that friendly protocol, but it would provide some clarification for me, I think, as to where we're headed, since it's 5:09 now on the clock.

Mr. Turnbull, would you be able to provide me with some clarification on the amendment you proposed? It was proposed with a friendly amendment attached to it. What are your thoughts and what are you thinking on that?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I've heard the many concerns that have been raised. I still think the amendment was intentionally proposed to address some of the comments that were made by my colleagues, in particular Mr. Brassard. I can see that maybe it didn't have the intended effect.

I think the recommendation is a solid recommendation. It comes from an amalgamation of three parties' recommendations that are very, very similar, but I'd be open to suggestions if anybody has a suggestion on how we might move forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

My question would be about the friendly amendment. I believe Mr. Alghabra mentioned adding language about a “majority vote”. Are you still considering putting that version of the recommendation forward, that ends with “a majority vote”, or the one that ends with the NDP 2 ending, which calls for the agreement of all parties?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I'm still unconvinced as to which version is better. I see the intentions of my colleagues, but I'd like to understand whether we could get some agreement on this and move forward, even if we were to go with the original version.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you. That clarifies things.

Mr. Richards.