Evidence of meeting #1 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK
Yes. I believe it's still raised. I never took it down.
5:50 p.m.
The Clerk
Madam Chair, my accounting of the speaking list would suggest that Mr. Lukiwski is after Mr. Gerretsen.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Okay. His name is not showing up on my list.
I'll try to figure out what happened with that and how to make sure it doesn't occur that someone's hand is removed.
Mr. Gerretsen, carry on.
September 28th, 2020 / 5:50 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Thank you.
I just want to get back to what Ms. Blaney said about the fact there are a lot of Canadians out there who are worried and looking for help. They absolutely are. I don't understand how this particular motion before us is going to help Canadians with their needs right now.
If there is a big secret out there that the Conservatives and all opposition parties are trying to get to the bottom of, I respect that. I respect their role in the opposition and encourage them to do that to the best of their ability in a way that's fair, by making sure that members of all parties have an opportunity to participate, especially in motions that are brought before committee, which is not what is happening here because we just haven't had that opportunity.
Most important, when we get back to Canadians and the help they're looking for right now, what we should really be doing if that's what we care about most is getting back into the House and debating Bill C-4, which was just tabled, rather than the other stalling tactics the Conservatives are pulling in the House right now. It cannot but make one wonder what objective people really have. What is the most important thing for people?
The reality is that what we're seeing right now is that the Conservatives don't care about anything but WE, and I get it. They're going after what they see as some scandal that's going to make things incredibly bad for the government. I get it, but listen, what everyday Canadians care about right now is being taken care of. They care about knowing that their government is here for them and that Parliament actually working for them.
I don't understand why the Conservatives are so hell-bent on this. It seems this is the only thing that ever matters to them, when the reality of the situation is such that for once, why can't they just drop their whole charade of hating on the Prime Minister and making everything a personal attack, and just start to discuss policy. Why don't they come forward and say, “Hey, we don't like this; why don't we do this instead?”, or really advocate for a policy.
You saw it, Madam Chair, in the last session of Parliament. Every time the Conservatives got an opportunity to move an opposition motion, the motion would just be about how the Prime Minister was such a horrible human being and that we needed to look into this and this and that, instead of actually doing something for Canadians like bringing forward some kind of a piece of policy that would better Canadians' lives.
What we're seeing right now is just more typical Conservative stuff where they just bring forward these motions because they may hope to God they can win an election by making somebody else look bad rather than having their own ideas. For me, it's so incredibly frustrating because when it comes right back to it, we talk about the people who are affected by this pandemic. I can't remember who it was—Mr. Doherty or Mrs. Vecchio—who said a little while ago that Canadians want to know what we're doing for them. Yes, they certainly do, but I have news for you that top of mind for them is not WE.
Do they want to know the truth and make sure that nothing nefarious happened? Absolutely, and they have a right to know that, and you have a right to bring that forward on their behalf, but that's not what's most important to them right now. What's most important right now is knowing that they're going to be taken care of throughout this pandemic, knowing that their government and Parliament are there for them, and knowing that their opposition parties are there to make sure that whatever legislation is brought forward by the government is the best it can possibly be.
I'll hand it to the NDP because at least they did that. At least they were looking for ways to make Canadians' lives better throughout this whole pandemic, and the fact is that they've now decided that they're going to vote in favour of the Speech from the Throne. At least they are coming to the table with a desire to make lives better, rather than a desire to kill one particular political career.
I'll leave it at that for now, Madam Chair.
I'm interested to hear what others have to say about this, but I'm extremely disappointed as a parliamentarian, as a member of Parliament, that I was not afforded an opportunity to have a good solid look at this particular motion, to understand it and digest it and make sure I knew what I was voting on, and to discuss it with my colleagues.
Instead it's an intentional attempt to blindside me, and that is what I find to be the absolutely most offensive part of what has been put forward to us by the Conservatives.
At the end of the day, as I said, if the Conservatives want to see a vote on this, they will get their vote on it, but I cannot see that being right now or today or after our votes, because I don't think we have been treated fairly in this process in how this has been brought forward. I am demanding the opportunity as a parliamentarian to do my due diligence, to look at this motion properly and then decide how to vote on it after I have an opportunity to caucus with my colleagues on it.
I'll leave it at that for now and then raise my hand again if I feel the need to discuss this further.
6 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK
Thank you very much, Chair.
I'm not 100% sure of this, but I believe I may be one of the only members of this committee who was in Parliament during the prorogation under the Conservative government of Stephen Harper. In response to what Mark was saying, I can assure all committee members that there was a lot of study on the reasons why the Conservative government at the time prorogued Parliament. At the time, this committee, PROC called many witnesses forward to talk about prorogation, the need for prorogation, the reasons behind prorogation. To those who suggest this is really a worthless exercise, I would point out it is not.
I would also point out that, quite frankly, in effect, even though Karen's motion went on and had several subsets to it, if you really drill down to its essence, it is really just a request for witnesses and documents to be produced to study the reasons behind the government's proroguing of Parliament. That's all it's saying.
Mark, I can appreciate that you and others may be saying that you want some time to study this. Mark, you would know, and Omar would know as well as I do, that in the last 45 minutes we have been debating this, members of the PMO and probably the House leader's staff and the whip's staff have been poring over this motion closely. They have been studying it. They have an opinion. They will be giving you advice as to which motion you could perhaps support.
I'm sorry, Mark, but you're on mute. Thanks for trying—
6 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
I didn't want to interrupt you. I just want to say it's my vote, not theirs.
6 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK
That's understood, Mark, but your staff is examining this as we speak.
Procedurally, of course, Karen had every right in the world to introduce a motion during committee business, so this wasn't sprung on anyone. This is something that is quite correct procedurally.
If you're talking about something being sprung on people, I guess I could make the political argument that prorogation itself was sprung on us. We didn't know that the Prime Minister was going to prorogue and shut down Parliament and committees.
6 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK
No. It kind of cuts both ways. However, I think the key element here, Mark, that you may not be grasping or admitting is that both committees and the House can work at the same time independently.
Your argument is that why in the world would the Conservatives spring this on us when we're discussing things like Bill C-2 and Bill C-4 and getting aid to Canadians, which, quite frankly, I support. Even though we believe the government is going to have to account for its spending measures, I don't think anyone is denying the fact that millions of Canadians need support financially right now.
The House is dealing with that right now. We're having a vote in about half an hour on those two motions right now. The House can do its work. We're not circumventing any of the work of the House and parliamentarians. All we're doing is saying that now that committees have been restruck, let's start meeting to discuss things like prorogation and some of the other elements of other committees that had met.
How about the China-Canada special committee? That was struck down. Do you not believe that's an important committee? I certainly do. I would like to see that back up and running, and I think most Canadians would as well.
That's my only point, Mark. You keep saying that it's offensive because we've sprung this on you without notice. Well, perhaps it was without notice, but it certainly wasn't unwarranted. There is plenty of history and precedence about studies about prorogation. Governments in the past have prorogued on many occasions, and committees have studied the reasons for that. That's all that Karen's motion is speaking to. Let's call witnesses and produce documents to ask the government the very simple question: Why? Why did you prorogue? What did you believe were the underlying and motivating factors to prorogue, which shut down Parliament for five weeks? That's as simple as it gets.
You may want to study the wording of Karen's motion, but that in essence is what it's saying. Give us the ability to call witnesses and produce documents and let's study it. That's it. In a nutshell, that's it.
I don't know how much time you actually need. For example, I know we're probably going to be voting for an hour. This is online voting, and the last couple of nights when we've had practice sessions it has usually taken about an hour to run through the roll. You'll have ample opportunity to go over the motion—line by line and clause by clause—that Karen brought forward, so I don't think there is really any excuse to say that we need to delay. I believe that probably by the time we get back after the 6:30 vote has concluded you will have had, I would hope, the opportunity to read through the motion and perhaps speak to whether or not you want to vote on the motion at that time.
That's all I have to say, Madam Chair. Thank you.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Thank you.
The last two speakers have both brought up very good points.
Does everyone see the same speakers list that I am currently seeing? I'm seeing Mr. Turnbull, Mr. Alghabra, Mr. Doherty and Ms. Vecchio. Is that what you're seeing on your screen? I just want to make sure that I'm not having some issues, because a few hands were removed prior to that.
6:05 p.m.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Ruby, it's Ms. Blaney. I am on the list. I'm not sure where.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Ruby, I see the same list you're referring to, but I don't know how it's set up in terms of precedence of turns, because I know that I put my hand up after Omar spoke and somehow he is on the list prior to me. Those are the questions I'm asking. That's all.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
6:05 p.m.
The Clerk
Madam Chair, I've been keeping a list. I have Mr. Turnbull, Mr. Doherty, Ms. Vecchio and Mr. Alghabra.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
6:05 p.m.
The Clerk
That's right: Ms. Blaney and then Mr. Gerretsen.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
The only person who is not on your list, Justin, is Mr. Alghabra. Otherwise you have Mr. Turnbull, Mr. Doherty, Ms. Vecchio, Ms. Blaney and Mr. Gerretsen, correct?
6:05 p.m.
The Clerk
Just prior to Ms. Blaney I do have Mr. Alghabra.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Okay. That's the only thing that's weird. The list goes according to the time you put your hand up. Every now and then we have issues where someone has forgotten to take their hand down. That could mess up the order here and there. I'll try to look at that a little more carefully to make sure that after a person speaks we have them put their hand back down.
Next we have Mr. Turnbull, but I won't be entertaining any hand-waving moving forward, just because we have so many speakers. It's difficult to do that when there are so many who are interested in speaking. This way, it will be a bit more systematic, so just raise your hand in the toolbar.
Go ahead, Mr. Turnbull.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair. That's more than fair, as always.
Forgive me, folks, but I'm a relatively new member. I'm struck by this motion and am struggling to interpret it. In my mind, the role of the procedure and House affairs committee is to study the rules and practices of the House, its committees and questions of privilege, etc. How is this related?
I understand your referencing of Standing Order 32(7) at the beginning of your motion, which I think is what was referenced numerous times by Mr. Doherty and Ms. Vecchio, and which I believe already implies that the tabling of documents explaining reasons for prorogation has to be done in the House and then referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Why do we need a motion at all when that's already a rule in the Standing Orders?
That process is going to happen, whereas this, based on Ms. Vecchio's reading, which was very fast—and I confess that I didn't fully comprehend all of it, and I would like her to reread it, if possible.... I just find that it really assumes the reason.
If the intention is what Mr. Lukiwski said it was, if the intention is pure, in that you just want to understand the reasons for prorogation, then why assume the reasons in terms of specific documentation? I caught one aspect of this that was related to the commercial rent assistance. What does that have to do with prorogation? I have absolutely...it makes no.... It certainly implies that some kind of connection might be there in terms of the motion, but it seems like a bit of a fishing expedition for reasons that I don't particularly understand.
I would really need to debate each point in each clause and go through it very carefully, because right now, based on my limited understanding.... I confess that I'm basically saying that I don't completely understand why this is necessary when certainly it's already a standing order to table documents to explain prorogation. Why is there a motion needed when we know that within 20 days that's already going to happen and PROC is going to have the chance to review it as a committee?
Mr. Lukiwski, this is for you and then Ms. Vecchio. These are questions that I'd love to hear your perspective on.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Thanks, Madam Chair.
I want to just touch on the comments about fairness that our colleague Mr. Gerretsen mentioned. I hope he was as energetic and that we saw the same fevered pitch when the government chose to prorogue for five or six weeks. Where was the fairness to the Canadians who were in the heart of this pandemic and were struggling? Where's the fairness to the small business owners in my riding who are still struggling to be recognized for any type of emergency benefit, or to the single parent, or to the person who's out of work? Where's the fairness there?
Where was the fairness in allowing the 338 members of Parliament to be able to work together collaboratively as team Canada or to represent their ridings and their electors when the government chose to suspend for six weeks? Where was the fairness there? Where were Mr. Gerretsen's arguments at that point?
I'm not discounting what you all have gone through in terms of this past six months or seven months of this pandemic, but I can tell you how it has been in my riding, which has been deeply, deeply hit by this pandemic in terms of job losses and people just losing everything.
Canadians do want to know why it was done. Where was the fairness there?
Where was the fairness? Why did we have to prorogue for six weeks to get a throne speech like we got, right? When things seemed to be going sideways for the government, who chose to do that? Who chose to hit reset?
Again, Mr. Gerretsen, in his small cubicle he's in, in the phone booth there, seemed to be having a hard time containing himself. Mr. Alghabra chose to take a shot at our colleague Ms. Vecchio. If you want to bring fairness in....
He talked about how every time the opposition gets up they want to talk about, point fingers and slander our Prime Minister. We're not the ones who actually made him do any of the ethical lapses that he's done—or his ministers. It's him, himself, or his ministers who are doing it on their own. We didn't put him in that position. They put themselves in that position. Canadians want to know why, in the heart of and right in the middle of a global pandemic, our government chose to actually remove the voices they elected, the people they elected to be their voices.
We have an opportunity right now to try to bring this forward. As my colleague Mr. Lukiwski said so eloquently, all we're asking for is a study. As 32(7) says—and Mr. Turnbull mentioned it and we quoted it a number of times—the report is coming. We want to study it, but we want to be prepared. We want to bring to the table people who were around the table and made these decisions. We want to see the unredacted reasons or reports as to why they were doing it.
Listen, Liberal-run committees have shut this down at every step of the way. Your comments and your reactions to this today are no different from what we've come to expect. Was there collusion from the opposition side? No, there wasn't. It just shows that they're all doing the same thing, that they're all hearing from their constituents and all have the same concerns that we're hearing. Canadians want to know why this was done.
There was no fairness when that vote on prorogation came down. It was heavy-handed and it was done. Just as we've seen time and again under this government's mandate, it's heavy-handed. They like to stand up and talk about fairness and what have you, but really, it's the grassroots and the people within our communities who are suffering.
Where's the fairness in the fact that my softwood lumber guys, my forest producers, still don't have a softwood lumber agreement? For Ms. Blaney and I, our regions have been hard hit by the downturn in the forest industry because of the uncertainty faced by this government and brought forward by this government's policy. Whether it's oil and gas or natural resources, we're hit hard. Where's the fairness there?
Mr. Gerretsen, when you talk about fairness, I have a real hard time sitting here and listening to you get up on your soapbox and talk about that and every time the Conservatives or the opposition want to stand up and point fingers at the Prime Minister and his policies. Well, that's our job.
Our job is to also work collaboratively across the way. I think this motion that is put forward doesn't expose anything other than what it's asking for. Let's get the documents and let's get the people before us who were at the heart of the decision to prorogue Parliament for six weeks and why they did it. I would challenge our committee members to really look around and look within. That's our job here. It's to do better for Canadians.
I think Ms. Vecchio, while she read it fast.... I had an opportunity to read it as she was reading it.... I understand it. I didn't get a chance to see it beforehand. It's no different than the motions we had regarding the Standing Orders or how we were going to move forward in terms of committee witnesses and the rounds of questioning.
Mr. Gerretsen, you can talk fairness all you want, but respect and fairness are given and should be earned. It's a two-way street. Whatever you're doing—if you're tweeting about it right now or you're sitting in there and sending messages to PMO about what you should do—I think we should actually move forward on this and vote. Let's get studying it and send a message to Canadians that another Liberal-led committee isn't going to block this opportunity for Canadians to find out what really happened.
I will cede the floor.