Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 13th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you for the clarifications, Mr. Clerk.

We will move on to—

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

I'm sorry, Ruby, I was just thinking—I was going back and forth.

This might not be normal, but because we know there are other things to do.... Never mind. I don't think we can. I was going to ask if we should try to schedule some extra time. We know that these things have to get done. Of course, we don't know if we'll need extra time, because the conversation, or the discussion, or the filibuster just may continue to go on.

My only concern is that if we did want to schedule more time, we don't know if that time would be used effectively or not.

Never mind. I thought for a moment I had this great idea.

Sorry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I will let you know that even within our regularly scheduled times, at this point, if we were to make the decision, we do have the time. Essentially, if I was given direction, I could book a meeting for witnesses to appear on the main estimates. We have a constituency week next week, but we would still have enough time.

That's why I brought it up today.

You can let me know later on if your idea changes.

[The Clerk]

Madam Chair, I can also let the committee know that I have been in touch in a general way with the various entities that have main estimates before PROC, letting them know there is a possibility that an invitation on very short notice could potentially be proffered to them. They are in fact getting prepared in case there is an invitation from PROC, and they should be able to appear on relatively short notice.

Obviously, it is still within the hands of the committee to make some sort of determination as to whether they want to go forward with that, and if they do, then to look at possible scheduling dates when that kind of meeting can occur, or those meetings could occur.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

That's all I have for general information and announcements.

I guess we'll move back to the issue that we're on for committee business for the time being, and that's Mr. Turnbull's amendment. We do have a speakers list. A few people have fallen off the speakers list.

Next in line I have Ms. Vecchio.

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

Thank you very much. I'm not going to take up very much time this morning. I know it's really important that we have lots of things coming to us. There's Bill C-19 of course. I'm going to speak a little bit about the mandate, but I think it's really important that we figure out where we're going in these next few steps. I know that right now there will be Bill C-19, and we do want to look at that here in this committee. It's very, very important that we look at this bill. We do have a hurdle and we need to get over that hurdle today, and that is the amendment brought forward by Ryan Turnbull.

I'm just bringing this forward because—let's not kid ourselves. Let's call it what it is. It's a filibuster and it's been a filibuster since February 23, so let's just get over that and see how we can get to a decision on where we want to go. I'm going to put it right out there, and I think we've always said so. Speaking to all opposition parties, I know that with our prorogation study we are focusing on hearing from the Prime Minister, who ultimately would have had the opportunity and who ultimately is the person who called for the prorogation. At that time, in our initial motion, we also looked at the chief of staff, Katie Telford. I'm unsure whether anyone will want her to go to any committees right now. Honestly, I know that it's a hot thing, so it would be a very hot topic to invite her to this, so I don't necessarily want to go there. The Prime Minister is ultimately who we want to hear from.

There are lots of different asks here. There have been discussions about trying to bring in WE Charity. Well, perhaps we can negotiate. That's what I'm saying. I am letting you know that if you're looking at the entire motion, whether it's the original motion or the amended motion, ultimately, there is one person everybody wants to see. That is why I would be voting against Mr. Turnbull's amendment, because it does not include the Prime Minister or even representation from the PMO, including documents. That's why I would not be able to support that, truly, just on the fact that the one key person everybody wants to see on this matter is the Prime Minister, and his name does not appear in that amendment. Therefore, I cannot support it.

When we look at the original amendment, we can also recognize that some people from my original motion are in this amended motion, and that's fine. I'm not saying let's drop it all. I'm saying when the only thing we want is for the Prime Minister to come to this committee and we're asking—originally, I was asking for three hours. Perhaps Mr. Blaikie will join in this conversation to talk about some of those discussions, but I've heard Mr. Blaikie say, “Listen, I want him for an hour.” I don't know if that's a perfect quote, but that's a Daniel Blaikie quote for you. Daniel would like to see him as well. I've heard the same thing from Alain Therrien. I don't know if he'll want me to do it in French today, but I will make sure I will do it in time for him.

Ultimately, we want to see the Prime Minister. I don't know if you've heard any of us talk about the Kielburgers in the last two and a half or three months. There hasn't been much discussion coming from this side. Let's call it what it is. We want the Prime Minister at this committee. This amendment does not include the Prime Minister. The original motion doesn't include the Prime Minister. Hopefully we can get through, knowing that all opposition parties are asking for one thing and one thing clearly, being the Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, to come here to committee to explain to us about the prorogation and his decisions.

We have not set out a time frame. I'm looking at my guys. I'm looking at John, Peter and Tom. I'm looking at you guys and saying, “Sorry. I'm really going out there, but we just want the Prime Minister. That's what we want.”

Daniel has offered one hour. We've said three. Let's get down to real negotiations. Let's get this filibuster done and say, at the end of the day, that this is what we want. We're not asking to see the budget. We're not asking to talk about, necessarily, what the Speech from the Throne said, because I know a lot of times people are referencing that. We are asking for that date. If we can go back to August 2020, what were the thoughts and the decisions that led up to this? You can indicate it was the throne speech. That's great, and perhaps we can just hear the Prime Minister say that. That would be wonderful as well.

Let's be honest. Do I think we're going to get answers from the Prime Minister? We're probably not. We don't see that in question period. We don't see that anywhere. Let's just call it what it is. Let us at least ask these questions, and I think that's the one thing. We are being told that we'll not be allowed to ask the Prime Minister of Canada these questions Yes, he is the Prime Minister, but he is also a member of Parliament who chose to prorogue the Parliament of Canada during the biggest pandemic that our generation has ever seen.

Yes, of course, it was at a very difficult time, but rather than having every Liberal member of Parliament speak on his behalf, perhaps the Prime Minister could speak for himself and share that with parliamentarians.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Ms. Vecchio.

We have Ms. Petitpas Taylor next.

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

Madam Chair, I have some comments and remarks prepared today.

Since we're talking about negotiations and whatnot, I just wonder, if we're talking about wanting to get some questions answered by the Prime Minister, if there would be an option of perhaps submitting a list of questions to the Prime Minister and having him respond to them in writing. Would that be sufficient for the opposition parties?

I'm putting that out there in good faith and wanting to negotiate to see if there is a way we can reach some type of a consensus here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Ms. Vecchio, I guess that's a question for you. Is that something you'd like to interject on?

Mr. Therrien also has his hand up on that.

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

I'll be honest. Golly gee, it's lovely and it's a really nice suggestion, but I do not think it will get to our ultimate goal.

I prefer to pass that over to my other opposition members, including Mr. Therrien, Mr. Blaikie and members of the Conservative caucus as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Does anybody else wish to speak to that?

Mr. Therrien, go ahead.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

I haven't yet spoken about this.

Things did happen. Prorogation deserves to be studied and I had previously suggested this to the government. I am the House leader of the Bloc Québécois, and I know what's going on with the Bloc when we're in Parliament. The government House leader should really tell us what he knows about what happened. He's supposed to explain to us why Parliament was prorogued.

When Mr. Rodriguez came to the committee, he didn't say anything. He just kept repeating that he didn't know, and that he had no idea why it had been prorogued. He seemed to be defending himself by implying that he was not the one who made the decision.

While listening to Mr. Rodriguez, I came to the conclusion that only one person could answer our questions and shed light on prorogation, and I believe it's clear who that is.

Mr. Rodriguez told us that he didn't even know that Minister Morneau had resigned on August 17 or that Parliament had been prorogued on August 18. We are therefore not even close to understanding a political event that occurred. And it was an important event, because Parliament was shut down.

What I'm saying is that I don't see how, without the appearance of the Prime Minister, we are going to get the kind of information that will help us understand the reason for this prorogation.

That's why I have been supporting Ms. Vecchio's approach from the outset. The only person who needs to come here to explain the situation to us is Mr. Trudeau.

Through his non-answers, the government House leader showed us that the decision was really made by the Prime Minister. That's my opinion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Blaikie.

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

Madam Chair, I think Monsieur Therrien put it quite well.

The nature of some of the responses that were offered by the government House leader essentially highlighted the fact that the Prime Minister is the main decision-maker. Anyway, I won't try to quote him, because I don't have the quotations in front of me. He said things at various times in his testimony, however, that suggested it really was the Prime Minister, at the end of the day, who made these calls.

Nobody knows the mind of the Prime Minister but the Prime Minister. That's why it's important to have him here. One important function of Parliament is to be able to question people, whether it's in question period or at committee. It's a very different kind of questioning that takes place. That's why it was not acceptable that Stephen Harper wouldn't meet with the press gallery. You get different kinds of answers and different kinds of interactions when you have live questioning as opposed to written responses. It's why Order Paper questions are not an adequate substitute for question period. It's why writing the Prime Minister a letter, I don't think, is a substitute, really, for having him here at committee.

I think it's important that the committee establish—this is not news to the committee—the right precedent for this kind of study, if this is indeed a mechanism that's going to persist in our parliamentary culture. If it's the best we can do to try to mitigate political abuse of prorogation, I think it's important that we get the mechanism right. I would thus like to see the Prime Minister here at committee.

What I think is clear from Ms. Vecchio's comments, which I think put it quite well this morning—or this afternoon, I guess, depending where you are in the country—is that the amendment itself that Mr. Turnbull has proposed is not doing the work of a compromise allowing the committee to move forward. I think that has been made clear by the length of the proceedings since its introduction.

What I am hearing is maybe a little bit of movement or willingness to have a conversation. Whatever that conversation is going to issue in will likely be a compromise that does not look like Mr. Turnbull's amendment.

What I would propose, then, is that we have a vote on Mr. Turnbull's amendment, which does not close the debate on the motion overall. What it would do is clear the floor and make it possible for somebody else, at some future point, hopefully after some productive conversation, to propose another amendment that might serve the purpose that Mr. Turnbull had in mind when he presented his originally.

This would allow us to at least have one vote, dispense with one item, and as I say, open the floor to other ideas that might come out of what I think is maybe the most productive conversation we've had at this committee in several months.

That would be my proposal. Maybe we could have a vote on the amendment, clear that, and then allow for this seemingly more productive conversation to take place. Then we could try to move to a solution that much more quickly, if one emerges out of that conversation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Is there anybody else who wishes to speak to the oral testimony versus the written testimony? Then we can move back to the amendment and to whether there's a vote on it.

Ms. Petitpas Taylor.

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

Madam Chair, I'm wondering whether perhaps Ms. Vecchio and Mr. Blaikie would be prepared to put on paper what it is they're proposing. We could perhaps work with it and then from there see what, if anything, we could come up with in respect to possible movement.

I don't know whether this would be an option that both Mr. Blaikie and Ms. Vecchio would be prepared to use. I'm just wondering whether we could have a proposal on paper and be able to look at it, and then from there perhaps continue this conversation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Do you mean a proposal that would be a subamendment or an alternative amendment, and then you can decide whether you'd like to have a vote?

Go ahead, Ms. Vecchio.

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

Thank you very much, Ginette. I really appreciate it.

I should be honest. I know that being the mover of the original motion, this is something I cannot do, because it can't be.

Right now the bottom line is that we're coming up with a counter-proposal. I would personally like to see us get off this amendment. What we're doing is talking about this amendment and missing the whole idea of this prorogation, because we're talking about other things. Let's get back to what our function is, what the mandate of the report is supposed to be, and get off this amendment and back to the original and make alterations.

I know that for Daniel—and I'm looking at some of our own team—it's a question of how we can do this. We want to get this work done.

Thank you, Ginette. I really appreciate your openness and appreciate Daniel and everybody else. I'm looking at Kirsty moving her head, asking where we are going with this. I really appreciate everybody's having a true conversation today. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Ms. Petitpas Taylor, the floor goes back to you.

I was just thinking that it's good to have the conversation back and forth, but the floor is yours, really, at this point.

Mr. Blaikie has something to say.

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

If I might comment just on process, I wonder if we could agree on this much, Madam Chair.

If it seems like we're not going to develop a solution today on the floor—which is fine, it's sometimes hard to do—perhaps we could agree that at the end of this meeting we'll have a vote on the amendment, so that the floor is clear for the beginning of the next meeting. We'll still be on the motion, so nothing will have been decided ultimately, but we can dispense with the amendment one way or the other at the end of this meeting. That would allow the parties some time to speak in the lead-up to Thursday's meeting, knowing that there is an open floor for amendments to this motion if that comes out of those conversations. It may not, but it would allow us at least to do something novel for the first time in a few months by making a decision and clearing the way, as it were, for something on Thursday.

That would allow members, who I know have more to say on the amendment, to do that today. We just heard some arguments in the House yesterday about the importance of debate, but also the importance of deciding things in respect of Bill C-19. I think some of those arguments also apply here. Perhaps we could at least do that in respect of the amendment. Then we can see where we can get to in time for Thursday's meeting, whether we can find a more fulsomely productive way forward by the end of the week.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

We'll go to Ms. Vecchio and then back to Ms. Petitpas Taylor.

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

I fully appreciate the idea of where Daniel has gone with this. Perhaps we can do something like that. The only concern I have, of course, is that we have not stayed within the committee time recently because none of these have been suspended. If we come to bells like we have today, I fear that we would go directly to bells, suspend and not get back to this issue.

We have some concerns—or I personally have concerns—because we haven't seen a two-hour committee meeting in months. If there is some kind of time frame.... I just know that we have bells today. We have a variety of things that could then interrupt the great work and great idea you have, Daniel. That's my only concern.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I'm afraid I don't really understand what you mean, Ms. Vecchio. We haven't seen a two-hour committee meeting?

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

I'm referring to all of the meetings that have been going far over time. Usually debates just end at one o'clock. It's just that we've not been able to ever end on time. That's by no means your fault, Ruby. It's just that our committee work continues to go on during that time.

I do know that today there are other events on our schedules that would end up suspending this meeting due to our duties in the House.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes, there are votes at 3 p.m., I think with no bells leading up to that.

Thank you, Ms. Vecchio. Maybe this discussion will help lead us on a slightly different path today. Let's see.

Ms. Petitpas Taylor, maybe you can respond to some of that.

The floors is yours really, as it was at the beginning of the meeting. We're on Mr. Turnbull's amendment.