I'm sorry. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm really not apologizing, but let me just say that I take it very seriously not to personally attack any of my colleagues. It is incredibly important that we can debate vigorously and have an argument, a healthy argument, about things we care about and about things we believe Canadians care about. We can disagree. We can point that out, but not to record it or treat it as a personal attack.
There is obviously a line between criticism and disagreement and personal attacks. We all know what that line is. I mean, Mr. Doherty just spent his entire intervention saying how Liberals don't care about small business—don't care, don't care, don't care. I don't take that as a personal attack. I take that as a matter of political disagreement and political debate. Yes, I disagree with him, but I don't take that as a personal attack.
My observation about this motion is not a personal attack against Ms. Vecchio. It's really important to avoid labelling disagreements in this committee in that way, because it's certainly not going to end up creating a positive and a welcoming environment for vigorous debate yet remaining respectful.
I want to make it very clear. I want to encourage my colleagues to maintain respect but allow for vigorous debate. I have a great amount of respect for all my colleagues here on this committee.
I especially want to acknowledge Mr. Lukiwski. I served with him in my previous life when I was a member of the opposition. He has always shown me and all of our colleagues a lot of respect and class—and also, I know, all others. I'm not saying that the others on this committee don't do the same, but I'm naming him because of his intervention. I actually wish he would agree with me on the fact that, sure, this committee can study prorogation, and that is not the point of debate here. That is not the disagreement here.
Can somebody explain this to me? For example, I'm just going to pick this point:
(g) an order of the committee do issue to require the government to prepare and make a return to the clerk of the committee, within 10 days of the adoption of this motion, indicating (i) what criteria were used by public servants to determine that only WE Charity could deliver the Canada Student Service Grant, (ii) which individuals were responsible for designing the parameters of the Canada Student Service Grant, (iii) who was present at any meeting where the parameters of the Canada Student Service Grant were discussed, and (iv) whether the Canada Student Service Grant was approved through the ordinary Treasury Board submission process and, if not, what the variations were;
How is that relevant whatsoever to prorogation and the decisions behind prorogation? If we agree to study prorogation and the reasons behind prorogation, and if we find reasons that take us down one path or another, I'm sure the committee will choose to call on certain witnesses based on the evidence that is presented before the committee. This motion doesn't wait for evidence, doesn't wait for testimony and doesn't wait for a report from government. It already says, “Call this. Do that. Call Rob Silver.”
I wish that the presenter of this motion had used simple language saying, “Let's study and let's encourage our committee to do a study on the reasons behind prorogation and invite witnesses who are relevant to that decision.” I think that anyone, even members of the Liberal Party—and perhaps some of us may not be comfortable in studying this—would have a hard time opposing it, because it is within the mandate of this committee.
I can see the role of the opposition as wanting to call for a study on why prorogation was done. Whether this Speech from the Throne does offer anything different or whether it doesn't offer anything different, it's all a matter of debate, and I'm happy to invite other experts and witnesses to tell us all of that.
I'm sure you don't want me to list these clause by clause, but I can go through this clause by clause, and it's very difficult for any reasonable observer to understand how this is relevant. If we do a study and we discover that it was relevant because one witness or another said “WE” or said something else or whatever, then we can study that further.
Most of what you are asking for in this motion, Ms. Vecchio, is going to be studied by other committees that are mandated to do the studies. I think that's fair. Let them study on their own or decide on their own studies as they wish, but in my opinion—and I am looking forward to hearing not only the chair's opinion but also the clerk's opinion—most of the elements of this motion are explicitly outside the scope of this committee.
Again, perhaps members of the Conservative Party would like to reconsider rewording their motion, but I think the way it is right now, with the complex and multi-dimensional nature of this motion, it requires not only time to study but, I feel, a thoughtful opinion on whether this is within the scope of our committee or outside the scope of our committee.
Thank you, Madam Chair.