Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 13th, 2021

[The Clerk]

Madam Chair, I'm still waiting for the document from Mr. Lauzon.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Lauzon, do you know if you have that document?

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

I'm just fixing it right now.

Can we take a little break before I send it to the clerk?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Sure. It's 12:09 right now. We can have a 10-minute suspension.

In that 10 minutes, I think the amendment will have been circulated.

Please check your inbox during that time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I call the meeting back to order.

We have just received an amendment to the main motion at this point, the amended main motion. It's a new amendment proposed by Mr. Lauzon. Everyone has received that amendment. I hope everyone has had the opportunity to take a look at it.

Mr. Lauzon, you have the floor. You had it when you moved the amendment. Now I'm wondering if you wish to elaborate on the amendment.

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

Yes, Madam Chair, thank you very much.

To be consistent with the changes we've just made, I'd say that I enjoy politics, but only when it's done well.

We've introduced an amendment that would require us to ask the clerk to officially request the Prime Minister's presence.

I believe that the Prime Minister has the prerogative to decide whether or not to accept, and we need to leave the door open to the possibility that the Prime Minister could not appear within a week, as Mr. Blaikie has requested. In the event of non-appearance, I understand that we would add an annex on the non-appearance of the Prime Minister to our report. That would enable us to move ahead and work on Bill C‑19 and, potentially, take stock of how the COVID‑19 pandemic is being managed.

I now give the floor to any other committee members who would like to comment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Mr. Lauzon.

We have Mr. Turnbull and then Ms. Vecchio.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you for the opportunity.

I appreciate the amendment from Mr. Lauzon. I really appreciate the thoughtfulness and the preparedness that he has shown in introducing this. I think it's quite good. It addresses a couple of concerns I had, which I think were relatively minor given how far we've come in this conversation in what I would say is a relatively short period of time.

Relative to how long we've been debating the original motion that Ms. Vecchio put forward, we've come a long way. It's great. I really appreciate Mr. Blaikie's amendment and now Mr. Lauzon's amendment, which is on the table before us. This is a step in the right direction. We're very close, I think, to resolving this. I think this is great progress.

I just wanted to say thank you to all the committee members and express my sincere gratitude for all the hard work we've been putting in. The ability to compromise a little along the way is really going a long way, so thank you for that.

I will allow my colleague Ms. Vecchio to speak to this now. I may have a few more words in just a moment, but I'm still reflecting. Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you.

Ms. Vecchio.

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

Thanks very much.

I appreciate that Mr. Lauzon has put forward this motion. It's very concerning though, because it seems to me that all this motion—like the Liberal committee members today—is saying is, “Yes, we'll put this carrot in front of you to say that we'll put the Prime Minister there. We're going to invite him. The invitation might be lost in the mail, perhaps, because in one week, when he still hasn't come, we'll be writing the report.”

I have great concerns with that as well. I've looked at the fact that this committee has been willing to filibuster since February 23, knowing that all of this work could be done. Now we're saying there is not enough time to invite the Prime Minister so we need to put this to the annex. We'll get to Bill C-19 knowing that this report is going to indicate that for three months, members of the committee filibustered to ensure the Prime Minister was not here, and we did every single thing we possibly could to negotiate.

It's interesting because during that time there were very few negotiations. I don't think any of the opposition parties really spoke other than to intervene and talk about relevance. When I'm looking at this, I see these government reasons for proroguing. What we're doing once again is saying, “Prime Minister, you don't have to come. We're going to put on that little back page that we sent you an invitation and unfortunately, you did not appear.” I just look at this as understandable, but let's not kid ourselves. There has been ample time for this Prime Minister to appear over the last three months. We have all been busy, each and every member of Parliament. The Deputy Prime Minister, whom you're willing to bring here, was able to come. All of these things are happening.

I just think, “Wow, we're going to invite the Prime Minister but he's not going to come.” It seems like almost a waste of time. We're already saying that we know this is a failure. I wish the members on the government side would recognize that all they've done here is say, “He's still not coming. We have approved of this vote to say we'll invite him, but we've invited him several times—or we've shared this concern several times.”

I know Mr. Lauzon has spoken to the PMO and the Prime Minister has no intention of coming. I just sit there and wonder, “At what point are we going to be accountable to Canadians? At what point should this Prime Minister be coming? Is it okay with every single member of this committee that the Prime Minister does not have to report back? Would we allow this if the tables were turned and this was a prime minister from the Conservative, NDP or Bloc parties?” I think what I see here is a really, really great veil. People were talking about veils earlier. It's a great veil to say, “Look how helpful we're going to be,” but trust me, the Prime Minister's still not coming. Regardless of how good the goodie bag, he's still not going to show up to the birthday party, or to the PROC meeting for one hour.

I look at the amendment put forward by Mr. Lauzon as saying, “We have failed, failed, failed. The Prime Minister does not have to be accountable. We know that he's not going to come. We've put this annex in because we don't want to waste any more time.”

We know we need to get to Bill C-19, which I am happy to get to. I know there are lots of amendments that have been written up. They're very, very good, well-written amendments, so I think that's super. We need to get to this. For this committee, however, I really fear that once we actually start writing this report, because everybody's happy that we'll be putting it in the annex.... I want to see a show of hands from all members of this committee who think we will be going through Bill C-19, going through the report, going through the amendments, doing the first and second drafts and actually having the report tabled before June 23, when this House rises.

Right now, I think I'm looking at a whole bunch of people who know the timeline is not going to succeed, and therefore, allowing today's motion to go through is truly just a case of smoke and mirrors.

Those are some of my concerns. I wish I knew that the government committee members would ensure that something is actually tabled and that we can actually talk to Canadians about the fact that the Prime Minister has failed to come for the last three months. This is an area where transparency and accountability seem to be gone.

As a former chair of a committee, looking at the schedule and watching what people have done for three months, I know that every single person on this committee is able to talk and to talk out the clock, and therefore, the report won't get tabled. The report should include the absolutely disgraceful fact that after three months and four days—February 23 to May 27—we came up with the conclusion...but it doesn't give you anything in the first place. It's like going for a job that you don't get paid for. Yes, you're not getting paid; he's not coming.

I'm really concerned about this. I'm really concerned that if we agree to this, you will once again just pull the rug from under our feet and we won't get what we need. We are truly trying to negotiate here. I just don't trust members of the committee who for the last three months have filibustered. I do not trust that we will get that report.

I respect Daniel. He wants this report tabled, because it should be tabled. I do not know if that will be able to be done. I do not trust the members to not filibuster, and to ensure that Canadians see this report. I'll be honest.

I'll pass my time on. Hopefully, people can say, “Yes, we can be trusted. We didn't waste the last three months and four days filibustering for nothing.” I want to hear it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay.

Well, a lot has happened today. I feel like we're making some positive progress towards something. Obviously, there are so many things before me as chair right now, including legislation. I truly feel that legislation is important and we should get to it somehow. I am feeling optimistic that perhaps maybe we will get to it, at some point, but there's a lot before us; it's not just that.

Ms. Vecchio, your point is taken that the prorogation study report is currently before us. Hopefully, that report can be completed as soon as possible.

I have a speakers list that is growing. I know that sometimes you see the speakers list a little differently than I do. I have experienced that on other committees as well. I'll mention who is on the speakers list, according to my order: Mr. Turnbull, Mr. Lauzon, Ms. Petitpas Taylor, Ms. Duncan and then Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Lauzon.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank my colleagues for their comments.

Unlike those who say that the invitation will get lost in the mail, I think it's reasonable to say that the clerk is responsible enough to get the official invitation to the Prime Minister's Office and to ensure that the information gets to the Prime Minister's Office.

If it gets to the Prime Minister's Office quickly, then it's still possible for him to appear before this committee in a week. If his schedule makes it impossible, then we can put that in the non-appearance annex.

We need to move forward. I think that this is a step forward. I understand your concern, but we are all here for the same reasons and we all want to move ahead with the issues and motions we deal with on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Mr. Lauzon.

Ms. Petitpas Taylor.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

I have been quiet today. I just want to put something on the record. First and foremost, I want to go back to the last PROC committee meeting.

Mr. Blaikie—again, I'm not just saying this—you brought forward a very reasonable amendment. I really want to thank you for that. We have been talking and really negotiating over the last meeting and this meeting, and I think we're getting closer here to where we all want to be.

I for one will be very honest: I want to find a path forward for us to be able to get to Bill C-19. We all have a duty as parliamentarians to make sure we look at that and do the work that needs to be done, but I also appreciate that we want to finish this study on prorogation before we can get to that. I really want to see us move forward with respect to that. I can see that we are just so, so close. I appreciate also the comments made by Monsieur Lauzon.

Stéphane, I appreciate what you brought forward.

Again, I think we all truly want to make sure we finish this study, but when it comes to the study of Bill C-19, we can't put that aside. Ethically, we all have a role to play in protecting Canadians. I take that role and that responsibility very seriously, as well as making sure we do the good work that is needed there.

I truly hope that today we will be able to find some common ground and from there move forward to do the important work we have been called upon to do here.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Ms. Petitpas Taylor.

Dr. Duncan.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I too will be brief.

Mr. Blaikie—Daniel, if I may—first of all, thank you for bringing forward this amendment. I think everybody wants to find a way through this impasse. You've brought something forward that everyone agreed on. I see that as real progress, and I think we owe you our thanks for doing that.

Dear colleagues—and I mean that—we work together. In the House, you really get to know your friends and colleagues. This committee has done really good work in the past.

I come back to what we did last spring. I come back to what we did on how to prepare for a pandemic election, should we have one—and no one wants that. We want to protect Canadians' health and safety, and we want to protect our democracy.

I too, like Ms. Petitpas Taylor—like Ginette—would really like to see us move past this and get to that work that needs to be done. I want to ensure that, should there be an election during a pandemic, we have done the hard work and everything possible to protect the health and safety of Canadians in a democracy.

With that, I'll just say that we're making progress, friends. Let's keep talking. I think we're getting to where we all want to be. Let's keep talking and reach across the aisle.

Once again, Daniel, I really want to say thank you. You've moved us in a good direction.

Thank you, colleagues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Blaikie is next, and then Monsieur Therrien.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I want to say thanks to the entire committee, because, as we've seen over the past few months, it really does take everyone being on board to be able to make progress. Otherwise things stall out pretty quickly.

What I heard in Ms. Vecchio's remarks, which I appreciate, was some concerns about it sometimes being hard after months of disagreement and filibustering for the committee to build that trust back up. I've had the good fortune of serving on committees in which there's been a high level of trust, and I've also had the experience of serving on committees in which there's been a relatively low level of trust across the table.

I think part of this exercise is that as a committee we're finally coming together and working in a way that Canadians would expect to see their public officials work across disagreements.

I think maybe there's a way we could further qualify this amendment in order to build some of that trust that Ms. Vecchio was referring to.

I would propose the following subamendment, Madam Chair:

That the amendment be amended by adding after the words “Government's Reasons for Proroguing Parliament in August 2020”, the words: “, and that all questions necessary for the finalization and tabling of the report be disposed of before the end of the day on June 8, 2021 and that the final report be tabled no later than June 11, 2021.

That would give a pretty concrete deadline for Ms. Vecchio and frankly others on the opposition side who may still be experiencing some of those trust issues that come out of long periods of disagreement, and give some certainty to the committee that the report will indeed be filed before we rise for the summer. I would just add that I think if we can build that trust and get to the point where we dispense—and I realize with the subamendment and amendment and a main motion that there are at least three votes before the end of this process—that would allow us then, while we still will have a devoir—I'm thinking of the French word—a duty and a task, so in the double sense of that word, to complete the prorogation study even as we embark on our study of Bill C-19. Once we embark on that study of Bill C‑19, which could happen as early as Tuesday if we're able to dispense with all three votes today, then I think it would be incumbent upon us as committee members to talk to our respective whips' and House leaders' offices about the possibility of perhaps having additional meetings for the procedure and house affairs committee for the purpose of studying Bill C‑19. I think from what we've heard from all parties—not just at this committee but in the House as well—that there is agreement regarding the sense of urgency of this piece of legislation.

If we could dispense with the three questions today, that would open up some possibilities as we embark on the study of Bill C-19. We'll have certainty about tabling a report on prorogation in a timely fashion, but then we can really start talking about the work we need to do in order to get all the voices that we need to hear on Bill C‑19 and try to get it back to the House in a way that gives it time to be dealt with in the House and, I hope, also in the Senate before June. I'm speaking personally here, but in my opinion, the Senate shouldn't have much to say about it. If the House can agree, they don't deal with elections, so they are not subject matter experts as far as I'm concerned. If we can get it through the House, there should be a way to get it through the other place relatively quickly.

I present this subamendment in the spirit of building that sense of trust and hopefully helping us get to a conclusion on this so we can start that study and then maybe talk about the meetings we have. As Ms. Vecchio rightly pointed out, we probably don't have enough meetings on the roster right now in terms of timeline, so if all the parties agree that this is a priority, how do we do that extra work in a timely way? We have to get to the point where we can dispense with these motions so that we can get started on that study in order to have that logistical conversation about how we make time for those additional meetings.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Mr. Blaikie.

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

I'll be sending that wording immediately to the clerk as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I was just going to ask for that. Thank you for that.

June 11 is the tabling of the report, and the June 8 timeline is for what?

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

June 8 would be to dispose of all the questions required to finalize the report and prepare it for tabling, and June 11 would be the tabling date.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay, that's perfect. Thank you for clarifying that.

It will be circulated. Are you sending it to the clerk right now?

[The Clerk]

Madam Chair, I just received it. I'll be sending it out momentarily to the members.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

All right. Thank you.

Monsieur Therrien, you're next.