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.
