Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 13th, 2021

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Chair, I do appreciate the opportunity to say a few words and reflect on this.

Certainly, relating back to some of the things that Mr. Blaikie just shared, which I think are quite reasonable, upon first blush when I saw the subamendment I thought that I could support this because it's really prioritizing prorogation and getting that work done before moving on. I think now that it's been clarified, this impacts a reasonable timeline. It certainly is ambitious, but, as Mr. Blaikie said, I feel that it's something we can accomplish.

I think the main body of the report, which I took the time last night to review, is quite good. It does reflect the testimony that was given, so I feel that the onus is on us as members to put together our recommendations in a timeline that I think is reasonable and to utilize our time next week on Tuesday to go through those recommendations from all the various parties with due consideration given and to vote on those as necessary. I really do support the fact that we need to finish this work, wrap up the prorogation study and complete our work on Bill C-19. I feel very strongly that we have a duty to complete both.

I think it was important for me to just share some of those reflections. I really do think we can accomplish this if we set our minds to it. I agree that we're all professionals and the onus is on us to complete this work.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Monsieur Therrien.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Greetings to everyone.

I apologize for being a little late. It's the first time it's happened to me. I got caught up in some unusual circumstances.

I have two comments.

The first is about the French version of the subamendment. I'd like to ask our dearly beloved clerk whether he thinks the word "élimination" is really an appropriate translation of "disposed of" and whether it might not be preferable to use the verb "régler"?

[The Clerk]

You're absolutely right, Mr. Therrien. A translation problem may well explain this choice of words. As you pointed out, the verb "régler" should be used instead.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Very good.

I'll be brief. My NDP colleague said that our work would have been a waste of time and that we had to present our report to Parliament. I can understand why he would say that and I find that extremely important. The work is not useless and must not be. We need to table our report, but the report has to be well written, well thought-out and in accordance with what we've been hearing for a long while, as the NDP member mentioned.

I'm coming back to the fact of presenting the report to Parliament. I don't think that the dates June 8 and June 11 are critical. We could still take the time to submit it to Parliament. Not being able to do so before June 11 would not endanger the report. That argument is therefore not a good one.

We've also gone through three months of obstruction from the Liberal Party MPs because they did not want Mr. Trudeau to come. And then Mr. Blaikie told us that it was not serious for the Prime Minister not to appear and that we should move on to something else. If he had taken this position from the outset, there wouldn't have been three months of obstruction. If he wanted to support the Liberals, he should have done it three months ago. If he had, we wouldn't find ourselves with a tight deadline. We're facing this problem because we—by which I mean the Bloc Québécois, and also the Conservatives, if I have understood correctly—absolutely want Mr. Trudeau to appear, and this hasn't happened. That's why we're in this position. We mustn't forget it.

As for the report, I've read it, and it's impressive. I, like my colleagues, I would imagine, have lots of comments I could make about it. I'm saying that in friendship. I may be wrong, but I firmly believe that the June 8 deadline is too tight. Given our deliberations, I don't think we'll get there. We need only recall that we tabled our "Final report : protecting public health and democracy during a possible pandemic election", but it took us a long time to get there.

We now have a precedent. We are writing history. It's the first time this has happened. I would also like to congratulate the Liberals, because they reached the following decision: in future, when there are prorogations, they must be studied, the government must prepare a report, and the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs must consider it. I heartily commend them. It's the first time we've done that.

Once we have finished with the amendments and subamendments, we will write the report. We need to take the time required to do it properly. I'm not saying it will take a month, but I think the June 8 deadline, next Tuesday, is too tight. I would have trouble agreeing to get it done for that date. That being the case, I would prefer it if we could postpone the deadline so that we can do the work properly, because that's really what people expect of us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Mr. Therrien.

Mr. Clerk, I believe the words that were used instead of “à l'élimination du” were “au dépôt du” in the original.

Could we replace that in the French version?

[The Clerk]

Madam Chair, to understand Mr. Nater's subamendment, we have to go back and also look at Mr. Blaikie's subamendment, which was adopted in the last meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes. Mr. Blaikie uses the different language.

[The Clerk]

The issue is in the French. None of it is wrong. Let's look at Mr. Blaikie's subamendment.

It says: "...et que toutes les questions nécessaires à la finalisation et au dépôt du rapport soient réglées..."

Mr. Nater's subamendment is aiming to change the words after the French word “réglées”. But, in the subamendment that Mr. Nater has put forward, instead of referencing the word “réglées”, it references another combination of words, “élimination de”, that doesn't feature anywhere in the French translation of Mr. Blaikie's subamendment. It appears there's some kind of translation issue or something, but clearly the intention is to change the words in French after the word “réglées”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Could we go to a vote on this at this point?

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

Madam Chair, I'm not delaying the vote. I'm just confirming what the clerk said.

The subamendment was drafted on the English version and then sent for translation to the translation bureau. Obviously, there was a mix-up there, but, yes, “réglées” is obviously the right word, if it's the one that appears in the original French version.

That's all I have to say about that.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Depending on how the vote goes, then we can have that translation amended.

[The Clerk]

Madam Chair, that's right. In fact, when I prepare the minutes for this meeting, I'll make sure the proper word is in there, “réglées” as opposed to “élimination de”, so it will be taken care of there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

That's perfect.

Could you help us with the vote on this then?

(Subamendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Next we will move on to Mr. Lauzon's amendment.

Monsieur Therrien, do you have a comment?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

I'd like to introduce a subamendment which I think would reflect what we all want. When we were talking about Mr. Nater's amendment, we said there was no deadline and we were somewhat afraid about not having enough time to table the report in Parliament.

I have a subamendment to propose. It's very straightforward because all that's involved is a change of dates. My colleague will send the French version to the clerk. I am proposing that the words "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" be replaced by "be disposed of before the end of the day on June 15, 2021 and that the final report be tabled no later than June 18, 2021".

In other words, we would have an additional week to do the work involved in drafting the report.

I would not, of course, agree to accept the report as it stands; it will be subjected to proposals and amendments. I believe that having an extra week and an actual deadline will be somewhat reassuring to my colleagues who voted against the other proposal. My NDP colleague had said that without a deadline, things could get difficult and we might find ourselves unable to table a report.

So that's it, and I think it's straightforward. The debate has already taken place. We simply need to give ourselves an additional week to do the work. Compared to the three months of systematic obstruction, I think that it's reasonable and that we could get it done. If we finish earlier, then so much the better. We are giving ourselves more time, but we're not required to use it all.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

That's fair enough, Monsieur Therrien.

Ms. Vecchio.

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

That's actually just the case. Let's say we actually do get done on Tuesday. We would be able to go to Bill C-19. There would be no delays. Is that correct? I just want to ask Mr. Therrien, through the clerk.

This just provides us more time. We could get on to other business if this was fulfilled. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Well, yes, we don't have Mr. Nater's subamendment that he had put in place, so it wouldn't prevent the committee, if the committee wished to do something in between or do something when it has completed the prorogation study. That's correct, Ms. Vecchio.

It's always up to the committee, and there's nothing that is stopping the committee from moving on to other work if this work is completed.

Perhaps we can move to a vote. I don't see why this would be too complicated or we would need any kind of suspension for this. It's simply going to replace two dates. The dates that we had first adopted through Mr. Blaikie's motion were June 8 for the completion of the report and June 11 for the tabling. Monsieur Therrien's subamendment now proposes June 15 for completion of the report and then June 18 for the tabling of the report.

Monsieur Therrien and Mr. Blaikie, do you have some comments?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

You've explained it very well to Ms. Vecchio, Madam Chair. We are indeed not required to continue until June 18. If we finish earlier, that's all to the good. However, I've read the report and would like to make several comments and proposals. I'm therefore not at all certain that we could complete the report as quickly as the NDP member would like, and that's what worries me. I agree with you about the need for us to do quality work. After hearing comments from the committee members, I think that adding one week more would make the deadline acceptable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Blaikie.

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

Madam Chair, I just want to state the obvious, which is that when this subamendment was first presented, I believe it was last Thursday, I had hoped that we might get to a vote on it. We didn't even manage to get to a vote on it on Tuesday. What has become an unreasonable delay in part because of a lack of being able to get to a decision—not delay but délai, en français—has become a tight deadline. It was not a tight deadline when it was first proposed. It fact, it largely mirrored the deadline that Mr. Therrien is now proposing. I'm happy to have a slight extension of the time allowed for the prorogation report provided that we can, nevertheless, start some meetings on Bill C-19 in the time in between. It seems to me that we could.

Mr. Therrien, of course, disagrees, but I think if we wanted to we could get it done. It would be difficult to get it done, but if we could finalize the report by Tuesday, I certainly think that we could do that by the 15th. I think we could do that while allocating some of the intervening meetings. We're talking about the meetings now on the 8th, the 10th and the 15th. I think only two of those or one and a half of those would actually have to be spent on the prorogation report itself. That would also, perhaps, provide a bit more flexibility to the House, which is under some administrative constraints, I understand. Perhaps we could find time for an extra meeting somewhere in there as well.

I think that this is reasonable. I like the fact that we still have a deadline both for finalizing the report, deciding all the questions and then tabling the report. I would not want to do this if it meant that we weren't going to begin our study of Bill C-19. I think this timeline provides time for us to be able to do both.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Therrien, you raised your hand again.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

First, my NDP colleague said that I was against Bill C‑19. I don't know what this was based on.

I would also like some clarification. Am I to understand that my NDP colleague would be agreeable to the June 18 deadline on condition that we spend some time studying Bill C‑19 between now and June 18? I want to make sure that I've understood properly. It would mean, for example, that next week we could work on the June 8 report and then, on June 10, work on Bill C‑19. He would agree to that on condition that we meet the June 18 deadline. That's how I understood it. Am I right?

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

I'd like to clarify something briefly. I didn't say that Mr. Therrien was opposed to Bill C‑19.

Apart from that, Mr. Therrien, you've understood. If we spend a little time between now and June 15 to begin our study of Bill C‑19, then I don't care whether the deadline is June 8 or June 15. I think that it's important for us to complete our report on the prorogation and to get going on our study of Bill C‑19. We could get this done by agreeing that we are going to table a report on the prorogation before the adjournment of the House at the end of June and then refer Bill C‑19 to the House of Commons as soon as possible. That's really what I want. You are therefore correct, Mr. Therrien .

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Thank you for that clarification.