Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 13th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

There's been no decision on that timeline.

Ms. Vecchio was suggesting that after the report is done, in that period while translation and stuff is happening, we could have a meeting. We could do what you have proposed, but I feel like we're putting the cart before the horse right now. This is stuff that we're supposed to discuss after we've passed these motions and we start the study. If we do find ourselves having it completed, then of course we could move on to Bill C-19 very quickly. That is something we can discuss in terms of timelines and how we organize ourselves, at some point.

We have a link set up for an in camera meeting today, and hopefully we'll get to use it for some review of the body of the report.

Mr. Nater, you had a comment as well.

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

That was effectively where I was going. We do have the meeting on the 17th. Ideally, I think we'd want the minister, but why don't we get through this process first and then perhaps in the next day or so.... If we get through this process, we'd begin sending in suggestions for that meeting. We know who the first ones would be. Obviously, the minister would be top of the list.

I was going to suggest that we do a lot of this offline, to get some of those names in sooner rather than later, after we dispose of our current business before the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Just to be clear, Mr. Turnbull, as to your question before, I don't think there's been any agreement here today. There's just been a lot of ideas, that this could be done or that could be done. I don't know if you're going to find the members agreeing to the schedule you had suggested right there.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Chair, if I could just clarify, I wasn't intending to propose a timeline. I was actually trying to confirm that this seemed to be where the conversation was going and that my understanding was correct that maybe some consensus was building around that. Perhaps I was wrong.

I think what you're saying and what I've heard back is that no decisions have been made yet and we need to discuss that after dispensing with this. I'm obviously a little concerned about whether this delays the work on Bill C-19. That's something I'm reflecting on. I think that's really important. It does seem that it may have that effect. That's what I need to think through and perhaps talk about with my colleagues.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Absolutely, it could. That's why I wanted to...although comments have been made, I would not take that as meaning we have a certain agreement on a schedule at this point. I feel like I cut you off at the end. I apologize for that. My intention was to not get ahead of ourselves and think we have some kind of agreement, when really it's just loose conversation happening regarding how things could work.

Did you still want that five-minute suspension?

Okay. We will suspend for five minutes, and then we'll come back to vote on the subamendment that Monsieur Therrien has proposed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I call this meeting back to order.

We left off at Monsieur Therrien moving a subamendment to alter the dates we currently have for the prorogation study deadlines to June 15 and June 18 for tabling.

Seeing that there are no more comments on this, Mr. Clerk, could you help us with the vote?

(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 6, nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We have a new timeline to work with.

Next we have Mr. Lauzon's motion before us.

Mr. Clerk, could you help us with the vote on that?

(Amendment as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we are back on the main motion as amended.

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

I would like a recorded vote.

Could it be stated so that we all know what we're voting on? I know it's on the last one, but that would be awesome.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Sure. I went over that with the clerk earlier today, because I knew that would probably be a request. I probably should have proactively done that.

Mr. Clerk, could you help us read the English and French translation of what we're voting on now as the main motion.

[The Clerk]

Yes, absolutely.

Members of the committee, this is the wording of the motion as amended. I'll start in English, and then I'll move to French.

That, in respect of the Committee’s study of the government’s reasons for the prorogation of Parliament in August 2020, the Committee renew the invitation issued to the Prime Minister to appear before the committee, provided that if he does not agree, within one week of the adoption of this motion, to appear for at least one hour, the non attendance of the Prime Minister be added to an annex to the main report on the study of the government’s reasons for proroguing Parliament in August 2020—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Clerk, I'm so sorry to interrupt, but Mr. Blaikie has just informed me that he dropped off. Perhaps we could pause for a moment. I think he would probably benefit from hearing the final motion as well.

[The Clerk]

Do you want to suspend briefly?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

He's joining in with his phone, he said.

Let's suspend until we see him pop on, and then we'll unsuspend, so don't go anywhere.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I call the meeting back to order.

Mr. Clerk, could you read the new amended motion we are voting on from the beginning?

[The Clerk]

Yes, I will.

The English version of the motion as amended now reads:

That, in respect of the Committee’s study of the government’s reasons for the prorogation of Parliament in August 2020, the Committee renew the invitation issued to the Prime Minister to appear before the committee, provided that if he does not agree, within one week of the adoption of this motion, to appear for at least one hour, the non attendance of the Prime Minister be added to an annex to the main report on the study of the government's reasons for proroguing Parliament in August 2020, and that all questions necessary for the finalization and tabling of the report 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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Now that everyone has heard the final amended motion, we will have a recorded vote on that.

(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

During our suspension, we had a request by Mr. Therrien to dispose of the motions that he had previously put before the committee. There were three motions.

Mr. Therrien, can you clarify which of those three you are withdrawing?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Since I don't have the third motion in front of me, I will speak to you about the motions I'm going to keep.

We're presenting routine motions. We are doing what is already entered in the proceedings. We just want to sort everything out. I believe you have already received the first motion, which reads as follows:

That the clerk inform each witness who is to appear before the Committee that the House Administration support team must conduct technical tests to check the connectivity and the equipment used to ensure the best possible sound quality; and that the Chair advises the Committee, at the start of each meeting, of any witness who did not perform the required technical tests.

I believe that the clerk does this systematically. In fact I have mentioned to my colleagues that I'm on the best committee because of this. We are presenting this motion on all the committees. I'm really only introducing it here for consistency.

Should I develop this further or is it acceptable as is?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

No, that's good.

Maybe we can go to a recorded vote on this motion, or maybe there's consensus. I know there's been consensus on these in other committees.

Ms. Vecchio, go ahead.

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

I may be wrong on this one, but on the linguistics revision, are we talking about that? I'm looking at the summary of this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

No.

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

Okay.

Is that going to be a part to your motion, Alain?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

No, not for this one.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

We haven't gotten to that one. This is the one just for the witnesses.

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

Fantastic.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Do we have consensus to pass this motion? I see consensus.

(Motion agreed to)

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Thank you. That's very good of you.

The second motion is as follows:

That all documents submitted for Committee business that do not come from a federal department or that have not been translated by the Translation Bureau be sent for prior linguistic review by the Translation Bureau before being distributed to members.

Would Ms. Vecchio like to comment?