Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 13th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Do you have your mute original audio selected?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Everything is working as it should. For some reason, when Mr. Therrien is speaking, his audio levels are fine, but the interpretation is at the same level, and they're blocking one another out. It's very difficult to understand what's being said.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Was it happening the whole time, or did it just start now?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

It was in the last few minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Is everyone else experiencing the same thing with interpretation?

Are you, Ms. Duncan?

[The Clerk]

Madam Chair, it appears that Dr. Duncan and Mr. Lukiwski are having a similar issue, if I understand correctly. Are any other members also having that problem?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I wasn't.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Madam Chair, like Mr. Lukiwski, I really had to struggle. I was paying attention to what Monsieur Therrien was saying, but it was difficult.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Let's suspend for a few minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Let me call this meeting back to order and give the floor to Monsieur Therrien.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Unfortunately, I've been noticing that when I speak not everyone can hear me properly. If you can't hear me very well, tell me right away. Then I can stop talking. It's too bad that some can't hear while others can. Don't hesitate to stop me if there are any problems. I won't get mad, because the Canadiens won yesterday. It would take more than that for me to get angry.

I haven't said anything for a few weeks. I'd like to return to what I said before.

Two things are clear from the motion, the amendment, and the subamendment.

The first is that we're asking for Mr. Trudeau to come and explain the reasons for the prorogation. That's one thing that's in the motion, the amendment, and the subamendment. We are all agreed on that. It's what we've been saying for months. We're persisting because we believe it's important.

The motion became possible because the Liberals agreed for Ms. Vecchio's initial motion to be shortened and streamlined to some extent. This was done out of collegiality. Collegiality certainly applies to the opposition in general. It began with Ms. Vecchio accepting Mr. Blaikie's motion, as I did, and even the Liberals voted in favour. We all agreed that Mr. Trudeau should appear before the committee. That's what the motion says.

Right after that, Mr. Lauzon proposed an amendment saying that he would be invited to appear, but that if he didn't come, it would just be noted in an annex.

That's when things start to get crazy. It makes no sense to do things that way.

It would mean that we literally wasted two or three months. We wanted to require him to meet us so that we could do things properly. To get there, everything else got dropped. But then a way was found to get around inviting him by saying that if he didn't come, we'd note it in an annex.

I'm going to make a prediction. I'm an economist, and economists make predictions and forecasts.

With that kind of amendment, I can safely say that Mr. Trudeau will not come to the committee. That's what it means.

So the Liberals don't want Mr. Trudeau to come to the committee, but those who want Mr. Trudeau to come to the committee are going say that he should come. Well, not quite. Mr. Blaikie seems to feel that his failure to come would not be particularly serious and that the important thing is to table the report on June 8.

Seriously? The important thing is tabling it on June 8 and it's no big deal if Mr. Trudeau does not appear before the committee?

Not only is it no longer serious for him not to appear before us, but the report needs to be tabled by June 8?

There is a subamendment, an amendment, and a motion, and there will be others, and we haven't finished writing the report. So on top of everything else, we are muzzling ourselves.

I can't speak for the other parties, but the Bloc Québécois completely disagrees with this. It makes no sense at all.

I won't repeat myself. I don't want to repeat myself too often, even though in education repetition is supposed to help people better understand various aspects. Mr. Turnbull has already said it and he's absolutely right. But I won't repeat it here, because we've already talked enough.

I simply want to return to the fact that the government number two did not provide enough clarification for us to avoid wanting to see number one come before the committee. I'd have to review the minutes, but at some point, Mr. Rodriguez said that he was not the one who decided to prorogue. It was decided in the Prime Minister's Office. He said so himself.

Mr. Rodriguez told us that if we wanted to study the prorogation, we would have to invite the person who decided. We can't go off in all directions; we have to invite Mr. Trudeau. That's why we took the positive step of reaching out.

Ms Vecchio's motion was substantial, impressive and important, but everyone agreed to change it. We don't want to be partisan, but do wish to meet the Prime Minister for an hour to ask him some questions, with all due deference. The Liberals will challenge the amount of time. We won't be cross-examining him and we're not going to burn him at the stake. We don't want to turn him into another Joan of Arc. We just want to ask him some questions about prorogation.

That's where I'm at and I'm really very disappointed. I know that I haven't spoken a lot and that I may have exaggerated a bit. Unfortunately, I don't have as much experience as many of you. Even though I'm old, I only have eight years of experience, and just learning to walk, but I'm saying that in politics I've rarely seen anything as twisted as what I've seen this past week. I even told my wife that what I'd gone through made no sense. I had to let it out, because I couldn't believe it. My wife was discouraged and told me that what I'd been through made no sense. Even my wife finds that what we've been through is crazy

I have to say to you, Mr. Blaikie, that I've rarely seen an about-face like that in my entire life. I'm giving you all three stars at the end of the hockey game. You're the Carey Price of motions and amendments. I'm impressed.

I may speak again later, but for the time being, I've said what I have to say. I'm saying it in friendship, because I have a lot of respect for each and every one of you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Mr. Therrien.

I definitely had some of those emotions at PROC in my first term. There were things that surprised me, but not too much surprises me anymore, I guess. I haven't been in politics for that long either. I have a similar number of years—a bit fewer than you, actually—so you have plenty of experience.

Ms. Vecchio.

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

Thanks very much.

I won't be speaking too long, but I wanted to comment, because I do really appreciate where Alain is coming from. I understand where he's coming from because, yes, we are pushing on the Prime Minister to be here. I also have great respect for Daniel, though. I do know that Daniel wants this report to be tabled. My problem is that both of these things could have happened if we hadn't filibustered for three months and three days. We're seeing ourselves in these last few weeks having to crush down on where we need to go, and it's all due to the fact that, for three months and three days, there was a filibuster.

Now, I'll be honest. You saw every single person vote to gut this motion, so I cannot support Mr. Lauzon's motion. Thanks very much, Stéphane. I can't support that, because to me, it's just so weak. It's, “Here you go, I'm going to invite you, but you don't have to show up.”

There is no way the Prime Minister is going to show up. For three months and three days he hasn't shown up. This has been going on for some time. I've heard many of my colleagues on the government side indicate that the WE Charity issue has gone away and all of these types of things. You can say that it's gone away, because I'll be honest, you're representing....

I can look at my mail. Were there a lot of people asking about WE? No, I'll be honest. Not a lot of people asked about WE, but there were people asking about prorogation. There were people asking about the obstruction by this government. There were people asking about transparency and accountability. When I talk about what I want to bring to my constituents, it's the fact that, once again, while this government was elected in 2015 to be transparent and accountable, it is not being transparent and accountable. Perhaps in 2019 their new slogan was “no longer accountable and transparent”. Maybe I missed that.

Those are the issues I have here. I understand where every party's coming from.

I'm looking at the Liberals. Protecting the king seems to be what everybody has to do. We've seen it in every committee, whether it's ethics or defence or whatever it may be. They cannot let Trudeau appear there. Maybe it's because we don't know what he might say, because he makes slips all the time, or maybe it's because he just can't come and speak to the members of the PROC committee, who are all members of Parliament, just like him. He is the Prime Minister. You know what I call that? That's just....

I'm sorry. We're in a democracy. We're supposed to be able to talk here. We should be accountable, and it does not matter who the prime minister is, whether it's Trudeau today, or O'Toole tomorrow or whoever. There should be accountability from our leaders. That is something we have not seen at all. I look at the members of the government saying you wasted time for three months and three days. You're now saying we have an amendment here that gives him an RSVP, which was put on Thursday of last week, meaning even for that invitation to go out, we're talking about very few days.

I want to switch and talk a little bit more about Daniel's amendment. Daniel has put something out there, because he really does believe there needs to be a report tabled. I also share in the feeling that there should be a report tabled. We've worked for three and a half months on this. There should be a report. I'm looking at these committee members and saying I wish I believed there will be a report tabled. That is why I can't support these motions from either—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Ms. Vecchio, I'm so sorry. Would you adjust your boom mike just a little bit?

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

I sure can.

Just speaking about those things, the one thing I'm really concerned with is that we have seen reports that were supposed to be tabled already this week by committees. The ethics report was not tabled. The defence report was not tabled. These timelines were negotiated just like we see today. I really feel like it's not the members here who are in charge of this committee, but it is the whips, who I know are all watching to see what we do. It's basically people being told that we're not going to have the Prime Minister, so continue to filibuster.

I know that the members of this committee do not have a choice on whether the Prime Minister comes or not because he is in his little circle of “he does not have to come”. I just wish we had the accountability. That's why I sit here and say that I don't know why everybody will just fold on not having the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is absolutely the person who has to come here.

I understand that Daniel wants to get this report tabled. Some good information has come from this report, but without the Prime Minister speaking, this report is just a paper clip at the back saying that the Prime Minister decided not to come. That's really what it is. For three months we heard about how we could invite everybody, although not one of those people we spoke about even considered coming to this committee. Those are concerns that I continue to have.

I will let my time go now, but I understand where Mr. Therrien is on this. For three and a half months, we've listened to issues on relevance and repetition and all that kind of stuff. Now, as he indicates, the clock is ticking. We know there are only a few weeks left. This minority Parliament has not been successful at getting legislation through. It's been very much a joke, if you're looking at even the work that's been done in previous minority governments or the fact it's this length of time. I recognize that we're in COVID. We all know that. I just sit here and ask once again, even if Bill C-19 comes to committee, what then? Is the Senate going to sit through the summer? Is that what's going to happen?

It all comes down to the fact that three and a half months were wasted on this filibuster. At the end of the day, as Mr. Therrien has said, he feels like there's a knife to his throat. I get it. I understand that. I understand why Daniel is doing this as well. I really hold it to these members. I would like to ask the Liberal members of this committee whether or not the PMO will allow them to report on this.

This report is going to be damning of the fact that the Prime Minister had no intention of coming to committee even though he was asked several times. No members of the government were willing to come to this committee, with the exception of Pablo Rodriguez, the House leader. He is a great speaker. I have great admiration for Pablo. I've never seen anybody so smooth. I think I've told him that as well.

At the end of the day, it's not the decision of this committee. It's the decision of the PMO. I just sit there and I think, wow, the PMO sure is powerful. That's very concerning. There are 338 members of Parliament and we have one guy who just won't come to committee because he doesn't have to be held to account.

I will leave it at that. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Ms. Vecchio.

Monsieur Therrien.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

I'm back to Ms. Vecchio's initial motion. I'd like to go over this lengthy motion briefly. There were several paragraphs, from (a) to (h).

Point (a) was to request Mr. Trudeau's appearance for three hours. We reduced that to at least one hour, a major compromise. As I was saying earlier, the Prime Minister must come if we are to do intelligent and rational work that is worthy of our mission and the committee's.

Point (b) was to renew the invitations issued to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, and the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth. We agreed to drop this and not invite them. We said that we wouldn't engage in partisanship because we weren't sure that they would have any information beyond what Mr. Trudeau could provide to the committee.

Point (c), to renew the invitations issued to the Honourable Bill Morneau, Katie Telford, and the Kielburger brothers, was dropped. We agreed that it wasn't serious and that if the Prime Minister were to appear, that would be all we would need to go over the reasons for the prorogation. We didn't want to be partisan.

Point (d) was to renew the invitations issued to Farah Perelmuter and Martin Perelmuter to appear before the committee. We decided to drop that. We did not want to be partisan because that was not our goal. Our mandate mentioned the reasons for the prorogation, and that is what had to be the focus. We would engage neither in partisanship nor in petty politics.

Point (e) was to issue an order for the production of all memoranda, emails, text messages, documents, notes or other records from the Prime Minister’s Office and the Privy Council Office. We dropped that because it was not what we wanted to do. We did not want to play politics with our work on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, whose members are expected to be people of good will working to discover the truth and improve the efficacy of our institutions. When we talk about institutions and prorogation, I think it's clear that if we understand why there is a prorogation, it move things forward by providing an understanding of why we analyze the structure and vitality of our institutions.

Point (f), to issue an order for the production of records of all communications between the government and any WE Charity organizations, was dropped. This was another step in the right direction, in fact more than a step—a great leap forward.

Point (g), to order the WE Charity to produce all memoranda, was also dropped. That, then, is what we did. We made huge strides in demonstrating that we were acting in good faith.

The Liberals have confidence in their Prime Minister, and I can understand that because he is their leader. I, on the other hand, have total confidence in my leader, Mr. Yves-François Blanchette, and his ability to answer questions and take action. If the Liberals have confidence in their Prime Minister, why are they refusing to have him appear for an hour?

Just have a look at the members of this committee: Mr. Lukiwski, Mr. Kent, Ms. Vecchio, Mr. Blaikie, me. I won't name everyone. I don't see a Dracula or a Frankenstein here, but only MPs who want to work as part of a team. We're nice people and I know it. We just want to ask some questions in order to get some clarification, and we can only get that from the Prime Minister.

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

Madam Chair, I have not had any interpretation for the last 15 to 20 seconds.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay.

[The Clerk]

Madam Chair, we'll look to see whether the issue is on our end. Just stand by.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

The interpretation is there now. It had dropped off for about 10 seconds or so.

Monsieur Therrien, I'm wondering if you could repeat your last sentence.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

I was talking about Frankenstein.

I was sending a message of friendship to our Liberal colleagues…

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

We don't have interpretation.

[The Clerk]

Madam Chair, we'll try to figure out what the issue is. It's not completely clear yet from our end what the problem is.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Interpretation is there again. It's just that the delay seems to be very long, or longer than usual. There is always a delay, of course, which makes sense, but it's a very lengthy delay.