Evidence of meeting #25 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 prorogation.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Okay, Mr. Long is subbing in for her.
I believe we will go to the next person on the list since Ms. Petitpas Taylor is not here, and—correct me if I'm wrong, Clerk—it was Ms. Vecchio who was next after Ms. Petitpas Taylor.
11:05 a.m.
The Clerk
Madam Chair, the member after Madam Petitpas Taylor was Mr. Lauzon, and Mr. Lauzon isn't here either.
Therefore, it's Ms. Vecchio.
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Thank you very much.
I won't take too much time today. We all know what we are looking for. This motion was put forward to do a reinvitation to the Prime Minister specifically, and there was a list of other people who were on that motion as well. The subcommittee had taken this to the committee where we had all agreed, unanimously, to have these invitations sent out.
We have yet to hear from the Prime Minister's Office, and perhaps since this floor is open now, without losing my opportunity, perhaps the clerk can provide to me detail on the invitations that have been sent out and the feedback to date, if you don't mind.
11:05 a.m.
The Clerk
Yes, Ms. Vecchio.
Invitations were sent to the Prime Minister, and we are still waiting for a response one way or the other from the Prime Minister.
An invitation was sent to the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Ms. Katie Telford. We're waiting for a response to her invitation as well.
An invitation was sent to Minister Freeland, and we are still currently waiting for a response from Minister Freeland.
The same goes for Minister Chagger. An invitation was made, but we are still waiting for a response from Minister Chagger.
An invitation was made to Marc and Craig Kielburger. The dates that were offered did not work for them. Alternative dates were provided to them, and I am still waiting to hear back whether those would be acceptable.
An invitation was made to Farah and Martin Perelmuter from Speakers' Spotlight. They have declined the committee's invitation.
An invitation was made to Bill Morneau. Mr. Morneau got back to me and declined the invitation as well.
An invitation was also made to Pablo Rodriguez, and Pablo Rodriguez did appear before the committee last week on February 16.
An invitation was made to Ian Shugart, the Clerk of the Privy Council, as well as Ian McCowan, the deputy secretary to cabinet. They were not available, but senior officials from the Privy Council Office appeared last week, on February 16.
That's the state of play as of this morning.
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Mr. Clerk, maybe you can share with me some information.
On what date were the invitations sent to the Prime Minister's Office and to Katie Telford specifically?
11:05 a.m.
The Clerk
I would have to check back on the specific date that I sent them. They were sent out on the day immediately following the day this committee adopted the steering committee report to invite all of those additional witnesses.
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
I think it has been three to four weeks then.
What is the normal turnaround time on invitations? How quickly do we usually hear a response back from witnesses?
11:05 a.m.
The Clerk
In all honesty, there's no real timeline. It varies tremendously from one witness to another. Sometimes you hear back from them the day you send the invitation out. Other times it might take several days or even longer.
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Excellent. I just wanted to get some of that for clarification as we're discussing this today. I know there will be a lot of rhetoric that comes out and sharing of different things. That's why I wanted to get some of these things on the record just to indicate that invitations have already been sent out following a decision by this committee.
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
I have a point of order, Madam Chairperson.
You have my apologies, Ms. Vecchio, for interrupting what you were saying, but I just wanted to get some clarity at the beginning because I think it's really important as I'm anticipating that this could be debated for a little while yet.
I'm not too sure of the process. Am I to take it, Madam Chair, that it is appropriate that, if a member is actually speaking, they can actually pose questions of the staff that support the committee, to have that interjection in order to assist them in their discussions during what might be considered their debate time?
I always thought when you had the floor you used the floor, and you were not able to pose a question and to get the question answered. The only interruption would, in fact, be for a point of order.
I much prefer what I just witnessed, and I think that's a responsible way of doing it. I know I too have some questions that I would like to be able to ask when it does come to my turn to be able to speak.
I raise it now only because the Conservative member has illustrated that Liberal members, or in fact all members of the committee and those MPs who want to be able to participate going forward, would have the same right to do exactly what it is that's been done here.
I just want to make clear that it is, in fact, the proper process.
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Thank you, Mr. Lamoureux.
I didn't quite understand at the beginning, but I'm understanding that you're asking whether, once a member speaks, they cede the floor so that the clerk answers and then somebody else would have the floor. Right now what you're seeing is that there's an interjection and then the floor goes back to Ms. Vecchio, in this instance.
That is interesting. Informally, we have done that, but in terms of formal debate, maybe I will let the clerk clarify because I think there is some discretion for that. I feel like we've been doing it this way, but maybe it is good to have a clear understanding.
11:10 a.m.
The Clerk
Madam Chair, I'm not sure if there's any specific procedural advice I can provide to you or to the rest of the committee on that point, other than to say that it does seem to be something that this committee has done before, and not just with me. Even when considering a draft report, the committee has sought clarifications from the committee staff, whether it's me or whether it's the analyst, on factual information that the staff might have and that members or the full committee might be interested in hearing about.
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
That was my thought, so then all members would continue to have that ability.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Thank you very much to the Liberal member and the deputy House leader for being so kind with his words as well. I think that's just some of the points of clarification on this process and why this motion was put forward. This motion clearly indicated that it was regarding documentation. It's regarding discussions regarding prorogation. We're not asking for other things. We're asking about discussions that happened regarding prorogation.
I recognize that many people have gone back and they've talked about prorogations that have happened in the past. They've talked about the prorogations in 2004, 2008 and a variety of different things. Yes, that's great to put on the record, but I do want to put on the record as well that in 2017 there was a change, and this change was made because the Prime Minister said he wanted to be open, transparent and accountable to Canadians.
In the Standing Orders there was a change, so that if there was going to be prorogation, a report would have to follow that, tabled by the Crown. That has been done.
For any other report, and I can even think about what we've done in the past with the elections report, when somebody has a written report, or when a report has been tabled in their name, we have always had the opportunity to ask members about that report. We can think of the election study we just did. There was a report put in by the Chief Electoral Officer. We had questions about it. He was able to come to our committee and he was able to discuss that. That is what a report is for. It shouldn't just be a written report, slam dunk and it's done. There are many things in this, and I think if we're going to talk about open, accountable and transparent government the way that, in 2017, this was modelled, why would he not be willing to come to committee to discuss this report?
I recognize that everybody is going to say, you're doing this, this and this, but we are also setting a precedent here and I want to bring in what Daniel Blaikie said. This is the first time, because this is the first time this committee has put forward a report. We can talk about how no other Prime Minister has done this before, and that is correct. There has not been a precedent set for a Prime Minister to do this, but now there has been.
If we want to make sure that we are doing the right things for Canadians, not just for today but in the future, to make sure that our prime ministers are accountable when they're prorogating, regardless of what political party we're talking about, this is the way. We are setting the precedent for the future, not just for today. I just want to leave that with the Liberal members. I think it's really important.
I also know that there have been lots of indications that people don't want to have this reopened. I know that yesterday, and I'm just going to put this on the record, one of the members got very excited on Twitter because there were multiple polls put out. There were multiple polls put out in both French and English and the data has come in. If you need transparency, if you want to see what that data we collected was, it was showing over 60% in favour of the Prime Minister's coming to committee.
The only one that was shared unfortunately by the Liberal MPs of this committee was the English version on Twitter, but not looking at the official languages because we wanted to consider that and the different forums and templates that we're using this on. All of that information has been compiled, not that it's an official poll by any means, but the thing is this: Let's just get to the bottom of this. As I indicated, we are setting precedents. We are setting what we expect from all of our future leaders. If this current leader is not willing to do this, then he has ruined it for the rest of the country perhaps, if he's talking about being transparent.
I just want to put that forward. I look forward to any of the commentary that makes sense today and hopefully we will be able to get through this so that we can have this come to a vote.
I'm going to ask Mr. Clerk now, can we take this? I'm looking for consensus so that we can go to a vote. Are we able to go to a vote now, Mr. Clerk? I would like to call the vote on this motion.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
We had this happen in the last meeting as well. I don't think the clerk or you can call the vote in that way.
11:15 a.m.
Bloc
Alain Therrien Bloc La Prairie, QC
Madam Chair, I have a point of order.
I apologize for interrupting your flow, but I can't hear the interpreter very well.
11:15 a.m.
The Clerk
Madam Chair, we'll check on that and try to get the volume increased.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Mr. Clerk, your volume was also very low just now.
Does the interpretation volume sound good, Monsieur Therrien?
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
René Arseneault Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Madam Chair, I have a point of order on the same subject.
It's true that the sound volume for your comments and those of the clerk is not balanced. One is very loud and the other is very low. Everything needs to be balanced as much as possible, whether for your comments, the clerk's or Ms. Vecchio's, for example.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
On a point of order, I hear what Mr. Arseneault is saying, but when it comes from Mr. Therrien, it starts very low and then the volume gradually reaches up within five or six seconds. It means that we do miss the very beginning, unless the translator is starting that few seconds behind.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
It wasn't always that way, was it? I noticed it just at the last meeting.