Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Feb. 23rd, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 25 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of January 25, 2021. Therefore, members are attending in person in the room and remotely, using the Zoom application.

The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. You are aware that the webcast will always show the person speaking, rather than the entirety of the committee.

I would like to take this opportunity to remind all participants to this meeting that screenshots or taking photos of the screen are not permitted.

Given the ongoing pandemic situation and concern with public health, there are recommendations made by public health. To all those attending the meeting in person, you are to maintain a two-metre physical distance. You must wear a medical mask when circulating in the room. It's also highly recommended that the mask be worn at all times, including when you are seated. You must maintain proper hand hygiene by using the provided hand sanitizer at the room entrance.

As the chair, I will be enforcing these measures for the duration of the meeting. I thank the members in advance for their co-operation. I'm sure Justin will help me out with being able to maintain those rules.

For those participating virtually, I'd like to outline a few rules to follow.

Members and witnesses may speak in the official language of their choice. Interpretation services are available for the meeting. You have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English or French audio. With the latest Zoom version, you may now speak in the language of your choice without the need to select the corresponding language channel each time you switch. You will also notice that the platform's “raise hand” function is easily accessible at the bottom of the screen.

For members participating in person, just proceed as you usually would when the meeting is proceeding in person.

Before speaking, wait until I recognize you by name. If you are on the video conference, please click the microphone icon to unmute yourself. For those in the room, your microphone will be controlled by the proceedings and verification officer. As a reminder, all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair. When you are not speaking your mike should be on mute.

With regard to a speaking list, the clerk and I will try to keep a consolidated list, since we do have people in the room as well. You know the drill. Just unmute yourself and say you have a point of order. I'm sure there will be quite a few today. We'll maintain a speakers list in the toolbar, and one in person.

Before we start, I have just a couple of questions and then we will get to the issue that is first at hand, which is the witnesses for prorogation. I did want to say that we had the estimates come forward, so we have some time for the estimates. That would be due back in May, at some point.

Justin, when are the estimates exactly due back, so that everyone has a frame of reference?

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

It is May. I'll find the precise date for you and pass it on to the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay.

I wanted to state that there has been a Standing Orders debate taking place in the House, as well.

Andre, I had a question for you. Usually you prepare a document for this committee regarding the Standing Orders debate. Is that something we could look forward to in the near future?

[Andre Barnes, Committee Researcher]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Laurence and I had not yet turned our attention to doing that. We were waiting to see what the committee's views were, and when the Standing Orders study would follow in the sequence of work that the committee would like to undertake.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

As a reminder for me, there's no time frame for that. The time frame is only for the debate to occur in the House, but not for our review. Is that correct? Okay.

One piece before we get started is a budget. I think it would be best if we were able to pass that budget at the beginning of the meeting before we start, so that we can make payment for the headphones used by witnesses and the costs of the lines. I believe that was circulated to everyone.

If you haven't taken a quick look, please open that up. I just wanted to see if there was consensus from everyone to adopt this budget.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I see nodding. Justin, is that good for you?

[The Clerk]

That will do it. Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Now I see some hands up.

Mrs. Vecchio, go ahead.

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

Thanks very much.

This is an important day today because I think we're going to be starting to talk more about the prorogation study. I know that we've had a great assortment of different witnesses who have come in and provided great scholarly and academic views.

However, as many of them have indicated, and as our motion indicated previously, there are, ultimately, a few people we need to hear from. Those would be the people who put forward the prorogation, and the Prime Minister himself.

I would like to move another motion. I know that Justin should, perhaps, have just received this motion to share with everybody.

[The Clerk]

I've just sent it out.

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

It reiterates our point in the first place and our original motion.

I will just read it into the record:

That, in respect of the Committee’s study of the government’s reasons for the prorogation of Parliament in August 2020, the Committee:

(a) renew the invitation issued to the Prime Minister to appear before the committee, provided that if he does not agree, within one week of the adoption of this motion, to appear for at least three hours, the Chair shall be instructed to report to the House forthwith a recommendation that this committee be empowered to order his appearance from time to time;

(b) renew the invitations issued to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth, each to appear separately before the committee, provided that in respect of each of them who does not agree, within one week of the adoption of this motion, to appear for at least 90 minutes each, the Chair shall be instructed to report to the House forthwith a recommendation that this committee be empowered to order her appearance from time to time;

(c) renew the invitations issued to the Honourable Bill Morneau, Katie Telford, Craig Kielburger and Marc Kielburger, each to appear separately before the committee, provided that in respect of each of them who does not agree, within one week of the adoption of this motion, to appear for at least three hours each, a summons do issue for his or her appearance before the Committee at a date and time determined by the Chair but no later than one month following the adoption of this motion;

(d) renew the invitations issued to Farah Perelmuter and Martin Perelmuter, to appear before the committee, provided that if they do not agree, within one week of the adoption of this motion, to appear for at least 90 minutes, a summons do issue for their appearance before the Committee at a date and time determined by the Chair but no later than one month following the adoption of this motion;

(e) issue an order for the production of all memoranda, e-mails, text messages, documents, notes or other records from the Prime Minister’s Office and the Privy Council Office, since June 25, 2020, concerning options, plans and preparations for the prorogation of Parliament, including polling and public opinion research used to inform the decision to prorogue Parliament, provided that these documents shall be provided to the clerk of the committee within two weeks of the adoption of this motion;

(f) issue an order for the production of records of all communications between the government and any of WE Charity (or its affiliated organizations), Craig Kielburger, Marc Kielburger, or Speakers’ Spotlight, since June 25, 2020, in respect of the prorogation of Parliament, provided that these documents shall be provided to the clerk of the committee within two weeks of the adoption of this motion;

(g) issue orders to WE Charity (including its affiliated organizations), Craig Kielburger, Marc Kielburger and Speakers’ Spotlight for the production of all memoranda, e-mails, text messages, documents, notes or other records, since June 25, 2020, concerning the prorogation of Parliament, provided that these documents shall be provided to the clerk of the committee within two weeks of the adoption of this motion; and

(h) all documents provided to the clerk of the committee in respect of paragraphs (e) to (g) shall be published on the committee’s website as soon as practical upon receipt, once they are available in both official languages.

Madam Chair, I want to bring this motion forward. As you know, this is ultimately where we're at in this study. We can continue to ask for academics to be here. We can continue to ask for people from across this country and across the globe to come here to give us their perspectives, but ultimately, there is only one perspective we need and that is that of the Prime Minister.

Regarding the people who have been asked—just in case any of the members are asking—you will see that this is all to do with the prorogation study and, perhaps, additional information that has been provided previously to the witnesses we have asked here. Was there any plan for this prorogation? This is something that we would like to look into. The Prime Minister himself changed the Standing Orders, and these are things that he said he would put forward. When it comes to being an accountable and transparent government, let's see it.

Thank you very much for your time, Madam Chair, and I look forward to the conversation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you.

I see in the motion that you're looking forward to seeing all of these people coming in, not just the Prime Minister.

When you wrapped it up, you said—

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

No. I put forward the motion, and there was a post-amble, I guess you would say.

This is the motion that I would move here. I would prefer that we took it to a vote as soon as possible so that we could get this work done, but it is up to the members of the committee.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay.

Should we put it to a vote?

Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I know we received testimony from about 12 witnesses. I'm just wondering why, in this particular situation, we can't move to formulate recommendations within a report. It seems to me that we've had quite a number of strong witnesses. We've heard from the government House leader. It certainly seems to me that the opposition parties have had their theories about why prorogation happened. I think we all have differing opinions on this.

I have all of the evidence printed out here. It's quite a substantial package of information with really lots and lots of testimony. We've heard the opinions of experts. We've heard from some officials. I think the most appropriate official is the government House leader. Mr. Rodriguez came and answered our questions. From my perspective there seems to be lots of information from the witnesses we've had with which to start formulating some recommendations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Mr. Turnbull.

Ms. Petitpas Taylor.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

First, I entirely agree with my colleague Mr. Turnbull. Since December, many witnesses have appeared on this subject before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

On December 10, we heard from Barbara Messamore, professor of history at the University of the Fraser Valley; Daniel Turp, professor at the Université de Montréal; Kathy Brock, professor at Queen's University; and Philippe Lagassé, professor at the University of Ottawa. Yes, they are academics, but they nevertheless gave us their views and opinions on this subject.

On January 28, we had Hugo Cyr, professor at the Université du Québec à Montréal; Ian Brody, professor at the University of Calgary; and Lori Turnbull, professor at Dalhousie University. Once again, these are highly qualified people who gave us their views. I had a chance to reread their testimony yesterday evening. It contains very good information that I truly believe will help us make good recommendations.

At the February 16 meeting, we had, in his capacity as Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Pablo Rodriguez, who outlined his views and answered many questions. I think that went very well. He was accompanied by Alan Sutherland and Donald Booth.

Lastly, on February 18, we heard from Duane Bratt, professor at Mount Royal University, and Patrick Taillon, professor at the Université Laval.

Once again, we may not agree on all the opinions that were given, but I nevertheless think that, thanks to all the information conveyed to us by those academics and Mr. Rodriguez, we are in a very good position to begin working on recommendations.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay.

Mr. Kent.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I must say that I agree with Mr. Turnbull and Ms. Petitpas Taylor that we have heard from a substantial body of witnesses, many of them academics, and I think that it's important that a number of those academics agreed that it would benefit this study to hear from the Prime Minister and to hear from the other individuals most directly involved in the circumstances leading up to the prorogation. Certainly the government House leader was interesting in his appearance before committee last week, although I think his testimony was undercut somewhat by his denial that the PMO frequently sends directions to committee with regard to the behaviour of committee members, both in terms of filibustering and directly in terms of their vote.

This motion would serve this study well and would add substantially to the body of testimony that we already have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you so much.

Go ahead, Mr. Blaikie.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you very much.

I want to back up for a moment and consider why we're doing this study. We're doing this study in part because there was a new mechanism established in the last Parliament having to do with prorogation. It was based, not on this particular prorogation but on a controversial set of prorogations under the Harper government. This was supposed to be the thing that was going to dissuade governments from abusing the power of prorogation.

I'm thinking of those other two prorogations and wondering if members, all members of the committee, would be satisfied if a study like this took place in the face of the 2008 prorogation, for instance. If Peter Van Loan, as the House leader of the day, I believe—Peter can correct me if I'm wrong on that, but I believe that's the case—appeared here, and the Prime Minister didn't, it seems to me that would be quite dissatisfying in terms of trying to get at the root of some of the conversations that would have taken place within the government about prorogation in 2008.

I'm mindful of the fact that this is a mechanism that has a history, even though it's the first time that it's being used, and that we're setting a precedent here. I think it would be totally unsatisfactory as a precedent if the Prime Minister didn't appear to speak directly to the issue of prorogation and the government's reasons for prorogation, given that the Prime Minister ultimately is the person who gives the advice to the Governor General on whether or not to have a prorogation.

If we're going to vote on this motion on a straight up and down vote, I'll certainly be voting for it. I'm open to the idea that we would vote on something that is pared down if it meant that we could get strong unanimous support for calling the Prime Minister here.

The other person I think would be interesting from the point of view of this particular prorogation, who is mentioned in this motion, which for me is another reason to support it, is the former finance minister, because the prorogation was coincident with his resignation.

For those of us on the outside looking in, it's very hard to imagine that it is a coincidence and that the former finance minister doesn't have anything to add or a part of the story to tell that would shed some light on the reasons for prorogation.

Along similar lines, I think we've heard something somewhat similar both from Mr. Turnbull and Mr. Kent, among others now, to the effect that we have heard from a lot of academics. I don't think we need more context. I think what we need is more direct information from decision-makers in order to make an assessment about the nature of this particular prorogation and whether it constituted an abuse of the power. I don't think anybody is suggesting that the Prime Minister was outside of his constitutional powers to advise for a prorogation. The question is whether there was a kind of political abuse of that power, even though it was done in accordance with constitutional convention.

How do you get at that? You can only get at that by talking to the Prime Minister and those around him at the time. It seems to me that the Prime Minister and the former minister of finance are the people to talk to.

That's why I'll be supporting this motion. If members have a proposal for paring it down so that we can get closer to those two people, that's fine by me. If there is a desire on the part of some members to move to a report, I'm really reticent to do that without hearing from the Prime Minister, as I say, because I think it's a bad precedent. We'll see about that, but I don't think we're ready to move on to writing a report. If we did, I can't see doing anything but an interim report, because I don't think we can have a final report until we speak to the Prime Minister about this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you for your contribution.

Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks.

I appreciate the perspective of my colleagues here. In terms of the comments being made, I think this study is really designed to continue to reflect on what's already happened. We've gathered a diversity of perspectives and opinions on that from witnesses who were, I would suggest, mostly proposed by opposition parties. We've heard from them. They've had their opinions. They've presented to us. They've shared those thoughts with us.

Mr. Blaikie, I might have to disagree with you on the point you made about context, because I think in this particular case, context is everything. We're in a worldwide global pandemic. I believe we're staring down the barrel of a likely third wave of COVID-19 with the variants of concern that are percolating and starting to rear their heads. We're seeing the impact of that in Newfoundland, for example, where the election is being affected by these new variants.

I have this concern that's forward-facing, that's looking at the work that this committee needs to do—for example, to prepare to pass Bill C-19 and perhaps maybe even look at a prestudy on that. We've seen some delays with that with some concurrence motions. I feel that we need to be able to equip Elections Canada with the possibility that an election could be called at any time. They need to have the tools to do so, yet here we are looking back, debating how many more witnesses. How many more meetings do we really need to have? I think we have a diversity of perspectives. You're going to formulate your theory and rationale with the evidence that you've heard, and we're all going to debate that and see, to my mind, how that plays out in terms of the recommendations we'd like to make in a report moving forward.

To me, that process seems pretty substantive when you contrast it with the past, when there was no study on prorogation and there were many examples of prorogation in more controversial situations than the one we're seeing here, which, when we look at it, there was a really good rationale for. We were in a global pandemic. There was a first and second wave in between, and there was naturally an opportunity to reflect on where we're going as a country and to renew our agenda. To me, that just is plainly obvious to most Canadians out there. I think it's intuitive. It makes sense.

I don't know why we need to have more and more witnesses come forward when it really seems like we've done the job of entertaining the different theories and speculative perspectives on why prorogation happened. We've heard directly from.... Government tabled a report. It's substantive. It's never happened before. I would say that's a positive step in the right direction. I think we can all agree.

We heard from the government House leader directly. Who better to give us that testimony than the government House Leader? I think that's the most appropriate person to provide us that perspective. We have that. I'm sorry if it's not what the opposition parties are looking to prove here, but from my perspective, we have that perspective already in two forms, in a written report and in the testimony from the House leader. What more do we really need?

What are you going to get out of having more and more witnesses come forward to basically tell you the same thing? If it's not what you want to hear, I understand, but are you really going to get anything different? It's all consistent. It's a very consistent rationale for why our government took those steps and why the Prime Minister exercised that right.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Monsieur Lauzon.