Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 13th, 2021

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

Yes, it is a point of order, and it's a point of order about what's been suggested.

We've been talking about compromise. We've been talking about coming to a solution on this. I think a suggestion has been made that we dispose of this amendment, and that would bring us back to the original motion.

That would clear things up for today, and then on Thursday, we can come fresh with the original motion, and go from there in order to come to a solution and dispose of this matter.

The opposition is willing, ready and able to act in good faith, and to move forward on this, but if the Liberals are going to continue with filibustering for the next two months, or how ever long they feel like filibustering, then here we are.

If Mr. Turnbull is not allowing this to come to a vote, I think that's most unfortunate, and we'll go on listening to them filibuster their own amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Blaikie, do you have a point of order?

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

Madam Chair, on the same point of order, really, I just want to say that I think this is a bit of a delicate moment. I appreciate Mr. Turnbull's point that it may be that a decision wasn't made to have a vote at 12:55, but there was clearly a call to test the committee and I don't think the committee was tested on that. The fact that it wasn't previously doesn't mean that it couldn't be now, and I think it would be an important act of good faith on the part of government members of the committee who have said that they want to try to conduce towards a solution to allow that vote to happen and the meeting to adjourn.

Mr. Turnbull stated earlier that time is precious. There isn't a lot of free time for members of Parliament at any time, particularly not now. We're all very busy. Spending the next couple of hours in this meeting is a couple of hours that we can't spend doing those other things in the next 48 hours where we also are trying to work in an exceptional meeting among the opposition parties in order to have a productive conversation that leads to a formal proposal for the government. I think that's the kind of lack of time and good faith that might poison the well and cause this otherwise good and opportune moment to pass us by without having produced a solution.

Therefore, I would beseech my colleagues on the government side of the committee here to allow the vote on the amendment to take place and the meeting to suspend afterward so that we have, on the other side, the time to do what they've asked us to do, which is to discuss among ourselves. We're not a monolithic group. As I say, it's three different political parties that require some time to have that conversation. The idea that it was going to come in writing during this meeting was certainly optimistic, but also equally unrealistic. We're asking to be able to have the vote, suspend the meeting, take the time and come back with a proposal.

Of course, if the government doesn't like our proposal, there will be time for Mr. Turnbull to move another amendment. This one is clearly dead in the water, so if he wants to take another run at it, that will be his business. In the meantime, the opposition parties will work together to try to come up with what we think is a next best offer.

I would just really exhort my colleagues to not waste what I think is a good moment, and to allow things to wrap up on the current amendment, which is one proposal and a negotiation that I think has clearly not gone the way the mover intended—and fair enough, that happens in a negotiation—and to make way for a new proposal that might succeed or might not, but at least we'd be talking about something new. That in itself would be significant in a process now that has taken a very long time with very little movement.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I don't know if there are responses to the point or order or debate on that point of order. It's hard for me to tell, because there are hands up to speak to the regular speaking list and I don't want to miss anybody.

Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Chair, I'll continue with my remarks because I wasn't quite finished what I had prepared.

I want to get back to another one of the individuals who contributed to this particular paper that I was referencing, Alex Himelfarb, the former clerk of the Privy Council. He said:

History provides no perfect analogy for the combined health and socio-economic catastrophe we now confront. Certainly not since the Depression have we sustained such a broad and deep economic hit. We’ve rightly spent a lot to provide relief and we’re going to have to spend more—depending on our ambitions, possibly a great deal more.

I thought that was a really good quote to bring to this committee to, again, substantiate how I think the economic impact of COVID-19 is far greater than many of the other recessions we have been through, and even greater in kind and in magnitude than the Great Depression. Alex also said:

Many of the aid programs will have to be extended, some may have to become permanent, further public investment will be needed to meet the urgent needs of municipalities and get the economy moving. We can expect debates about objectives – whether simply recovery or also repair of cracks tragically exposed, or whether to refashion a more equitable, inclusive and sustainable economy.

Why I bring these two quotes as some of my final remarks to substantiate everything I've been saying is that I think the former clerk of the Privy Council was really, at the time, grappling with, and even recommending and foreseeing, that many of our aid programs would have to be extended. This is precisely what the government did, and some were slightly redesigned. I know that I've spoken to those before.

What's interesting is that he mentioned this key debate at the end of the quote that I used, which is, “We can expect debates about objectives, whether simply recovery or also repair of cracks tragically exposed, or whether to refashion a more equitable, inclusive and sustainable economy.” That's a really interesting conversation about whether we're just going to build back in the same way, in other words, almost reinstall the same inequities that we've experienced throughout this pandemic, or whether we're going to try to address those.

I think our government's evaluation and resetting of its agenda and the considerable time that was taken to do that, which I know only really compromised one sitting day of Parliament, was really on the mark in terms of what it amounted to, where it focused its attention, and I think it's supported by these remarks from the former clerk of the Privy Council.

I've tried to provide more evidence and data to substantiate why it would be helpful for us to hear from the Minister of Finance and to renew that as a plea to the members opposite to hopefully support the amendment that I put forward.

I'll wrap up there for now and I thank all the members for the time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Mr. Turnbull.

Dr. Duncan.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to thank all of my colleagues before me for their important words. I really would like to thank Ms. Petitpas Taylor for her speech. There's a reason she devoted her life to social work. I would like to also thank her for her work as our former minister of health, and particularly the good work she did on the food guide, and her work with thalidomide survivors. I will just say one last thing. Thank you for accepting the motion for a standing committee on science and research. It's really important that you were included as you've been a tireless champion for health science and research.

Mr. Turnbull, thank you again for your always rational argument. We are in a once-in-a-century pandemic, with huge economic and health impacts. That's why it was so important to prorogue, but of course, colleagues, we're here to debate why it's important to invite the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth to come to our committee and ultimately to discuss why it was necessary for the government to prorogue to deal with the greatest public health crisis in a century.

As you know, I've been speaking in detail about COVID-19 and its impacts on Canadians. After all, what can be more important than how the people we serve are getting through the pandemic, whether they are healthy and safe and whether we are doing everything we can to protect their livelihoods? I think it's important to always remember the lives lost. Members of families and communities are grieving and they're hurting. I think it's also important to remember our frontline health care workers who are fighting the virus tirelessly.

As you know, it's Nursing Week, and it's an opportunity to thank nurses for their work, their life-saving work, their work at the bedside. I know, in my own family's case, I was extremely grateful when they would take my father's arm and listen to his stories. Thank you to all of our nurses.

I would also like to thank the essential workers who have worked through the pandemic to keep our communities and our country going. I will make the point that last week more cases of COVID-19 had been reported globally—this is really important—in the previous two weeks than during the first six months of the pandemic. We are now seeing a plateauing in the number of COVID-19 cases and deaths, with declines in most regions, including the Americas and Europe, the two worst-affected regions. It's an unacceptably high plateau, with more than 5.4 million reported cases and almost 90,000 deaths last week.

Today I'm going to use my time to focus on prorogation and the pandemic and why we should be taking the important step of bringing forward the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth to hear why it was necessary to prorogue during a once-in-a-century pandemic. We have been at this amendment for weeks. Our colleagues across the way put forward a motion and we put forward an amendment. Negotiations involved some give-and-take, and I hope we are going to see more movement in the coming days. As I have said before, I absolutely support having the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth coming to this committee to explain why it was necessary to prorogue during the greatest public health crisis in 100 years.

Let me start by saying that prorogation is a long-standing feature of Canadian parliamentary government. In fact, by 2010 there had been over 100 prorogations. Let me repeat that: Prorogation is a long-standing feature of our Canadian parliamentary government. There have been many prorogation requests by former governments and prime ministers. In the early decades of the Canadian Parliament, the practice was to end a session of Parliament by prorogation rather than a lengthy adjournment.

In 1982, I believe, the Standing Orders were introduced to establish fixed sessions, which have resulted in approximately 2.1 prorogations for each Parliament. Most Canadian federal and provincial governments prorogue at least once between elections.

I think it is really important to note that our government was exceptional in not proroguing at all in its first term from 2015 to 2019. Regardless, I think it is important to have the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth come to answer questions about the prorogation report: why it was necessary to prorogue during the greatest public health crisis in 100 years.

I've been here a while and I remember very well the 40th Parliament. I had just been elected and I was so excited to serve the people of Etobicoke North, a place where I was born and raised, and to serve all Canadians. I didn't get to serve very many weeks in the people's House in that Parliament because there was the most famous prorogation—perhaps more accurately, the most infamous prorogation—in Canadian history in 2008 undertaken by former prime minister Stephen Harper.

In that minority government situation, the three opposition parties publicly agreed to defeat the Conservative government in an upcoming vote of non-confidence. Instead, former prime minister Harper went to the Governor General of the day and requested a prorogation. It was granted, and the Conservative government narrowly escaped defeat. Mr. Harper outmanoeuvred the opposition's attempt to democratically unseat him and form a coalition government.

According to Maclean's magazine, Mr. Harper's “failure to frankly explain why he should be allowed to postpone facing a confidence vote in the House—the bedrock source of a government's democratic legitimacy in the British parliamentary system—seemed evasive”.

As stated, “The highest duty of a Prime Minister...is to uphold the Constitution of Canada, which includes the rights and privileges of the House of Commons and the duties owed to the Queen's representative in Canada.”

While prorogation had been routine, the 2008 prorogation was not. Let me be clear. Mr. Harper never had to write a report explaining why he prorogued and, oddly, in the context of today's discussion, I simply cannot recall any Conservative members who asked him or any other minister to appear at committee to explain his decision to Canadians. We, on the other hand, think the ministers should come and talk about the prorogation report, a reporting mechanism that our government put in place, and ministers should explain why they think prorogation was necessary during the greatest public health crisis in a century.

The government House leader has come in front of this committee, and we think the Deputy Prime Minister and finance minister and the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth should also come.

I think it is important to point out that previous Conservative and Liberal governments have prorogued for much less—

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

On a point of order, Madam Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mrs. Vecchio.

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

I'm just checking. Ms. Duncan has mentioned the other two ministers very often. Can we get an update from the clerk on whether anything has happened since the ministers have been asked and if they have responded yet?

I know that a week and a half ago there was a discussion that members were going to see what they could do. Have we heard anything on their invitations and their RSVPs?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I can confidently say that the clerk updates me on any communications that we receive. The answer would be the same as it was during the last meeting, that invitations had gone out initially, many months ago now, but that there has been no response to those invitations.

This is a perfect time for me, since we've already made a small interjection here, to update you all that the clerk and the team in the room reached out to me just five minutes ago. I was just waiting for a good time to make the announcement that we have a similar situation with the interpreters needing to switch over at 2 o'clock as we had last time. I guess it is due to a shortage of interpreters that we are seeing this. We haven't necessarily seen this in other meetings we've had. At 2 o'clock, they will need half an hour to switch over if we do want to resume at 2:30. At 2:30, the cleaners would have to come in if we were to allow the agriculture committee to proceed from this room at that point. At 3 o'clock, we will have votes with no bells.

I just want to inform all of you of that. You don't have to decide immediately what you want to do, but I wanted to put that out there since I just heard from the clerk that this is the situation.

If anyone wants to respond to what I've just announced, feel free to do so at this point, since I have interrupted Ms. Duncan's speech. I will have to suspend at 2 o'clock so the interpreters can switch over. I will let you know a little before that, and at that point, before we suspend at 2 o'clock, you can let me know how you want to proceed.

Dr. Duncan.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

It is important to point out that previous Conservative and Liberal governments have prorogued for much less than a once-in-a-century pandemic and have not even had to explain themselves in a report or otherwise, as our government has done.

I would like to talk about former prime minister Harper's use of prorogation, which wasn't followed by reports from the government of the day. The recess for Mr. Harper took Canada into uncharted constitutional territory and created a political vacuum at a time of global economic crisis.

I'd like to quote from The New York Times:

Canada’s parliamentary opposition reacted with outrage on Thursday after Prime Minister Stephen Harper shut down the legislature until Jan. 26, seeking to forestall a no-confidence vote that he was sure to lose and, possibly, provoking a constitutional crisis....

The opposition fiercely criticized the decision to suspend Parliament, accusing Mr. Harper of undermining the nation’s democracy. “We have to say to Canadians, ‘Is this the kind of government you want?’” said Bob Rae, a member of the opposition Liberal Party. “Do we want a party in place that is so undemocratic that it will not meet the House of Commons?”

That sentiment was echoed by constitutional scholars, who lamented that the governor general might have created a mechanism that future prime ministers could use to bypass the legislature when it seemed convenient.

This was the first time any Parliament members or constitutional scholars here could recall the manoeuver being used in the midst of a political crisis and over the objections of Parliament.

“This really has been a blow to parliamentary democracy in Canada”, said Nelson Wiseman, a professor of political science at the University of Toronto. “It has lowered the status of the elected Parliament and raised the status of the unelected prime minister.”

Canadians were outraged by former prime minister Harper's use of prorogation, with reports noting how thousands took to the streets to protest:

Thousands of people attended rallies in towns and cities across Canada...to speak out against Prime Minister Stephen Harper's decision to suspend Parliament.... More than 60 rallies were planned across Canada....

Thousands of protesters gathered at Yonge-Dundas Square in Toronto to protest the suspension of Parliament. Some took the demonstration onto the street, chanting and waving placards as they marched down Yonge Street....

“It's about the masses and their voice being heard,” Sonya Stanger, 18, said. “You know, representation of the masses, and that's not what's happening right now.”

Mr. Turnbull's amendment is just meant to bring more focus, to bring the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth to the motion of Mrs. Vecchio and allow us to move on to something substantive.

Again, let's look at reactions to prorogation. I would like to quote briefly from another story:

In a display that was anything but apathetic, thousands of Canadians of varying political stripes clogged city streets across Canada demanding Prime Minister Stephen Harper reopen Parliament and get back to work.

Hordes of protesters crammed Toronto's downtown square, cradling signs denouncing the Prime Minister's decision to suspend Parliament.... More than 3,000 people closed down a busy section of Yonge Street to sing, march and chant....

A more subdued Jason Young, 36, stood quietly besides the chanting protesters. He said he was not a partisan person, but had begun to resent Harper’s interpretation of democracy.

“I hope there are a lot of people who would identify themselves as conservatives here today, because all Canadians should be concerned about this,” he said.

Another small group had their own dramatic interpretation of the suspension of Parliament. Several pallbearers dressed in black walked behind a bag piper and carried a coffin with poster of parliament inside, hoisting a sign that read “democracy is dead.”...

“I came to Canada to escape dictatorship”, said Massoud Hasson, 66, an immigrant from Pakistan who was attending his first public rally.

The point is, thousands of Canadians protested proroguing Parliament. It was a crisis that shook the nation. There was no accountability and no need to explain to Canadians why the prorogation was necessary.

Again, in the words of Maclean's, Mr. Harper's “failure to frankly explain why he should be allowed to postpone facing a confidence vote in the House...seemed evasive.”

Again, in stark contrast—

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

I have point of order, if I might, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Go ahead, Mr. Blaikie.

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

We're now about half an hour past when I had hoped we might come to a vote on the amendment.

I wanted to mark the occasion by drawing members' attention to the House of Commons Procedure and Practice in respect of amendments at committee. I'll note that only one amendment can be considered by committee at one time.

In other words, if there is going to be some other kind of solution and if Mr. Turnbull's amendment is not the way forward.... I think after some 30 or 40 hours, it's fair to conclude in an evidence-based way that his proposal is not the way forward. In order for there to be any point or purpose to opposition members of the committee convening a meeting between now and the committee's next meeting to talk about what another proposal might be, we would have to clear the air on this one.

If we're going to continue to waste time speaking to an amendment that's dead in the water and we can't have a vote at least to decide that, then I don't see any point in my colleagues on the opposition and me taking time to work towards a solution to bring on Thursday, while Liberals reserve the right to bullheadedly insist on a failed proposal.

Either we're working on something new or this moment at the committee where we might move forward is over. If we continue talking about this amendment without a vote for the next half-hour, an hour or two hours, I'm telling you, the moment is over.

If the Liberals want a five-minute suspension so they can get it together and talk about whether they're serious about having this committee move on to more important business, so be it. I'm not going to sit here and pretend that somehow this is a constructive committee working towards a solution when I have people yammering in my ear about a failed proposal. We're either trying to move on or we aren't.

What is it going to be, and how are we going to decide that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Does anyone want to respond to that proposal?

Ms. Petitpas Taylor.

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

Madam Chair, I really would like to take Mr. Blaikie's point on taking a five-minute break. Perhaps our Liberal colleagues can just chat about this. I don't think it's a bad idea to be able to do that.

If my colleagues agree, I would really like to take a few minutes to be able to chat with my colleagues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mrs. Vecchio.

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

Are you asking for five minutes to speak to your colleagues?

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

Per Mr. Blaikie's suggestion, I just want to take him up on that.

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

I think it's at the will of the committee. I am 100% where Daniel is coming from, so let's just get our stuff together. I totally understand.

It's truly up to the will of the committee, but thank you very much, Daniel, for bringing that forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

We will suspend for five minutes, and I will see you back.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I call the meeting back to order.

I also wanted to let you know that the clerk informed me while we were on our suspension that there was a slight error made in terms of the timing of interpreters having to switch. They said that they can go until 2:30 before they need to switch. Originally I had announced they would switch at 2:00, but it's 2:30. That's the same time the room needs to be switched over for the agriculture committee.

I expect to be suspending at 2:30 or sooner, if there's some kind of resolution to today's meeting.

I will give the floor back to Dr. Duncan.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to our colleagues. We've discussed the issue, and what we're asking for—I'm sure people can absolutely appreciate this—is to see something in writing. We look forward to seeing that. That's just good negotiation on all sides. You always want to see something in writing. I thank my colleagues.

I will continue. I was talking about the 2008 prorogation. It was the crisis that shook the nation. There was no accountability and no need to explain to Canadians why—

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

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

We had that five-minute break, and the decision was that you want something in writing. I just want to ask for clarification before you continue. There was a request for something in writing. Can I ask what we're going to get in turn? Are you guys going to stop filibustering? Is that what comes in turn? I'm listening to this, and the negotiations, if we're going to negotiate.... Daniel has asked, “What are the plans?” You guys have said, “We want something in writing.” Please share with me. Is this what's holding you up, having something from us in writing, for us to figure out how to get you guys to stop talking on this filibuster? I just want to ensure we're all on the same page here.

As I said, this morning I really thought there was good faith. I'll be honest. I recognize we're in a political theatre. I get that, but I can tell you in good conscience that I have been trying—and I do believe many others have been trying—to find a true right to negotiation. Let's not continue to filibuster. Why don't we talk this out rather than listening to this garblegoop? It's very important information, but if I chose to read the reports that Ryan read to me today, I could have chosen to read those reports. Instead, I've listened to them.

I prefer to talk about what the procedure and house affairs committee is supposed to be doing, how we're actually going to get to a vote and how we're actually going to get our report done. It's funny. If the opposition decides to sit on their hands, we will be doing this until Parliament is adjourned. Is this what I understand? I just want to see.... Is there going to be no closure? Is that the plan?