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

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

Thank you very much. I'm going to start with some simple things.

Specifically for Mr. Alghabra and Mr. Gerretsen, when you talk about Conservatives only wanting to talk about WE, prior to the prorogation I was the chair of status of women, where we worked our butts off to do an excellent study. We talked about violence against women. We talked about shelters. We talked about the she-conomy. We talked about all of these different things.

One day before that letter was finalized, prorogation took place, so to all of those members who came here and worked really hard so that we could be the voices of women across Canada, do not think this is about WE, because I—and don't question my integrity—will always fight for Canadians.

You may think that this is all about WE, but I'm going to remind you that on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food they were talking about support for poultry and egg farmers. That's not WE.

On Canada-China relations, well, we know we have a problem there, and I know an emergency debate was asked for, because there are groups that are studying the genocide that is occurring in China.

We talked about the Canadian trading relations. That was one of the studies that was going on.

On the HUMA committee, which I sat on, off and on—and I know why—we were working very hard on the things we were studying there. We talked about housing. We talked about poverty. We talked about food banks. We talked about all of this great work. That all came to an end when prorogation occurred.

The study on systematic racism in policing in Canada was started at the public safety committee, but unfortunately what happened was that the prorogation took all of these studies and just quashed them, so all the work, all of the work that was done in committees.... You can talk about WE and say that's all we talk about, but I challenge you, because I can tell you, at the end of the day, do I care about WE? No, but do I care about an ethical government that I can sit there and be supportive of on great legislation and support if you bring it forward? Absolutely.

To go on to the fairness, if Mark ever wants to go there, I introduced Bill C-4 to you this morning and Bill C-2. We'll be voting on that at 3 a.m. on Wednesday morning, two legislative pieces as we're coming back to the House of Commons. We're talking 48 hours and you're concerned about getting a piece of paper on that. Sorry, that one won't go there.

I think we have to understand that prorogation stopped all the incredible work that was being done. There was a lot of non-partisan work being done so that Canadians could put food on their tables, so that poultry farmers could make sure they're getting their money after these NAFTA negotiations and CETA, and all of those great things, but you guys can turn a blind eye and not look at the big picture and then say that Conservatives are only focused on WE.

While Conservatives, the NDP, the Bloc and Liberals were all sitting on these committees doing good work, the leadership at the PMO decided to close down Parliament. We are asking for documents to support why the prorogation occurred, and I don't think that is uncalled for, especially when we know that the standing order has that there.

I'm going to finish off with a simple quote, and I'm sure we all know who said this because you all are standing behind him when you're supporting the Liberal government:

Mr. Speaker, I hope that future prime ministers will answer questions from all members, not just from party leaders. I hope that future prime ministers will not make excessive use of omnibus bills and will not resort to prorogation to avoid problematic situations.

As Todd talked about and as everybody has said—and I think Rachel talked about this—we came back to a throne speech that we thought was going to knock us on our butts, because we thought the government was actually going to do something.

All you did was close the door and reopen it. Nothing has changed in six weeks. All of these programs that you're talking about are current on my householder that I produced four weeks ago. It is four weeks old, so don't say to me that we're coming to something new. All of these programs are old. The shelter stuff is stuff that we were talking about. There is not anything new.

Prorogation happened and we want to know why. Canadians have the right to know why. For me, I don't care about WE. What I care about is that there are beds and shelters and all of those things for our good Canadians, but as a government and as the House of Commons, we can do it all. We can pass Bill C-2 and Bill C-4 in the next 48 hours. We can have somebody studying agriculture. We can have somebody studying what is happening over in China. We can do it because there are 338 members of Parliament who are here to do our jobs.

I really hope that as we are going forward you will just step back and ask why prorogation happened, and if it wasn't for WE, prove us wrong. It's simple.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Alghabra.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Let me take a moment to say I regret that Mr. Doherty has taken my comments as a personal attack—

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

The apology is accepted. I took it as well, but I—

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

I'm not apologizing. I'm sorry—

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

Oh. Okay. I'm sorry. I assumed you would be, because I thought it was really rude, but oh well—

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

I'm not apologizing—

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

On a point of order, who has the floor, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Alghabra.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you.

Ms. Blaney.

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

Thank you, everyone.

I think the bells will start to ring fairly soon. I want to start by saying that as one of the party whips I will need to go and organize that.

For me, there are a couple of things. First, I think about all the students across Canada who didn't get the support they well deserve. That's a big frustration for me and is something that I think needs to be explained.

I also agree that I would love to have Ms. Vecchio read it out a little more slowly so we can go through it, because I think one of the key things I heard in there were some significant commitments to timelines. I would think that somehow the timelines coincide with the obligation for our committee to follow through with the study, so I'm interested in that as well in terms of how those timelines go together.

I hope we get to a vote very soon. That is all I have to add.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay.

Mr. Gerretsen.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

In response to the comment about fairness, when I was talking about fairness, I wasn't talking about the Prime Minister not treating Mr. Doherty fairly and vice versa. I was talking about fairness to mean—

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

The bells are going. I just need to bring that forward.

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

Sure.

Madam Chair, I think you need to deal with that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you.

I want us to get somewhere. I want us to have a result and, actually, I want us to do a study and to get into a study as soon as possible. As I've said, this is a very complex motion just because of all of the various parts. It starts off very simply, but then gets very complex. I would like some time to just look at it—until the next meeting. I need to look at Standing Order 108 to see whether all parts are within the mandate, and then, I feel, we should get to a vote on it.

I think the most productive and most efficient thing to do at this time to allow us to get to that point is to have that brief opportunity to review it so that we're not going nowhere. I think the best thing to do right now, and what I'm going to do, is to adjourn today's meeting, and we'll meet very quickly right back up and pick up from where we left off. That will give me enough time to review everything and make a ruling on the motion. Then we can vote. Okay?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Madam Chair, a clarification, please?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

We are adjourning.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

I'm just asking, Madam Chair, if you're adjourning, if you have any sense of when we might reconvene.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes. I am going to try to put a notice out for the first available opportunity that we can have a meeting this week.