Evidence of meeting #27 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.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
I call the meeting back to order.
There are a couple of things I want to inform the committee about.
I did not know this before we suspended for the 10-minute bio break but learned near the end of it that our interpreters have to switch over. Generally we've been doing a rolling switchover, but for whatever reason, they are not able to do it in that fashion right now. They have to do a complete switchover, and that takes about half an hour, so, at the very least, we would have to suspend for that half-hour, until three o'clock. They would be starting now at 2:30 p.m. to 3 p.m.
I also want to let you know that we have the same issue of the agriculture committee being here after that. They would need to take over the room at 3:30 in order to prepare, if they are going to have that committee today.
Those are the two pieces of information I wanted you to know. If we were to suspend for translation, that would take us to 3 p.m.. That would give us from 3 p.m. to 3:30 p.m., at which point we would have to make a decision about whether agriculture or whatever other committee would go on or not.
I want to just put that out there for you guys, so you can let me know what you'd like to do and whether you'd like to suspend for translation. We have to do that. There is no choice on that, but if you want to return at 3 p.m., I guess that would be your choice, and we would make our next decision after that or perhaps you'd just like to suspend until the next scheduled meeting.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Madam Chair, I know that many of us understand that ending at 2:30 is something that will need to be done in order to allow—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Is it just me? No, it's Ms. Vecchio, okay.
You cut out. We have to hear what you said all over again.
Ms. Vecchio, we didn't hear any of it. We still can't hear you.
Liberal
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Can you hear me now? It's probably because I put my iPad on so I could watch QP. That is why, so I apologize. If I turn that on, I have too much going on for the Wi-Fi.
We all recognize there is great work being done on other committees, and we don't want to see anything being delayed on the agricultural committee.
That being said, I believe we would all agree to suspend, but before we do, there is a huge concern that we'll be coming back to just more of this, so I would ask that true negotiations take place, out of which we can actually come to a resolution. All parties have played on what we don't want, or what we do want, and right now, until anything can go to a vote, we are stuck here on Ryan's amendment. If you really want to go forward with real negotiations, we should be doing that and not just be stuck on Ryan's amendment. We all recognize that no one on the opposition side is voting for this. Even with Ryan speaking for hours and hours, I do not believe he is going to get his wish of changing anybody's mind. We know we're there, so let's face the facts and come up with a resolution.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Okay. I think everyone respects you, Ms. Vecchio, and your position on that. Definitely there is some take-away, and I encourage all of you to come to some agreement. Of course, it has been difficult on all of the members not being able to do the good work, as Mr. Long put it, that PROC is supposed to be doing.
We will suspend until the next meeting and hopefully that will take place.
[The meeting was suspended at 2:30 p.m., Thursday, May 6. ]
[The meeting resumed at 11:06 a.m., Tuesday, May 11. ]
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
I call this meeting back to order. This is a resumption of meeting 27 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which started on April 13, 2021. Today's date is May 11, 2021.
Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of January 25, 2021. Members are therefore attending remotely at this time. No one is attending in the room, but members are free to do so. The proceedings will be made available on the House of Commons website. Please be aware that the webcast will always show the person speaking rather than the entirety of the committee.
I would like to remind everyone not to take screenshots or photos of your screen. Also, please unmute your mike when you have a point of order or wish to speak, and remember to put your mike on mute when you're not speaking.
I have a speakers list from the last meeting. We are still on Mr. Turnbull's amendment. As I have done before, I want to mention a few things at the outset.
The main estimates are due to be returned to the House at the end of this month. We do need to give fair warning to the officials if we want them to have a meeting here. Ideally, I'd like to know today. If you'd like me to schedule a meeting for the main estimates, I would need to get going on that.
We did hear from the Speaker on the question of privilege that was before the House. The Speaker ruled that he didn't find it to be a prima facie question of privilege, so we won't have that coming to our committee.
We have Bill C-19 in the House. My understanding is that will be voted on later today, so that will be referred to this committee.
I want everyone to be aware of the different expectations for our committee right now. Those are a few of the things on my radar at this point. As always, I will let you know when we have various different motions on notice as well.
Does anybody have anything they'd like to say on these issues, as to the main estimates or Bill C-19, before we return to Mr. Turnbull's amendment?
Ms. Vecchio.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Madam Chair, we do know that Bill C-19 is going to be voted on after question period today. Could we find out the order of precedence? Could the clerk share this with us? I do know that many of the members, even members from my team.... What takes precedence? What is the order they need to go in? We've been on a filibuster since February 23. Does that stall it out? How does this go?
I'm looking for some procedural guidance. I would like to be able to have a follow-up question if needed after hearing from the clerk.
The Clerk
Ms. Vecchio, the usual practice when a bill is referred to a committee is the committee tends to give precedence to legislation that is referred to it from the House. That's not a hard and fast rule. It is ultimately the committee's decision as to how it wishes to order its work. However, you can probably call it a convention. Committees do tend to give precedence to legislation that comes forward. As I said, it's up to the committee to decide how it wants to prioritize its work.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Clerk. That's wonderful.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Thank you.
Is there anything else on the order of different events?
Is there anything regarding the main estimates? Is it going to be the decision of this committee to not deal with the main estimates? Should I consider that to be the members' choice or should I bring it up again in the next meeting? What would you like?
Mr. Turnbull, you raised your hand.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I want a point of clarification on that. Isn't it part of the parliamentary standing committee's duties to do that work on main estimates, generally speaking?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Generally speaking, PROC has always returned the main estimates. This would be a first for me, but I haven't been around forever, so we'll have the clerk answer that.
The Clerk
Mr. Turnbull, the House does refer estimates periodically to committees for that exact purpose, to allow the committee to look at the estimates, to hear from relevant witnesses on those estimates, such as, for example, a minister or, in our case for the House of Commons, the Speaker or the Clerk of the House.
However, again, it is up to the committee to make the determination whether they want to take up those estimates. Should the committee not take up the estimates, perhaps because they made a decision not to or because they didn't have the time to do it and other matters got in the way, those estimates are always automatically reported back by a specified date.
In this case, for the main estimates that were referred to PROC, that date is May 31. If the committee doesn't choose to take up the estimates by that date, they will automatically be referred back to the House and they will no longer be available, so to speak, for the committee to look at.
However, there is a bit of a caveat to that. Committees in the past, sometimes not being able to meet the reporting back deadline, have chosen to do a subject matter study of the main estimates. It is just like when they refer to any main estimates, with the limitation that they cannot make any suggestions on changing the actual totals, the dollar totals in those main estimates. They can still choose to invite witnesses. They can proceed with questioning witnesses on the same basis as if the estimates were still fully before them. They just can't make any recommendations to reduce the amount of dollars that are associated with each of the votes in those estimates.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Okay. So essentially they wouldn't be able to change the estimates at that point, just make recommendations from their study.
The Clerk
Madam Chair, even at that point, they wouldn't be making any type of recommendations. It would merely provide an opportunity to the committee to hold a meeting with witnesses to discuss what was in the main estimates.
Liberal
Bloc
Alain Therrien Bloc La Prairie, QC
Excuse me, Madam Chair.
It seems to me that we did that already last year. Am I wrong?
The Clerk
Mr. Therrien, I can answer that.
Last fall, the supplementary estimates were sent to the committee. The committee then held meetings with the minister, the Speaker of the House and the Secretariat of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians.
The committee did in fact examine the main estimates and referred them back to the House without any changes.
