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

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

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

This time I hope you'll find that it is, in fact, a well-founded point of order.

Perhaps it might help Mr. Lauzon's learning and that of other members of the committee. There was a mechanism during the last parliament.

When there were filibusters in the last Parliament at PROC, I think it was Liberal MP Scott Simms who developed a mechanism that was accepted by this committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

It was the Simms method.

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

It may already have been used in this committee in this Parliament. It is that once we know that members are committed to talking out a meeting, other members could be permitted to speak at the discretion of the member who has the floor, without that member ceding the floor. I think that makes for a more conversational meeting.

Mr. Lauzon has already made a number of substantive claims about the nature of this study. I'm sure certain members, me included, would love the opportunity to respond to some of those claims. Unless the plan is for him to wrap up shortly and proceed with the discussion in the normal way or to proceed to a vote, I just want to recall that the mechanism exists. It may be a way for other members to address some of the substantive points that Mr. Lauzon has made.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

This came out of a time of necessity in a previous Parliament, Mr. Lauzon. In the middle of a long discussion, our colleague Scott Simms had created a mechanism in which there was trust among opposition and government members—all parties on the committee—that they could interject and make some comments and then give the floor back to the speaker who was speaking at the time.

Generally, the regular procedural rules would be that if it's not a point of order and another member is speaking, the first member would cede the floor and no longer have their position in line. Through this method, there was a cordial way to have sometimes necessary interventions, which could maybe lead us to some type of compromise.

Mr. Blaikie is suggesting that he would like to make a few comments and still give you the floor back so that you can continue the rest of your speech, unless you only have a couple more minutes. If there's much more that you wish to say, Mr. Blaikie could just interject. The interjection is supposed to be short—a few minutes. It's not a long interjection, but something that would maybe carry the conversation forward.

Mr. Lauzon, it's up to you. Then you would have the floor back.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

I have great respect for Mr. Blaikie, but I think every one of the points I raised was directly related to the study I made last weekend. You can see the work I've done to catch up to you.

However, I do understand your argument, Mr. Blaikie. So I will stop here and wrap up my analysis of the reading I did on the weekend concerning another component. Since I see some raised hands, I'll let those people respond and come back after that.

I will raise my hand again.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Mr. Lauzon.

We'll hear from Mr. Blaikie for a short interjection. There is a long speakers list, too. I don't want to have a whole bunch of other people put far behind because of this.

Go ahead and make your points, Mr. Blaikie. Hopefully, they move the conversation forward.

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

Thank you.

I'd like to respond to a few things that Monsieur Lauzon had to say, and then I'll end with a proposal, Madam Chair.

The first thing I want to say, because I know Monsieur Lauzon has made quite a big deal out of comments that members of Parliament have made about the nature of the prorogation as somehow prejudicing what I think at one point he even called a “commission”.

Of course, this is a committee study, and we're not a court of law. We are a political place and our function primarily is a function of accountability. An important dimension of accountability is that of calling on decision-makers to defend their decisions and to articulate the reasons for their decisions.

The decision-maker when it comes to prorogation is the Prime Minister, of course, so I think it's perfectly reasonable to still want to hear from the Prime Minister. The committee has already agreed that we want to hear from the Prime Minister, so it's not like this is a new thing or that we didn't have some kind of agreement on that before. I don't think our study is done until we hear from the principal decision-maker in this regard.

I just wanted to correct the record there. I don't see my role here as that of a judge. My role here is that of an elected official who is trying to hold the government to account by getting it to explain its actions. I'm entitled to have opinions about whether or not I agree with those explanations, and I'm entitled to go into the investigation with some opinions about what I think really happened, for precisely the reason that I'm not a judge. It would be inappropriate, in my view, to behave like one in this regard, because it wouldn't allow me to do the accountability work that I was elected to do.

I think we've been called to work together in this crisis. That's true. I think there's a lot of evidence of that having happened. I actually think the prorogation got in the way of that. I was part of an effort on the part of the NDP to call for more sittings in August and September in order to deal with the looming CERB deadline. I think it was a mistake from the point of view, substantially, of CERB policy not to engage Parliament on that question in the lead-up to the deadline of the expiration of CERB, and I think it was a mistake from the point of view of parliamentary collaboration not to continue and to even create more time within the parliamentary forum to hammer out some of those issues. We've seen problems with the sick day program, for instance, because we didn't have the time up front to be able to look at that.

I take his point about collaboration, but I propose that prorogation is not the way to encourage parliamentary collaboration. I think that's pretty obvious on the face of it, frankly.

Those are just some things I would offer in response to a few of the points—what I would call the more interesting points—that Monsieur Lauzon has made over the past hour or so.

My proposal is to recognize that there are other things that this committee could be looking at, and I do see value in addressing other topics, but as I said, I think we also have to recognize that what we're doing is precedent setting. While Liberal members of the committee may be satisfied that they know the reasons for prorogation and that there's no value in questioning the decision-maker, which in this case is the Prime Minister, I disagree. I suspect they might feel differently if the Prime Minister were wearing a different colour of tie. Also, were we having this conversation in 2008 or elsewhere, they would feel that it was appropriate for the Prime Minister to appear.

I'm interested in establishing an appropriate precedent. If it would help to move this conversation along and reach a decision, we could call on the Prime Minister alone to come and testify at this committee. I would be prepared to support that if it helps us get to a decision. If we do that and the Prime Minister is ragging the puck on his appearance, I could see myself supporting the idea that we would file an interim report with the House of Commons, provided that the report expressed the committee's view, if it is the committee's view, that the report is not complete until we hear from the Prime Minister. I think that would go a long way to establishing a precedent, in the context where the Prime Minister refuses to appear, of at least making it clear that the committee thinks it's appropriate for prime ministers to appear in the context of these kinds of studies.

In the future, of course, I'd prefer if the Prime Minister did appear. I think it would be helpful, and I also think it would show the kind of leadership in support of his own policy that he proposed in the 2015 election. Obviously, I can't make that decision for the Prime Minister. What I can do is ask for support on this committee to continue to beseech him to live up to his promise of 2015 and to set the precedent that this kind of accountability for the Prime Minister on the decision of prorogation is appropriate.

That's my proposal, Madam Chair—that we might find a way to hasten this conversation and reach a decision if we move in that direction. I leave it to committee members to weigh in on whether or not that is acceptable to them as a way to proceed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I guess it's up to the committee members and Mr. Lauzon to respond, since he has the floor back, if he wishes to move in that direction, but you would need the support of other members as well.

Mr. Lauzon.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Yes, my colleague opposite is trying to strike a compromise on a motion I can't go against. I can't go against it for all the reasons I've given. The Prime Minister has a lot to do during this COVID-19 crisis, and I think we have enough information to go ahead and prepare a report to assist our government and the Canadian public. Then we can move on to something else.

You added an important point when you said there are subjects we would like to discuss at greater length. We can't avoid what we've just experienced as a result of the pandemic, which started in the middle of an election. In addition, we absolutely have to review initiatives designed to facilitate work-life balance. That has come along with the pandemic, and it's up to our committee to do it.

As I previously said, there's a lot of work to be done on the legal structure. We have to make some major changes to the way we deal with mental health problems that have arisen during the pandemic. We all know someone who has been affected. People have been isolated.

We also have to review the provisions respecting the legal structure of the parliamentary protection service. The Prime Minister has received threats and members have been affected. I don't think we should wait until an incident occurs. We shouldn't postpone this or fail to examine what happened during the election that was just held or the cases in which threats were made.

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

On a point of order, Madam Chair, I'm just going to say that he's well over an hour, and we have half an hour left of this. Unless he's going to cede the floor, he has not provided any new information regarding the study and regarding the motion that we're supposed to be discussing. I know there are other members on the waiting list who would like to speak, so perhaps we can actually get back on topic.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thanks, Mrs. Vecchio.

I'm sorry. I was just conferring on some procedure with the clerk, but Mr. Lauzon does have the floor, and I can't really force him to—

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

It still needs to be relevant. That's all.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I apologize again. I may not have heard what was said in the last 30 seconds, but we'll remind Mr. Lauzon to stay on the point of the motion.

Thank you.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

There's still a connection to the motion, but I'll be more careful.

Would the official opposition have preferred that the federal government simply disregard the upcoming second wave and act as certain provincial Conservative premiers did who disregarded warnings about the second wave? Would that have been better?

The Prime Minister spoke responsibly on national television, urging Canadians to limit their contacts and travel, among other things. In spite of that, some people are still gathering and others travelling.

It's all well and good to use prorogation as a way to take a step back, to make the best possible decisions and to send clear messages to our fellow citizens, but they are nevertheless the ones who spread the virus. The Prime Minister spoke responsibly when he urged Canadians to limit their contacts. He tried to save Christmas, since it's an important celebration for Canadians. The prorogation made it possible for us to take a step back before making that decision.

During that time, the official opposition ridiculed his national speech, characterizing it as alarmist and unhelpful. What he was told was that there was no need to fear. They thought we were scaring people. And yet, today, thousands of people are dead.

The committee has conducted a study on the prorogation. I listened to the opposition members and witnesses at our most recent meetings. I read everyone's testimony. I also listened to the Leader of the Government in the House.

I think the members of the committee at times show partisan tendencies that shape the way they view events, but there has to be a limit to that. You have to be honest with the committee. We have to work together to achieve something new. I'm a team player, and I often wear the captain's “C” on my jersey.

With your permission, I'm going to quote the former Conservative member for Elgin—Middlesex—London. In 2010, he said, “Prorogation, as I have stated, is at the core of the separation of powers. It provides the Crown with a mechanism for responding to changing circumstances.”

In the government's mind, is there any greater change than COVID-19? We now have to vote remotely. There was also a serious global economic crisis last year, as a result of which we began the new parliamentary session with new priorities. Those priorities were stated in the throne speech, which was presented to parliamentarians and the Canadian people upon our return following the prorogation.

I suppose that a one-of-a-kind global pandemic that changed the lives of some 7 billion people around the world doesn't amount to a change in circumstances in the opposition's view. I don't know what it takes for the opposition to change its opinion. We have to work together once and for all to move forward and draft a report.

I will now let my colleagues take over, Madam Chair.

Thank you. I will come back later, if necessary.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Mr. Lauzon.

For the committee's information, I know procedurally that things can get a little.... There can be a lot of questions. When Mr. Blaikie made his brief interjection, he made some suggestions to come to a compromise. My thinking on that is that if you are to make a formal amendment to any motion, then that would have to be when it's your formal turn to speak and when you have the floor.

If through consensus the committee continues to use the Simms protocol through this discussion, I wanted to make it clear that the Simms protocol is only to be used for a very brief interjection and not to move anything formally or any of that stuff that you would do when you have the floor through the proper procedural mechanisms when it is your turn on the list.

That's just a reminder because it's something that is not codified nor in the formal rules of procedure. However, it is something that this committee has been doing for some time before this Parliament. I know there are a lot of new members too, so I wanted to give more clarification on that. We would only be using such a mechanism for brief interjections, if there is consensus among the committee, as well.

The person who has the floor does not have to cede the floor. They also don't even have to allow for the interjection if they don't find it valuable or don't want it. It's more a cordial thing, as I mentioned before.

Mr. Therrien.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Thank you.

I don't want to go back over everything that's been said. I'll simply go back to the motion. We of the Bloc Québécois find it very interesting. It refers more to Mr. Trudeau's appearance. Several experts have told us that Mr. Trudeau's appearance would have been essential to our forming an opinion of the prorogation of last summer. I therefore think that the motion will simply comfort the experts in their suggestion that the Prime Minister should be invited to appear.

The Liberals are obviously telling us that the Leader of the Government in the House nevertheless came and answered questions. However, we didn't learn much. He failed to answer me when I asked him what had happened on August 17, whereas the answer was that Mr. Morneau, the Trudeau government's number two, had resigned. When I asked him why they had chosen August 18, he said he didn't know. So, in all honesty, it appears the leader wasn't aware of what was going on within his government. That's my perception. It's either that or else he just didn't want to speak.

When I asked him why the government hadn't prorogued Parliament on September 18, as Mr. Lauzon mentioned earlier, he answered that it took time to prepare for a prorogation. He found that an odd question, whereas, in response to the same question, the experts subsequently told us that the government could have prorogued Parliament on September 18. Furthermore, that would even have been appropriate, given the context of the ongoing pandemic and the fact that tough decisions had to be made. Among other things, Mr. Taillon said that the government shouldn't have deprived itself of the parliamentary toolbox in the face of a pandemic as vicious as the one we are currently experiencing.

Consequently, if we want answers to our questions and consider the suggestions from all the speakers who came here, the Prime Minister must absolutely come and see us to answer our questions. We of the Bloc Québecois support this motion and hope it's adopted.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you for your input, Mr. Therrien. We know where you stand.

Ms. Petitpas Taylor.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair

Mr. Therrien won't need to use the interpretation service very much today since our conversation is mostly taking place in French. That will at least give them a break.

As this meeting is public, I wanted to make a few preliminary remarks, since many Canadians are probably listening to us. On the weekend, I spoke to hundreds of citizens in my riding of Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe. I speak with them roughly once a month to see how they feel, particularly as a result of the pandemic. It's a habit I acquired a few months ago, and I have to say the reception from citizens is still very positive; they know we're concerned for them and that we want to hear their concerns. They tell me they're very pleased that the various levels of government, and in many instances even the parties, have recently worked well together to manage the pandemic. That doesn't mean we always agree, but my fellow citizens tell me they expect us elected members to work closely together to establish good assistance programs.

I'll be very honest with you. Among the concerns my fellow citizens have mentioned, I have never heard anything about prorogation. I'm satisfied that it's nevertheless an important study that we must conduct and for which we've heard 12 witnesses. However, the priorities and concerns of the Canadians who are watching us focus on the measures their elected members will be taking to assist them during this global pandemic. In Canada, more than 800,000 Canadians have already been diagnosed with COVID-19. That's enormous. We've seen that we can work hard to establish programs. I think Canadians want to see us continue working together in close collaboration in order to serve them well.

The Standing Committee of Procedure and House Affairs is very important. I was fortunate to sit on it in the first year I was in Parliament and saw the truly essential work that can be done here.

Once again, we've done a great deal of work on this question since the prorogation. I would say we're ready to make recommendations. The reason I say so is that I'm concerned that the opposition already has very fixed opinions. My colleague and friend Mr. Lauzon—who, I have to say, is a good talker—has reported some quotations from people. I've also done a little research on opposition comments. I have here the comments by a member of Parliament for Vancouver Kingsway:

For the record, as health critic for the NDP, I want to register my deep objection to the unnecessary and politically motivated prorogation, which was done transparently to cut off committee examination into various political scandals of the Liberal government, including the WE matter.

Reading this kind of comment, you understand that this person has already made up his mind.

I have a great deal of respect for my colleague Mr. Blaikie, the member for Elmwood—Transcona. Here's a comment that he made on January 28:

I think it's pretty clear for a lot of us that the prerogative for prorogation was abused and was used to get the government out of a political crisis, which I don't think is the legitimate use of that.

I'm afraid their minds are made up. They already have an opinion on the findings of this study. Consequently, I'm suspicious of their intention to invite other individuals to testify on the subject.

However, I think it's genuinely important that we continue to work together. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has recently done an outstanding job and, I'm convinced, will continue to do so.

I'll try not to take too much time, since several hands are raised. However, as I was doing a little preparation for this committee, a number of thoughts came to mind that I think are relevant and should be heard by my colleagues on the committee and by all Canadians.

First of all, I want my colleagues to reflect on the precedent they established in causing delays, by both summoning witnesses and calling for documents. I know that, when you're in opposition, you're always looking for creative ways to hold the government accountable, as it were. For those watching us at home, yes, we all occasionally use parliamentary procedure or any other tool at our disposal to challenge the government.

By the way, Madam Chair, I believe you were with me during the first year of this iteration of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. During one of the first meetings I attended, Mr. Christopherson, a member I greatly respect, spoke for two hours. As a new member, I really couldn't understand what was going on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

It was our first meeting.

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

I was moved and somewhat traumatized, but I nevertheless understood that these are work tools that can be used. I have considerable esteem for Mr. Christopherson, and I very much miss his speeches in the House.

Once again, we acknowledge that the opposition has these tools at its disposal. This is acceptable and has been the case since the advent of the Westminster parliamentary model. However, there are nevertheless limits on everything within our field of work. What is true, or at least what was true until 2020, is that a prime minister appears before a committee only in rare and exceptional circumstances.

We must remember that Prime Minister Trudeau appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance in August 2020 as a sign of openness and transparency and to answer relevant questions. He had previously spoken before the committee only a handful of times. We must realize that the Prime Minister testified before this committee for an hour and a half. He didn't just make a brief visit; he answered all questions from the members present.

Consequently, I find the present debate on the subject of inviting the Prime Minister to our committee somewhat concerning. I frankly believe that, if the opposition members really wanted the Prime Minister to discuss prorogation, there would be at least a minimum of relevance to their request. Not so long ago, we heard from the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, and the purpose of that appearance was somewhat relevant. It was logical and related to the topic of the prorogation study. Mr. Rodriguez was with us for a good hour, if not more, on that occasion, and answered questions. We may not always agree on the answers he gave, but he was nevertheless honest and provided us with information. He explained to the committee the government's reasoning on the prorogation on behalf of the Prime Minister and his cabinet.

We have heard from the Prime Minister in the course of testimony on this subject, as we have on all other government policy matters currently before the committee. How many the times has the Prime Minister appeared before a committee on a matter pertaining to the activities of the House or to questions pertaining to the Privy Council Office? The answer is simple: based on my research, that has never happened.

Let's put that on the table today. Today, the opposition members want to summon the Prime Minister to come here and discuss the WE Charity affair. We all know that this is what they're trying to do, and we all know why they're doing it as part of this prorogation study. Its relevance is a problem. They've tried this in several other committees, slyly linking the WE Charity to all aspects of government operations and to the COVID-19 response.

The Conservative Party attempted these theatrics when the committee went back on the road for the second session of the 43th Parliament. It tried to bundle another committee study on the WE Charity scandal with the prorogation study. Our camp believed at the time that it was an inappropriate move, which it still is today. Now our colleagues opposite are going to continue trying to say that's not the case, but, once again, we have an idea of what the members of the various parties are saying. All we have to do is look at the list of witnesses they're calling and it becomes quite clear.

The Prime Minister, Ms. Telford and Minister Chagger have all appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance. Remember that, in the case of Minister Chagger and Ms. Telford, those witnesses didn't testify for a mere half-hour, hour or hour and a half, but for two full hours. They provided two hours of testimony and answered all questions, even though they were tough.

The theory advanced by our opposition colleagues has been dismissed and even rejected on numerous occasions.

Mr. Poilievre tried it against the Prime Minister at one point, but it fell flat. Mr. Cooper tried to do the same to Ms. Telford, but it was even less successful. As we can see, the theory is an empty shell. The ridiculous theory that the Prime Minister and his family had a personal interest in the decision to hand responsibility for a federal program over to the WE Charity is absurd and has been rebutted.

The Standing Committee on Finance, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics and the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates have tried on many occasions to keep the WE Charity affair alive in the minds of Canadians and the media. However, no one believed what the Conservatives and their opposition allies proposed. Frankly, I must say that Canadians are more intelligent than that. They saw this political ploy for what it was and promptly moved on to something else. They wanted a proper government, focused on them, that could help them make it through the pandemic. That's exactly what we have done. Who would've thought, one year ago, that we would be in this situation today?

The past year has been incredible. Last March, when we left Ottawa, few of us knew what COVID-19 was. Now we know the vocabulary associated with it, and we use it regularly. Before the pandemic, who ever thought of physical distancing and rigorous hand-washing? Everything has changed. Canadians had expectations, and we have met them. We've implemented programs to help them, and we will continue to do so during and after the pandemic.

I spoke to many of my fellow citizens last weekend. What did they talk to me about? They talked about vaccinations—they want to make sure their parents and seniors get their vaccines—the financial assistance program that the government has established to help small and medium-size businesses, transportation and so on. Canadians simply want to be sure that their members and their government are there to help them and that they're working for them. That's precisely what we've done.

If I may digress for a moment, Madam Chair, all the parties worked very well together in the initial months of the pandemic. We made adjustments to established programs. They may not have been perfect at the outset, but, as a result of feedback from all members in the House, we made changes to introduce good programs that could help Canadians. That's precisely what Canadians expect from us.

And yet, here we are again. Once again, we're facing what we hope is the last effort by a desperate opposition that's now trying to keep this baseless story alive. Let me be clear, Madam Chair: the motion we are debating today is nothing more than a political ploy designed to destroy the last vestiges of decorum. The Conservatives and other opposition parties have done what certain other politicians do: they are prepared to disconnect completely from reality and to say whatever it takes to achieve their goal. To my mind, their only goal is power.

Today, my colleagues on the other side of the table have contended that we needed to hear the persons cited earlier in order to determine what led to the decision to prorogue Parliament in August 2020. That was said on several occasions, but, for the benefit of the members of the committee, I won't repeat it. The international pandemic struck our country in March 2020 and continues to ravage our population. The throne speech of December 2019 was simply no longer relevant at all as a result of that pandemic.

Throughout the first wave, the government worked relentlessly to ensure Canadians had the support they needed. Many of us thought the first wave was behind us and everything would be fine, but the second wave, which was even worse, hit us hard.

In August 2020, with restrictions relaxed and the country returned to some degree of normalcy, the government took stock of the situation and realized that the established roadmap did not take into consideration the most relevant factor: the global pandemic. Consequently, a reset was needed to ensure the government as a whole was prepared to face the imminent second wave and to restart the economy.

Prorogation was thus a parliamentary tool that the government could use to wipe the slate clean, as it were, and to recentre the government's agenda. No one, not even my cynical colleagues on the other side, can contend that the previous throne speech was still relevant and that a new plan was unnecessary.

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

On a quick point of order, Madam Chair, I'm just looking for a little bit of clarification on what happens. I know we're approaching the end of the scheduled meeting time. Am I right that we will be taking this up at the next meeting?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

For Thursday's meeting, we have nothing on the agenda, so I would be in favour of putting committee business back on the agenda. Right now, if we have consensus, we can adjourn today's meeting and pick back up with the same speakers list for Thursday's meeting. However, if we don't have consensus, then....

It's really up to you guys. I'm waiting for signalling from you.

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

I'm sorry, Madam Chair. If we're looking for consensus on that, my thought would be that consensus would include continuing this in a public session as we have done today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

That's correct. I see no reason to change how we're having the meeting. We would just carry on.

I will adjourn if there is consensus to adjourn. Is there consensus to adjourn today's meeting?

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

There is not at this time. No.