Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 13th, 2021

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

I only heard Mr. Blaikie's amendment, but I haven't read it. I will therefore only comment on Mr. Lauzon's amendment.

I' m completely against it. What we have here at the moment is vaudeville and I find it very sad that this should be the case after all the debating we have done…

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I have a point of order. I'm sorry, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Translation, could you let us know whether you can translate that after the fact for us, or whether there was a problem and you didn't actually hear what Monsieur Therrien had said?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Is it better now?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

We can now hear you.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

As I don't know when you lost me, I'll repeat what I said.

I won't discuss Mr. Blaikie's subamendment, because haven't received it, but I will talk about Mr. Lauzon's amendment.

I sadly realize that the debates we've engaged in for such a long time have had very little if any impact on this committee's usual energy. I would very humbly say that we've been watching a vaudeville act.

I can't see how we could possibly adopt this amendment, which I find ridiculous.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you for your clarity, Monsieur Therrien.

Monsieur Lauzon.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I respect my colleague Mr. Therrien's comments. I get on with my work humbly, and very seriously. I introduced this amendment only after careful thought. I too am eager to move on to subjects other than prorogation.

In any event, there is a new subamendment to the one I introduced, and so, Madam Chair, can we take time once again to read the subamendment carefully, in French and English, and then pause so that we can examine the amendment carefully and return for a well-informed vote on it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you.

I just want to get a sense from the committee, because it's 12:51 p.m. If we were to take another 10-minute suspension, are you proposing we come back and talk about this, or are you proposing we talk about it at the next meeting?

What are the thoughts of the rest of the committee?

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

We haven't received it yet. We should receive it very soon.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

It just came in.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Chair, I think that we should just suspend the meeting until Tuesday.

It would simplify things. We've only just received it, and this would give us time to read it and make up our minds. I think that coming back on Tuesday would be better. We could then perhaps have a constructive debate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

How does everyone feel about that?

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

Personally, I've received it and read it. I'm ready to vote immediately on this amendment. All the discussions were about the motion I introduced. This is simply an addition, a subamendment.

It doesn't bother me, we could postpone it until next Thursday. That would give us time to look at it more carefully. I'm ready to vote, but I'm also ready, as a good team player, to consider Mr. Therrien's request, and postpone it until Thursday morning.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

It would be Tuesday. I think that was just an error.

Is everyone okay with our coming back with, hopefully, the intention to dispose of these amendments?

I'm just going to put that out there. That is what everyone has on.... That's the way, hopefully, we can move to make some progress.

We'll come back on Tuesday at 11 o'clock, on the subamendment that's been proposed by Mr. Blaikie.

[The meeting was suspended at 12:54 p.m., Thursday, May 27]

[The meeting resumed at 11:06 a.m., Tuesday, June 1]

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay, let's get started. I call this meeting back to order.

We're resuming meeting number 27 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which started on April 13. We suspended the last meeting. Today is June 1, 2021.

Today's meeting, like we have been doing, is meeting in hybrid format. I believe everyone is participating virtually thus far. The room is available for those who may want to sub in, but I don't believe there are many subs scheduled for today.

I would like to just give you a couple of reminders. Make sure your interpretation channel is selected. Make sure that you mute and unmute your mikes. If you want to raise a point of order, then unmute your mike and say you have a point of order. If you want to speak to a point of order or the debate on the floor, then raise the hand in the toolbar.

I want to let you know that there has been a strain on our support resources, so you may have heard from your various whips that things are very tight not just for our committee but for all committees that are taking place. We have many people from our support teams who are not available right now. That includes interpretation and perhaps others as well, part of the technical teams. There will be a hard stop at one o'clock today. That's been agreed to by the whips of all the parties and I believe all committees will be limited to the two-hour time. I'll keep updating you on that. I don't know if it's just for today or if that is something we may have to deal with for some meetings to come.

Where we left off last time is that a subamendment was presented by Mr. Blaikie. Mr. Blaikie had the floor at the time and Mr. Therrien had his hand raised.

We could go back to you, Mr. Blaikie, if you want to refresh our memories on your subamendment. I'm sure everyone has it in front of them. Maybe this is a good time for you to let me know if you don't have Mr. Blaikie's subamendment so that we can forward it to you again.

Does everyone have the subamendment? Okay.

All right, so we are on that subamendment. After Mr. Blaikie we have Mr. Therrien on the list.

Mr. Blaikie, go ahead.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

As you say, just for the benefit of the committee I'll recall that the subamendment I proposed really puts some time limits on reporting back on the issue of prorogation to ensure that it does happen and that it happens in a timely way. I think that if we do pass this subamendment and then the amendment and then the main motion today, effectively we'll be in a position to perhaps even begin studying Bill C-19 as early as Thursday.

What I think we'll need a little bit of time to do is to discuss how we can proceed to conclude the report on prorogation according to the timeline in the subamendment. I do have some thoughts about that, but I'm anxious to see if we're going to get to that resolution.

I hope that if we do, we might then make some time to talk about how we can finalize the report a week from today. Of course, I think we all understand from last day that there is a draft of the report already prepared. If the Prime Minister does appear, then that would be the only thing that would need to be added. I hope he will, but in the event that he doesn't, we will have a report that will include that omission and a process where the committee can ensure that we're voting on everything that needs to be voted on to get that report done and get in whatever the committee wants to get in about this journey we've been on together.

I'll leave it at that.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

You are absolutely correct. It does present some challenges in terms of the timeline. There is a timeline crunch. If it was to pass, we would have to quickly figure out how we are going to accommodate getting everything done within that time frame. If we also get to that point, you are correct that we have the report up to this point prepared and translated. That can be circulated to all of the members if we reach that point.

Mr. Therrien.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We've had systematic obstruction from the Liberals for over two months now, and the key issue has been the presence of the Prime Minister.

Ms. Vecchio's motion included several items in addition to his presence. Basically, Mr. Blaikie's proposal was an olive branch because it dropped all the rest and kept only the invitation to the Prime Minister for him to appear. It was therefore a step in the right direction.

The key point has always been the Prime Minister's presence. So we have experienced over two months of systematic obstruction as a result of wanting to require his appearance. I don't want to draw this out any longer, but it was obvious, and it still is, that we want to do some intelligent work with respect to the prorogation. Mr. Rodriguez's presence was the decisive moment in getting us to where we are.

By this I mean that until we have had the Prime Minister appear before this committee, it will be impossible to shed any light on the prorogation.

Do these people have something to hide? I don't think so. Would the Prime Minister be free to spend an hour with us? I think that democracy requires it, and that he ought to find an hour in his schedule to do just that. I understand that he's the Prime Minister, but he is accountable, and should come and explain to us why an extremely important measure in a democracy—the prorogation of Parliament—was used at a time when we should have been sitting because there were a lot of problems to deal with.

The three opposition parties agreed on that. The Liberal Party systematically obstructed it because they did not see that it would be useful for the Prime Minister to appear before this committee, which we understand.

I have previously heard the Prime Minister in committee. I believe that he could present us with some interesting ideas. It's not an inquisition. We don't want to burn him at the stake. We don't want to make the Prime Minister another Joan of Arc. We just want to ask him some questions about what might be the most significant thing he has done over the past year, which was to prorogue Parliament.

We are getting to the end of the systematic obstruction, as we have all understood that he had to be called or invited to appear for at least an hour. This means that the opposition parties have taken a big step forward. The Liberals are now saying that if the Prime Minister comes, that's all to the good, and if he doesn't, we could simply mention that fact in an annex to the report.

It's not serious, and they're trying to lead us up the garden path. But we won't be duped. I'm very surprised that my NDP colleague appears to have been taken in by the idea. It's very unusual. I've been in politics for eight years now, and I can tell you that I've never seen a U‑turn like that. Never. I'm impressed. Not only did my NDP colleague say that it was a good idea, but that he was going to set a deadline for discussions on prorogation, when we've been blocked for over two months because of the Liberals' systematic obstruction. We've just dealt with the systematic obstruction and you're telling us that the problem needs to be dealt with by June 8. It's a joke. We've been stymied for two months, and just when we're seeing a bit of light at the end of the tunnel, we've got a knife at our throat telling us that we have to sort out the situation no later than June 8.

That means we have today's meeting, the Thursday meeting and next Tuesday's meeting before June 8. We have to discuss Mr. Blaikie's amendment, we have an amendment from Mr. Lauzon, and we don't know what other amendments might be proposed. I have a feeling that there are going to be others. You're telling us that we need to get to work so that everything can be settled by June 8.

Honestly, I find it insulting. Insulting in terms of the work we still need to do and insulting to the serious approach that this committee has always taken.

From the very outset, we got along well, worked as a team, worked hard, working effectively, and came up with some good ideas together. Now, we're being told that we've lost enough time and that it needs to be tabled on June 8, on grounds that we need to move on to Bill C‑19. I'm telling you that there is no way I'm going to stop doing intelligent work just because a few MPs are saying that we need to wrap things up by June 8.

What does that mean? Does it mean that if it's not finished by June 8, the meeting will have to be extended, perhaps more than two hours? If that's the case, what does it mean? Does it mean that the IT people will be able to support us during this extension? Does it mean that we'll have to push back other committees? There are others still sitting and we are at the end of the session. The other committees are also overwhelmed. They are pointing a gun at our head and setting a June 8 deadline. Seriously, I don't agree with having a knife at my throat on on grounds that we have to study Bill C‑19.

Given that we had a bill to study, a very important one at that—I'm not saying that it isn't—perhaps the Liberals shouldn't have engaged in such systematic obstruction for over two months. Perhaps that's where the problem lies.

We, however, are being condemned to completing all our parliamentary work on prorogation in only a week. I still have a lot of questions to which I have not received any answers. Parliament prorogued on August 18, 2020, and Mr. Morneau resigned. When I asked Mr. Rodriguez what had happened on August 17, he couldn't give me an answer. So the government's number three ^x resigned.

I can hear something. I don't know what's happening. I'll continue, unless someone stops me.

Mr. Vaive, is everything okay?

[The Clerk]

Everything's all right, Mr. Therrien. Please continue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes, you're good.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

So Mr. Rodriguez said he didn't know what happened on August 17. Seriously? He's supposed to be the key person in in the whole process of analyzing the prorogation. He came to see us in committee and told us with a straight face that he didn't know what happened on August 17, and there was a prorogation on August 18.

I'm sorry, but how stupid does he think I am?

I'm not saying that Mr. Rodriguez is lying. Not at all. But what I am saying is that he hasn't shed any light on the whole prorogation issue. I'm sure about that. At one point he said that Technical difficulty close the books on August 18. It took nearly a month for Parliament to reopen. Mr. Rodriguez said that there was nothing unusual about this, that a prorogation took some time, that some studies had to be carried out , that a throne speech had to be written, and so on. Then some specialists came and told us that a prorogation could be done in three days.

You can prorogue on a Thursday and start a new session on the following Monday. Everything Mr. Rodriguez told us by way of explanation was not even close to the truth.

You're trying to tell me that I should be content with Pablo Rodriguez's visit for my analysis of the prorogation. Ms. Duncan mentioned several times that she was a doctor and repeatedly added that it was important to be serious and rational. As for me, all I have is a Master's degree in economics, no Ph.D., but I can tell you that if you want things done properly, you need witnesses and substantial, rock solid, sources to be able to do leading-edge scientific work. As Ms. Duncan would put it, you need the right information.

Until we have it, we won't be able to draw any conclusions as to why there was prorogation. Mr. Rodriguez came to the committee and said things that were not accurate, and he also lacked information. If the government number two comes here and tells us absolutely nothing, then we have a serious problem. If the number two is unable to provide clarification, then we need to wait until number one shows up.

It won't be an inquisition. We have deep respect for the institution and it's the Prime Minister of Canada. Clearly, if we are given the honour of asking him questions, we will do it in accordance with the rules and with the respect appropriate to this type of exchange. We are well aware of this. I certainly am and I'm convinced the Conservatives are aware of this, as are the NDP and of course the Liberals.

I'm wondering what they're afraid of. What do the NDP and the Liberal Party have to fear from the Prime Minister's appearance here?

We're not executioners. We are people who want explanations for the most significant event of this Parliament, which was the prorogation. It's an unusual and major event, and we have the mandate and the responsibility to shed light on the situation. That's what our fellow citizens expect of us.

Members of the other parties, including the Liberal Party, have been telling us that people have not been talking to them about prorogation. The people who have been speaking to me have talked about the WE Charity. They spoke to me about it before and they're still doing so. Despite what my colleagues may think, we're still hearing a lot of talk about it.

To establish a cause and effect relationship, you need to begin with a statistical association. An event occurs at the same time as another. One event, the scandal pertaining to the WE Charity, occurred at the same time as another event, namely prorogation. In science—I'm sure Ms. Duncan will agree with me on this—this is called a statistical association.

For a statistical association to be a cause and effect relationship, you require one thing to lead to another, and to influence it. A causal relationship raises the following question: was the prorogation caused by the WE Charity scandal? In order to answer this, discussion, information and analysis are required.

Until such an analysis has been completed, we will continue to study a statistical association, namely two events that occur jointly without knowing exactly whether there was a cause and effect relationship.

So, if Ms. Duncan and the Liberal Party are in agreement, it's because they do not want to see certain information. I find it very worrisome to have to report this fact to a committee like the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which has an excellent reputation. We have to do our work seriously.

I am reaching out to you. Do you want to remain limited to a botched analysis or do you really want to get to the bottom of things, in an intelligent, well-structured, polite and highly respectful manner towards the office of prime minister?

Mr. Trudeau is a prime minister. We owe him respect and I have respect for him. I don't know what he's afraid of. I don't know what the Liberals are afraid of.

Mr. Turnbull discussed this at length. He has carried out some extensive studiesinaudible, as has Ms. Duncan. Do you want to stop at concomitance, at two events that occur without knowing whether there is a causal relationship? Is that what academics like you really want? I would argue that we need to go further and work…

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Point of order, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes, Mr. Lukiwski.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

I'm sorry about that and I apologize, Mr. Therrien, but the audio levels are identical. In other words, I cannot hear either Mr. Therrien or the interpreter, because they're cancelling one another out. If I'm listening in English, I would prefer, obviously, the French to be muted somewhat, so I can clearly hear the English interpretation, but that's not happening.

Could you speak with an IT specialist? I don't know if it's only my computer or others, but it's very distracting, since both audio levels are the same.