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.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Oh, the bells are at 6:30. Okay, the vote is at 7.
If we have the room until 6:30, I guess we could go until 6:30 today if it is available—the clerk is looking into that—or up until the point the room is available or the bells ring, whichever comes first. We could carry on with the speakers list if I don't have consent at this point. Okay?
Mr. Alghabra, I believe you are next.
Mr. Turnbull, you had already spoken just before, right?
Mr. Alghabra.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Omar Alghabra Liberal Mississauga Centre, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to welcome all of the new members to the committee and thank Mrs. Vecchio for her first motion.
It really reveals a lot of care for Canadians. I know the first thing they're going to think when they read this motion, if they read it, is that this committee really cares about our—
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Omar Alghabra Liberal Mississauga Centre, ON
—well-being, and advances the interests of Canadians.
However, we are in a political world and political environment and I understand that some members want to turn it political. I actually liked her summary. I wish the motion were reduced to her summary where she said that we just want to study the cause of prorogation. I think if the motion were worded that way, I could see how it would fit within the scope of this committee and how it would fall on the shoulders of this committee to study it, and I actually wouldn't have a problem with it.
The way the details are written in this committee...and I have no doubt that many other committees will also be pursuing the line of looking into WE and the decisions behind WE. I'm sure there will be other committees doing this. I just really don't understand how we can be asked to vote on a motion that is clearly way outside the scope of this committee, especially when I know there are other committees that will be doing this study. I feel this motion has gone way beyond what is expected of us as members of PROC.
I would like to encourage Mrs. Vecchio to perhaps reword it to the way she explained it, in noting that she wants to study the prorogation. I think that's fine. That sounds reasonable and within the mandate of PROC, and perhaps she could remove all of the other paragraphs after that because they really create an unfortunate line of inquiry outside the scope of this committee.
I ask my colleagues as well to be responsible and thoughtful about what this committee is going to be studying and the work that is before us. The question of prorogation, I think, is legitimate and I think it's fair for our opposition to ask about it, but I fail to understand how all of the other aspects mentioned within the motion fall within the scope of this committee.
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Thanks, Madam Chair.
I would ask that you afford my colleague Ms. Vecchio, and maybe any other colleagues, the same that you would afford your same Liberal colleagues. Mr. Alghabra came at one of our colleagues, Ms. Vecchio, with a “backhanded slap”, so to speak. That's what we call it in our neck of the woods here.
Listen, this is relevant to our committee. Standing Order 32(7) says that we are going to get the report tabled within 20 days of the House being back. This will allow us to be as prepared as possible. There are no hidden monsters in here. We have been absolutely forthright and clear in what our requests are. It is exactly what my colleague Ms. Blaney has mentioned and as Mr. Therrien has mentioned. Canadians want to know why, right in the heart and the depth of a global pandemic, this government, when they needed it the most, a week away from the emergency relief benefits coming to a halt, abandoned them. Why did this government abandon Canadians? They deserve to know that.
We're going to get the report here at PROC. It's going to be tabled for the PROC committee. It behooves us to be prepared for that and to do our own due diligence. The motion that is before you today.... You know, it's no wonder the Liberals are squirming on this committee and are dithering and delaying, wanting to have an opportunity to review, but again, I will bring you back to the motions that we all came together and supported earlier today that we never had a chance to really review in advance.
To Mr. Turnbull's comment, if we have the opportunity to have my colleague Ms. Vecchio reread it at maybe at a slower pace, maybe that will help Mr. Turnbull comprehend it a little bit better.
Nothing in here—it's very forthright—should come as a surprise. Canadians want to know: Was the prorogation for six weeks an honest operational recharge or reset, or was it really just to run away from the WE scandal? I can see my colleagues nodding their heads in the affirmative and shaking their heads in the negative, but it behooves all of us here on this committee to be able to try to do that work. I've always said that, whatever committee we're on, whether it's fisheries or transport, at one point we have to come together as a group to be able to do this work. Sometimes it exposes wounds and scars from within on whichever side, but we have to be able to have the fortitude to be able to do that. Again, you have the opposition obviously in 100% agreement as we move forward. Then you have the government, of course, trying to protect their backsides.
Madam Chair, I would just ask for some leadership from you. We have over an hour here. I think we should be able to get to a vote on this. That would send a real message to Canadians that yet another Liberal-run committee is not blocking any study in terms of prorogation or the WE scandal. That's really what people want to see. If this was really a recharge or reset, then let's see if it was and actually be able to move forward and do some work. There should be nothing in here that the Liberals should be afraid of, or the government should be afraid of, if they're telling the truth.
I'll leave it at that.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I don't even know where to begin with that. Listen, at the end of the day, what this comes down to for me, the most offensive part of all of this for me, is the fact that this is being sprung on us literally on the fly. Based on the comments from Mr. Doherty, who keeps saying that all the opposition is in favour of it, clearly all the opposition shared this, or had the opportunity to look at it, prior to this meeting.
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Excuse me. I think I have the floor.
Obviously, based on what he said, they have conspired in advance to do this. If I'm to take Mr. Doherty at his word when he says that everything was done in good faith and so on and so forth, well, if it was really done in good faith, why wouldn't you have given it to us in advance of the meeting as well, as you clearly did, based on your comments? I don't think we're asking for too much.
For Mr. Doherty to somehow compare this to the three motions we did in routine proceedings is absolutely ludicrous. We're talking about whether or not we're going to change the amount of time somebody gets to speak versus an entire motion that has all these different parts to it that we're somehow supposed to be able to absorb and understand just based on one reading. I mean, at the end of the day, what it will come down to is whether or not the Conservatives genuinely want to work on this committee with the government or whether this is just an opportunity to try to dig up some dirt. I know they are looking for this silver bullet that they seem to think exists deep within all these documents that they're trying to pull. A number of Conservatives have been on a government side before. No member of this committee, certainly, knows if that silver bullet they're looking for exists, but we do know that the best way to get information is to be as collaborative as possible with all members on the committee.
My sense is that the best thing to do, moving forward, is for us to allow this discussion to happen off-line. I want to discuss this motion with my caucus, just like the Conservatives had the opportunity to discuss it with themselves, and possibly the NDP and the Bloc. Based on Mr. Doherty's comments, maybe they had the opportunity to do so, and I would like to discuss this with my colleagues as well.
For me, this is not about not being able to vote on this. One way or the other, we can vote on this. My only problem is with voting on it right now, because I feel that I and other Liberal colleagues have been completely slighted by the manner in which this was sprung on us. You're asking me to vote on something that I don't fully understand. You talk about what's in the best interest of Canadians. Well, I'm certainly not representing Canadians that well when I am being asked to vote on something that I haven't had the opportunity to really even understand or to thoroughly discuss with my colleagues before we do that. This is notwithstanding the fact that we're now learning that, from what the chair was saying, she doesn't even know if this motion's in order.
Nevertheless, there's still a desire to vote immediately on this, and I just don't think it's something we need to do right now. We can do it at the next meeting that comes up. Whenever we have our next meeting, we can pick it up from there. If you're going to make me take a position on this, at least give me the opportunity to thoroughly read it and understand it and have a discussion with my colleagues on it.
Madam Chair, I would really like to take Ms. Vecchio up on her offer. Could she read this motion to us again, very slowly this time, so that we can really absorb every word of it to the best of our ability?
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK
Not that I'm opposed to Ms. Vecchio's reading it again, but I believe you have a speakers list. I believe I'm on the speakers list.
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK
I would rather speak before Ms. Vecchio.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Yes, Mr. Lukiwski. We are going to carry on with the speakers list, and at the end of the speakers list we could have that motion read out, especially before any vote, if one does occur today.
I also want to let you know, just in the middle here, about some logistical or housekeeping questions that were put forth by some of the members earlier about how long we can go. As I mentioned, we do have until 6:30, at this point, until the bells ring. The room is available. The clerk has arranged for staff to rotate and for new support staff to come in, so if you would like to pick up after the vote, we could also do so—that is up to the committee—until such time as you would like to vote on this motion or you would like to call a vote on adjournment for the day. Someone can move to adjourn for the day as well, and we can pick up....
Like I said, I need time. I can't rule whether it's in order. It does seem initially, like I said, especially the first part, to be in order, but I do need time to read it in order to know that for myself. I would need until next meeting at least. I just want reiterate that you do have my commitment that we would start off with this piece of business right off the top, if we do at some point adjourn.
We will carry on with the speakers list—
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
I still have the floor, right? A point of order was raised while I was speaking. I still have the floor.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Then we will have Mr. Turnbull, Mr. Alghabra and Mr....
Somebody has not put their hand down. My list is a little out of order, I think. Who was next on the speakers list after Mr. Gerretsen?
As well, just as a reminder, please, I wasn't at the top because we really got right into it today. I did want to make sure we got into the routine motions and had those passed today.
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK
Madam Chair, I don't want to interrupt Mark, and I'm not trying to throw you off, but I'm just curious to know where I am on the speakers list.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
That's what I'm trying to figure out before we move on. I don't see....
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK
I had my hand raised some time ago, Madam Chair. I just don't know whether or not you actually have me on the list.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mine was taken down at some point too. I had to re-raise it. I don't know how that happened.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
