Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 13th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Would any member like to respond? It can be any of the members.

We'll hear from Dr. Duncan and then Mr. Lauzon. He put his hand up as well.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Friends—and I do consider all of us friends and colleagues—I think we started out in a good way today. There seemed to be actual dialogue, and it would be nice to be able to get back to this. I think we would all like to get back to this. It's unfortunate that we've hit a stumbling block. I think everyone was hoping—I know everyone on our side was hoping—that if we suspended for half an hour or so today the conversations that needed to happen could happen. I think it's fair to ask if it's possible to see something in writing. I just think that's a fair and decent way to go forward.

This committee has done good work together. Daniel, you said earlier that there have been disagreements and there always will be. However, the work we did on having an election during a pandemic was good work. It was actually good work. We made Canadians—their health and safety, and the health and safety of everyone—paramount.

I know my colleague Mr. Lauzon would like to comment. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Lauzon.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Vecchio, for your very apt comments. Our decisions are indeed made as a multipartite committee, but we have responsibilities as the government.

There's nothing unusual in the course of negotiations to request a written statement so that there is something concrete on the table. Of course, in a five-minute meeting, we would not be able to thoroughly debate the matter raised by Mr. Blaikie. However, we were able to agree that we needed to continue to debate the amendment put forward by Mr. Turnbull. Through this amendment, we've put a little water in our wine by agreeing that the Deputy Prime Minister could come and represent the government.

We know that there's a disparity between what you are requesting and what we proposed. That's why we would like to continue to debate it..

As I was saying a few weeks ago, we sincerely believe that the presence of the Prime Minister is not justified in the context of the prorogation for all of the reasons we mentioned in our comments. There is no need to repeat them.

That in fact is what Ms. Duncan is trying to do, by clearly demonstrating why we have enough work in hand to move forward on things like Bill C‑19 and other extremely important issues. That's why we are insisting on having something in writing so that we can compare your requirements to ours. That's why we're going to continue to debate Mr. Turnbull's amendment, for as long as is required. We believe that it's extremely appropriate to continue.

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

Madam Chair, I would like to speak on the same point of order, if I may.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Blaikie, go ahead.

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

To be perfectly honest, it's hard for me to get beyond two possible interpretations of what's happening here.

By insisting on the idea that they want a written proposal, which is something that we've agreed to as an opposition.... We're already trying to negotiate some time in the next 48 hours for us to meet the government's demand that we would propose something in writing. Either the government is being deliberately misleading, which would be unfortunate, about the fact that we're somehow denying that we would make an effort to put something in writing or they don't realize how toxic what they're doing right now is. What we've said is that we will, as an act of good faith, meet to discuss in the very way that members on the government side have asked us to do. We're already undertaking to do that by making those arrangements through our offices even as we speak. We've committed to that.

As a reciprocal sign of good faith, we ask that the government not even itself recognize that this proposal towards a compromise, which Mr. Turnbull put forward and that we've been debating for a very long time, is dead in the water. We don't ask that they say it's a bad idea. We just ask that they allow us to have a vote on it so that when we come back for the following meeting, the slate is clear.

They give up nothing in terms of whatever it is they're doing, whether they're protecting the Prime Minister from appearing at committee—I hope not, because I think he belongs here properly in a study of prorogation, and we can disagree about that—or whether it's protecting the government more widely on questions of the WE Charity scandal. Whatever it is they've been doing here, and they've been doing it for a long time, they give up nothing by having a vote on the amendment, because we'll suspend the meeting and we'll come back and we'll still be on the main motion. They don't surrender their own right to move another amendment, or if a Conservative or a Bloc or a New Democrat moves an amendment on Thursday, they haven't given up their right to move a subamendment to that. There are all sorts of possible ways to proceed. What we're asking for is a minimum show of good faith in a recognition that this particular proposal in Mr. Turnbull's amendment isn't going to be the one that gets us beyond a compromise.

We've already done the good faith thing. We've already undertaken, as three different political parties on the opposing bench, to get together in the next 48 hours and try our best to produce something in writing that the government folks can look at.

When we ask for a small gesture of good faith, the answer we get, after you've had some time off the record to talk about it, is.... The word I have for that, that would be used on a job site, is not appropriate in a parliamentary context, but I'll tell you, the message is received.

I think if we want to get to a point where we can start with a clean slate on Thursday, and have the best possible proposal that three different political parties can bring together jointly, it's important to decide on the issue of the amendment today. If we can't get that minimum act of good faith, I think it's pretty presumptuous of the government to say, “Well, we want something in writing and we want this and we want that.” That's fine, if we're working in good faith towards a solution. All we're asking is for what I think is a pretty bare minimum sign of good faith from the government side that we would at least dispense with this amendment, and then we'll get to the work of proposing something new.

The government wants to have its cake and eat it too. They want to keep their own proposal, which has had more than its fair share of time at this committee by now. Do you want to talk about how much time we're giving to different solutions? Mr. Turnbull's amendment has been on the table for weeks. We've debated it, if you can call it a debate, for hours and hours. All we're asking is that we put that one away with a vote, and who knows? Maybe it will go the government's way. It's not likely, but who knows? We can't know until we have the vote.

We're just asking to have the vote on it so that we can start talking about a new potential solution on Thursday—that's it. I don't think you're going to find.... I'm going to find it hard to muster the goodwill to talk earnestly about a solution that we could propose to the government if they can't get it together to at least allow us to have the vote on an amendment after tens of hours of debate on it.

I really think this is poisoning the well. I hope it's only happening because people on the government side don't realize what they're doing. Perhaps if they take another moment to reflect they will realize that they are making it impossible to come to a solution if they carry on in this vein, and change their minds.

Otherwise I will be forced to accept the other interpretation, which is that this is deliberate and that they would rather keep pissing away the time of the procedure and House affairs committee, as has been happening for a long time, but then that's on them. That's on them, because what's being asked for here would not cause a big political loss. It doesn't jeopardize the Prime Minister. It doesn't bring him to this committee. It just clears the air for Thursday so that the opposition parties can do in good faith what they were asked to do by the government and bring forward a proposal which the government will be at liberty to accept or not as it sees fit. At least then we could spend our time debating something new. We're not going to get there if this amendment is still on the table at the end of our meeting time today.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

On this point of order, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Go ahead.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Blaikie, for your comments.

I'd like to address two things from your comments, Mr. Blaikie.

Firstly, you said several times that this amendment is dead in the water. You don't believe that the amendment is appropriate or valid, and that it is dead in the water. However, nothing leads us today to believe that Mr. Turnbull's amendment is dead, or that it is not valid.

I respect what you are saying, but we also need to respect the government's position, whether it is a minority or majority government. The government would like to conduct this study, but we disagree entirely with the idea of having the Prime Minister appear, and that's what we are debating at the moment.

As for the second thing from your comments I would like to address, which mainly concerns the technical aspects of the negotiations, I'd day that what we are asking for is not really impossible.

I was not here for the first 50 minutes of the meeting, but you said that you had nevertheless had a good debate over the fact that we could obtain consensus on a new proposal that the opposition might present Thursday.

There's nothing dramatic about requesting this motion in writing to continue discussions and possibly consider the new motion or proposal that might be made to this committee.

Nevertheless, as we are speaking today, given the two points I've just raised, what we really want is Mr. Turnbull's amendment. It's not dead in the water and we don't need to move on to other matters. That's your opinion, but it doesn't reflect our discussions.

We said that we were prepared to listen and come up with other proposals. I heard about a few of the discussions from the first 50 minutes of the committee meeting and that there were even some recommendations. Could we not simply put them in writing? It's no big deal. We could then continue discussions and see where everything stands on Thursday.

For now, Ms. Duncan has the floor. In view of all the respect we have for one another on this committee, Ms. Duncan could continue to explain why we should move forward and adopt Mr. Turnbull's amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Madam Normandin.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you very much.

I'm going to take a few minutes to comment on this point of order.

You haven't seen me yet this morning, but I was watching on ParlVU. When Mr. Therrien told me that something might be happening on the committee, I said to myself that I should go and listen to the discussions. To be honest, almost nothing has happened for two months. While listening to the discussions, I thought that something constructive might happen to get us out of the deadlock we were in. Then the obstruction started again and I became less focused on the conversation.

I joined the meeting at 1 p.m. when Mr. Therrien was no longer available. Had I not been there this morning, everything I heard from 1 p.m. on would have given me the impression not only that the discussion had stalled, but that it had even regressed. If I don't comment on the positive aspects of this morning's discussion, it's because I find that the Liberals are asking us to present a written motion for the simple purpose of asking us to present a written motion. They've said they might not even look at it, because the only thing they are interested in is the amendment that we are debating, and which they are systematically obstructing.

We showed that we were receptive and put some concrete proposals forward. If the Liberals are asking us to present a written motion without showing any interest in it, then I find that insulting. I hope that all the committee members want to achieve something constructive. However, that will require more than simply asking us to present a motion in writing.

The Liberals will have to show that they're acting in good faith. Everything that I saw from 1 p.m. on was a step backwards, as the systematic obstruction continued, so consistently that we were getting used to it. That's how I see the situation after having heard a portion of the discussions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Madam Normandin.

Ms. Vecchio.

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

On the same point of order, thank you very much, Christine, for noting.

Thank you very much, Daniel. I really do appreciate it.

Also, Stéphane, I really do appreciate your words. I do know that you've been in and out of committee, but you have done this as well.

I think we are all getting to the point where we are wondering where our timeline is. This morning the reason this conversation started was that we know that we have an important piece of legislation that was rushed through Parliament just the other day, to be honest. It was rushed through Parliament, and it will be on our doorstep tomorrow because we'll be voting on it today. I look at the fact that we know this is coming, so today what is the plan? What are we going to be doing? As of Thursday, we will have another piece that is being added to our agenda, that we need to start looking forward on.

Are we going to continue with Bill C-19? Are we going to do our estimates? What are we going to be doing? I just see that the last 40 hours has truly been spent on that and, honestly, I can tell you my intention was to try to open up a pathway so that we could look at Bill C-19. I know there is a lot of pressure to look at Bill C-19, so I'm asking for the government to come up with a way for us to look at Bill C-19. All that's happened today is that all of the good-faith bargaining that was done this morning is going to be lost, because when we come back on Thursday, we're going to be told, “Here is your written amendment.” Then will we be told that it's not good enough and we're going to continue?

Maybe those are some of the things, because we don't know. If our amendment is not good enough, that means we're going to continue with Ryan's or we'll accept this amendment but we'll continue to filibuster.

There are so many unknowns here, and I think logically we need to look at what the priorities of this committee are. We need to get to Bill C-19. If we have the opportunity to look at estimates, we should be looking at estimates, but ultimately we're listening to these speeches on this amendment just to waste time.

I really appreciate Stéphane and his comments, but when the majority of committee members have said outright that they will not be supporting it, we are beating a dead horse, and every person in this committee today knows that. This is a dead horse, and it's extremely unfortunate.

Let's get back to doing some work. Daniel has already indicated that we are working on this, and we really are. We really are working on this. I would really like to see some movement from the Liberal members rather than their just reading prorogation speeches into the record on Tuesdays and Thursdays every week as they have been doing for the last three months.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Ms. Petitpas Taylor.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

First of all, I want to thank everyone for their candid comments today and for being honest. We should have been doing this probably several weeks ago.

I do have to say, though, that I really believe that we all came into this conversation this morning in good faith.

Karen, you came forward and said, what's the plan for today. We need to come to a compromise. We need to get somewhere. We need to get to a vote.

To say that nothing was brought forward is a bit unfair, because after that was brought forward, from there we spoke about whether a written response would suffice. From there, there was a bit of conversation about that. From there, the issue about perhaps the opposition members coming up with exactly what they're looking for was discussed as well.

We have to make it very clear. We had a discussion at the beginning of the meeting. I think it was a good discussion, a robust discussion and an honest discussion, but let's be frank. There was never a decision that was made and we just continued on with the course of business.

I need to be clear. I know for myself and I know many of my colleagues want to negotiate in good faith. We want to find a path forward here, and to your point, we have a lot of really important work that is waiting for us.

To say that there was a decision that had been made by the end of the meeting, no decision had been made. We talked about it. We discussed it, but we didn't come up with a consensus.

I feel compelled to say that. At the end of the day, to come up with something on paper and then from there to vote on it next week, I don't know really what is the issue with this short delay in order to allow us to properly reflect on what's been brought forward. I just don't understand why that is so difficult. Maybe I'm missing something, but I felt I had to share that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Is there anyone else on the same point of order?

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

I'm not sure what she's referring to, the delay on what, specifically?

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

The point is that you want the vote to be absolutely today. I don't know why it has to be today before the end of the meeting. Why can't it be next meeting once the three opposition committee groups get together and decide exactly what it is that you want? That's it.

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

What I'm looking for is perhaps you guys can give us an agenda or a plan on what you see us doing.

Tomorrow we will be meeting because we all are on board to meet. Every single member of the opposition wants to get this over with as well. We will be having a meeting. We will be providing some intel.

Now what happens? We've provided you intel and what is the Liberal government going to do now in committee? That is my greatest concern. We are working in good faith as well and, absolutely, I have said three times now that Bill C-19 will be at our doorstep as of Monday. You and I both know how long it takes to get legislation through. It will come here. Then it will go back to the House, and then it will go to the Senate.

Let's not kid ourselves. We will probably be going to the polls in October 2021. We have five full sitting weeks after next week. That means our piece of legislation needs to get done in committee with the witnesses. Then it will need to go back to the House, and then it will need to go to the Senate.

The more this is delayed, the more we won't have our legislation in case of a pandemic election in place, and I would actually say it has a lot to do with the continuation of the filibuster. We would probably be able to get to a bill if we had good faith also in the Liberal members knowing that we could get both things done. Right now, we have an either-or situation. We can either get the report done or we can get Bill C-19 done.

We need to get both done, so we need to find a way of doing that. Those are some of my concerns. Perhaps it's just because I really believe in saying, what is our target? Our target is that we have legislation passed and ready. I do not want to see a single voter have a problem when they go to the polls during a pandemic election if one gets called. We need to ensure that voters are safe, just as Dr. Duncan illustrated in her comments, throughout that period of time.

The option is to get the work done to ensure that Canadians are able to vote. Let's ensure that the committee is actually doing its job. Stop the filibustering and let's get our work done. For me, it's where I'd like to see all of us work together to get these things done. We know that we have a deadline. How are we going to get both the report done with the witnesses as requested, and how are we going to get Bill C-19 back to the House of Commons for third reading?

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

I'd be happy to add to that point, Madam Chair, if I could be permitted.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay.

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

I think the issue here is this. We're trying to conduce toward some kind of solution. We clearly don't agree on everything. I mean, if you look at the position of the Conservative Party and the Bloc on the time allocation vote, for instance, on Bill C‑19 yesterday, it was different from the NDP vote. We've been willing to work with the government to try to get it to committee, because that's something that we think is really important to get under way.

The government has casually asked three different political parties with three different views, including on some of the business that either is before or will be coming before this committee.... That's a fair bit of work. There's no guarantee of success. It's something that we're prepared to do if the government is open to new solutions. But they make that request and then they come back to the table and say their preferred solution is their solution: It's the one on the table.

Monsieur Lauzon disputes the idea that this proposal is dead in the water. That's fine. There's a way to decide that. There's a way to figure that out. It's to have a vote. That's how you figure out what has majority support or not. If the idea is to find some kind of consensus on a path forward, I can tell you that it ain't a consensus. It's going to get decided on a majority basis. The only way to know if it has majority support or not is to have a vote.

In terms of what we're asking for, we've signalled a willingness to reassess and look at things, and to do that in a way that crosses party lines, which is not always an easy thing to navigate, particularly when there may be differences of opinion on Bill C‑19 when it comes to committee. There are different political agendas at play in respect of that bill and the wider question, but that's not worth doing if the government isn't open to another solution. What you're signalling, by insisting on the amendment that we've been debating for months, is that you're not really open to it—unless it's something you like behind closed doors. What you want is a written statement jointly by three different political parties with very different interests to be considered behind closed doors. Then you'll decide whether you like it or not. It may never grace the committee floor.

I'm sorry, but that's not coming at a negotiation as equals. It is not going to succeed. I think it's a waste of my time to try to work with two other political parties to come up with a proposal that might satisfy a third, and not even have the space at the committee table to deal with it, because we can't get a vote to resolve a question that's been open for months. If the government isn't prepared to offer a vote on its own amendment as a sign of good faith towards getting toward some kind of compromise, it ain't worth doing the work on our side. It's not worth the time. It's not worth the time. If the government wants to show us on the opposition side that it's worth our time to do the hard work that we'll have to do amongst ourselves to hammer out some kind of common proposal forward, then they need to show that they're willing to move on from this amendment one way or another.

Monsieur Lauzon says maybe it's not dead in the water. I say let's find out. The way to do that is to have the vote. If the government would at least allow the committee to decide the question, then we would know that it's worth doing the work to find another alternative. What we're hearing right now after all of this, after the conversation earlier this morning, after the five-minute recess, is that the government's preference is to continue to talk this out for as long as they possibly can, without giving an inch, unless the three opposition parties together pitch something behind closed doors that they happen to like.

Well, I'm sorry, but that's not a real negotiation. That's not a sign of good faith. I'm not somebody's puppet who's going to play along like a moron. Unless I actually get a sign from the other side that it's worth my time, I have other things to work on, frankly. I have people I'm trying to get back to in my constituency. I have meetings that I would like to hold. I'm trying to fit that all in while I sit on three different committees, some of which are going quite a bit better than this one, I might add.

I'm not going to invest the time to try to get the government out of its own problem if they can't even allow us just to have a vote on the very proposal they put forward. It's not like we haven't given it a lot of time. How much more time do they think it will take, in the context of today's conversation, before anyone on the opposition side decides it would be a good idea to back this motion?

I think we're ready for the vote, Madam Chair. As a sign, a minimal sign, of good faith, let's have that vote. Then we can be solutions-oriented. As long as the government is going to try to have its cake and eat it too on this committee, that is not going to be a way forward. I guarantee it.

So what are we doing here? Are we working on a path forward or are we digging in? I can dig in with the best of them. I'm pretty tempted right now. Are we going to let this moment pass us by, or are we going to get dug in?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Dr. Duncan, go ahead.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Madam Chair, I'm going to try to bring us back to this morning.

Ms. Petitpas Taylor came in good faith. I know Ms. Vecchio is coming in good faith. I really feel our colleagues, all of us, are trying to find a way through this. I don't think the language helps at the moment. I think we need to try to come together, to come back and find that feeling that there is a way through.

Daniel, I hear what you're saying. I think that lines have been drawn. We really need to get back to what we felt this morning and see what's possible. I'm hearing from Karen and Daniel—I'm Kirsty—that people are meeting, and we're trying to see if we can move past this.

I look across the screen. I see my colleagues and friends. Some of you I've known a very long time. I'm wondering if we can lower the temperature, see if we can talk this through, and see if we can get a proposal that all of us can agree to, dear colleagues, dear friends.