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.
February 25th, 2021 / 11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
No. Just hold on for a minute while I'm getting advice, and then I'll let you know.
Thank you.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Go to my Facebook page. It's a livestream on Facebook.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Okay, I'm back. Sorry about that.
I guess I just want to take this opportunity to remind all the members in this meeting....
Ms. Vecchio, you're right. I don't have a way to prove anything one way or another necessarily.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Perhaps if there was an accusation, if I could actually see the photo, I'd prefer that. If someone is going to accuse me, please just share with me what we've actually done, because it seems that there is absolutely no evidence of this, but instead it's said that I've done something.
I would like that cleared, please.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I think I explicitly said I'm not making an accusation. All I know is that we have a report and I have a photo of something that has been posted on Ms. Vecchio's, I guess, Facebook page or livestream, so I was just asking for clarification whether that's appropriate.
Also, I believe the commentary on it trivializes the very important ability of members of Parliament to express their points of view. I know the members opposite believe in freedom of speech and protecting civil liberties, and in fact, my colleague Mr. Long is presenting his point of view in debate. I just wonder whether that's appropriate.
I was just asking for clarification. I'm not making an accusation. I'm just asking to clarify whether this is within the rules of the House.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Madam Chair, if I may, I would like to speak on this same point of order.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
It might be helpful at this point if the clerk could just confirm for us that there is a public-facing webcast of the committee proceedings with a livestream that can be shared through social media. It appears to me that this is what is happening on Ms. Vecchio's Facebook page. If the committee is broadcasting in a livestream and that's shareable from the committee website, it doesn't seem to me that members would be doing anything inappropriate by sharing that public-facing aspect of the committee's own website.
As well, to Mr. Turnbull's comments, I think we should really steer clear of having committees pronounce on the appropriateness of commentary by members on their own social media feeds about what's happening in committee. I don't think that's a useful road to go down. Unless it's hate speech or something to that effect, members are free to have opinions.
Members are free to express their points of view. Members are free to have opinions about the opinions of other members and they're free to share those. I don't think we want to get into a situation where a parliamentary committee is trying to regulate what can be on members' social media feeds.
Therefore, I would encourage members to just stay away from that line of argument. They can go there if they want, of course, but I don't think it would be productive or really an appropriate use of this committee's time to try to pronounce on those things.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Yes. I myself, at least, wasn't really looking into that. I was just looking into screenshots or photos taken of the meeting, which I have been explicit about, and I just want to remind all the committee members.
That's fine. I don't have Ms. Vecchio's page. If it is a sharing of a feed, we can see if there is proper advice or if that has been looked into at this point.
Okay, I see it's live there, so that's fine.
I'll just remind all the members, though, once again, and their staff as well, because there are staff on this Zoom meeting as well, that there are no photos or screenshots of the committee, just as if we were in the committee we would not be taking pictures on our cellphones either.
Mr. Clerk, did you want to speak to the sharing of a live feed? I don't know if there is any actual official advice on that. I don't know if that has ever been discussed.
The Clerk
What I'd limit my comments to, Madam Chair, is just that I believe... I think one of the members—I just saw them—held up their own iPad, showing what very much appears to be the ParlVU web feed from the meeting that is being webcast on the ParlVU website. All public meetings are webcast, and in terms of what people do with those webcasts once they're out in the public, it's really up to them, I guess. It does look very much like it was the webcast from the ParlVU website that at least Mr. Kent just held up. I'm not sure if that's what Mr. Turnbull is referring to on Ms. Vecchio's website, but that would be my comment on that.
The issue, when it comes to in-person meetings and the prohibition against taking photos or using another device to record a meeting.... That is problematic. It's not problematic when the feed is coming from the House of Commons broadcasting services, as the ParlVU webcast of this meeting currently is. I don't have any specific advice on whether there is a problem for someone linking to that webcast, but it appears that what is at issue here is the webcast from the ParlVU website itself, which is the official means of broadcasting or webcasting public committee meetings.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Thank you, Mr. Clerk.
There have been a lot of clarifications. It's never a bad thing for us to be certain about the rules. I'm glad that we cleared that up.
I'm sorry, Mr. Long. This went longer than I expected. I hope you still know where you left off.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
I'm absolutely fine with the sharing of the feed. There's no issue there whatsoever. It reminds me, actually, of the first time I ever did a live TV interview where a video was broadcast of me. It was way back in 2005, when we brought the Saint John Sea Dogs to Saint John. I did my first interview. I remember being so nervous in anticipation. I walked the floor and I was so nervous.
Now, obviously for politicians it's commonplace to have our pictures taken and do videos and be on Facebook and so on and so forth. The wider it's spread, the more Canadians can make up their own minds as to whether this is necessary—whether calling a prime minister to a committee to testify when that prime minister is already at the House of Commons every Wednesday and can answer questions.... I'm not an expert in parliamentary procedure, but I would dare say the Conservative Party would have perhaps 20 questions every question period, give or take? Every question they wanted could be with respect to this issue, if they so wanted.
I want to get back to where I was. The break was nice, I will admit, to get a drink of water and coffee and to replenish a bit, but it's time to get back to it. I was talking about context. I think it's important in bringing it back to the motion. It's important that Canadians be able to judge in context, so they need to know the history.
In 2008, back when, I was talking about the prorogation with then prime minister Stephen Harper, he referred to the accord between the Liberals and NDP as undemocratic backroom dealing, stating that the opposition parties were overturning the results of an election a few weeks earlier in order to form a coalition that nobody voted for.
The Liberals indicated that they intended to present their motion of non-confidence on December 8. The government then cancelled opposition day, originally to be held on December 1, to avert the threatened vote of non-confidence. This meant the earliest the coalition non-confidence motion could occur would be the following week, December 8, 2008.
The Conservative Party holds the record in modern times on prorogation of Parliament. Let's take a quick walk back in history and we see.... I'll list these off very quickly.
During the 41st Parliament, the Harper government in October 2013 shut down Parliament for 33 days to avoid questions on the Senate expense scandal and a resulting PMO cover-up.
In the 40th Parliament, the Harper government shut down Parliament for 63 days to avoid the Afghan detainee issue.
In 2008, as I mentioned earlier, the Harper Conservatives shut down Parliament to avoid a confidence vote that would have toppled the government. This shutdown lasted 53 days.
In 2007, the Harper government shut down Parliament to declare mission accomplished on five priorities from the election and took 32 days before bringing in a new Speech from the Throne.
After all that was done, how many times do you think Stephen Harper was before a committee to explain his reasons for prorogation? How many times? None. Not once did he appear.
Somebody earlier talked about the precedent that we're setting for the future. I would argue, Madam Chair, and argue strongly, that the precedent is already set. Former prime minister Harper didn't appear before a committee once with respect to prorogation.
On August 19, Pierre Poilievre, who was, prior to demotion, as I said the last time, the Conservative finance critic, alongside Michael Barrett, publicly stated that prorogation was a cover-up to shut down the study in regard to WE Charity.
MP Poilievre falsely claimed that the documents provided by the government were redacted to assist in this supposed cover-up. This is, of course, ignoring the fact that the government House leader's office distributed the documents to all parties—all parties, Madam Chair—which, it turned out, were only redacted in line with privacy legislation.
Again, the Conservatives are never ones to let facts get in the way of their arguments, and this is the case here. Prorogation, of course, did not and cannot stop a committee from resuming a study that was under way prior to prorogation, or for that matter, starting a new study on any topic within the mandate of the committee. That is evidenced by the fact that numerous committees did and still are hearing from witnesses on the WE matter.
The suggestion, Madam Chair, that things were prorogued to avoid the WE story, to get it past.... It's not true. It is absolutely not true, because the committees could continue to hear witnesses. It's very clear, and I want Canadians watching today to know that. I'm going to say it again. Prorogation cannot stop a committee from resuming a study that was under way prior to prorogation, or for that matter, starting a new study on any topic within the mandate of the committee.
The focus is, of course, much lessened due to the fact that, after hearing from all the witnesses and seeing all the documents, after all of this—all of it—no proof exists that there was any political interference by political actors in regard to the choosing of WE Charity to administer the agreement.
I know this fact is disturbing to the opposition, who seem to love using parliamentary time and resources on chasing their tails in an attempt to smear this government and score cheap political points, but the facts of this are clear. Prorogation was put in place to allow for a bit of a resetting of priorities in light of the resignation of the former minister of finance, and likely, more importantly, to address issues in regard to the pandemic that members on this side believe is one of the most important issues facing Parliament, the government and the vast majority of the Canadian public.
Madam Chair, let's be honest. Everybody on this screen and everybody watching me right now on Facebook Live, on ParlVU or what have you.... If you had to list the top 10 things you were concerned about with respect to your life, the pandemic, the Government of Canada, support programs, benefits, expanded EI, CERB, CEBA, the recovery benefit, rent relief and wage subsidy, does anybody on this committee or anybody out there have the prorogation of Parliament in their top 10 or top 20? No, they don't.
We all know that.
Madam Chair, all of us could walk out of our offices or our houses today and do a quick poll, and we know the answers. We all know that. We know that this is not in the sights of Canadians. Canadians want us to govern. Canadians want us to get on with the business of running this country.
Madam Chair, we're faced with an unprecedented time. Canadians want us to respond to their needs and have their backs. That's why I'm particularly proud of our government.
Madam Chair, we believe, as a Liberal government, that we are there to help Canadians, that government can do good things, that government can come forth with good programs, that government has Canadians' backs. We've done that. We have absolutely had Canadians' backs.
Again, I appeal to the committee members, each and every one of you, that it's time to move on. It's time to get past this. It's time to let it go. It's time to focus on what Canadians want us to focus on. It is not this.
I want to get back to the motion, Madam Chair. The motion before us now is to call yet more witnesses, to supposedly provide evidence with regard to this prorogation study. Let us be clear. The opposition has already made its own mind up. We could hear from witnesses offering counter views for the next six months, and nothing is going to change. I've sat.... I've been fortunate enough to.... Sometimes I would recommend, Madam Chair, that all MPs get an opportunity to sit in different committees. I think it's healthy. I think it kind of broadens our perspectives. I was certainly fortunate when I started to be on HUMA. In 2015, I was on HUMA and ethics, there, for a while. Now I'm back on HUMA. It's important to know.
As I said at the very start, my eyes were opened as a rookie MP. Look, I'll be very clear on this. I absolutely respect that the opposition has a vital role to play in our country and in government to hold us to account—no question, no problem. I think those of you who know me would agree that sometimes we do need to be held to account. I don't have any problem with that—none whatsoever—but this is more than that. This is.... We know where this will go.
Again, as a rookie MP in 2016, I saw the minister come. I was thrilled to see the minister, and then I was literally aghast. It was like, boom, the minister tries to answer, boom. It was just a barrage. Then I'm like, “Okay, this isn't really about getting answers from the minister.” No, it's not about that; it's not. It's about getting the clip. It's about getting it in the paper and getting the quote and the sound bite. That's what it's about. We don't need it, Madam Chair. Committee doesn't need it. Canadians don't want it. We all know it. Each and every one of us knows it.
The opposition has been talking a great deal about the idea that the Liberals are trying to force an election. Really? We're trying to force an election...? Take a look outside. Take a look across the country. We're trying to force an election...? Oof.
It's not true. We are seized with governing. We're seized with getting Canadians through this pandemic and we will. We will get Canadians through this pandemic.
Madam Chair, to continue, Conservative member Nelly Shin in the House yesterday—well, it's not yesterday now, but back then—again repeated the canard that the Liberals want a snap election in response to previous comments about why the opposition would not allow Bill C-14 to come to a vote.
Why is it, I ask, that the Conservative agenda seems to run in two streams? One, rather than make legitimate arguments against the government's agenda or perhaps suggest their own alternatives, the Conservatives try to play gotcha politics in an attempt to besmirch not the legislation but the character of our member who is their target, or, two, to spread complete mistruths both within and outside the House, usually to grab headlines from some of the more radical right-wing media and then to fundraise off that from supporters who likely do not understand that they are being told falsehoods.
As for the motion, the motion before us now, it is, I believe, the former. The opposition members think they can make great political display by bringing various cabinet ministers, staff and the Prime Minister before us to give evidence on a case that the opposition jury has already passed judgment on.
I guess I'm probably not allowed, Madam Chair, to hold up props, and I wouldn't do that anyway, but if you do the polling, if you talk to your constituents, if you go out...well, I guess we can't go outside, but if you do the polling, the poll I'm looking at here, the Twitter poll was 6,000 votes, and 60% said “no”, move on. It's time to move on, everybody.
Anyway, here we are. I would also like to remind the committee members of the words of current Conservative MP Scott Reid, who was defending then prime minister Harper's prorogation to stop a non-confidence vote, and I will quote him. He said to a member of the opposition:
Yes, I do think both of those uses of prorogation were legitimate, and I want to point out to my hon. colleague that he thinks they were legitimate too. He may speak against them, but the fact [is] that he and his party had the chance to demonstrate their lack of confidence in a government that would use prorogation in the manner it was used by voting non-confidence in the government and forcing an election at that time. His party did not do that. It is always an option at the end of any prorogation in a minority Parliament.
I'd like to point out that in a minority Parliament the government can always be defeated by combined opposition. We're a minority government, and we can be defeated. I mean, we know that.
Now, I'm not saying that it's only the Conservatives who have prejudged the prorogation study. The BQ member for Manicouagan said back in October, and I quote:
They forgot to mention that they were looking to kill time for six weeks so that people would stop talking about WE Charity. Plus, they are still trying to stall the committees to cover up the scandal. Why can they not be honest and admit that they shut down Parliament because of WE Charity?
It was not because we have a generational pandemic, not because we need to reload, reset and do different things—no.
The reason is not the reason we prorogued but it fit in with the narrative put out by the Conservatives. Now, rather than get down to the business of writing the report so that it may be presented in the House, the opposition wants to keep on beating this dead horse of a topic, much the same way they did with the WE Charity study.
Not to get too far into the weeds on this, but if you take a look at the House calendar, you will see that the House was supposed to end its sittings by the end of June and return on September 21. As we know, the House sat throughout the summer months until the middle of August. The House did, however, come back on September 23, so one could argue that this whole study is the reason the House lost two days of sitting in September.
What—if anything—would be gained by hearing from the witnesses named in this motion? I would argue nothing would be gained. All members of this committee, I believe, made up their own minds on this issue. Why take ministers' staff and the Prime Minister away from their duties in the midst of a pandemic just to allow the opposition to attempt to make what I would call cheap political points?
Madam Chair, I understand the opposition has a job to do. The opposition wants answers, but again in this case, we absolutely know that Canadians aren't interested in this. We all know it. Madam Chair, I believe the committee should get down to writing the report and then move on to study something that is actually relevant to everyday Canadians. I have the motion before me and I just want to point out a few things that I think make it untenable. I'm just going to quote here from the motion, part (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;
Now I'll read part (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;
The last part I want to read, Madam Chair, is part (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;
Chair, I just find it strange and disturbing, frankly, that this motion before us is asking to hear from Martin Perelmuter, the owner of Speakers' Spotlight. For those of us who followed the ethics committee meetings on the WE Charity issue, it was obvious that Mr. Perelmuter and his wife had nothing to hide and provided everything they faced, the online attacks, due to the actions of the Conservative Party.
I was speaking earlier about MPs going to different committees and learning and expanding their horizons. Well, I actually subbed in on ethics. I sat in on ethics when this was debated. The Perelmuters had nothing to hide. The Perelmuters had to call the police. At a December 7 meeting, members of the Liberals and NDP apologized to Mr. Perelmuter—with the exception of the Conservatives, of course.
For the benefit of members who are not aware of what happened with Mr. Perelmuter, I will give a brief—very brief, I promise—outline. A small business that used to book speaking engagements for the Prime Minister and his family was caught in the partisan crossfire over the WE Charity affair. Martin Perelmuter, who co-founded Speakers' Spotlight 25 years ago with his wife, Farah, says his company has been harassed and his employees intimidated and threatened since August. That's when Conservative MPs began publicly calling on the company to disclose speaking fees earned over the past 12 years by the Prime Minister, his wife, mother and brother, even though that would have contravened privacy laws. In one Facebook quote, which is still online, Deputy Conservative Leader Candice Bergen provided the company's toll-free number and urged people to call, to press the point.
Ever since, Perelmuter said at his appearance at the ethics committee, his company has faced harassment, personal threats and a social media campaign that he described as designed to discredit him and his wife and damage the reputation of their company, which was already struggling due to the COVID-19 pandemic. He said:
As a leader of a small company I feel that my first obligation is to ensure the physical, emotional and mental health safety and well-being of our employees. For the first time in my 25-year career I was in a situation where I didn't feel that I could properly protect everyone from what was going on. We had to get the police involved. It was a really nasty situation.
Perelmuter said that one individual who responded to the Conservative call posted on Facebook his wife's photo and private cellphone number, along with a rant calling her disgusting and derogatory things. Her phone started ringing day and night with all kinds of people calling. It was really unsettling. His voice was breaking. Perelmuter said his wife was in fear of her own personal safety for a while. She didn't want to leave the house. He said that some of their 27 employees, particularly young women on staff, were also concerned about their safety.
Perelmuter said he understood that politics was “tough”. We all know that first-hand. It's a tough business. It's certainly different from the hockey business. One of the things I always joke about is hockey. In hockey everybody liked you. It didn't matter if you were Conservative, Liberal or NDP. Everybody had a common thing to rally around. It's one of the most beautiful things about sports, I find. It's unifying. Everybody can get together, and we can all stand arm in arm and cheer for our favourite team. As we all know, politics certainly isn't that way.
I'll go back to Speakers' Spotlight. It has 27 employees. There are young women on staff. They were concerned about safety. Perelmuter said he understands that politics is tough, but he said his company is not partisan and has been unfairly caught in the crossfire. He noted that the company had only a tangential connection to the WE affair and had nothing to do with the student services grant at the heart of the controversy.
I'll quote him again. He said, “It's something I never thought I'd have to deal with. We're not a controversial type of business.” Speakers' Spotlight got thrust into this, and now we see the damage that has been cast upon them. As part of its investigation into the affair, the ethics committee asked Speakers' Spotlight to turn over documents related to any fees earned by Trudeau and his family members for speaking engagements over the past 12 years.
As Parliament was prorogued, the clerk informed Perelmuter that he no longer had to submit the documents requested by the committee. However, Conservative MP Michael Barrett sent the company a letter the following week, which he released to the media before Perelmuter had a chance to read it, according to Perelmuter, asking him to do the right thing and turn over documents directly to members of the then disbanded committee.
Perelmuter said the company's legal counsel informed him that releasing the documents in that manner, without an order from the committee, would violate privacy laws. He was upset that a member of Parliament would ask the company to break the law, he told committee. Bergen's Facebook post came shortly after Barrett publicly released the letter. By making the request public, Perelmuter said he definitely felt like they were being intimidated by Barrett.
“It was frankly quite shocking to be completely honest,” he said, adding that launching a lawsuit against Conservative MPs had certainly crossed his mind.
Barrett participated in the committee hearing but did not address the matter. He asked Perelmuter several questions about specific speaking engagements. “I am extremely disappointed and shocked, but maybe not surprised, that Mr. Barrett was present here and that he did not use his time to offer a complete apology for his actions,” said MP Brenda Shanahan. She and other Liberal members of the committee apologized to Perelmuter for what had occurred, as did NDP ethics critic, Charlie Angus.
The chair of the committee, MP David Sweet—and I was there at that point with MP Sweet—concluded the meeting by offering a sincere apology on behalf of the committee for any of the unintended consequences that came from any actions of the committee members in regard to the obligations of our office. Once the committee was reconstituted in September, it sent a narrower request to Speakers' Spotlight for records of the speaking fees earned by Trudeau and his wife. The company complied with that request, and those records have been in the hands of the committee members for about a week.
No one asked Perelmuter any questions Monday about those documents.
Chair, I want to finish up. I want to talk to you, the committee and Canadians as directly, transparently and straight up as I can.
All of us, across every party, as members of Parliament, have been faced with an unprecedented situation—an unprecedented, historic, generational pandemic.
I know that MPs around me, whether it's MP Arseneault or Conservative MP Rob Moore, we have all had to deal with our constituents and offer support and be there. It's been trying times. I know that Canadians are proud that they have a strong government. Yes, we're a Liberal government, but I know Canadians across every stripe are just proud of their country. They're proud that there's a government there to have their backs. As a Liberal government, we have delivered in spades. We have had Canadians' backs during this pandemic, through CERB, CEBA, wage subsidies and rent relief. The programs go on and on.
We're tired. I think all of us are tired. We're physically tired, emotionally tired and mentally tired. Canadians are the same. They're tired. We want to move on. We need to get back to a reasonable, normal life again. We will.
I implore the committee. Let's move on. Let's get down to the great work that PROC can do. For me on HUMA, let's get to the great work that we can do. Let's get back to doing what we do well, which is working together, collaborating, working across party lines and doing things together to help Canadians. That's what Canadians want to see.
If we're still streaming this live, I know that's what you want to see. You want to see us working together to have your back and to support you. That's what you want. I'm absolutely convinced of it.
Madam Chair, I thank you for allowing me to express my thoughts today and to give you my opinions. I'm thrilled to have the opportunity to sit on PROC and speak and collaborate. I sincerely say—and I mean this—that I have a ton of respect for everybody on here. I know they have the best interests of their constituents at heart most times.
It's time for us to get back to work. It's time for us to move on.
I thank you again, Madam Chair, for giving me the floor. Have a great afternoon.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Thank you.
Well, you raised some very interesting points. Thank you for that.
Mr. Turnbull, you are next.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
It's great to have a turn. I know my colleague Mr. Long mentioned that we're all tired and I know Canadians are tired of this pandemic. But I got a very good sleep last night—I'm not sure how—and I'm definitely looking forward to expressing my thoughts and point of view on this motion, which I think is really getting us off track in terms of what Canadians want.
I was hoping Mr. Peter Fragiskatos would stay on so I could pronounce his last name correctly and show off a little bit, but he's gone, unfortunately. I will say, though, as a rookie MP—and Mr. Long spoke to this—I think it's really disconcerting when we spend a long time debating motions like this.
I took this job on willingly. I gave up a business that I'd built for 12 years, and I really believe that the role of an MP is to make a difference and be there for constituents and our communities. I really think this motion veers us quite a ways off track. This is not where Canadians want to see us focusing our attention and our time, in my view, and I have quite a few thoughts about this.
Before I get into some of my arguments and my reasons, I'll just say that I'm a person who likes to provide reasons and evidence for all the things that I say. I feel pretty strongly about the principle of sufficient reason being something that really guides us in our work and that should be at the core of democracy.
I'll speak to a few opening remarks that Ms. Vecchio made at the beginning of the meeting. She said that this was going to set a precedent, and I thought that was an interesting comment to make. I think she meant it slightly differently from the way I'm interpreting it, but I think the real precedent-setting part of this conversation and even the study that PROC has undertaken already is that Standing Order 32(7) is actually a change that was put in place by the Liberal government. To me it's a real step forward in the right direction. I want to take a moment to read that. It was enacted on June 20, 2017. The House of Commons adopted a motion to amend its standing orders. Among the changes made to the Standing Orders was the addition of 32(7), which reads:
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.
My understanding is that no such obligation on cabinet had ever existed before. In fact, even though prorogation has been used throughout our history many times, never before was there any requirement to produce any rationale in writing and for it to be tabled. So this already is a significant step in the right direction that we have—I think it's about a 37-page report, but I can't remember exactly how many pages—a pretty substantive report. Some of the reports we've produced on this committee are actually much longer, but I would say, to my mind, when I read it, it reflects a strong commonsensical rationale for why the Prime Minister chose to use his prerogative to call on the Governor General to prorogue and to my mind, the rationale makes sense to me.
It is actually a public document, I believe. Is it not a public document? Maybe I should not say that if it's not true, but I believe it is a public document, Madam Chair.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Canadians can actually read that document and assess for themselves, but instead we're here with our honourable colleagues. I have deep respect, as I know Mr. Long expressed, for any and all members of Parliament, but I really feel this is an attempt to raise something that's already been studied in other committees, almost ad infinitum. It was something that continued even after prorogation on multiple committees.
There were thousands of pages of documents requested and these were handed over. There was ample time given to all members, all opposition parties, to question witnesses.
This really seems like it's redundant. It's been done before, several times. Unfortunately, the opposition parties are choosing to reinvigorate this type of debate and inquiry. I don't believe it's merited, just based on the rationale and the clear steps forward that we've made in terms of increasing transparency around prorogation.
Mrs. Vecchio also mentioned a poll that she did—I know someone else mentioned it as well—that I think showed that about 60% were actually against the Prime Minister appearing at committee. It's kind of interesting that the results were not overly positive there, but that's okay. We know that majorities are hard to come by sometimes.
I would just say that—
Conservative
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Ryan is referring to something. Could he indicate whether he is referring to a partial poll or the entire poll, just so we actually have the information? Is he referring to all of the polling that was done or just the one that he took out specifically?
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
I'm seeing from René Arseneault that it was just the specific one, so he did not take into consideration everything else. It would be great if I could table that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
I'm sure Mr. Turnbull wouldn't mind elaborating on polls. It's up to him.