Evidence of meeting #27 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was prorogation.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Peter Kent Conservative Thornhill, ON
Chair, I wonder whether you're open to a discussion of the message from the minister.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
If the committee wishes, yes, I am open.
Mr. Kent, would you like to speak to that?
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Peter Kent Conservative Thornhill, ON
Certainly I believe everybody on this committee wants to get to the consideration of Bill C-19, and we are reminded often by Minister Leblanc, other ministers and the Prime Minister that committees are the masters of their agenda and of their decisions.
If I can offer to Mr. Turnbull's earlier remarks and Ms. Shanahan's remarks, I believe in the Westminster system of government any efficient and effective minority government needs to govern with a certain pragmatic humility. We have seen, for the past two and a half months, Liberal members filibustering, filibustering still today, refusing to accept the will of the committee.
We could quite easily move on to Bill C-19 and the estimates with a vote and the committee accepting the will of the majority of our members to call a certain witness to complete our study on prorogation. I think that's really where we are right now, and Minister Leblanc's urging notwithstanding, it's time for a bit of that pragmatic humility and for Liberal members to accept the will of the majority of the membership of this committee.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Mr. Kent, thank you for that.
Is there anybody who wants to speak to that issue?
Mr. Blaikie and then Mr. Bagnell.
12:30 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
If I may, on that same topic I would certainly echo Mr. Kent's call for what he is calling pragmatic humility, which is a nice turn of phrase.
I would also just say that I'm a little confused by the message. The minister insists that the opposition has voted for an election on a number of occasions. There seems to be a running together of some pretty significant lines. It seems to me that if the entirety of the opposition, that is to say all three official parties, had voted for an election, we would be on the hustings right now and not at a Liberal filibuster. There's an incongruity between the minister's message and the truth of the matter.
Of course, there are opposition parties that have been working very hard to try to avoid an election, recognizing that that takes some willingness on the part of the government to negotiate and to not act as if it had a majority. To the extent that we have been able to succeed in that endeavour so far, that's been a good thing for Canadians. That is something that ought to continue in some way, shape or form.
The NDP may not always be the dance partner. We saw on a pretty critical piece of legislation for the government, legislating Montreal port workers back to work and denying them their collective bargaining rights, that Liberals have been able to find partners with others, like the Conservatives. Depending on the issue, it's a different partner.
That is the way minority governments work, so I find the minister's statement to be misleading in that if all of the opposition parties voted for an election at the same time, we would have one. They haven't. In fact, we're in the House today debating.... I also appreciate the opportunity to explain to my colleagues that I had to leave for a bit in order to participate in that debate in the House on whether it makes sense to have an election during this pandemic.
I had the opportunity to hear, in the small amount of debate I was able to listen to, representatives of all the opposition parties explain that they don't want an election and to make a point that the only path to an election that continues to persist is the Prime Minister's prerogative to dissolve Parliament unilaterally. That's the path right now to an election. It's on the Prime Minister alone to close that path by making a clear, public commitment that he won't use that power to trigger an election.
Despite all the many occasions he has been offered by the opposition to make that commitment, despite not needing one, he could just walk out of his front door and hold a press conference, as he has done many times during this pandemic, and make that statement. We've tried to provide opportunities, just in case he hadn't put that together himself, and yet, even in those opportune moments, the Prime Minister has declined to make that commitment.
Again, I am puzzled by the minister's message and am not quite sure how it helps move things along here. I would certainly hope that not only the members of the government on this committee but that members of the government at large would be seeking to help us resolve this impasse rather than complicating matters further.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Before I recognize the next speaker, I would like to state that when I was reading the email, I was questioning whether I should just convey the concept, or whether I should read out the email, for the most part, the way it was written. I figured maybe I should just read it out the way it was written, and you can take from it what you will. I know Mr. Blaikie had pointed at the messaging. There are some things that you may have heard a couple of times. I figure it's fair, if you're going to hear it later on today or in QP or somewhere else, that you hear what and how it's being framed.
That is how it's being framed. There it is. Make of it what you wish.
We will now go to Mr. Bagnell.
May 13th, 2021 / 12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Thank you.
I'm very disappointed, because I have to leave in a minute. It was great to be back on PROC with Mr. Nater—some good times—and I always appreciate listening to Mr. Blaikie. I have to disagree, though, or I don't understand his point about it being the only route to an election. We've been very close to an election, less than 30 votes, a number of times recently.
The point I want to make is that I've been in Parliament since the year 2000 or so. From what I understand, it's a tradition in Parliament, a procedure we follow by rote, that when bills are sent to committee, that's a priority on the committee agenda. Certainly, there are different opinions on the study and where a study's at. If there are certain motions with unreasonable clauses that could take a long time, I would think that the precedent in committee, the standard normally followed, is that the committee move on to the debate on what has been referred to them, especially in an urgent situation where Canadians are at risk.
As I said, we've been less than 30 votes away from an election a number of times. It's not inconceivable. I just wanted to make that point before I have to leave. Hopefully, I'll get back. I had a whole bunch of things I wanted to say today, back on the motion, but I don't think we should be saying them right now. We have an urgent bill before us that will affect the safety of Canadians and will affect the ability of some older people to vote.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
On the issue of the email still, Ms. Vecchio, would you like to speak to that? I'm not sure if I have the correct speaking order, but I think Mr. Bagnell was the last one.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Yes. That's perfect.
Back to the email, with all due respect, I do recognize that the Bloc today has a motion put forward as well. I totally appreciate where the minister's coming from, but I do believe it's the members of this committee who ultimately need to make the decision here. This decision has been delayed for over two and a half months.
I recognize that it's easy to throw the onus on the people who have not spoken for the last two and a half months while filibustering, but I think we've all said that we recognize we need to get to Bill C-19 and that it is important. We know there have been a lot of concerns of going into a federal election. I've heard Dr. Duncan speak of that and I've heard us all speak of that, concerned about the safety. I don't think that's neither here nor there. I think part of the thing is that we know that it's one of the most important things to get to. But we've known since February that this bill was coming forward. For the last two and a half months we've been wasting time. That is exactly what we've done. We've wasted two and a half months instead of getting to the work that we need to do.
I do know, as I've heard from all other opposition parties, that there still seems to be one thing that's outlying. I've heard Ms. Shanahan refer to part one, being the Prime Minister, of our original motion. I think these are just really big concerns. Bill C-19 can get to be studied if we actually find a final decision here. I think that's what we're waiting on, a decision on this motion. It's going on three months and we're still waiting for a decision.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Absolutely. I definitely reminded the committee after reading the email that it is up to the members of the committee and your will on whether or not you wish to invite the minister. It's up to all members, the opposition members and the government members included.
I think that's all we have for the email for now. If you're okay, I'll give the floor back to Ms. Shanahan.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Is the interpretation working now? Can you hear me on the English interpretation channel?
12:40 p.m.
The Clerk
Yes.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Did you have it when the discussion was happening earlier? Did it just happen when Ms. Shanahan spoke? You probably didn't need it earlier.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
I'll be happy now to continue with my comments.
I'm not a permanent member of this committee. I heard the comments from members of the opposition. We just ruled on an amendment and a motion. If these had been adopted, we would have been able to end the debate and begin studying Bill C‑19, which is extremely important. However, the opposition members voted against the amendment and the motion.
I must say that I did some research, because it's a subject I'm interested in. I'd like to continue to talk about the principle of ministerial accountability and our roles in the parliamentary system, in accordance with Westminster traditions.
I will be citing in English for clarity from the Treasury Board of Canada report of 2005. I was speaking before about the roles of minister:
[W]hat is clear from this overview of responsible government are the distinct and finely balanced roles of each of the system’s different players. Ministers exercise executive authority on the basis of the political support that they receive from Parliament; they therefore have political accountability to Parliament. Parliament, in turn, does not exercise executive authority, but it ensures that executive power is properly exercised. Its mechanisms for doing so are political and partisan.
I like the idea of in-depth debate on the whys and hows of our presence here.
It may not be linked directly to the matter at hand, but the issue in the report was the role of ministers and public servants. In many of our discussions, we talked about the accountabilities of officials and ministers, and attempted to determine who should appear before the committees.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
I have a point of order, Madam Chair.
I'm sorry to interrupt MP Shanahan, but the translation is coming through at the same level for me. That's a change. I'm hearing French and English at the very same level.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
I'm sorry, Ms. Shanahan. Ever since you started, someone or another has been having trouble with translation.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
I don't know. It's really hard for me to make the call of whether it was the same level, but it was a lot noisier.
12:45 p.m.
The Clerk
Madam Chair, it's coming through fine here in the committee room.
For Mr. Long, I wonder if it might be one of the settings he has. Let me get some advice from some of the technicians in the room.
Madam Chair, do you want to suspend briefly while we're trying figure out what the technical issue is?
