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.
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
Emmanuella Lambropoulos Liberal Saint-Laurent, QC
Madam Chair, I know that Mr. Blaikie is frustrated with what's going on. I understand. I don't think that working with other parties is ever a waste of time. That's what all parliamentarians should strive to do, to work together for the best outcome for Canadians.
Working alongside our colleagues from other parties is sometimes a way forward, to get the job done in a positive way that benefits everybody. For the amount of time that we've spent debating the amendment that's on the floor—I wasn't here during that time—and previously, on the original motion by Ms. Vecchio, I think it's a normal request to see something in writing. I don't think it would take up a lot of time.
It's something you guys could probably do while we're taking part in this debate. I don't see a lot of additional time being had, especially if you guys claim to be on the same page. If that is the case, I don't see how bringing forward a potential solution next week would be problematic.
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
I think we've exhausted the speakers on that point as far as I'm aware.
Mr. Lauzon, go ahead.
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
I want to add something to Dr. Duncan's comments.
I'm speaking to the whole committee, but more specifically Mr. Blaikie. I didn't get into politics to do what we are doing now.
It's also a waste of time on my side, because we have more to do.
You know, Mr. Blaikie, in politics, we often do our best. What's happening today is how committees have sometimes always operated. It's been done by your party, the Conservative Party and others.
In politics, we don't always accomplish what we would like. I understand you, I understand your frustration, and your desire to do more more. Bill C‑19 is before us, and it's extremely important for us, for you and for others. As Ms. Duncan said, despite all the frustrations and everything that happens in committee, we can feel the pressure building hour after hour. We have an opportunity to step back and focus our energies on Bill C‑19.
I consider Bill C‑19 to be an opportunity to set aside what we are experiencing right now. I know that we won't reach consensus. You've already stated your point of view, Mr. Blaikie, and have said that you would no longer join the opposition if we were to ask for something in writing by Thursday.
2:20 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
I have just a quick clarification. It's not if you ask for a written proposal that I wouldn't think it was worth it. It's the fact that you insist on not having a vote on the amendment and clearing the deck so that a new proposal could be put forward on Thursday. It's not the fact of asking for a written proposal that I find objectionable. It's the fact that you won't let us have a vote on the proposal that's been on the table for months to decide that question and clear the air so that we can move on to a new solution. That's what I find objectionable.
I'm quite happy to work with the other parties to put something in writing. I've done that many times in this Parliament. I've sometimes done it with other opposition parties. I've sometimes worked with your government. In fact, before the pandemic struck, I worked with Chrystia Freeland in order to amend the trade policy for the country. That was a process that involved lots of things in writing between parties. I'm very happy to do that kind of work.
What I want to know is whether there's good faith on the other side, and I want more than words. We've had a lot of words for the last month. What I want is an action, a signal, that there's good faith. That signal is letting there be a vote to let the committee pronounce on the amendment that's on the floor. That would be a sign of good faith that would show me that the work with the other parties is worth it and it's not just the government making busy work for their political opponents while reserving the right to tell us to get lost if it doesn't like the outcome. That's what I'm talking about.
I just want to be clear so that you're responding to the right thing.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
I understand, Mr. Blaikie, but it goes both ways. That's what they call negotiation, and that's what we're doing right now. It is important for us to go forward with Bill C-19.
Today, you are proposing that we agree on a solution, and that's what we've always wanted. We are asking you to present something in writing on Thursday, and that would perhaps enable you to find an acceptable solution. Perhaps we will be able to simply vote on it and introduce a new motion so that we can end this study.
We need to be honest in all this. Right now, we have a pandemic, Bill C‑19, and all the other issues under consideration. We do indeed need to think about the post-pandemic period, even though the pandemic is not over. Everybody knows this. We all know that prorogation is no longer an issue, and Mr. Blakie knows it too. We believe that it's time to put it behind us.
No, it's not dead in the water. We absolutely want to move forward, like the other members of the committee. We want to move on to something else.
What's important is that there were negotiations and progress today. As Ms. Duncan said, we had some good discussions. We are not being reluctant and we don't want to be in a worse position than we were at the outset. We made progress today, whether you wanted us to or not, because we began to discuss solutions. Collective negotiations between a party and a government can go on for years. We are trying to negotiate quickly with respect to an amendment on Ms. Vecchio's original motion, but we can't agree on it. That's what negotiations are. Like it or not, when people can't agree on a point, they continue to negotiate and debate.
We are simply exercising our right to debate an amendment that we know you oppose. It's not fair to say that in order to know the outcome, a vote is required, because we already know the outcome. We want to demonstrate why the Prime Minister should not appear before this committee to discuss his decision to prorogue Parliament. The primary goal of this request is not to discuss prorogation, but to establish links between the Prime Minister and the WE Charity. This question has been addressed by other committees and we're not going to change our minds.
By asking you to present something in writing for Thursday, I believe we are showing that we are perfectly willing to collaborate, contrary to what you're saying.
We're in good faith, and we want to get work done, so let's do it together like a team.
Thank you.
2:25 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
I'd like to be clear on something, Madam Chair.
The government is willing to jeopardize trying to move forward on this for the right to continue to filibuster on their amendment, as opposed to the right to filibuster on the main motion, which from a practical point of view has no difference that I can identify. I'd be very happy if someone from the Liberal government could provide a compelling explanation as to why, from the point of view of not hearing more about WE Charity and not hearing from the Prime Minister at committee—it is very clear that's not something they want—it matters whether they filibuster on the amendment or whether they filibuster on the main motion.
What's being asked for is what I think is a small act of good faith to dispense with the amendment, to clear the way towards some other possible solution. They're not willing to do that, so there has to be a reason why it matters that they filibuster on the amendment as opposed to the main motion. I can't think of one. I don't see it. We're not asking them to give up any kind of material advantage. We're asking for a symbol of openness towards a proposal that isn't the amendment that we've been debating now for, I couldn't tell you how many hours. It's a lot. It's more than I've debated just about any other motion in my parliamentary life so far. It's a lot.
I don't what rides on that, except for me I know what rides on that. I know that's an important symbol of the government's actual openness to consider a new way forward, so presumably there's a good reason why they're not willing to offer that up.
Mr. Lauzon likes to say it's a negotiation. Yes, it is. What we're saying is that as an act of good faith we're willing to convene a meeting between three different political parties to try to come up with a written proposal by Thursday that the government may find pleasing or may not. In exchange we're asking that they be willing to filibuster on the main motion instead of the amendment. If they're not prepared to do something even that insignificant from a practical point of view as a sign of good faith, then the good faith is not there, because the increment that you would need to measure that minuscule amount of good faith is one that is beyond my capacity. I don't have a tool to measure things that small.
That is what's at issue. I just want everybody to understand that before we leave here today. If there isn't a written proposal for Thursday while the amendment stands on the committee table, I want everybody who might be listening to understand why. It's because we couldn't get a basic minimum act of good faith from the government side, who apparently are more interested in filibustering on an amendment than getting towards a solution, in particular when we have important items coming up.
I'm particularly concerned about Bill C-19. There are lots of things we could talk about. We have over the last 30 or 40 hours talked about many things that we might talk about if we weren't talking about this, but Bill C-19 clearly is very important. I voted with other New Democrats to expedite its passage to committee. I've heard government members say they think it's very important that it be considered at committee. We're trying to clear a path. There is no path without dispensing with this amendment.
Whether it's that this amendment passes, and Monsieur Lauzon himself has said there's no question even in his mind whether it would pass or not.... If this amendment isn't going to pass, then it has to be some other kind of amendment, right? If this isn't the amendment, it has to be another one, or something else, like voting down the motion, having another proposal, whatever. But if this ain't gonna be it—and Monsieur Lauzon just said as much, that he knows it's not going to pass, which is why he's avoiding the vote—then in order to move forward we have to get on to something else. We can only do that once we clear the table of the unsuccessful proposal that's there.
That's not a knock on Mr. Turnbull. It wasn't for him to come up with the solution ex nihilo out of his own mind and slap something down on the table that was going to suddenly wow everybody. That's not what we're doing here. That's why the three opposition parties are going to meet. I bet the first idea that gets uttered in tomorrow's meeting, if it happens, isn't going to be the one that gets accepted because that's not the way things work.
What I can't fathom is why the Liberals on this committee won't allow us to move on into a space where people can propose other solutions. That's what is happening here and I just want that to be crystal clear on the record before whatever's going to happen next happens.
2:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Thank you, Mr. Blaikie.
Seeing the time, I'm going to suspend until the next meeting.
Thank you.
[The meeting was suspended at 2:32 p.m., Tuesday, May 11.]
[The meeting resumed at 11 a.m., Thursday, May 13.]
11 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
I call this meeting back to order.
It is Thursday, May 13, 2021. We are resuming meeting number 27 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which started on April 13, 2021.
Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of January 25, 2021. Therefore, members can attend either in person or virtually using the Zoom application.
The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. So you are aware, the webcast will always show the person speaking rather than the entirety of the committee. As always, this is just a reminder that no screenshots and no photos are permitted of the screen.
Just to verify, we don't have anyone in person. Is that correct, Mr. Clerk?
11 a.m.
The Clerk
That's right. No members are in the room.
11 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Everyone is attending virtually.
I would just remind you to select your interpretation channel. If you haven't already done so, choose gallery view. Remember to unmute your mike when you are speaking and mute your mike after you're done speaking.
We do have a speakers list from last time. I'm going to drop the people who aren't here. Ms. Lambropoulos is not here. She was second on the speakers list. Mr. Lauzon, who was fourth on the speakers list, is not here. That leaves us with Mr. Kelloway being first on the speakers list and Mr. Blaikie being second. That carries forward from the last meeting. Then, of course, we'll have whoever else wishes to speak.
We are still on Mr. Turnbull's amendment at this point. You can use the “raise hand” function in the toolbar if you wish to speak to that.
Mr. Kelloway.
May 13th, 2021 / 11 a.m.
Liberal
Mike Kelloway Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
Madam Chair, I'd like to give my time to MP Turnbull, please.
11 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
If you want to give up your time, the appropriate thing would be for me to go to the next speaker, and then Mr. Turnbull would be added to the bottom of the list.
Mr. Blaikie, you would be next.
11 a.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Thank you very much, Madam Chair, but I'm happy to be taken off the list for now.
11 a.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
It's really great to be back on PROC today. Welcome, everybody. It's good to see you.
I know our last meeting was certainly a bit frustrating for people. I sensed that among many of the members. I'm hoping today we can have a very productive meeting that's focused on how we move forward.
I know, for me, I have quite a few desires and concerns about Bill C-19. I've been thinking about the importance of that. We've been engaged in an extended debate for quite some time, which really focuses on an issue that happened many months ago. From my perspective, it would be great if we could move on from that.
I know the opposition parties, despite some of the differences of opinion, were looking to propose something today. We had asked for that in writing. I know those conversations were likely being had between the last meeting and this meeting. Maybe we'll hear from them today as to what they would propose. I don't know if they're ready to do that today, but I certainly was hoping and optimistic and really looking forward to having an open discussion, with the hopes of moving beyond this moment, where I think we have a little bit of a deadlock in our conversation.
I just wanted to say that I'm really looking forward to, hopefully, hearing from opposition parties, if they're prepared for that, and would welcome any of those comments from my colleagues.
Thank you.
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Sure. Sometimes it's helpful to hear from another party.
Go ahead, Mr. Blaikie.
11:05 a.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
What I think I can report is that, as requested by members of the government side, there has been some discussion among the MPs of the other three parties on the committee. We don't yet have a proposal in writing, as was asked for, but we are still committed to preparing one.
We had offered to try to come to a final proposal in time for today's meeting, provided that the way was clear, as of the end of the last meeting, with the amendment dispensed with one way or another. Of course we did not have that vote, which we take to mean we have a longer deadline in order to come to an agreement.
We had indicated that sometimes those talks do take time, and indeed they do. We will be happy to share what we have when we have it, but that time is not now. Of course, we always welcome a vote on the issues before the committee, but if that is not the desire of some members, we are prepared to continue hearing debate on Mr. Turnbull's amendment.
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
Thank you, Chair.
I don't know if there is anyone else who would like to speak to this, but I am glad to have the opportunity to speak further to Mr. Turnbull's amendment to the original motion. Indeed, I think it goes to the heart of our parliamentary process. I find it's really a privilege for me to be able to contribute to that debate.
I'm going to continue my comments in French.
As for Mr. Turnbull's amendment, to delete point (a) of the motion, on inviting the to the Prime Minister to appear, I fully agree with it.
As we know, there is a well-established tradition according to which the prime minister can rely on his entire team of ministers to represent him. My understanding is that the government House leader, Pablo Rodriguez, came to explain why there was prorogation in August, and it was perfectly appropriate for him to do so. That's the transparency principle, and I believe that's what our colleagues here are asking for. They want to understand the reasons for the prorogation.
However, Madam Chair, I believe that we were here together once before when my Liberal colleagues gave reasons for the prorogation. When Mr. Rodriguez came, it was not simply to answer a few questions; a report had already been tabled in the House on the reasons for the prorogation.
The first reason for the prorogation was the pandemic. It's the most significant event in this century. If our opposition colleagues do not want to accept the fact that proroguing Parliament was essential to give the government the opportunity to completely alter its approach and its priorities, then I can't really think of a better reason for prorogation to suggest to the committee, other perhaps than a war.
I understand those who would like the Prime Minister to appear before this committee and request that he do so. However, he gave evidence before the Standing Committee on Finance last year. I think that all the committees would like to have the Prime Minister appear because it's good publicity for them. However, it runs counter to our parliamentary system, which makes only one person responsible for the government's decisions. The entire cabinet is responsible. The Prime Minister is the leader of the cabinet.
When Mr. Rodriguez appeared before this committee, he said that it was obvious that the environment last summer was completely different from the context in which we found ourselves in 2019 following the elections.
As the Prime Minister himself said publicly, and completely transparently, when announcing the prorogation in August, it was a decisive moment for Canada. Not only would we have to deal with the crisis, but also plan for the position we would be in after the crisis. Putting ideas forward is one thing, but it's also important to have a plan for providing guidance to Canadians in the future.
I think there are others who would like to speak, and I will stop now to give them an opportunity to do so.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Thank you, Ms. Shanahan. I don't see any hands up, and I wasn't expecting you to end your speech there, so I'm caught a little off guard.
Since I don't see any hands up, I take it that the will of the committee is to move to a vote on the amendment.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
I guess that was an expected outcome, so that is that.
We are back to the motion.
Mr. Turnbull, do you have something to say?