Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 9th, 2021

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

Thanks very much.

Madam Chair, on a point of order, I just want to perhaps suspend. After listening to Mr. Blaikie and the first couple of seconds of Mr. Lauzon, I recognize that now may be a really great time for the parties to go back and reflect on opportunities to find a workable motion so that we can do something in this committee rather than continue to filibuster.

I recognize that if we do not suspend, we'll just continue to listen to hours and hours of filibustering.

Perhaps this is a good time for the parties to reflect on what they are willing to...or what in this motion is acceptable to the government. They seem to be the ones who have the most difficulty with this.

Perhaps this is a great time to suspend. Then we can reflect and come back to this issue on the following Tuesday, March 16, after our break week.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I'll confirm with Mr. Lauzon, just so that we do the procedural aspect of this properly and everybody understands it.

On a point of order you can't necessarily put a motion to suspend or to adjourn. Of course you have raised the issue to my attention, and I can assess whether we have consensus from the room.

Monsieur Lauzon does have the floor, so he could either move that, or if Mr. Lauzon thinks that we may have consensus and Ms. Vecchio feels that, then we could suspend for today.

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

I just want to continue and finish my point for today and then I will continue on Tuesday after the break week.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay. Go ahead. Continue your point.

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

I will continue my comments to Mr. Blaikie.

Your proposal is not really an amendment. You want the Prime Minister to appear for an hour and you are saying that the rest of the motion is equally valid. But we actually feel that we have heard enough witnesses and that we have enough documentation to write a report. You said that we are acting in a partisan manner. You are right to talk about partisanship: regrettably, we are here because of the partisan games being played by members of the opposition.

In terms of the motion before the committee today, I strongly believe that the ability to advise the Governor General about prorogation is the prerogative of the Prime Minister. You actually said so yourself, Mr. Blaikie. That is also exactly what we were told by the officials from the Privy Council Office and by the academics who appeared before the committee. Some of those experts and scholars stated that prorogation is legitimate as long as the Prime Minister has the confidence of the House. That was the case for the prorogation in August 2020.

Everyone on this committee will recall that the vote on the Speech from the Throne was a confidence vote. They did not all vote in favour of the Speech from the Throne but the majority of members of the House did. This proves that the Prime Minister certainly had the confidence of the House. Three hundred and twenty-nine members of Parliament took part in that vote. Of that number, 177 members of Parliament voted in favour of the Speech from the Throne, thereby demonstrating their confidence in our government. A majority of members of Parliament voted in favour of this Speech from the Throne.

Does our NDP colleague not acknowledge that his party demonstrated its confidence in our government through that vote? All the members of his party voted in favour of the Speech from the Throne: the honourable members from Skeena—Bulkley Valley, Elmwood—Transcona, North Island—Powell River, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, Victoria, Vancouver Kingsway, Hamilton Mountain, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, Winnipeg Centre, Hamilton Centre, St. John's East, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, Courtenay—Alberni, New Westminster—Burnaby, Vancouver East, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, Windsor West, London—Fanshawe—

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

On a point of order, I think there is an interpretation issue here. Although I understand what he is saying, there must be an interpretation issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

There is. Maybe I should have said something, but I felt—

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

I have only a few more names.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

—that even though my French is not that good, I knew what he was saying.

I also want to say that it is 1:02 p.m. right now. If we are going to allow the subcommittee to be able to have their meeting on private members’ business, then I think we're going to have to cut it at this point.

I feel really bad saying that to you, Monsieur Lauzon, but either we go on for a long time and have them reschedule or we allow them time to be able to switch to the other committee.

Is that okay?

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

I'm okay to continue on the Tuesday after the break week.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

All right, Monsieur Lauzon.

Is everyone else okay if we suspend, then?

Seeing there is no opposition to that, we are—

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Chair, why don't we suspend until Tuesday during the break week? For example, I have an open schedule on Tuesday at 11 o'clock. Why don't we suspend until Tuesday during the break week? Hopefully, we can deal with this motion and put it to bed finally.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

That's not really my call, at this point, but I will take that suggestion and take a look at whether that is possible.

We will suspend until either our next scheduled meeting or until—or if—we can schedule one during that time.

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

On a point of order, when would we get notification of that?

As I said, I think many people would like to get this matter dealt with. As I indicated, if the Liberals can come to an agreement on something, perhaps we can all sit down once again and work on Tuesday, rather than prolong this, so that we can get to all of those important motions that our Liberal speakers have brought forward.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I don't really know, because even last break week we saw so many meetings that still took place. I don't know whether the capacity is a little less during a constituency week. I don't know the answer to that, but I can try to get that to you as soon as possible.

We will suspend for today. Thank you, everyone.

[The meeting was suspended at 1:04 p.m., Tuesday, March 11]

[The meeting resumed at 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, March 23]

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I call this meeting back to order. The committee is resuming meeting 26 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which was suspended on March 11, 2021.

Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of January 25, 2021. Therefore, members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. So that members are aware, the webcast will always show the person speaking rather than the entirety of the committee.

I would like to take the opportunity to remind all participants of this meeting that screenshots or taking photos of your screen is not permitted.

Mr. Clerk, it doesn't look like anyone is attending in person today.

[The Clerk]

That's correct, Madam Chair. No one is in the room other than staff.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I will just remind staff and anyone subbing in that, if they are in the room, they are to maintain a two-metre physical distance and wear a non-medical mask when circulating in the room. It's highly recommended that the mask be worn at all times, including when seated. You must maintain the proper hand hygiene using the provided hand sanitizer at the room entrance. As the chair, I will be enforcing these measures for the duration of the meeting. I thank members in advance for their co-operation.

For those participating virtually, I'd like to outline a few rules to follow. Members and witnesses may speak in the official language of their choice. Interpretation services are available for this meeting. You have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English or French. With the latest Zoom version, you may now speak the language of your choice without the need to select the corresponding language channel. You will also notice that the platform’s “raise hand” feature is now in a more easily accessible location on the main toolbar, should you wish to speak or alert the chair.

For members participating in person, proceed as you usually would when the whole committee is in the meeting room. Before speaking, wait until I recognize you by name. If you are on the video conference, please click on the microphone icon to unmute yourself. For those in the room, your microphone will be controlled by the proceedings and verification officer. I'll remind you that all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair. When you are not speaking, your mike should be on mute.

With regard to the speaking list, the committee's clerk and I will do our best to maintain the list. We'll be using the list given to us in the toolbar. If you want you can follow along, as well, as know who's next. If there are any technical difficulties and anyone drops off, we'll remind you of and try to keep the proper original order. You should not be losing your place in line if technical issues occur. If any people end up attending in person, we'll consolidate the two lists.

I'll just remind everyone, before we pick up from where we left off, that currently there are three motions put on notice by Mr. Therrien of the Bloc. They have been put on notice for some time now—since February 23. Around the same time, February 23, there was a notice of motion put forth by Mr. Blaikie as well.

Currently, we are still on Mrs. Vecchio's motion on the prorogation study and the witness list. When we left off last time, Mr. Lauzon had the floor.

Just before I give him the floor, one more reminder is that we do have the main estimates. We don't have the supplementary estimates, though. The main estimates are not due back until near the end of May, so we have some flexibility with that. Let me know if you wish for me to schedule a meeting on the main estimates at any point during our calendar time. This is just a reminder to the committee members that this is also coming up.

We will carry on from where we left off. Mr. Lauzon, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning and welcome to everyone.

We have a number of motions before us today, including the main motion, which is about the reasons why the government prorogued Parliament in August 2020.

As I think back on my experience since I arrived on this committee, I find it unfortunate that we are in this position and that we are still sitting here debating this issue. I was hoping that, after some fruitless attempts, my opposition colleagues would decide to give up this political game over the WE Charity affair, which has already been dealt with at other committees.

Of course, I am here to stand up for all the interests of this committee and I am well aware that this political game—

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

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

I just want to read the following motion that, notwithstanding any standing order or unusual practice, the motion of Karen Vecchio concerning the committee's study of the government's reasons for the prorogation of Parliament in August of 2020 be amended, first, by deleting paragraph (b); second, by replacing paragraph (c) with the following: “renew the invitation issued to Katie Telford to appear before the committee, provided that if she does not agree within one week of the adoption of this motion to appear for at least three hours, a summons do issue for her 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”; and third, by deleting paragraphs (d) and (b); and that the motion be deemed adopted as amended on division without further debate.

The reason I am bringing this forward is that we are willing to work on this—

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

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

I'll continue to speak, Chair, until you call me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes, go ahead, Mrs. Vecchio. Complete your thought. I don't know that this is procedurally in order, but after this I'll take Mr. Turnbull's comment and then we'll decide.

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

We have sent to the clerk, in both official languages, this motion.

I have heard Mr. Lauzon several times talking about our wanting to drop this motion. The bottom line is that we have said there are a couple of things we would like.

This motion basically drops the majority of the bottom of the motion and continues to ask for both the Prime Minister and his chief of staff, Katie Telford, and the documents.

For the remainder of the motion in question—I know that you were thinking it was unnecessary for the Kielburgers and Speakers' Spotlight—all of that is removed. We really chopped it down so that we could get to the meat and potatoes of what we want to see here in this prorogation study.

Perhaps, with all due respect for what Mr. Lauzon was saying earlier, we are here to find a balance, and we are willing to reduce our motion to keep those three items and remove everything else.

I have asked for that motion to be circulated, and the clerk should have it so that everybody can read it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Ms. Vecchio, thank you.

You are essentially moving.... I recognize right away that to move a motion on a point of order, or an amendment, is typically not in order unless there is unanimous consent.