Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Sept. 28th, 2020

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

Point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes, Mr. Gerretsen, right after Mr. Doherty is done, I'll hear your point of order.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Right. I—

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

A point of order takes precedence over a speakers list.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

I have the floor, but I would move that the call be put to the committee.

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

Point of order.

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

Mr. Clerk, just on Mr. Doherty's point, can you confirm whether the room with the translators is available beyond 5:30 p.m.?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay, Mr. Gerretsen.

[The Clerk]

I am trying to determine that right now. I don't have an answer yet for the availability of the room or the technical staff at this point, but as soon as I do have information, I'll provide it to the chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I was trying to go through this motion myself, just to give you an idea of where my head is at right now. I went over it on the side with the clerk as well. The first paragraph may seem to be in order, but to look through the rest of it, I would need a little bit of time to go through it all and then make a ruling on it. I would personally like to take it under advisement and do my best to come back at the next meeting with a ruling on this. I am not sure when the next meeting is scheduled for at this point, but I will do my best to come back at the next meeting. I will take it under advisement at this time.

Mr. Tochor.

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

I'll keep my comments relatively short here because I know that others will want to explore this motion a little bit more.

I would just encourage the clerk to check not just how much longer, but how far into the evening we are able to keep the room and get translation services, because I do believe this is something we should be discussing. We've been prorogued for six weeks. We're online; everyone is being safe, and we can discuss this motion. I believe it would pass, given that debate.

Those are the comments I have right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mrs. Vecchio, is your hand up from before? I think it might be up from before.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

It is. Once again, I recognize that Mr. Gerretsen had asked this, and I do know that it was brought forward by Mr. Doherty. It's basically on Standing Order 32(7) and the fact that due to prorogation there has to be something outlining the reasons. I think we're making a simple request to the government as to why it prorogued. There may be a little bit of skepticism, of course, but it is our job to investigate. We're parliamentarians, and our job in committee is to investigate.

I am concerned about how long we may end up delaying this. I believe it's all in order, but of course it will be up to the clerk to decide on what he may or may not see there. I'll just pass that forward.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

In response to that, that is what I was saying, that it seems as though the first part, which is the prorogation part you're mentioning, looks fine, but there is so much more in this motion at this time. That is why I would prefer to take it under advisement right now and come back with a decision on that and give the clerk and his team—and myself—some time to look through it thoroughly.

We have Ms. Blaney and then Monsieur Therrien.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Was there a point of order there?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

There was a point of order, Madam Chair. To my colleagues Ms. Blaney and Mr. Therrien, I'm sorry. I will be short on this.

If the committee is prepared to vote on this.... The majority of the committee is prepared to vote on this. The only side that we've heard so far that is against it is the Liberal side, but—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Is this a point of order or part of the debate?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

No, this is a point of order. We should put the call to the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I think that might be debate at this point in time, since there are hands up right now to speak.

Ms. Blaney.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you so much.

I just want to reflect on what Mr. Gerretsen said about the highest numbers we've seen there. That is a concern, but I also want to remind everyone here that the CERB is ending and a lot of Canadians are wondering what they're going to do and how they're going to pay their bills. Unfortunately, the government did make a decision to move forward to prorogation, which really meant that the day we were set to sit in the House.... I was hoping, personally, to see legislation come forward about what was going to happen next so that we could have an appropriate debate, get those things moved through the House and move forward to support Canadians. That was my concern. What I've heard from my constituents, sadly, is that there is a lot of deeply held concern and frustration that this method of moving forward by the government, really silencing Parliament, was based on the scandal, and I think it is important that we uncover that.

I am a newer member to this committee. I do know that our job is to look at the procedural process of how decisions are made. I feel this is something we should be looking at. We should be making sure that, in a time of a pandemic, it wasn't the government's choice to make this decision based on a political decision-making process.

One of the things I would like to be studying as well in this place, in this committee, is what an election would look like, potentially, during a pandemic. How do we make a national plan to look across Canada? There are a lot of things I would love to get on with doing, but unfortunately we had a government that silenced all of our abilities to make those actions happen. I'm really in a position of feeling a deep element of concern, wanting to make sure that we are all moving together to look after the needs of Canadians and not silencing the voice of those folks who put us here simply because the Prime Minister and ministers were in a situation that perhaps they should not have been in.

I guess my question for you.... I understand that Mr. Therrien wants to speak, and I think it is absolutely important that all the parties speak. If we are not going to vote on this today, I want to know that there is a commitment from the chair to find out when the next date will be, so that we can be back in this committee very quickly to deal with this very important issue.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Absolutely, Ms. Blaney, I will find that out. There is a commitment to carry on. I am by no means saying that this study won't be our first study. I'm just saying that there was a lot to absorb and I just want to see.... The first part of it does seem to me to be in order and proper. There is just so much of work that we usually do after we say that we're going to do a certain study and that we're going to call these witnesses. I think all of that is merged into this one motion. I just feel I need to take my time to actually read through it all before making any call on that. That's all. Of course, I will get back to you very soon on it and we'll figure out when we can have the next meeting. Hopefully that will be very soon.

Mr. Therrien.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

I believe I have two minutes left. Is that right?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

You definitely have two minutes left, and by the sound of it you could have more.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Very good. Thank you.

When the Liberal government shut down Parliament through prorogation, the volcano was about to erupt because of the WE scandal. The Minister of Finance had resigned. We all know the story; I don't need to rehash it yet again. Prorogation brought the work of the four committees studying the scandal to a halt, leaving many questions unanswered.

Many, myself included, thought ending the studies served the Prime Minister quite nicely. A stretch though it may be, let's give the Liberals the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps they decided to prorogue Parliament because they had good ideas and planned to put forward solutions to the problems caused by the pandemic. We waited anxiously for the throne speech, only to realize there was nothing in it that would justify the decision to prorogue. It's fair to say that the Prime Minister's address to the nation was just as hollow.

That's why we need to get to the bottom of the matter. The motion put forward by the Conservative Party gives us the opportunity to find out what Quebecers and Canadians want to know. Did the WE affair drive a government in trouble to prorogue Parliament in an attempt to run away and avoid giving the real answers? How could I possibly object to such a motion?