Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 9th, 2021

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

I have a point of order.

Could I just get clarification on this? We can have members come in and out and as long as they're in their spot it doesn't matter—their name can stay on the list. They can go out for an hour and come back. Are we doing substitutions? This seems like we could probably have every single person that we want just sign up on a list. I could put all 120 Conservative members on a list and as long as they show up on video at that time....

I'm just trying to get a little bit of a tighter and clearer perspective on what we're actually doing in this committee. That would be wonderful.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

We definitely do not have a hundred and something people on the list. I just read out the list and it's all members who have been here and dedicated to this speech. Even Madame Normandin has been dedicated over several meetings to come in. Mr. Lamoureux has, in the past, also substituted a few times in this meeting and has raised his hand, but always lost his spot because he had to move on to something else in the day.

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

I have a point of order on that, then.

We've had a number of different people also on our side. Does that mean that if they choose to come in and then leave...? Marilyn Gladu, for instance, had subbed for me for my five minutes earlier today. She could have been back on the list and then in the five hours that she would have had to wait, she could just get back on. Are we having a committee of the normal membership or are we expanding it to almost a committee of the whole and people just show up?

I'm just trying to find this out because I believe we're expanding this. There's a lot of room and opportunity to continue to fool around and play political games—as we've been seeing all day—on who's coming in and out and how many times people put their name on the list. I'm really concerned about that because there is a very good door here to be opened where people can play these political games, just as we've seen, with raising their hand and being on the list all day.

Could you just share that with me? I think we should have clarification as well as some limitations on this. Saying that one person is dedicated more than the other is very subjective, so I'd hope that we'd come up with a little bit more of a plan than that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I just stated my plan, Mrs. Vecchio. So far, I haven't seen any kind of abuse of that sort where hundreds of people are signed up on the list. If somebody has substituted in or even if a colleague comes in and wishes to speak at a committee meeting, the procedure has generally allowed for that.

Mrs. Vecchio, definitely if Ms. Gladu had her name on the list, her speaking slot is up and she's present to speak, then by all means I would be calling on Ms. Gladu or you or whoever you have subbing in. You had Mr. Calkins sub in earlier. Any of your subs are free to speak.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I have a different point of order, if I may.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes, Mr. Lamoureux.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Beauchesne's sixth edition is fairly clear about imputing motives. The member inferred that others, possibly even me, are in this to play games. I want to indicate very clearly to members of this committee that I don't see this as a game at all. I believe the coronavirus is a very serious issue in Canada. I have some very tangible ideas and thoughts on what PROC should be doing. I would like to expand on those a great deal, and I don't necessarily want members of the committee to read in my motivations, or imply any sort of motive, that I am going to play games, because I take this issue very seriously.

I can assure committee members that I am not alone. My understanding, based on your ruling on the previous point of order, Madam Chair, just so that I have it straight, is that the committee is open to hearing from members of the entire House, but they have to show up at the committee and indicate this. To answer Ms. Vecchio's question, she can't just submit a list—at least I don't think she can, based on my knowledge.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

No.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Chair, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but if any member of the House wants to speak, all they have to do is to show up and put up their hand. They will be put onto a list and will stay on that list. When their name is called and it's their turn to speak, as long as they're here they will be recognized. If they are not, then, as I understand it, you'll drop them from the list and then go on to the next person. That's my understanding. I hope I got it right.

In regard to the point of order, with regard to imputing my motives, it was just an expression from my point of view, because I do not want members to believe that I would be playing games on this very serious matter.

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

Madam Chair, I have a point of order, for clarification.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes, Mrs. Vecchio.

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

I recognize that Mr. Lamoureux is a very dedicated member of Parliament. We see him 24 hours a day, if there's an opportunity for him to be there 24 hours a day. We know that about him. However, I find it very reckless for us to indicate.... As I indicated, you said that we've seen Ms. Normandin and other individuals. Perhaps the clerk could share with me what the ruling on that would be. There has to be some sort of precedent.

I know that we are now in a very different time, when we have people coming in virtually, but earlier today Mr. Turnbull put his name on the list so that he could be back on it for a second time because of the last meeting. He wanted to be back on the list. We saw that happen. I am greatly concerned because I know that we are dedicated to this.

To the note on political games, this is just what we have seen. I've seen some of these people continue to talk. I've heard Mr. Lauzon say, “We want the minister here” and “We don't want the minister” within four hours. Obviously he had a good night's rest on that.

I don't mean to be sarcastic, but I believe we are going into an area where things are becoming really loosey-goosey. This is the procedure and House affairs committee. We are the grandfather committee. Basically, precedent is set here. If we're seeing loosey-goosey rules, that is what we're going to see in all of our standing committees, so I think there needs to be something done.

Perhaps the clerk can share with us how this would work. If we have people exiting and entering the meeting all the time, we could be in this filibuster.... As Mr. Lauzon indicated the other day, he will speak till the election. We could be in this until then, but we want to get work done, so I'm very concerned.

Madam Chair, If we can get a ruling, if we can get something, we should, because this is very loosey-goosey. You're opening this up to multiple interpretations, and to be honest, we know what can happen from there. Let's just set this—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes, absolutely. I respect wanting clarity and I understand that you want this to be over. I'm sure a lot of members feel similarly.

As for precedent at this committee, I can tell you that I sat through a filibuster, led by the Conservative members in the previous Parliament, that went on longer than this—

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

Madam Chair, on a point of order, although that's wonderful, I'm just asking if you could perhaps give us a ruling. It's great that you're giving us your subjective view, but I would like a ruling on what we're going to do moving forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I'm making my ruling.

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

That's great.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

You asked for a precedent, and precedent is by how a committee has behaved in the past. This committee has allowed non-permanent members of the committee to sub in during meetings and speak. This not just my opinion; I'm sharing with you the precedents that I saw in the last Parliament.

Non-regular members—and I don't have to say which party they belonged to since you know from the last Parliament—came in. They would routinely come in for some meetings and all of the regular members would leave. That precedent was set, and they were always allowed to speak at committee. There was never an objection of this sort raised, namely, that they were not allowed to be on a list and not allowed to speak.

Yes, Mrs. Vecchio.

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

Perhaps I could give some clarification, though. What I'm referring to is people coming into a meeting, exiting a meeting and coming back into the meeting just because their name is called at that time. I'm concerned about that, because as we're looking at this I recognize that we're all members and associate members of these types of committees, and so we all have the opportunity to speak. I do not question that. What I question is people coming in and out of meetings, and by no means am I indicating Mr. Lamoureux has done this. I know he hasn't, as a matter of fact, so I will protect him there. I just want to be very cautious on this, because I think that if we're allowing people to come in and out.... As you said, Christine was not allowed to speak because she wasn't there when her name was called, but her name was on the list. She would have been able to speak.

The in and out policy is a little—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Christine is on the list currently. She is somebody who subs in regularly. She wasn't here at the time her spot was up. There's nothing I could have done about that. She wasn't here at that point when her name was up on the list. She's back on the list, because she came back. She had her name put back on the list and she is going to be called upon.

I'll remind you of who the members are in the speaking order, and I think you're going to find that all of these members, or a majority of them, are permanent members. The list is mostly of the permanent members. We have Monsieur Lauzon, Madame Normandin, Ms. Petitpas Taylor and Mr. Blaikie, who is a regular member. All these members so far are regular members. We have Ms. Vecchio after that, and then Mr. Turnbull, and then at the very end Mr. Lamoureux.

I don't see any kind of abuse at this point. The list is not hundreds of members long, with members from Parliament lining up. It's all mostly regular members at this point, with the exception of one.

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

Right now that's wonderful, but I would just ask something there. I'm looking at Mr. Regan, who would probably know lots about this kind of stuff. But there were seven members, and I'm just wondering because of the substitutions. We've always had the protocol of substitutions and that's great, but I just want a little bit more clarity here, because right now I'm looking at eight members, in fact, from the Liberal Party who are currently on this part. If everybody can have their name on the list, then it's just now becoming a committee of the whole if this is what we're going to do. I'm wondering what's the need for substitutions if we're just going to be loosey-goosey. That's why I prefer some sort of rules and protocol. Thank you.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Chair, if I may, to get a little more background. Prior to 2015, I sat on PROC for a number of years. Maybe I can bring a bit of a different light to this or different experience from when I was in opposition. The member was asking about how important this committee is. In fact, she's right. Often other committees will look at what's taking place in PROC. PROC is held in fairly high esteem. That's why in the eyes of many, including to a certain degree me, there's a certain level of disappointment in what the official opposition is doing in PROC. They have the right to do that. There's no doubt about that. As they have the right to do what they're doing, members of all caucuses have the right to participate.

Even in the era between 2010 and 2015 when I sat in opposition, we would often have filibusters in PROC too. One of the great filibusterers was David Christopherson. Members here will reflect on David Christopherson. We would often get members or people who wanted to participate who are not members.

In fact, Madam Chair, one only needs to look at the former leader of the Green Party, and other parties that didn't get recognition or independence. I can recall having members come to speak on bills and other issues. All were very important to him or her. They felt they needed to be able to contribute. They didn't have to be a member of PROC.

I have nothing but the deepest respect for members of PROC, and the fine work you do. I had the opportunity to take a look at some of the things coming up. I, for one, am hoping to be able to contribute to a very important piece of legislation dealing with the coronavirus, Bill C-19 on elections. When I was in opposition back then, we had to deal with legislation such as that.

Anyway, I'm getting a little off track. I just wanted to assure my friend that what I have heard and witnessed taking place at PROC today is no different from in the past, and I could cite endless examples. I would encourage members to continue to allow others members to be able to say what they believe is so important on this issue. Take a look at the broader issue: What's being debated in the chamber causes a great deal of concern today. I hope to address that a little later, but not now.

This is just to assure my friend that things in PROC, from what I can tell, are going perfectly naturally, the way they should be going, and no games are being played. This is serious. I hope negotiations are taking place in the background so that we can get on to do some of the fine work that has to be done at this committee.

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

I have a point of order on that, a clarification perhaps.

As I said with precedents, right now I'm looking at all of the different members. Anybody who has joined can then put their name on the list, regardless of whether they are substitutes.

Could we get clarification on that?

Those are the types of things. I'm just recognizing that we're setting precedents.

Are we able to put anyone on the list as they come through, or is a substitution being done here?

Perhaps the clerk can share on that with me.

Can the list only have perhaps the seven members of the Liberal Party on the committee?

How does that work?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Chair, while you are conferring with the clerk, I can provide the member across the way with the following. Traditionally, in the past, as I tried to explain, in the PROC and other committees, we have had the current or permanent membership— which ironically is ultimately determined by the PROC committee itself—there all of the time leading the discussions. Unless it's in camera, and in that case it's even somewhat questionable, you can still have members participate.

I have seen, as I say, members from the Green Party, and other affiliations participate. I think your explanation, from what I heard, Madam Chair, was right on. I fully support what you're saying on who is able to speak and when they can speak, the fact that who can speak is unlimited. This is all something that's happened for many years. I would applaud what you're doing, as the chair. I know at times it can be fairly challenging.

At the end of the day, I think we are moving in the direction that it has happened in the past. As I indicated, I think we should allow Mr. Lauzon to continue. He has been waiting very patiently through these points of orders.

Madam Chair, I would encourage you to continue doing exactly what you're doing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Other members are allowed to come and speak at committee; however, they would not be allowed to vote if were not officially substituted in. Even if we were to draw parallels to the House, I would say that members are free to come in and out of the House and speak, whether it's in question period or afterwards. If their name is on the list, they come in and they have a speaking slot, regardless of whether or not they stayed in the House chamber the whole time.

That's just to draw that parallel. That's not how committees function, but we take a lot of parallels from the chamber itself as well.

In terms of the substitutions and members sitting in, Justin, would you want to clarify whether they can speak or not?

[The Clerk]

Madam Chair, in a public meeting, it is common practice that non-members, even members who haven't been formally substituted in, can participate in the meeting if the committee is fine with allowing the member to intervene and have an opportunity to speak. It is different in an in camera meeting, where the committee's approval is required to allow a non-member to sit in on an in camera meeting. On that point, on the issue of non-members, that was the point.

I know there was also a member asking about the substitutions. Just for the committee's information, I currently have a substitution for Mr. Gerretsen, who isn't here, and that is Mr. Drouin, who is formally subbed in for him.

Ms. Normandin is also replacing Mr. Therrien.

There are other members obviously present who are non-members, and they are not formally subbed in. They are participating here in the public meeting or sitting in listening to the committee proceedings.