Evidence of meeting #2 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.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have to hand it to Mr. Gerretsen. I think he read the PMO's statement or justification very well.
Madam Chair, the premise—
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
No. With all due respect, Madam Chair, the member is attributing motive to me and that I am reading somebody else's statement. I want it known for the record that the words I read today were my own words. I don't read messages on behalf of anybody else, Madam Chair.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Madam Chair and colleagues, the premise of Mr. Gerretsen's statement—whether written by him or someone else, but read by him—is that we and all Canadians should just accept what the PMO says was the reason for the prorogation.
Furthermore, it has been stated that through Standing Order 32(7), we will be getting the request to study why prorogation took place. Once the document is tabled, the motion would allow us to question the ministers efficiently and with advance preparation. We'll be able, as a committee, to be masters of our own destiny, as a committee should be. We should be able to prepare for this document and this information coming towards us.
I will go back and challenge my colleagues on this. It was brought up by my Conservative colleagues here—and at times we seem to forget this in the House—that 338 members of Parliament were elected to be the voices of Canadians, to challenge where necessary and to support when necessary as well. Parliament was silenced for six weeks. It was supposed to be a reset. What we saw when we came back was that it wasn't a reset; it was stalling. I will challenge my other colleagues here to remember that in 2015 the member for Papineau and the Liberal Party said, in their platform, that they would not resort to parliamentary tricks such as prorogation or omnibus bills. Now we're seeing prorogation take place, at the height of a pandemic. For what reason?
My colleague Mr. Gerretsen talks about the safety and health of Canadians and the workers he's concerned about. What about the members of my riding of Cariboo—Prince George and the electors who, to this day, are still not eligible for any emergency funding? What about those whose benefits were running out within a week? What about those who are still waiting to receive any emergency funding? What about the businesses?
Madam Chair, this motion is in order, despite what our colleague says. I hope you will see.... Yes, it is large, but so is the responsibility of this committee. I think it was you, Madam Chair, who mentioned that we really are the committee of all parliamentary committees. What we do sets a precedent for other committees. It is important for all of us to set that example for other committees. We've seen Liberal-run committees shut down this study in the past.
Madam Chair, I challenge you. If this is a reset, let's reset. Let's be better. Let's move forward for Canadians. Canadians honestly want to know what this prorogation was about. The motion that we put forth is in-depth, yes, 100%, but Canadians deserve to know the full truth as we move forward. It's not a witch hunt. It could very well end up being that everything the government is telling us is true. Madam Chair, if we don't do the investigative work ourselves and truly be masters of our own destiny, at arm's length from the government, then everything this committee does moving forward will be tainted.
I challenge my colleagues who are on this committee to see it that way.
Madam Chair, you have a weight on your shoulders that you have to rule in favour. Canadians and the media are watching this committee to see how you move forward. I challenge all of us to be better on this.
With that, I'll cede the floor.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Okay.
Am I correct, Justin, that there are no more speakers on the list?
11:55 a.m.
The Clerk
That's right. I don't have anybody on the list.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Okay.
I guess we can ask the question, unless we have consensus to move to consideration of Ms. Vecchio's motion. Do we have consensus, or would you like a recorded vote?
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Could the clerk be clear on what we're voting on, Madam Chair?
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK
I have a point of order, if I may, Madam Chair.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK
Thank you, Madam Chair.
On a point of order, I want complete clarification on this, although I think I know the answer to my own question. You are, then, ruling this motion to be in order, and we will be voting on the contents of the motion. Is that correct?
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
No, that is not correct, and neither is it completely incorrect. What's happening now is that this committee was brought back pursuant to Standing Order 106(4) for consideration of whether we should move into the meeting in which we would consider Ms. Vecchio's motion. This vote is just to continue the meeting and begin consideration of Ms. Vecchio's motion.
My plan is that if we do move to that phase of the meeting, I would then make my ruling, which I know everyone has been waiting for since last we last met. I appreciate the time everyone has given me to do this.
We would move into the next phase of the meeting.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK
Thanks very much.
On another point of order, if I may, Madam Chair, thank you for that explanation, but again, just so I am completely clear, let me take it one step further. If a consequence, then, of this vote is a vote against, would it be fair to assume that you would then adjourn the meeting? Standing Order 106(4) was the only point of business brought forward in the request for this meeting. If that request is denied, then I would assume that your only other alternative would be to adjourn.
Should you wish to go forward, I would have no problems with that. I am just trying to be clear in my own mind on how you wish to proceed.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Yes, procedurally that would be how we would be moving. If this were to come to a “no” vote, then we wouldn't be proceeding with this meeting. However, if it's a “yes” vote to proceed on to a consideration of Ms. Vecchio's motion, then I would make my ruling on that motion and we could then, depending on that ruling, move forward in a different direction.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Noon
The Clerk
No. There's nothing that I need to add. Thanks.
October 6th, 2020 / noon
NDP
