Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 13th, 2021

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

Sure. I would be happy to do so.

I apologize that I will be explaining it in English. Hopefully, the translation comes through. I don't feel as comfortable explaining this in my second official language.

Very simply, the original amendment from Mr. Lauzon basically said that the non-appearance of the Prime Minister would be noted in the report as an annex. My amendment would provide a recommendation that the committee be given the power to compel the Prime Minister to appear at the committee. If this report goes to the House of Commons, concurrence is moved and the House concurs in the report, the committee would therefore have the power to compel the appearance of the Prime Minister before this committee. It's a little more meaty. There are more teeth to this subamendment to compel the Prime Minister's testimony before this committee.

I hope that clarifies it.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes, thank you. You clarified it quite well and explained the implications. I appreciate that.

If we get to the report stage of the study, then at the report stage we would either look for the government to respond to our report, once the report is adopted and tabled in the House, or we would not look for a response. In that case, there would be an opening in the House to move concurrence in the report. Parliament could vote on those recommendations and could then, as Mr. Nater said, force that recommendation or the Prime Minister to appear.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Can the clerk confirm that with Mr. Nater's amendment we would have the power to compel Mr. Trudeau to appear before the committee? Madam Chair, would it be consistent with procedures for me to ask the clerk about it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

We wouldn't have the power necessarily, but I can ask the clerk to clarify.

[The Clerk]

Essentially, Mr. Therrien, if the proposal is adopted and the motion itself ultimately adopted, then a recommendation that uses the wording Mr. Nater is about to propose would be included in a report sent to the House.

It's a two-step process. Once the report is back in the House, it could consider a motion for concurrence. If the House concurs in it, the report recommendations become House orders, meaning that if there is a recommendation in the report like the one described by Mr. Nater, and it is concurred in by the House, then the recommendation becomes a House order.

I don't know whether that properly explains…

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

That's very clear. Thank you. I'm sorry for having slowed the others down, but I'd rather make sure I understand than pretend I'm smart. That's okay by me, and of course I'm in agreement with Mr. Nater's proposal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Monsieur Therrien.

Ms. Vecchio, please go ahead.

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

Thanks very much.

Perhaps we can go into the Simms style, because I have questions for Mr. Nater as well.

I know we have talked about this a little bit. With this, we'd be putting forward this motion. It goes into the report and at the report part we move concurrence and have the discussion about the Prime Minister coming once again, in which case it should come to a vote in the House of Commons to get the Prime Minister here.

We've seen what happens here. Is there any likelihood that even in the House of Commons it wouldn't come to a vote, like we've seen here?

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

I'm happy to respond, Madam Chair.

It would depend on the will of Parliament. A concurrence motion is scheduled in the House typically for three hours, unless an intervening dilatory motion prevents that. That would be, for example, a motion to move to orders of the day, a motion to adjourn the debate or a motion to adjourn the House, which would be less than likely. After three hours of debate on a concurrence motion, it would then be put to the House to vote upon it.

It is a time-limited debate in the House, so there is not an opportunity to put up multiple speakers to filibuster it to no end. Once the debate is completed, it would then be put to the House.

Obviously right now we're under special orders that the vote be deferred until the time prescribed, typically the next day after question period. That would be the process, so there would not be an opportunity for the government members, or any members for that matter, to filibuster a committee report.

There would still be the option for any member to move a dilatory motion to prevent that debate from being completed.

Hopefully that clarifies it. I enjoy parliamentary procedure. I don't say that I'm an expert on all aspects of it. I've learned over the years from people who are far smarter than I am, including one of our well-known experts, Mr. John Holtby. He is the co-editor of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms. He is one of the wonderful people who provide advice to us from time to time. I learned from those people and I try to put as much of it into the back of my head as possible.

Hopefully, that clarifies it for you, Ms. Vecchio.

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

Yes. Thanks very much.

That's why I want to talk about this. I'm thinking of the subamendment. That's really positive. Now we can take it to the greater whole, because we have watched this filibuster for three months. If there's only a time frame of three hours, that's a very positive thing. This motion may give us what we need at the end of the day, which is the Prime Minister.

Thanks for bringing this forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Blaikie, please go ahead.

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

Madam Chair, I have a further question about the process, which I would direct either to you or to the clerk, whoever you think is best suited to provide a response.

I also have a slight preamble.

First of all, what's important to know about the process is that first the committee has to decide that it's actually going to get on with doing up a report. Unfortunately, we're not there yet. I'd like to get there today.

Then we have to determine the content of that report. There's an attempt here by Mr. Nater to begin that discussion, I think maybe somewhat prematurely, but nevertheless, there are some good ideas on the table. Then that gets reported back to the House. Then there's the matter of a concurrence debate. Then there's a vote in Parliament, which could turn a recommendation of the report into an order of the House.

Then there's the question of parliamentary privilege. We know that MPs can't be compelled or don't have to accept invitations to appear and there are certainly lots of examples of that. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister himself is a current example of that.

However, it seems to me that, if you look at chapter 20 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, it's an open question as to what happens in the event that an order issued by the House to a member of Parliament to appear is not followed. It seems to me that there are some examples cited from 2008 where, on a couple of occasions, there was this kind of recommendation by a committee to try to get the House to order a witness. In fact, when committees had made that recommendation back to the House, it was not actually dealt with. The House either chose not to deal with it or, in the second case, as referred to in the footnote, Parliament was dissolved before the issue was decided.

I think the further aspect of that, which is relevant, is the timeline that we're on, in terms of the end of June. Again, my frustration is that we're on that timeline really because we have a Prime Minister who seems very likely to call an election in the summer and refuses to say he won't. That means that if we want to be able to report back on some of this, it has to happen by the end of June.

Presumably an order of the House, once it were determined, would then provide some time for the Prime Minister to arrange an appearance. It would only be after he didn't appear that we would then have to settle the issue, which would mean coming back to the House with some other kind of motion in order to devise some kind of sanction against the Prime Minister for not having appeared.

The question is whether all of that can be done before the end of June. If it can't, that means that not only did the Prime Minister not appear, but PROC never even reported back about it. I think that would be egregious. I share the outrage of other members of the committee who are upset that the Prime Minister isn't coming. I do think that shows a lack of leadership. The question is what you do about it. I think what you do about it is report back to the House. As I say, I'm open to that longer road, but I think we need to get there first.

Could the clerk comment on how the issue of privilege could interact with an attempt for the House to order the Prime Minister and what some of those timelines might be if the House wanted to pursue it vigorously?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes, it's very interesting that we're discussing the mechanisms of procedure in this way. I think that's good learning for everyone. The clerk and I were talking about different privilege matters on Monday and going through different things that could occur.

Daniel, your question is very good. The clerk has written extensively about these types of issues. He has looked into them before and is an expert for our committee.

Justin, please go ahead and give us a little bit of your wealth of knowledge on this issue.

[The Clerk]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll make one point right off the top. My understanding of the subamendment that Mr. Nater has put forward is that the report would still be presented to the House. There would be a recommendation along the lines that Mr. Nater is proposing that would be embedded into the report. There would be a report presented to the House. Once it's presented, if it were concurred in, the recommendations, including the one that Mr. Nater is putting forward, would become an order of the House.

You are right in the sense that, for any member of Parliament or senator, the Governor General or the Queen, committees cannot summon those people to show up at committee or, essentially, compel them to appear. However, there is the mechanism of having the House order a member of Parliament to attend a committee, and be available to provide testimony for that committee on any number of reasons, or any number of studies that a committee is engaged in. The committee can't force that; only the House can.

You're right in the sense that if there is non-compliance of a member of Parliament to attend, then the committee can also report that fact to the House. It becomes a matter for the House to then deal with, and determine an appropriate remedy or response.

As you indicated, the ability for the House to go to that next level has perhaps not been fully tested in the past, or there may not be several examples of that, or examples that can instruct your work here today. There is no problem with an order of the House at this stage requiring the attendance of a member of Parliament to attend a particular committee.

If the member doesn't attend, that's a matter for a future step where the committee could then consider anew what it wants to do about that. Maybe the committee doesn't care about that. Maybe it's not a problem, or maybe some other issue intervenes where it no longer requires that member to attend.

However, if the committee is of the view that it is still required, as I said, it can report the fact of the non-appearance by that member. It then becomes a matter for the House to determine and figure out what it wants to do, and if it wants to take any further steps in requiring that member's appearance.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Next we have Mr. Therrien.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll call once again on our colleague Mr. Vaive. After receiving the very clear explanation of what was involved in the amendment proposed by Mr. Nater, I re‑read the French version and I'm not certain that the two versions say the same thing. What I'd like to ask our clerk is whether his reading of the translation matches the interpretation he just gave me, or whether some translation work still needs to be done? I'm not casting aspersions on the translators; on the contrary, I find that they've done extraordinary work. However, sometimes there is a fine line when additional clarification is required to make sure versions match perfectly. I'm just asking the question, and not blaming anyone.

[The Clerk]

Madam Chair, I could respond, if you would like.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Go ahead.

[The Clerk]

Mr. Therrien, based on my reading of the English and the French, they suggest the same thing, which is that a recommendation be made in the report to give the committee the power to compel the appearance of the Prime Minister before the committee. As I mentioned, the committee cannot order any such thing, because only the House can order him to appear. In this instance, as the chair and Mr. Nater suggested, if this recommendation were included in the report, and if the report were tabled in the House, and if the House were ultimately to adopt it by means of a motion, then the recommendation would become a House order obliging the Prime Minister, in his capacity as a member of Parliament, to appear before the committee.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

In short, then, you find that the translation conveys the same meaning as the amendment proposed by Mr. Nater.

That's all I wanted to know.

So you're all right with it?

You're telling me that it's okay. Is that right?

[The Clerk]

In my view, it's good.

I am obviously no linguist. However, my understanding—Mr. Nater can always correct me if I'm wrong—is that what we're talking about is a recommendation in the report which, when tabled and adopted by the House, creates an obligation for the Prime Minister to appear before the committee. The House, in doing so, gives the committee the authority to compel his appearance.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr Vaive. I really appreciate it.

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

Madam Chair, sorry—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Lukiwski, is it okay if Mr. Nater interjects?

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

Certainly.