Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 13th, 2021

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Chair, I'm really sorry that my colleagues didn't support my amendment, which I thought was an attempt to be reasonable and appease some of my colleagues from across the aisle, but obviously that didn't carry.

I still have quite a few concerns with the original motion. It focuses on an extraordinarily burdensome production of documents. It has all kinds of other things in it that are pretty significant issues that I take issue with and would like to express my views on.

Also, we know that opposition parties seem to be focused on prorogation and trying to link it to the WE Charity. I will just note that a recent media report came out on the ethics commissioner's investigation of this, which has said that the Prime Minister was not in a conflict of interest. Therefore, it sort of goes to the heart of what our members have been saying for quite some time, which was that prorogation—

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

Point of order, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Ms. Vecchio.

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

I just want to ensure when we talk about these things that we are not misleading anybody, because the report indicated one thing. It did find the former minister of finance in breach of ethics on three counts.

I just want to ensure that as Mr. Turnbull is talking about this report he does not mislead the committee and ensures that. Yes, the Prime Minister may have been waived on some of these things, but the former finance minister was found in breach of ethics on three counts.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay. You can put your hand up, Ms. Vecchio, if you want to speak to that more afterwards, but that is a point of debate.

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

Are we allowed to mislead, though? I guess that's my question. It's misleading.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Turnbull can explain in which part you may feel he was misleading, but I think he's speaking to the PM. You're free to also speak to this issue. I'm sure it will give everyone lots of material on that point, if you wish.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I don't take offence, Madam Chair. I don't take offence because I would never mislead anyone intentionally or even unintentionally. Obviously, I'm not perfect, but I'm really reporting what the media is reporting, which is that the Prime Minister has been cleared of any conflict of interest, which is what I just read.

If you want me to refer you to the article in the media, I'm sure you could look it up yourself, Ms. Vecchio. I'm just reporting to the committee what I've just heard. This is breaking news, and it's good news. It also, I think, speaks to the heart of what we've been debating for quite some time: that opposition parties have been really adamant about sticking to wanting to hear from the Prime Minister on prorogation. Really, from my perspective anyway, it seems like that really centres on an argument that somehow prorogation was used to cover up something nefarious, so I think this is relevant.

What I've been trying to say all along is that we've tabled a report for the first time ever that gives a rationale for prorogation, and this is a decent rationale. It really makes sense. It's supported by evidence. The timing was right. We could quibble about whether the timing could have been better, but I really feel that the timing was right. It did give the government an opportunity to reset, to re-evaluate and to essentially move forward in a way that was more relevant to the changing context within a global pandemic. That, to me, seems very rational.

We've been staring in the rear-view mirror, looking at prorogation and studying that, talking about that for quite some time. I really feel at this point—and many of the members on our side have said this in the past—that we really have important business before us. We just had Bill C-19 referred to us from the House. I know this was voted on. I think it wasn't quite a unanimous vote, but it was very close to it. I think there was only one member who voted nay on that bill.

I think we have important work to do that really, to me, is pressing, given the fact that opposition parties have numerous times over the last month or two voted that they don't have confidence in our government, and this could trigger an election.

I think that the health and safety of Canadians within a general election should be our highest priority right now. I really think that Bill C-19 deserves our attention. It is within our mandate as a committee to look at anything to do with the election of members of Parliament. I really think that it would serve the interests of Canadians. I really feel that leadership in government should always be focused on the interests of Canadians, especially during a global pandemic when opposition parties seem to be trying to take down the government or at least are threatening to do so from time to time. To me, this could very well put our democratic process at risk. Canadians' ability to participate in a fair and democratic process could be jeopardized to some degree. By that, I mean if the Chief Electoral Officer doesn't have the powers that are within Bill C-19, which are adaptation powers. There are several, I think, around long-term care. We've all expressed concerns, and we did some great work on studying this. However, I think we need to move on from this particular debate and get into the work on Bill C-19.

Of course, this doesn't mean that we would.... Ms. Vecchio's motion would still be on the table to return to.

Given all this rationale that I think is quite substantial in my view, I move that the committee proceed to study Bill C-19.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Clerk, can you help us with that?

[The Clerk]

Yes, I can, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

In case everyone's wondering, we are voting on the motion to move to Bill C-19. Bill C-19 has already been referred to our committee. An email was circulated to all members. I want to verify that you got that email and all of the information that was contained within it. There were a lot of links on the bill and material for all of you.

At this point, we would be voting to leave Ms. Vecchio's motion as is. It would still remain there. We'd be moving to a discussion on Bill C-19.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

We're back on Ms. Vecchio's motion.

We have a speakers list at this point. I have Mr. Blaikie, Mr. Turnbull and Ms. Shanahan.

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

Madam Chair, those dilatory motions are non-debatable, I know, but I did just want to say that I do think it's important that we find a resolution to the impasse that we have gotten into over Ms. Vecchio's motion before moving on. I do think that if the Prime Minister's own proposal for how to try to curb political abuses of prorogation is going to work, this committee has to get it right on the first go. We're the ones setting the precedent for how that mechanism works.

I've said before that I don't think it's the ideal mechanism. I think that a debate and vote in Parliament on prorogation is actually the best way to try to avoid political abuses of prorogation. However, this is what's currently on offer, and I am committed to trying to make it work as best as possible.

I don't think that a situation where PROC doesn't report back to the House is a great situation to be in. I do think we need to try to solve this impasse rather than simply move on, so that the record shows some kind of path forward for how to make this a meaningful mechanism rather than just a platitude that was written into the Standing Orders and that essentially leaves nothing unchanged.

In Mr. Turnbull's previous remarks, what came out for me very clearly was that the request for documents in Ms. Vecchio's motion is a sticking point for Liberal members of the committee. That's helpful information that may inform some other discussions that are taking place.

What I also heard, however, was an emphasis on the idea that somehow the desire to have the Prime Minister appear is just about the WE Charity scandal. It is also about the WE Charity scandal, but it's clearly.... We heard in testimony from people who believe there is a link between the political circumstances of the WE Charity scandal, and if not the ultimate decision to prorogue, which may have been in the works anyway, although we haven't seen any evidence of that.... I believe that when the government House leader was here and was asked when the government began asking questions about what a prorogation would look like and how far in advance of Bill Morneau's resignation did that take place, the answer was a matter of days, not a matter of weeks or months. It does show there is a connection of the timing there.

I won't belabour that point. What I'll say is that the real importance of having the Prime Minister come to this study, which is quite different from appearing on just about anything else, is that the Prime Minister alone is the decision-maker in respect of prorogation.

This isn't about how another minister made a decision within the department that it's their job to defend. It isn't even about a decision around the cabinet table. Ultimately, prorogation is a decision of the Prime Minister. We've heard that very clearly. In fact, Liberals on this committee have used that fact more to state a defence of the Prime Minister by saying that at the end of the day, it's up to him, and a prime minister doesn't even need to give a reason. We've heard that verbatim out of the mouths of Liberals at this committee. Fair enough. That's why it makes sense to hear from the Prime Minister.

If we want to take the emphasis off WE Charity—it doesn't go away because it is part of the story—and put it on prorogation, which is what the study is about.... Mr. Turnbull earlier said the opposition seems very focused on the question of prorogation. Indeed we are, because we're very focused on the topic of our study. I know that some Liberal members have kind of lost their way on relevance, but we are actually studying prorogation, so we are actually interested in prorogation, and we listen to the testimony, taking note of the fact that the Prime Minister is the decision-maker.

This study calls for the Prime Minister's presence in a very unique way that is not true in the general way that Ms. Shanahan was referring to when governments make decisions as a collective and ministers are there to represent not just their department and their own decision-making but the collective decision-making of government. For decisions around prorogation and also about dissolution, which is also an important and relevant topic at the moment, as Mr. Turnbull highlighted in his own remarks about the possibility of an election, these are powers that rest with the Prime Minister alone, and that's why it's really important to have the Prime Minister here. It is very much about prorogation.

Yes, there will be questions about WE Charity. I'm sure there will also be questions from committee members about the circumstances of the pandemic and how that contributed to a decision. The advantage of having the Prime Minister here is to get to know the mind of the decision-maker, because we all have our feelings about why prorogation happened, why it happened when it happened and why it lasted as long as it did.

The point of having the person at committee isn't the way we have an impartial jury at a trial. It's an accountability function. We test the decision-maker by asking questions and hearing their answers. The benefit of that isn't just for the parliamentarians at the committee.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Chair.

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

The benefit of that is for the Canadians we represent—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Is that—

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

—who then have an opportunity to read or hear those arguments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I'm sorry, Mr. Blaikie, just a moment.

Do you have a technical difficulty, Mr. Simms, or is it a point of order?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Well, that's an ongoing situation, since I'm in a rural location, but no, that's not my point.

Can I pull out the Simms protocol?

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

Absolutely, yes.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

I'm just looking for a point of clarification on an issue. I'll try to make this quick.

He mentioned that he has, and I know that he does have, on the Order Paper a motion regarding the procedures of dissolving Parliament. Is it also to deal with this issue on prorogation? I thought it was one and not the other. If it's both....

He did mention that he wants to bring this to the House, but I understand from what he just said that it's already in the House waiting to be debated. Is that correct?

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

I think you may be referring to a motion that I put on the Order Paper in respect of the confidence convention. That is very much about dissolution.

What I think is important here in the context of this study is that we report back on prorogation. While those powers aren't identical, they are similar in that they are both an instance where the Prime Minister has a unique prerogative. Technically, it's the prerogative of the Crown, but we all know that the Governor General only acts on the advice of the Prime Minister in this respect. It's a similar power that has very much to do with the efficacy of Parliament and the ability of Parliament to meet and the ability of Parliament to hold the government to account. The Prime Minister can dispense with that either by proroguing Parliament, as we saw late last year, or by dissolving Parliament altogether and trying to have a new Parliament.

I would say that the questions of prime ministerial judgment are similar with regard to how he exercises a certain power in relation to Parliament's capacity to meet, but they're not the same. I'd be very happy to have that study of the confidence convention and to see the committee make some recommendations in that regard as well. But what we can do right now, because it's before us, is the question of prorogation.

I just want to be clear that the interest in the Prime Minister isn't about the WE Charity in and of itself, as it stands alone. The interest in having the Prime Minister here is because he alone is the decision-maker in respect of prorogation, and we heard that. I believe the government House leader even said something to the effect in his testimony that you could have a debate about the timing, but at the end of the day those decisions are up to the Prime Minister. Well, yes, they are. That's why we should really have the Prime Minister here to have that opportunity to ask questions.

Asking questions is valuable, even if we think we already know the answer. Sometimes surprising things happen at committee. Sometimes you get a slightly different answer. Those things do matter. I don't think a written submission is an adequate substitution for that. I don't think it honours the tradition of parliamentary accountability, where decision-makers are subject to questioning. That's why I think there really is an important case for the Prime Minister to come.

I do hear that one of the sticking points for the other side is the request for the production of documents and having a lot of witnesses. That's an important thing for us to hear as we try to hammer out a way forward, looking towards our next meeting, where we're going to start with a clearer deck now that we've been able to have a vote on the amendment. We're taking in all this information. I certainly am. It will help inform discussions on how we move forward. It seems to me that everyone is anxious to move forward.

It's a question of who has the ability to break the logjam here. When we figure that out, we'll be looking to that person to show some leadership and get us beyond this impasse.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Chair, I appreciate the remarks of my colleague Mr. Blaikie. As always, he's very insightful and obviously very learned about parliamentary rules and procedure.

I don't share some of the perspectives, I'm sorry to say, but I'd like to just make a bit of a plea here.

Mr. Blaikie, you've sort of said that it really is about almost the subjective mind of the Prime Minister that you're interested in questioning or somehow holding accountable. I get that. I get the preoccupation with the Prime Minister's state of mind. That's fine. I understand that's Mr. Blaikie's perspective and perhaps that's shared by some others on this committee.

I just want to be clear though that from my perspective—and this is my understanding—no government in history, no prime minister in the history of Canada who's used the prerogative to prorogue Parliament, which we know is quite a regular practice, has had to table a report that gives a rationale. Not only did our Prime Minister and the government in the last Parliament change the Standing Orders to require this but the Prime Minister and the government followed through with tabling a report. At no time have I really felt as though opposition parties have entertained the merits of that report.

I really believe that we have been very forthcoming, rational and transparent about the reasons why prorogation made sense and why the timing made sense. All of the themes and the data that was available and the consultations that took place all showed up in the throne speech and really demonstrated that the work of our government ultimately can lead back to what was gathered during that time. We lost one sitting day.

I will also say that, just from the perspective of being on this committee, we did not try to block in any way doing a study on this. We fully supported the original motion to do this study, so we did a study. We submitted witnesses, and again opposition parties all had the opportunity to submit their witness list. We undertook multiple meetings. We heard from the government House leader. We heard from other key officials, academics, procedural experts, historians, and the list goes on.

We did look at and hear from witnesses, and at this point it just really feels as though we're stuck, but we're stuck, in my view, not because the government hasn't been transparent and willing to be held accountable or entertain the thoughts, opinions, narratives and perspectives that are as diverse as members on this committee, but really, it seems, this is an attempt to push an agenda that the opposition parties have. It's not rational. It's not supported by the evidence or information. I've been arguing this for quite some time and I've done my absolute best to bring forward evidence, arguments and statistics, all that show that direct line and relationship between the timing, prorogation, resetting of the agenda and what was then worked on as a result of that, which shifted and changed as a result of reflecting, re-evaluating and resetting the agenda.

I just feel as though opposition parties have never once entertained that this might actually be the reason for prorogation, which is a very legitimate reason, and we heard that from academics and procedural experts. We heard it loud and clear. That is one of the main reasons that prime ministers and governments prorogue Parliament. It's completely legitimate.

At the moment in time that we're in, we know, having spent many months reflecting on the past, that we are in the middle of a global pandemic, the third wave of this pandemic. We know that opposition parties are pushing dangerously close to triggering an election, although they keep saying that we want an election. We're going to keep focusing on the health and safety of Canadians. I'm thinking that it feels like we're playing roulette or they're playing roulette with people's health and safety.

I think we really need to move on with the work of Bill C-19 to make sure.... We can come back to Ms. Vecchio's motion—fine. If the opposition parties want to continue on that, fine, but let's not hold up progress on immediately pressing legislation that impacts the health and safety of Canadians.

This is important work. If an election is triggered and our Chief Electoral Officer does not have those adaptation powers.... We know that with the ways of a pandemic, with different variants and with all kinds of factors that are related to this, people's health and safety are on the line. We really owe it to Canadians to protect our democratic institutions and to protect that process.

I move that the debate be now adjourned.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Clerk, could you help with a recorded vote on that?

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

Point of order.