Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 9th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Is this a point of order?

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

Yes, it is.

I recognize you have given a lot of leeway so everybody can talk. Because you were granting all this, you mentioned Mr. Lauzon and Mr. Long speaking and sharing these impacts, but we have gone so far off the amendment. We could start talking about what flowers we're going to plant tomorrow or what we're going to be doing during our break weeks.

I'm very concerned. Let's get back to the motion. The pandemic is a concern, absolutely, but we're talking about things this PROC committee does not talk about. These are things that would be in the health committee. These are things that would be in the foreign affairs committee. Procedure and House affairs, on this specific committee, when we're looking at it, if we could get back to the mandate and the discussion that we're having. It's becoming out of line, I believe.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay, Ms. Vecchio, but the reasons for prorogation will be many, and they will fall outside of just the procedural.

Dr. Duncan can explain that.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, of course, to Ms. Vecchio. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think one of the reasons, and we certainly saw it in the throne speech, was the importance of climate change. The science is clear. To limit global temperature rise to 1.5ºC, we have to cut global emissions by 45% by 2030. We are nine years away and governments are nowhere close to the level of ambition needed. I think we all have to work together for an equitable, carbon-neutral and nature-positive future, and we certainly saw that reflected in the throne speech after the consultations following prorogation.

The last reason I would like to hear from the Deputy Prime Minister is that I will have important questions from my community about what is on their minds. From our daily calls, they have made it abundantly clear that it is their health and safety, jobs, livelihoods, and the economic recovery. My priority is always serving the people of Etobicoke North and our very special community. We are a caring, resilient and strong community. We stand up for one another, and through good and hard times, I'm always here to serve them and to be their champion.

I want them to know that we will get through this challenging time together. I would also like to hear from the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth, because human rights must be central to the COVID-19 response and recovery.

The pandemic has deeply impacted seniors, persons with disabilities, women and girls, indigenous people and racialized people. We have to understand that systemic racism is real, unconscious bias is real, and they are happening in Canada. Globally, the pandemic has unleashed a tsunami of hate, scapegoating, scaremongering and xenophobia. Just last week, we saw in the United States that eight people were killed by a gunman at several massage parlours in Atlanta, Georgia. Six of the victims were Asian-American women. Those shootings have sparked outrage around the world, putting a spotlight on the rise of anti-Asian racism fuelled by the COVID-19 pandemic.

I was really struck by what we heard from our colleagues across our parties. They spoke out about the discrimination they have faced. We must stand in solidarity with all those who face racism and an assault on their human rights. I'm glad that our Parliament came together to pass a motion to condemn the rise of anti-Asian racism and racist attacks in North America, and to express our unanimous horror at the shootings in Georgia.

Very briefly, we've seen data from Statistics Canada that suggested that Canadians with Asian backgrounds were more likely to report noticing increased racial or ethnic harassment during the pandemic [Technical difficulty—Editor] among people of Chinese, Korean and South Asian descent. There's been a more recent report, this one from the Chinese Canadian National Council, that found that Canadians reported more anti-Asian racist incidents per capita than the United States since the start of the pandemic. Advancing inclusion and belonging for people is critical to guaranteeing [Technical difficulty—Editor].

Because the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth is tasked with helping to build a country where everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed and with championing the full breadth of Canada's vibrant diversity and advancing greater inclusion, I think this could not be a more important time to hear from her.

We need to work together to build a fairer future for us all. We must fight racism and prejudice and promote respect, compassion and equality.

Madam Chair, I'd like to thank you and all honourable colleagues. I am here to represent the constituents of Etobicoke North. I'm here to debate the motion at hand, which is to invite our ministers to appear in front of this committee. I support this motion.

I wanted to explain why it was important that we extend this invitation and highlight the unique opportunity we have to raise the real issues of Canadians, the ones that we're hearing in our communities, as well as hearing about the good work that the government has done.

With that, I have been speaking at length. I feel it only fair to give my colleagues their time.

Once again, thank you to Mr. Turnbull for bringing forth this important motion. Thank you for trying to find a path forward. I'll look forward to contributing more today.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Dr. Duncan.

We're lucky to have you as a colleague. You've been such an invaluable person to have on the team, and the lead when it comes to the pandemic. Thank you for all your hard work on that.

Mr. Blaikie, please go ahead.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I suppose the question before us is whether Mr. Turnbull's amendment is going to be adequate to the task of finding a way we can proceed.

I just want to recall why it is that we're here in terms of the study of prorogation. As I've said before, you have to go back past this latest prorogation to understand why we're here. You have to go back to the prorogation of Stephen Harper under his tenure. There were two of them, I believe, that were controversial, although for different reasons.

I think an important question is raised about the political abuse of prorogation, what exactly that means, how it's done and how we can try to prevent abuses of prorogation in the future.

The Prime Minister's proposal on how to do that was to have the government table reasons for its prorogation and to have those forwarded to PROC, presumably for study, so here we are.

I think I've also been clear elsewhere on the record, but just in case I haven't, let me say that I don't think it's an adequate policy. I think that the best way to prevent political abuses of prorogation—which is by no means foolproof, but nevertheless better than what we have—would be to mandate a vote in the House of Commons prior to a prorogation. Then these debates that we've had about the advisability of the latest prorogation would happen in advance of it. A deliberative body would make the decision rather than leaving the decision to one person acting alone, so there's that.

We're doing this study because of the Prime Minister's own initiative in proposing a solution for the political abuses of prorogation in the aftermath of the controversial Harper prorogation. Then, of course, the Prime Minister didn't prorogue Parliament at all in the four years of the majority government. I think, if he did, we could have established a pretty routine mechanism for dealing with this and perhaps set some good precedents for how the Prime Minister's own policy would work in a less controversial and less heated scenario. These kinds of intense political disagreements typically make for bad policy and bad procedure. It's why it's better to lay those things out clearly beforehand.

We've heard a lot of different things. I think it's interesting that the debate has brought out the virtue of long debate, something that I hope members will remember for majority Parliaments when they might have the votes they need in order to summarily end debate, as we've seen in Parliaments of the past.

I think it's interesting. We've heard just today Mr. Long saying that the main motion is ridiculous because it invites the Deputy Prime Minister, and she has nothing to do with it. It's the decision of the Prime Minister alone, so why would we invite her?

Then we just heard a long argument by Ms. Duncan about why it makes a lot of sense to have the Deputy Prime Minister here. It's a salutary feature of the motion that it calls for the Deputy Prime Minister. Maybe those arguments were rehearsed on the last day, I don't know.

That disagreement on the Liberal bench between the advisability of inviting the Deputy Prime Minister or not was new information to me. Had the debate ended early, we wouldn't have been graced with that insight into the diversity of opinion on the Liberal bench. I take that as an interesting development in today's meeting.

What I want to say is that we've heard a lot of different kinds of arguments from our Liberal colleagues about the nature of this motion and what we're here to do. They're very quick to say that it's political. I would say that I have, on a number of occasions at this committee and elsewhere, offered the view that, “Look, if this is just political, if this is really about digging into the details of the latest prorogation then, yes, I do think that the WE Charity scandal had a lot to do with the latest prorogation”. I don't think it was innocent.

Having been one of the New Democrats who negotiated the Canadian emergency student benefit, the government was quite reticent to offer a benefit at all to students. Members will know that it was ultimately offered at a reduced rate.

One of the justifications the government gave for paying students less income support than everybody else, despite the fact that they needed to eat and they needed to have a roof over their heads like everybody else, was that they had a fantastic program for student employment during the summer that went above and beyond the Canada summer jobs program. That became the WE Charity scandal. This meant, because the program didn't move forward, students had a reduced rate of income support during the summer and beyond, without having the job program that was supposed to help them make up that difference.

When we talk about whether the opposition is just focusing on issues that don't have a human impact versus the kinds of substantial things that Liberals say they want to be talking about, I would argue that the WE Charity scandal did have a very substantive impact on students. It meant they had a lot less income support than other Canadians. It was and continues to be the position of the NDP that this was wrong, but even more so because a scandal on the government benches, and a pretty massive mishandling of a program, issued in that aspect of the promise and the income support program for students not being delivered at all.

I think it's pretty clear that the issues of WE Charity, whether you agree or disagree about the ultimate motive, are germane to the issue of prorogation. It is really hard to pretend that this isn't the case. Reasonable people can disagree about what was preponderant in terms of the reasons. Yes, we're going through a global pandemic. Yes, that also matters.

However, we've heard testimony about the various lengths of prorogation that could have been obtained. We've heard some arguments about why certain people on the government side think we needed a longer period, although I note that they are preparing a budget, or at least that's what they tell us.

They haven't prorogued Parliament, in order to prepare the budget, because they need to consult with people. Most governments can walk and chew gum. Nobody has made it obvious to me that a prorogation was necessary in order to consult for a Speech from the Throne. I think that's pretty silly. Actually, budgets are a more difficult enterprise to prepare in many cases than throne speeches, yet Parliament sits even as government consults and prepares budget documents.

As Mr. Long pointed out earlier, the theme of much of the testimony was that all roads lead back to the Prime Minister on this. It's the Prime Minister's own policy that caused us to be here studying this issue in the first place. It is the Prime Minister's decision ultimately, as Mr. Long emphasized for us today, to decide whether or not to prorogue. It's a decision that he is within his constitutional authority to make—nobody is contesting that—but there is a job here. It's not the job of a judge. It's okay for members to have opinions about what may or may not be the case. It's not simply the job of a prosecutor, although it's more like that. Our job is to provide some political accountability for decision-makers.

Everybody has been very clear, including Mr. Long earlier today, that the only real decision-maker here is the Prime Minister. We're evaluating a decision that he made. He had the right to make it. We're doing that under the guise of a policy that he developed in order to prevent political abuses of prorogation. Either it's all political all the way down...in which case I think, yes, the WE Charity scandal does have something to do with it. Let's hear it out.

The other path is to see this as an exercise in establishing a precedent for how these studies should unfold, recognizing that there will likely always be some measure of disagreement about the nature of a prorogation if it's contentious. This one is. Some prorogations haven't been. In those cases, it will matter less. You might find cross-party agreement that it's not worth having the Prime Minister testify at a committee. Certainly, in the cases where it's contentious, it is worth it. I think that is part of what the Prime Minister envisioned. He knew that the Harper prorogations were contentious. He thought that needed to be addressed. I think it's wholly appropriate that he come here for an hour to defend his decisions. He sent his government House leader. They wrote some things out.

Look, we have question period every day. We don't just say, “Oh, well, the Prime Minister already made a statement about that. You shouldn't ask him questions about it anymore.” We do that because there is a role for holding our elected members of the government to account for the decisions they make. We've heard clearly that this was the decision of the Prime Minister.

We're here because of a policy of the Prime Minister. We're setting precedent. It's fine for the Liberals on the committee to believe that there were good reasons for this prorogation. That's fine, but that doesn't mean that we should set a bad precedent.

There will be times in the future when Liberal members will feel that a prime minister has abused the power of prorogation. What we're deciding here, as far as I'm concerned, is how we're going to proceed not only in this case but in future cases. Barring having a mechanism whereby the House of Commons actually gets to pronounce on the issue before there's a prorogation—in other words, barring having a system where the House of Commons votes on whether or not it's appropriate to prorogue—the least we could do under this second-best measure is to set the precedent that the Prime Minister comes and defends his decision to the committee.

After we've had the benefit of hearing from experts and civil society and have some preliminary arguments from government members, I think the committee is now ready to test the Prime Minister on those reasons. I understand he's confident about his reasons. Maybe I have that wrong. Any member of the governing party can correct me on that, but I understand that he's pretty confident that he had good reasons, so fine—let him come. He's confident about other things he has to defend in question period every day. Nobody says, “Don't ask the question because you already have an idea that you won't like the answer.” I don't see why that should be different in this case.

I've proposed a way out of this, which is to dispense with all of the calls for documents, and all of the other witness requests, for one hour of the Prime Minister's time at this committee in order to set a good precedent for how the procedure and House affairs committee—not just for this prorogation but for all prorogation studies to come—can handle these issues. There will come a day when members of this committee who seem to think it doesn't make sense for the Prime Minister to come now will think that it's perfectly appropriate for a prime minister to come and defend their decision of prorogation.

I'm not prepared to yield on this. I'm not prepared to support this amendment, and I'm not prepared to turn on the main motion until I hear from the Prime Minister [Technical difficulty—Editor] to defend what was his decision.

We've heard that very clearly. We've heard it from witnesses, and now we've heard it from Liberals on this very committee. It was his decision. He has his reasons. There are clearly disputes about what the reasons were. Yes, we're going to ask him questions about the WE Charity scandal, and if he can survive the hour, which I suspect he will, things will go on and we'll turn to other issues, but I think it's a terrible precedent to allow this committee to close off this study without having heard from the one person who actually makes the call. I'm not prepared to endorse such a terrible precedent.

That's as simple as it is. If Liberals want to move on, then I encourage the members of this committee to go to their leader and impress upon him the benefit that would accrue from his coming and spending one hour to defend a decision he made—and they agree he has good reasons he can share for having made it—and the opposition will do its job of holding him to account and testing those reasons in the ways that we can, and then we can close off the study and move on.

To pretend that this is some kind of bottomless political pandemic...not bottomless political pandemic. Excuse me. The word is on the mind. To pretend that this is some political thing all the way down and that there isn't a reasonable solution on the table, I think that point presses the boundaries of honesty, Madam Chair, because there is a very simple way out of this. It's to have the Prime Minister announce publicly that he's going to come here for an hour and for us to spend the hour with him and move onto something else. It's that simple.

I don't see why a man who proposed this very study as the way to prevent the kinds of abuses of prorogation that I would say we saw under Stephen Harper.... I can't for the life of me understand why he's not willing to come and spend an hour with us now on that, not only to show that he had a meaningful idea about how to prevent the political abuse of prorogation—because the government just tabling a pretty fluffy report without actually sending the decision-maker to answer for it doesn't meet the threshold of political accountability that I would like to see—but also for future instances.

I don't think people would have accepted in the days of Harper that he would have just tabled a fluffy report and been done with it and not appeared. I think that if this mechanism is to have teeth and be a meaningful response to those abuses, then the Prime Minister should show his face here. If he's not willing to do that, I think that's too bad.

I would hope then that Canadians who are listening would understand why it is so important that the House of Commons have a vote before prorogation, because if a prime minister really does have plan that's not contentious in terms of the time it would take away from Parliament and has good reasons to restart a session, then no prime minister should fear going to the House of Commons with a reasonable argument.

We saw during the pandemic the budget that's supposed to be coming in April now is long delayed. It was delayed in the early stages, although we've been calling for a budget for some time now. Initially, that delay was endorsed by the parties of the House, and even the main estimates, which are legally required to be tabled by a certain date, were pushed back because the House was quite reasonable.

In the future, prime ministers who have a reasonable prorogation request could trust that the House would grant it. Where it's contentious, I don't think one person should be making the call. That's why Canadians elect many people to make decisions, not one person to make decisions.

To me, this is not about all of those politics, although they are there, and if the Prime Minister comes, I will ask him questions about the WE Charity scandal, because I do think it's germane to prorogation and we heard that in the testimony. However, for me, this is really about the procedure and House affairs committee of the House of Commons of Canada setting a precedent, under a new mechanism by this very Prime Minister, in order to prevent political abuses of prorogation. I want a good precedent and I'm not willing to walk away from that.

I just want to remind my Liberal colleagues of that, because that doesn't come through in their remarks. They're casting a very wide net about the opposition parties this and the opposition parties that. That's not my position. My position is how we proceed with this mechanism and make it as meaningful as possible, understanding that it is already by its nature an inferior solution to actually granting more power to Canadians' elected representatives over the issue of prorogation.

I thank you very much for listening to that point again. I've said my piece and I will happily cede the floor to the next speaker.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Mr. Blaikie. You're always very persuasive. Maybe that has moved the dial a bit. Only time will tell, especially if we get to a vote.

Next we have Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the chance to address the committee.

I will note that my Internet seems to be cutting in and out a bit. I don't know if I'm coming through okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

You're okay.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Okay. Let me know if you can't hear me.

I appreciate Mr. Blaikie's comments, as always. I think you're right; he is somewhat persuasive, although I have to note that despite our both having a love for philosophy and some other things, I disagreed with Mr. Blaikie when he spoke about the pandemic. He used a phrase that bothered me. I must point this out.

Mr. Blaikie, you said the pandemic also matters. I know within the context of what you're saying, you were saying that to mean that it also matters, given all the other things. For us on this side, we're seized with supporting Canadians through this pandemic every step of the way. To us it's not something that also matters; it is what matters most right now for Canadians.

I think Mr. Long especially pointed this out, but so did Dr. Duncan. I think every one of the Liberal members on this committee has pointed out to what degree Canadians feel this particular study is relevant to them at the moment.

We've also done this study. We've had witnesses come before this committee. They've given some pretty substantive testimony, I think. We heard from the government House leader. I think we've done justice to a process. I know you don't agree with me because you want an hour with the Prime Minister. I get that. We've had a report tabled. The Prime Minister has already testified. You've indicated that you want to ask him questions about WE Charity. You've already done that, though, so what is it?

I think Mr. Long's points were quite compelling as well. We've been there, done that. I feel that because you didn't get what you want you want to rinse and repeat and try to dig up something else. It's not there.

There's a good rationale. I've spent many hours digging into information and making a substantive argument that shows how the reasons given for prorogation are completely rational and well-founded. You've never once addressed that. You seem to want to get the witnesses you want because you know that's your best chance at having a—

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

I want one witness, just the one.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I'm sorry, Madam Chair, is that a point of order?

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

It is a point of clarification. I'm confused about the timeline. You've said that the Prime Minister has already testified to the WE Charity scandal. I want him here to testify to prorogation.

Can you confirm that the Prime Minister's testimony on the WE Charity scandal happened prior to the prorogation, or am I mistaken about that? I don't see how we could have asked him questions about the prorogation in the testimony that occurred prior to his decision to prorogue Parliament or any public knowledge of an intent to prorogue. Could you point to where the Prime Minister was asked a question at committee about prorogation?

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Lauzon.

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

I think this is leading to a debate at this stage. Mr. Turnbull clearly stated his position. If anyone tries to justify it, the result will be a debate.

I invite my colleagues to abide by the rules and to raise their hands if they wish to speak. I'd like to present arguments regarding what Mr. Turnbull is moving. I have my hand up, and I'm the next speaker on the list.

As I see it, if I correctly understand how the committee meeting is being conducted, we're starting the period of questions and answers, but I may be mistaken.

On the same point of order, could we have a break?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Are you asking for a five-minute suspension to go to the bathroom?

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

Yes, five or 10 minutes to make sure everyone has time to go to the bathroom and be ready for the next couple of hours.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Let's suspend for 15 minutes and come right back and Mr. Turnbull will have the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

We are back.

For the benefit of members who are joining in, we did discuss earlier today the speakers list. Since the meeting on Tuesday, March 23 was suspended and not adjourned, we're carrying forward with the same speakers list. If your name is on the list and you're not present at the time your name comes up, you will be removed from the list and you will have to raise your hand again if you return.

Right now on the speakers list there is Mr. Turnbull, who has the floor. After that we have Monsieur Lauzon, then Madam Normandin and then Ms. Petitpas Taylor.

Mr. Blaikie, did you put your hand up again?

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay. After Ms. Petitpas Taylor, you will be back on the list.

That is the list right now: Turnbull, Lauzon, Normandin, Petitpas Taylor, Blaikie.

We will carry on with you, Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Chair, just before we start again, I want to clarify something. Before we broke, Mr. Blaikie sort of jumped in and asked me a question, and I just wondered whether that was customary when a member has the floor. My understanding was that would be the case only if I gave my permission to use the Simms protocol, and it is not necessarily customary to ask questions of members who have the floor.

I just want to check on the rules, because I noticed Mr. Blaikie did that. I thought it was actually a pretty good question to be asked, for sure, but I didn't really give my consent to have my time interrupted. I just want to clarify if that was contravening the rules.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

If you haven't given your consent, then it is contravening the rules. A member cannot interrupt and ask questions of the person who has the floor. However, I'll just say that in my position as chair, when there are points of order, points of clarification, or relevancy orders being made, I sometimes have to give them a minute and hear them out in order to see what the member is saying. That sometimes is enough time for the member to put that question out there. Of course, though, you do not by any means have to respond.

That was, I guess, not a point of order. That was not in order. I hope that resolves that and gives you some clarification.

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

On that point, Madam Chair, upon reflection, I think I realized that was not in fact a good point of order, so apologies to Mr. Turnbull for the interruption. I'll leave it to him as to whether or not he cares to answer the question.