Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 6th, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number two of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Pursuant to Standing Order 106(4), this meeting was requested by four members of the committee to discuss their request to resume the committee’s consideration of the motion moved by Ms. Vecchio on Monday, September 28, 2020, regarding a study pursuant to Standing Order 32(7).

I'd like to start the meeting by providing you with some information following the motion that was adopted in the House on Wednesday, September 23, 2020.

The committee is now sitting in a hybrid format, meaning that members can participate either in person or by video conference. Witnesses must appear by video conference only. All members, regardless of their method of participation, will be counted for the purposes of quorum. The committee’s power to sit is, however, limited by the priority use of the House resources, which is determined by the whips. All questions must be decided by a recorded vote unless the committee disposes of them with unanimous consent or on division. Finally, the committee may deliberate in camera provided that it takes into account the potential risks to confidentiality inherent to such deliberations with remote participants.

Today’s proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website, with a reminder that the webcast will always show the person speaking rather than the entirety of the committee.

To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to outline a few rules to follow.

For those participating virtually, members and witnesses may speak in the official language of their choice. Interpretation services are available for this meeting, and you have the choice, at the bottom of your screen, of either “floor” or “English” or “French”. I do advise that you choose the language of choice below, because we have seen in the past that there are volume issues with interpretation when you are on the floor language.

Before speaking, click on the microphone icon to activate your own mike. When you are done speaking, please put your mike on “mute” to minimize any interference. I have a reminder that all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair. Should members need to request the floor outside of their designated time for questions, they should activate their mike and state that they have a point of order.

If a member wishes to intervene on a point of order that has been raised by another member, they should use the “raise hand” function. This will signal to the chair your interest in speaking and create a speakers list. In order to do so, you should click on the “participants” bar at the bottom of the screen. When the list pops up, you will see next to your name that you can click the “raise hand” function. When speaking, please speak slowly and clearly. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, the use of headsets with a boom microphone is mandatory for everyone participating remotely. Should any technical challenges arise, please advise the chair.

Please note that we may need to suspend for a few moments, as we need to ensure that all members are able to participate fully. For those participating in person, proceed as you usually would when the whole committee is meeting in person in the committee room.

Should you wish to get my attention, signal me with a hand gesture or, at the appropriate time, call my name. Should you wish to raise a point of order, wait for an appropriate time to indicate to me clearly that you wish to raise a point of order. When you're waving your hand, I may not be able to see you on the screen. If you're there in person, you're sharing screen time with the clerk and the other members if they're in person, but Justin Vaive, our amazing clerk, will also do his best to keep a list going. We will confer with each other to try to keep the most appropriate order. With regard to a speaking list, the committee clerk and I will do our best to maintain that list.

As I mentioned at the start, we are meeting for consideration of the request by four members, pursuant to Standing Order 106(4), to resume consideration of Ms. Vecchio's motion. If any members wish to speak as to why we should resume the meeting, you can do so at this time by raising your hand in the “participants” section or by calling out, or by raising your hand physically if you are there in person.

Go ahead, Mr. Gerretsen.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the motion that's been brought forward, the motion of Ms. Vecchio, and to explain why I personally believe the motion she introduced last week is out of order. I want to begin with the preamble.

The preamble of that motion states:

That, in anticipation of the committee receiving an Order of reference, pursuant to Standing Order 32(7), no later than the 20th sitting day of the present Session, the committee shall consider the document outlining the government’s reasons for the latest prorogation....

For starters, Madam Chair, the committee has not received an order of reference on this topic. As such, it cannot issue invitations to ministers to appear for something it has no mandate to study.

Furthermore, this committee cannot order documents related to a study for which there is no order of reference and which is beyond the scope of the committee at this time. Therefore, I would submit that when the government tables a report pursuant to Standing Order 32(7) and the report is referred to the procedure and House affairs committee, that would be the time for the committee to consider a motion respecting a study on the report.

It is worth noting, Madam Chair, that House of Commons Procedure and Practice, on page 1,000, states, “With a few exceptions, studies conducted by committees are based on an order of reference or instruction from the House of Commons”. This includes studies undertaken pursuant to the Standing Orders.

The Standing Orders also discuss orders of reference. Standing Order 108(1)(a) states, “committees shall be severally empowered to examine and enquire into all such matters as may be referred to them by the House”.

Committees must also operate within the scope of their mandate. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, on page 978, makes this crystal clear:

The House delegates certain powers to the committees it creates in order for them to carry out their duties and fulfill their mandates. Committees have no powers other than those delegated to them in this way, and cannot assume...powers [of] their own initiative.

Madam Chair, it goes without saying that committees can invoke these powers only within and for the purpose of the mandate that the House has entrusted to them.

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

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Go ahead, Mr. Doherty.

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

The committee is not being broadcast yet.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Oh. Let's just pause for a moment.

Mr. Clerk, is there a problem with the broadcasting?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Justin Vaive]

Yes, Madam Chair. We're looking into it right now. It may just be a delay as the meeting gets going, but we're looking into it.

You can suspend for a brief period of time until we figure out what's going on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay.

Thank you, Todd, for bringing that to my attention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay, I will give the floor back to Mr. Gerretsen.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just for the record, I know we were having some technical difficulties, but it's important to me that the content of my speech be reflected in the blues. Did the clerk confirm to you that what I said to this point will be in the blues?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

That's correct. He said that everything had been recorded.

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

Thank you. I'll pick up where I left off.

I was saying that committees must also operate within the scope of their mandate. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, at page 978, makes this crystal clear when it says this:

The House delegates certain powers to the committees it creates in order that they can carry out their duties and fulfill their mandates. Committees have no powers other than those delegated to them in this way, and cannot assume other powers on their own initiative.

Madam Chair, it goes on to say that “committees can invoke these powers only within and for the purposes of the mandate that the House...has entrusted to them.”

As Speaker Milliken stated on March 14, 2008, “...the House has taken great care to define and differentiate the responsibilities of its committees. ... Inherent in the power the House grants to its committees is the basic principle that each committee will respect its mandate.”

If I turn to the mandate of PROC, Madam Chair, in light of this, I would like to examine that and the Standing Orders as they are outlined for PROC.

It starts with paragraph 108(3)(a), which says:

(a) Procedure and House Affairs shall include, in addition to the duties set out in Standing Order 104, and among other matters:

and then, in the subparagraphs following paragraph 108(3)(a):

(i) the review of and report on, to the Speaker as well as the Board of Internal Economy, the administration of the House and the provision of services and facilities to members provided that all matters related thereto shall be deemed to have been permanently referred to the committee upon its membership having been established;

(ii) the review of and report on the effectiveness, management and operation, together with the operational and expenditure plans of all operations which are under the joint administration and control of the two Houses except with regard to the Library of Parliament and other related matters as the committee deems fit;

(iii) the review of and report on the Standing Orders, procedure and practice in the House and its committees;

(iv) the consideration of business related to private bills;

(v) the review of and report on the broadcasting of the proceedings of the House and its committees;

(vi) the review of and report on all matters relating to the election of members to the House of Commons;

(vii) the review of and report on the annual report of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner with respect to his or her responsibilities under the Parliament of Canada Act relating to members of Parliament, which shall be deemed permanently referred to the committee immediately after it is laid upon the table;

(viii) the review of and report on all matters relating to the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons; and

(ix) the review of and report on all matters relating to the Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Commons: Sexual Harassment Between Members.

Madam Chair, nowhere in this mandate does it talk about prorogation. The committee's mandate does include “the review of and report on the Standing Orders, procedure and practice in the House and its committees”, so the committee could examine the reasons behind the creation of Standing Order 32(7), which states the following:

Not later than 20 sitting days after the beginning of the second or subsequent session of a Parliament, a minister of the Crown shall lay upon the table a document outlining the reasons for the latest prorogation. This document shall be deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs immediately after it is presented in the House.

However, given that the committee has not received from the House the document referred to in the standing order and as such has not received an order of reference to study it, the committee is limited in its study to the purpose of this standing order and not its operation, as it has yet to be used.

The recent prorogation, Madam Chair, is the first one to have taken place after the adoption of this standing order, so the committee will not receive a mandate to study specifics of this particular prorogation until after the document is presented in the House and an order of reference is sent to the committee.

Madam Chair, the preamble to this motion is a clear acknowledgement that the committee does not have any order of reference or instruction from the House to conduct this study. For this reason alone, the motion is out of order and beyond the scope of the committee's mandate.

Turning to the committee prestudy, Madam Chair, I want to address the issue of committee prestudy and acknowledge that there are occasions when committees engage in prestudies. The difference between that and this current motion before us is that a committee engages in prestudies on issues that are within its mandate as a committee. Legislation is a key example of that.

On government legislation, at second reading, committee members have the opportunity to review the contents, attend technical briefings, and hear from stakeholders. They are able to put forward a list of witnesses for study because they are aware of the scope and details of the bill. While committees can engage in prestudy of bills introduced into the House, they cannot engage in a prestudy of a bill that has not yet been introduced and that does not exist. This same principle applies to this motion. The committee cannot do a prestudy of a document that has yet to be received.

As is the case for the legislation emanating from the government, it is up to the government to decide on the architecture and substantive provisions of a bill and then, once the bill is introduced, it is for the House and committees to consider and dispose of the bill based on its contents. In like manner, Standing Order 32(7) provides for the same. Once the government has informed the House of the reasons for which Parliament was prorogued and produces a report, and that report is tabled and an order of reference is provided to the committee, then the committee will consider the contents of the report and initiate a study on it.

Standing Order 32(7) does not contemplate the opposition making decisions on behalf of the government in terms of the government's motives for proroguing Parliament. It follows an age-old principle, Madam Chair, that the government proposes and the House disposes.

Other parts of the motion that are outside of this scope, Madam Chair, notwithstanding what I have already argued, would include the following. Given that the committee has no mandate or order of reference to begin this study, the whole motion is out of order. That includes points (a), (b), (c) and (d).

Having said this, I would also like to point out, and it's worth noting, other parts of the motion that are outside of the scope of the committee's mandate or order of reference. Specifically, those sections from the motion are the request to have orders and documents related to the WE Charity and the Canada student service grant, which is outside of the scope of the committee's mandate. It orders the creation of documents related to WE Charity, which is outside the scope of the committee's mandate. Also, documents need to already exist, as the committee cannot order the creation of documents.

The motion also requests and orders the creation of documents related to WE Charity and the Canada student service grant, which is outside of the scope of the committee's mandate and, as I indicated, the documents need to exist.

It also orders documents related to the WE Charity and National Public Relations and the Canada student summer grant, which again is outside the scope of the committee's mandate. It orders documents related to contracts for speaking engagements, which is outside the scope of the committee's mandate. It orders documents related to the Canada emergency commercial rent assistance program, which again is outside the scope of the committee's mandate.

It orders the creation of documents and communications between private citizens, documents that have no link to anything within the scope of the committee's mandate, and documents that do not exist would need to be created, which again the committee cannot do.

With regard to the types of papers that the committee can request, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, on page 984, states the following:

There is no limit on the types of papers likely to be requested; the only prerequisite is that the papers exist in hard copy or electronic format, and that they are located in Canada.

For all of these reasons I have outlined, I believe that this motion should be ruled out of order, Madam Chair.

While I believe that I have laid out a clear case that the motion from Ms. Vecchio is out of order, I also want to talk briefly about what I can only perceive to be the motivation of the Conservatives, as well as the consequences of adopting such a motion.

I will start with the consequences. I would like to point out that there are three that I believe should concern everybody.

The first is health and safety. This motion will put the health and safety of hundreds of hard-working public servants and political staff at risk—if not thousands—as they have to return to their offices to go through all of their emails and documents, compile them and have them translated under arbitrary and punitive deadlines.

This would also, as my second concern, paralyze the government. The motion is designed to paralyze the operation of government as hundreds of staff, if not thousands, stop the important work they are doing to help Canadians and focus on responding to this wild goose chase of a motion.

The third concern is cost, Madam Chair. The cost to produce all of these documents and ensure their translation in the time frame outlined in the motion will be astronomical.

Madam Chair, Canadians across the country are facing a second wave of COVID-19, and this pandemic is the most serious public health crisis Canada has ever faced. The last six months have revealed fundamental gaps in our society and in societies around the world. For those who are already struggling, including parents, racialized Canadians, indigenous peoples, young Canadians and seniors, to name a few, the pandemic has made it more difficult, and they need our full support now.

The government and indeed most parliamentarians are focused on addressing these challenges of today and are prepared to face them in the future. We are taking bold actions on health, the economy, equality and the environment to build a more resilient Canada for everyone. We should all be focused on containing this global crisis. While the government may remain focused on ensuring Canadians receive the help and support they so desperately need and on protecting Canadians from the effects of COVID-19, it is extremely unfortunate that it appears as though the Conservatives have remained focused on these partisan games.

This motion is the king of all omnibus dumpster motions, Madam Chair. It includes every request that the Conservatives could think of, despite the fact that they are completely unrelated to the mandate of PROC and any order of reference that it has received. It is nothing more than a fishing expedition from a desperate group of people who cannot see past their own narrow partisan self-interest long enough to see that Canadians are suffering and need all of us focused on supporting them through this time.

Conservatives, Madam Chair, in my opinion, need to ask themselves some pretty basic questions. Do their actions pass the reasonableness test? Is what they are trying to do proportionate and responsible during a pandemic? Also, are they going to focus on Canadians or are they going to keep focusing on narrow partisan interests? I think they know the answers to these questions and I think Canadians will judge them on how they behaved at a time when what was needed was leadership and constructive co-operation between parties.

What we are seeing here is overtly divisive partisanship that simply looks to score political points. This approach undermines not only public trust in our institutions but also public trust in us as political representatives of the people we are elected to serve.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you for that.

Next on the speakers list we have Ms. Vecchio and then Mr. Tochor.

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

Thank you very much.

I really appreciate Mark's comments, but I think public trust is what was lost on August 18 in the first place. I think if we're going to use those lines, we should reflect on the government's actions prior to that. Let's not talk about public trust as though we've lost it fully, especially on the Conservative side.

I can tell you that back in the riding of Elgin—Middlesex—London, on this motion put forward, I had people calling me saying thank you, saying we need to hold this government to account. Perhaps they're not calling you in Kingston, but I can tell you that the constituents in Elgin—Middlesex—London are saying bravo and that we need to hold them to account.

There are a couple of things we're talking about. First of all, there is the mandate of this committee. We understand that under Standing Order 32(7), this issue will be coming to the procedure and House affairs committee. As indicated, in some committees people will do a little prestudy. Now, a lot of times that may be moot if this is voted on and doesn't come to the procedure and House affairs committee, but this will not be voted on. We know that this will be referred to our committee. It's not voted on in the House of Commons. It is automatically sent to us at procedure and House affairs. There's not a vote to say that our prestudy is going to be a waste of time.

Actually, when we're talking about documents, well, these are documents that were requested, as I recall, back in July. I wouldn't want to put anyone at risk, but let's not kid ourselves: They've been working on these documents since July 1, when they were requested, and we're now into October.

“Paralyzing of government” is a terrible choice of words. Perhaps it was the paralyzing of Parliament, because that is exactly what this government did with prorogation on August 18. It's fine to say that the government will not be able to do any work because we'll be paralyzing this committee, but I will remind the honourable member that 338 members of Parliament were paralyzed on August 18 due to the prorogation in the first place.

With all of these things, I understand that it took eight days. I understand that this motion was very complex, but we do know that it will be coming to this committee. We are expecting lots of documents, because that is what we've asked for. Prorogation in the middle of a pandemic was absolutely not in the best interests of Canadians. We saw that last week, as we voted at 2:30 in the morning. We needed to have Bill C-2 and Bill C-4 passed. We knew that all of the programs had stopped the weekend before. There is a gap in these programs, and people will only be able to apply on October 11 for these programs. I find it very rich of this member to think that we paralyzed it. The only one who paralyzed the government was the Prime Minister and his staff. I'm very concerned with this.

When we're looking at this, all we're asking is to be able to prestudy the information that will be coming to our committee anyway. I'll also remind you that the only way we're not going to be debating this is if the government decides to prorogue before October 28. Really, at the end of the day, it's either coming to us or it's not. It seems like you're just trying to say no to the inevitable. It's going to happen.

The fact is that if on August 17 and 18 you had asked Canadians why they thought the government prorogued.... I will tell you that in my riding, I had maybe one person who did not think that it was over some of these issues that we have brought up and to do with the WE scandal. We know through finance and ethics and languages that there were lots of issues coming up because of WE. At that time, with the pressure and the heat that was happening in the PMO, that is why government was shut down.

I shouldn't say that is why; maybe prove me otherwise. I shouldn't say that, because obviously some members of the government believe that was not the case and that the prorogation happened because they were resetting.

I'm laughing because we're coming back to Bill C-6, to Bill C-4. We're coming back to a bunch of bills that were actually on the table and were going to start to be debated. There's nothing new from this reset. We are coming back to medical assistance in dying. We are coming back to conversion therapy. We are coming back to things that the government had already pre-tabled in the first session of the 43rd Parliament. We are rehashing what happened in the first session of this Parliament. There is nothing new. Perhaps the member can share with me that we actually had a reset, that we actually did a 180.

That's not what happened. We are starting with the same old, same old. By closing the door on August 18 for the parliamentary committees to ask these tough questions, the government was able to have a break and hope that Canadians had a break and would move forward.

I recognize that none of us wants to put staff members at risk. That is not the plan. We also know that they've been working on these for three months, so let's not use that.

On the cost to produce these things, it's the first time I've ever heard the government say “the cost to produce”. We're asking it to produce documents on a billion-dollar program that was announced—a billion dollars—so don't talk as if this is nickels and dimes here. We're talking here about big dollars that this government was wasting. Being held accountable is exactly what should happen.

I appreciate that the member thinks this is out of order, but at the same time, according to Standing Order 32(7), it is the mandate of this committee to study the prorogation when it comes to procedure and House affairs.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Tochor is next.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I have some deep concerns, and I think the people of Saskatoon have deep concerns, over the costs associated with this pandemic and some of the ethical lapses that this government has had. That is what the essence of this motion is. It is to study the procedural move of proroguing Parliament.

This is our committee. We're a procedural committee. We should be studying the reasons for it, and that's why Standing Order 32(7) directs us to do that study. We're asking for a prestudy, and I think Canadians would understand that.

I take offence when the Liberals now say that the cost is a consideration. We're over a trillion dollars in debt. What we are asking to study is a half-billion-dollar program that was also tied to why we prorogued. Everyone in Canada understands that we prorogued so the Liberals could hide from their scandals and waste.

Right now, we're going to get the answers. We're going to get the answers either in the coming days in this prestudy or when the actual study takes place. I would encourage the Liberals to stop stalling. In the PROC committee, which studies procedure, the sooner we get on with understanding why we were prorogued and the factors around that procedure, the better off I believe Parliament will be.

We can look at the arguments put forward by the PMO, Madam Chair, and you're going to have to make a decision on whether you're going to stand with Canadians who are wanting to know why we were prorogued in the middle of a pandemic. We didn't do this in two World Wars or in past pandemics. We have never spent as much money as we have in the last six months, and we need to get to the answers on the ethical lapses of this government.

I would hope, Madam Chair, that you would find this prestudy in order for the reasons put forward by my colleague, and for the decency of finding out why the procedure was implemented, what the benefit was and what the cost was of Parliament not meeting. We've seen in the past how we opposition parties have worked with government to improve some of the programs they were offering. Without Parliament sitting, we are seeing more and more government programs that don't actually meet the needs of Canadians. This is a shame, Madam Chair, and I would hope that you would view this as a motion that is in order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Mr. Tochor.

We have Mr. Gerretsen and then Mr. Lukiwski.

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

Just to reply to the two comments I've heard so far from the Conservatives, Madam Chair, I've laid out the reasons that I think this motion is out of order. I would just say that nothing Ms. Vecchio or Mr. Tochor offered spoke to the procedural part of this issue. The vast majority of my speech was on why this motion is procedurally out of order. Neither of them addressed any of the procedural elements that I have submitted to you.

The only non-partisan argument that either of them made was that we're going to get the documents anyway, so we may as well get them. Well, of course you're going to get the documents. That's the whole point, but you're going to get them where you're supposed to be getting them: in the committees that are tasked with the responsibility of reviewing them. That's why I am arguing that it's out of order for this committee to have a massive document dumped on it. It should be done in the respective committees where these issues should be studied.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Go ahead, Mr. Lukiwski.

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

Thank you very much.

I'll be very brief, but I want to make a couple of points, particularly in relation to Mark's opening comments. Number one, I want to underscore what Mrs. Vecchio has said: that it is inevitable that we will be receiving the order of reference.

Mark, it is not the same analogy. It is not like the analogy that you used that committees shouldn't be allowed, or that it's outside of their scope, to study legislation that has not yet been introduced. This is not legislation. This is an order of reference that's going to be laid upon the table within 20 days. In other words, it has to be done before the 28th, and it will come automatically to the procedure and house affairs committee. It is perfectly reasonable for this committee to enter into a prestudy of a document that it knows it will receive. That's far different from what you had used as an example, which was that we would be guessing whether a piece of legislation was going to be introduced in the House. This is not legislation; it's an order of reference that will be coming to PROC once the document is laid upon the table, which will occur before October 28.

I suppose the only point, as Karen already mentioned, that could curtail that is if the Prime Minister decided to prorogue Parliament once again to prevent PROC from entering into an examination that it is fully within its right to enter into.

Remember, Mark, that one of the fundamental tenets of Parliament is that committees are the masters of their own agenda, and if this committee determines that it wishes to enter into a prestudy of a document that will inevitably come to its attention, it has the perfect right to do so. No wordsmithing on your part can change that fundamental tenet.

Finally, I would also underscore what I said the last time we spoke together, Mark, which is that you continue to make the argument that Canadians are concerned about COVID-19 and their health and safety and their economic well-being, and I agree with all of that. I totally agree, but that does not prevent a parallel stream of a study within committee from going forward. This committee will not be preventing the government from entering into any pieces of legislation that it wants to bring forward. This committee's study of prorogation will not curtail or hinder the government from bringing forward legislation to enhance the financial well-being of Canadians. It has nothing to do with what is happening in the House and the legislation the government may wish to proceed with. This is a separate committee study, and it is within the mandate of this committee to enter into that study should it so desire.

Now, ultimately it will be up to this committee to make a determination as to whether or not the motion brought forward by Mrs. Vecchio will proceed. I will wait until we hear the results of that, perhaps in just a few moments.

Mark, it is within the purview of this committee to entertain the motion and support the motion if it wishes, and to further our examination of the reasons behind the government's desire to prorogue Parliament. It is not out of order. It is completely within the scope of this committee's mandate and it is in order.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Mr. Lukiwski.

Go ahead, Mr. Gerretsen.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. I originally put up my hand to thank Mr. Lukiwski. I want to thank him because he was actually advancing procedural matters about why he believes this to be in order. I respect the deep amount of knowledge that he has with respect to PROC, Madam Chair, quite frankly, but what he's saying—and I just want to counter this point—is that it's inevitable that we're going to receive this order of reference, so therefore a prestudy is warranted. However, what we're supposed to be studying is why the Prime Minister, or the government, chose to prorogue. We won't know that unless we presuppose the reason, and unfortunately that's what this motion is doing. It's presupposing the reason. That's why we have to wait for that order of reference: It's so that we can then examine why they chose to prorogue. That's also why I would respectfully disagree with your assertion that we have the mandate to do this, because we need that order of reference so that we can study it in the context in which it was delivered to us.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Tochor is next, please.

Did you take your hand down, Mr. Tochor? Would you still like to speak? No? Okay.

[The Clerk]

Sorry, Madam Chair. It's Justin, the clerk, again. Unless Mr. Doherty put his hand down, I think Mr. Doherty was asking to speak, not Mr. Tochor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Doherty.