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.
1 p.m.
Liberal
Ginette Petitpas Taylor Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I don't know exactly where my opposition colleagues are headed with this motion. They want to bring in witnesses to give us the same testimony they've already presented elsewhere, and which could simply be consulted by reading the proceedings. If that's not a political sideshow, I don't know what is.
The truth is that the opposition members have already come to a decision on issues related to prorogation and the WE Charity affair. We've repeatedly given them evidence against their theory, but they continue to look for ways of getting people to believe their storyline.
Unfortunately, I have some bad news for my opposition colleagues. The fact is that the public does not believe that Her Majesty's loyal opposition is investigating this issue for the public good. Canadians know that the purpose of this motion is to promote the political interests of the Conservative Party and the other opposition parties.
Why bother to have these witnesses appear if the opposition has already decided what their evidence demonstrates?
The evidence the committee has heard on this matter has been clear. Public servants, politicians and constitutionalists are all agreed: the power to prorogue Parliament belongs solely to the Prime Minister. It's a political decision, and there's nothing wrong with that. Governments are elected because of their political leanings, and even their programs are inherently political. It's therefore only logical that the reboot of the government agenda should be a political decision, and that's precisely what the Prime Minister did.
Our constitutional conventions assign the power to prorogue Parliament to the Governor General, who exercises this power on the advice of the Prime Minister. Just as calling elections or choosing ministers are by their very nature political and wholly—
1 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK
Madam Chair, I have a point of order.
I apologize for interrupting. However, I would just point out to my colleague Ginette that I believe, although I'm not certain of this but if I'm reading the tea leaves correctly, if she or any one of her colleagues who have the floor would move for adjournment, she would probably find that a vote to adjourn would be carried.
That's just my opinion, and of course, I do not have the floor, so I'll let her make her best judgment call on that one.
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
You must have great intuition. I know you were a former chair of this committee as well. Thank you.
Ms. Petitpas Taylor, the floor is yours.
1 p.m.
Liberal
Ginette Petitpas Taylor Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Madam Chair, my only question is that, if that is the case, I certainly want to make sure I will still have the floor at the next meeting.
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Yes. If a member were to move to adjourn, what I could do is commit to putting committee business back on the schedule for Thursday and carrying forward with our current speakers list—
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
1:05 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
It's just to say, if we're on a point of order, I think what's happening here is a little awkward. If members aren't prepared to come to some kind of agreement as a committee to adjourn the meeting, then I don't know who's going to vote for adjournment. Either the committee should get to the point where we agree that we're coming back to this the next day, in which case there is no point in carrying on, if we can do that as a committee by consensus, or if there are members who think we should continue to sit around the table when we have a scheduled time to deal with this next time, I guess we'll continue to sit around the table.
We're all mature adults here, and we have a next scheduled meeting. There seems to be, from a number of sides now in the meeting, a desire to adjourn. We should just agree on that, rather than having a non-debatable motion where a vote is going to be forced and I think members might be surprised by the outcome. They might not get the adjournment they're expecting.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
The last time I posed this question, we didn't have consensus, because at least one vocal member did not provide consensus. I don't know if there were maybe non-vocal members who felt the same way.
The only way we could move forward is that I could ask again whether we have consensus—
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
—or somebody could move the motion. I'm willing to ask again whether we have consensus so that it is clear.
Do we have consensus to adjourn today's meeting and resume on Thursday?
I'm seeing nodding in the negative from Madame Normandin, so it does not seem we have consensus.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
Madam Chair, I would like to intervene and move the following motion.
That the committee now be adjourned.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
February 23rd, 2021 / 1:05 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Madam Chair, on a point of order, you can't make a motion on a point of order.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
You'll have to check the record. I didn't say “a point of order”. I only said, “Madam Chair, can I propose a motion?”
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
Check the record.
The first time it was a point of order, and the second time it was “Madam Chair”.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Just one moment, please....
Mr. Nater, you are correct. The floor goes back to Ms. Petitpas Taylor and we can resume.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
Ginette Petitpas Taylor Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Madam Chair, I just wonder if it's possible for me perhaps to move to adjourn.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
Ginette Petitpas Taylor Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
I will move the motion for adjournment.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
All right. We will take a vote, and Mr. Vaive will help us with that.
(Motion negatived: 6 nays; 5 yeas)
Okay.
Mr. Lukiwski, I guess your intuition wasn't that good.