Evidence of meeting #26 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was prorogation.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:35 p.m.
Liberal
1:35 p.m.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
Thank you very much.
I was just scared about the vote. I'm sorry about that. I was thinking that I don't want to be responsible for all of you missing the vote.
I just want to go back to the report. In my view, it clearly demonstrates the motion's irrelevance. Mr. Turnbull has decided to make concessions and to propose, I would say, a good compromise.
Regarding the amendment to the motion put forward by my colleague, if my party had proposed it to me, I would have taken time to reflect before tabling it, because I've already said that we should simply scrap the motion and move on. However, I understand. I understand that it's like a negotiation between the unions and the employer's side. It has to be give and take, and we are entering into important discussions. I think that our current discussion is extremely important, and it is necessary to reach a consensus.
I know that there are several motions on the table. For the sake of clarity, I print out the email of the person who is moving the motion. So I have the original motion, I have this motion with the proposed amendments, and I compare it with what Mrs. Vecchio has tabled. I also compare it with the other motions tabled by colleagues and I compare the amendment to Mr. Turnbull's motion. I did the same exercise for all the motions. This work method helps to get better oriented during negotiations.
However, I can tell you that I have seen the progress anyway.
We can see the progress from all the motions we have on the table right now. I think Ryan Turnbull's motion is the best one for now. I think we should all work together and go ahead with this motion.
In spite of all the evidence heard, which I was able to read afterwards because I was absent for a good part of it, people continue to say "since December 10.” This preconception is the trigger for today's meeting. Today, almost 100 days later, nothing will change.
If we were to ask the witnesses to come back, they would say that, despite what happened, despite the waves of COVID-19, the vaccines and everything that happened in the different provinces with the colour codes, we asked for a prorogation because of the WE Charity case. It seems to me that nothing will change, no matter how many times members of the official opposition and other parties hear it.
I think the openness that we are showing today, through the motion that Mr. Turnbull has tabled, shows a willingness to reach a consensus. If we start asking to meet with the Prime Minister, I'm telling you that I will vote against it for sure. We are ready to receive the Deputy Prime Minister and other ministers, also, who will come to support us.
In 2015, that made a difference as well. Our government committed to changing regulations so that federal governments—not just ours, but future ones—regardless of who is in power, would be transparent to Canadians in all aspects of governance, including the use of prorogation.
This was done when there was no obligation. It was the result of the cumulative prorogations that have taken place over the years.
From what I have read in the reports, no justification was given for the 2008 prorogation or the others. People had no choice but to endure the prorogation. The timing of the prorogation was chosen, and no one asked any questions about it. The issue was not referred to committees.
Today we are subject to transparency, given the promise we made on this subject in 2015. We committed to producing a report. This report is intended to provide parliamentarians and all Canadians with greater clarity on why the government prorogued Parliament in August 2020. The report serves as evidence. Indeed, the Prime Minister explains to us in writing the reasons for prorogation.
How is it any different for the Prime Minister to appear before the committee, report in hand, to tell us why he prorogued Parliament? If that doesn't work for you, what does? From the beginning, people have been trying to show that prorogation is related to WE Charity. We are lucky that our citizens are not concerned with prorogation. I spoke to hundreds of people last weekend and not one of them mentioned it to me. We are lucky that they are not telling us about it. The opposition is lucky that citizens are not talking about prorogation. People care about the right things, like vaccines, the pandemic, jobs and economic recovery. It would not be right for people to tell us that they are worried about the rationale for prorogation. If that had been the case, I would have had important questions to ask them. But that is not going to happen, because the prorogation has had no impact on them.
We spend long hours in committee, but people do not necessarily follow our work. Indeed, the ratings are extremely low. If people were to watch our work, they would probably say that we're being childish. Can the government move forward? Can we put forward Mr. Turnbull's amendment? It's up to us. It's not up to the people, because they won't vote on Mr. Turnbull's amendment or Mrs. Vecchio's motion. They will not listen to you. You won't get a good sound bite for your ridings.
Nothing moves our government forward, except to say that it was politics—it still is. We have been pounding the nail for over 100 days. Today, witnesses have appeared before a committee, but not necessarily ours. Can we move on? That is more or less what Mr. Turnbull's amendment implies.
I think you want to interrupt me.
1:35 p.m.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
Yes.
I will be brief.
To conclude, I will say the following. I am a new member of Parliament and I may not be as involved as some of you who have been in Parliament for a long time, but I think I know enough. Can we please move on? Can we at least adopt Mr. Turnbull's amendment to the motion?
I thank you all for listening to me.
1:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Thank you, Mr. Lauzon.
As I said, since there's a vote taking place now, I'm sure everyone needs time to log on to the other system, and sometimes there can be problems with that. Therefore, I think it's an appropriate time for us to now suspend the meeting. We'll see all of you back on Thursday.
1:35 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Madam Chair, I don't think there's consent to suspend the meeting indefinitely. I would be more than happy to return immediately following the vote. I think the will of the committee would be to do the same.
1:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
We are already suspended.
[The meeting was suspended at 3:05 p.m., Tuesday, March 23]
[The meeting resumed at 11:02 a.m., Thursday, March 25]
1:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
I call this meeting back to order. The committee is resuming meeting number 26 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. This is the meeting that started on March 9 and was suspended on March 23.
Today's meeting is taking place in hybrid format pursuant to the House order of January 25, 2021. Therefore, members can attend in person or online. I don't believe we have any members in the room today. Is that correct, Mr. Clerk?
1:35 p.m.
The Clerk
That's correct, Madam Chair. There are no members in the room.
1:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Seeing that some subs are coming into this meeting from time to time today, there could end up being people in the room, but I'll remind them when they are there. Other than that, I guess there are no personal hygiene reminders if you are sitting in your own office all by yourself. I just want to remind everyone participating virtually to pick the language of their choice at the bottom, English or French.
We have a speaking order from last time and I'll remind you what that is. We had Mr. Lauzon and then we have Madam Normandin, but as she's not here today, her name will be struck from the list. I also see that Ms. Petitpas Taylor is not here today, so her name will be struck from the list as well. Then we have Mr. Turnbull, Mr. Long, Dr. Duncan and then Mr. Turnbull again. We'll figure that out at that point.
We'll carry on from where we left off. Some new motions were put on notice last time. Now we have a notice from Mr. Blaikie, three from Mr. Therrien, one from Mr. Turnbull and one from Ms. Petitpas Taylor.
We are currently on the amendment to Ms. Vecchio's motion. The amendment was put forth by Mr. Turnbull, and we are speaking to that at this time.
1:35 p.m.
Conservative
March 9th, 2021 / 1:35 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK
Thank you, Madam Chair.
My apologies to my colleagues for this interruption. Hopefully, it'll be a short one.
I want to bring forward an issue that came up at the conclusion of the meeting last Tuesday, Madam Chair, when you suspended the meeting until today.
Madam Chair, I think you were in error when you did that, only because Mr. Nater had filed an interjection virtually, when you were about to suspend, saying that he did not want to suspend until today. He wanted to continue with the meeting. As I'm sure you're aware, Madam Chair, as are the clerk and other procedural experts, you require a majority of members to agree with any suspension or adjournment.
I think this is a bit of a potential problem. I want to give some context, and perhaps a bit of a historical perspective to why I'm bringing this forward at this time. I've been around for a while, as many of you know, and the filibuster that's ongoing now is similar to one that I experienced, ironically in PROC again, over 10 years ago. Actually, it was back in 2008.
During that time, the Conservatives, my party, were in government, but in a minority situation, similar to what we have today. There was a motion on the floor that we as a government did not want to see come to a vote, because the opposition members outnumbered us on committee, as is the case today, so I engaged in a filibuster. The only difference, I suppose, from what I was doing back then and what currently is happening is that I did not play a tag team, as some of my Liberal colleagues are doing now. I spoke continuously, and I was speaking into my ninth hour when finally, the meeting came to an abrupt halt.
It came to a halt because of disorder in the committee. That disorder was a result of [Technical difficulty—Editor] that I had been [Technical difficulty—Editor] the opposition members were getting more and more frustrated, and they eventually turned their anger from me and pointed it toward the chair.
Many of the comments before the chair, who at that time was a very nice gentleman by the name of Gary Goodyear, were very pointed, as I say, very disparaging, and at times highly personal. At the very end, Mr. Goodyear had had enough and he adjourned the meeting. He had good cause to do so, because there was disorder in the committee, and it was his right because of the disorder to adjourn without seeking consent from the committee.
Unfortunately, there was a consequence to Mr. Goodyear's action. At the next meeting, the opposition members called a vote of confidence in the chair. He was found to have lacked the confidence from committee members and was removed as chair.
I want to make it perfectly clear, Madam Chair, I'm not suggesting that there is a lack of confidence in your abilities in this committee. I'm not suggesting that whatsoever. This is not a veiled threat. People who know me well know I certainly don't act that way.
My concern is that you unilaterally suspended the meeting on Tuesday until today without seeking consent or agreement from the committee. In fact, Mr. Nater had filed his intervention saying he did not want to suspend until today. He wanted the meeting to continue following the votes, but you made a unilateral decision to go ahead and suspend anyway, which I believe is in contravention to the procedures and practices of this House.
On pages 1098 and 1099, should you care to look it up, you will find that the procedures are quite clear that, for an adjournment, as an example, the chair must seek a majority of consent or receive a majority of consent and agreement from committee members. It does not require unanimous consent, but it does require a majority of consent, which you did not have, Madam Chair.
I raise that because this could be the start of a very long day and a very long meeting. Tempers might start to fray a bit if we go several hours during this filibuster.
Madam Chair, I want to have a commitment, or at least an acknowledgement from you, and some clarity as to how you are planning to proceed. If you plan to either suspend or adjourn, will you seek the agreement and the majority consent of members of this committee?
I think that is your obligation, Madam Chair. I point that out because I don't know how and when this meeting will finally come to a conclusion. The way it's going, I'm fairly confident in saying that I do not see any quick end to this filibuster that's ongoing.
I want to make sure that while this committee has been very respectful in the past and actually has been getting along fairly well even in the midst of a prolonged filibuster, we don't end up in a situation as we did back in 2008.
With that, Madam Chair, I will turn it back to you, but I am asking, both on my behalf and that of my colleagues, for some clarity and a commitment, if possible, from you that should there be any suspension and/or adjournment, you will not do so without first seeking the consent of committee members.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
1:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Thank you, Mr. Lukiwski.
I appreciate your experience and your comments. I especially appreciate your experience on this committee. I know that you have probably been through much more than what many of us have been through on this committee so far, so thank you for letting me know about that.
As for Tuesday's meeting on the 23rd, the bells were ringing at the time. I don't need consent when the bells are ringing. I also don't have my virtual gavel. I was hoping to maybe have that sound effect. I don't, but maybe I can get a gavel.
I do respect your comments and your feedback on that. There will be bells ringing today at one point as well. There are scheduled votes, so if those votes are going forward—I believe at around five—we would be suspending at that point, with or without consent for suspending at that point for the votes when the bells ring.
As to whether you all want to come back or not after the vote, we can seek the majority opinion at that time before I suspend, but we will suspend for the votes. We won't go through the bells at that time. We can seek what the consensus opinion is at that time, or we could take a vote at that point. Is that okay with you, Mr. Lukiwski?
1:35 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK
That's fine. I obviously realize that it is a requirement to suspend when the bells are ringing, unless, of course, there's unanimous consent from the committee not to suspend due to a vote, but my point was that Mr. Nater was on the record as saying he did not want to suspend indefinitely or suspend until today's meeting. He wanted to resume the meeting following the vote yet [Technical difficulty—Editor] I think you will check that the bells, frankly, were not ringing at the time. Our vote apps were going on, saying that the bells were about to ring, but they hadn't actually started at the time.
You are quite correct in the fact that you have the ability to suspend when a vote is imminent, which you did. I'm pointing out that Mr. Nater wanted to continue the meeting, and yet you did not oblige with either a call for opinion or any kind of a vote on whether to suspend or to continue with the meeting.
That's what I'm trying to get at here: some clarity on this issue. If we are interrupted by votes if this meeting is still going at the time the votes are called and there's an indication from members that they want to resume the meeting, will you respect that opinion and not suspend arbitrarily or unilaterally?
1:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Yes. That's exactly what I have said.
As for the 23rd, I had already suspended. Perhaps it did not seem clear to the members, so I apologize for that, but I had already suspended before Mr. Nater's intervention.
Since you have brought it up at the beginning of the meeting, I understand your wishes and perhaps probably Mr. Nater and many other people on the committee.... Therefore, you have my commitment that although we will suspend for the votes today, I will ask for the will of the committee sometime before that point if we do go past to that point. Who knows what will happen until then? I will ask well ahead, before the bells ring, as to whether you want to come back after the completion of the votes. You have my commitment on that.
1:35 p.m.
Conservative
1:35 p.m.
Liberal
1:35 p.m.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Point of order. I'm sorry. I just wanted to continue.
1:35 p.m.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
As you know, with the filibuster that will be going on, will we be assured that we will have the resources for both this afternoon and this evening? Sometimes that has been a concern as well. I just wanted to ensure that we do have the resources, it being 11 o'clock now, and to be able to make sure that with the votes at 5:15 p.m. or 5:30 p.m., we do have those resources at least until that time, and then preferably after.
1:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
The clerk has informed me that the resources are generally lined up because there is some expectation that this meeting might go a little longer than the regularly scheduled one o'clock time.
As for the other committees taking place at 3:30, there was no clarification for all of that, even at the last meeting on the 23rd. Generally the whips are supposed to decide. You know the spiel I usually read at the beginning of most meetings. It's up to the whips of all the different parties to agree as to how the House resources are going to get allocated. Only so many committee meetings can take place at one time. I know you're aware of this, Ms. Vecchio, because I know your whip relays information to you and at times you've reached out to me. Hopefully, I will hear.
Usually a decision to cancel a particular meeting is made by the whips and therefore there would be enough House resources for us to be able to proceed. No decision was made. It left me in a difficult position as well. Hopefully, the whips of all the different parties can decide whether they want to cancel a different committee meeting this time, well before our time to adjourn or before we would have that one hour time for clean-up in between the meeting.
I'll let you know if I hear. I'm really at their disposal. It's not a decision I can make. The clerk may have some comments that can also help clarify the position we're usually in.
1:35 p.m.
The Clerk
Madam Chair and Ms. Vecchio, I don't have anything to add to what the chair said. My understanding is that resources are available for PROC to continue, if that is what the committee chooses to do.
1:35 p.m.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
Thanks, Madam Chair.
Thanks, Mr. Lukiwski, for sharing all your years of experience on this committee.
I can assure you that we would not be frustrated or angry. We just want to make sensible comments on the motion and the amendments that are being proposed, especially the one by my colleague Mr. Turnbull.
We also know the political games, Mr. Lukiwski, and we are not prepared to accept such a motion quickly. This is something we do have in common. It is very unfortunate that we are caught up in these partisan games with all the opposition members.
With respect to the motion before us today, it is the Prime Minister's prerogative to advise the Governor General on prorogation. That is exactly what the Privy Council Office officials and the academics said before the committee. So there is no debate. In fact, some of them argued that prorogation is legitimate when the Prime Minister has the confidence of the House, which was the case with the August 2020 prorogation.
Members of the committee will recall that there was indeed a vote of confidence in the House when the Speech from the Throne was voted on. Not all members of this committee voted in favour of the Speech from the Throne, but a majority of the members of Parliament did. That proves that the Prime Minister did have the confidence of the House.
Earlier, Mr. Lukiwski, you demonstrated the importance of a majority vote. Well, that's what happened during the Speech from the Throne. Indeed, of the 329 members of Parliament who took part in that vote, 177 voted in favour of the Speech from the Throne, thereby expressing their confidence in our government. The majority of parliamentarians voted in favour of it. Does my NDP colleague not recognize that his party voted and expressed confidence in our government?
So there are a lot of political games, but the opposition is talking about filibustering, as we have seen in the House. Again, committees were able to continue their work after prorogation. I believe that the committees have studied the particular issue of WE Charity. In fact, I believe the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics is still studying it today.
Putting aside these two arguments from the opposition, it is therefore clear that parts of the motion are motivated—