I certainly understand Ms. Vecchio's frustration.
As MPs each and every one of us needs to prepare. It's not like I just walked in here 30 minutes ago and picked up a bunch of papers and decided to read off some stuff. It's incumbent on all of us as MPs to do our preparation, do the background study and give some thought as to what we think we can do to come to a consensus and have a proper exchange of viewpoints.
For me, Chair, I had to go back through this. I know it's painful at times to go back through these things, but I can't articulate MP Turnbull's amendment by deleting (d) through (h) and let's add (a) and let's throw in a little bit of spice here and let's mix it all in a pot. I can't do that without going through this.
We just talked about the Prime Minister. We just talked about inviting the Prime Minister back to appear for three hours. I am not sure what possibly anybody thinks they're going to get. Again, I just don't understand what anyone thinks and what question would be asked that hasn't been answered time and time and time again. Maybe it's just me, maybe it's the non-political side of me, at times, that screams to me. The fact that we want to invite the Prime Minister—not we; it's the Conservative Party—back not for three, for at least three hours....
The next is:
(b) renew the invitations issued to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth, each to appear separately before the committee, provided that in respect of each of them who does not agree, within one week of the adoption of this motion, to appear for at least 90 minutes each, the Chair shall be instructed to report to the House forthwith a recommendation that this committee be empowered to order her appearance from time to time;
(c) renew the invitations issued to the Honourable Bill Morneau, Katie Telford, Craig Kielburger and Marc Kielburger, each to appear separately before the committee, provided that in respect of each of them—
—and so on and so forth. It's the same thing over again. The next is:
(d) renew the invitations issued to Farah Perelmuter and Martin Perelmuter, to appear before the committee—
Chair, I need to pause for one second, with respect to the Perelmuters. The fact that we want to invite them back again to me is puzzling. How much more do we want to ask them? What else could there possibly be? Obviously, the Perelmuters were owners of the Speakers' Spotlight and they appeared before the ethics committee. He and his wife had nothing to hide. They provided everything they had and they faced online attacks. They had to call the police.
At a December 7 meeting of the ethics committee, members of the Liberals and NDP apologized to the Perelmuters, yet we want to bring them back again. We want to bring Speakers' Spotlight back again.
Mr. Perelmuter co-founded Speakers' Spotlight 25 years ago with his wife. Since all of this, they've been harassed. Employees have been intimidated. They've been threatened since August, yet we want to invite them back on the same thing to appear for 90 minutes, not three hours.
The next is:
(e) issue an order for the production of all memoranda, e-mails, text messages, documents, notes or other records from the Prime Minister’s Office and the Privy Council Office, since June 25, 2020, concerning options, plans and preparations for the prorogation of Parliament, including polling and public opinion research used to inform the decision—
—and so on and so forth.
The next is:
...issue an order for the production of records of all communication between the government and any of WE Charity (or... affiliated organizations)...Kielburger, Marc Kielburger, or Speakers' Spotlight, since...;
The next is:
(g) issue orders to WE Charity (including...affiliated organizations), Craig Kielburger, Marc Kielburger and Speakers' Spotlight for the production of all memoranda, e-mails, text messages, documents, notes or other records...concerning the prorogation of Parliament, provided that these documents shall be provided to the clerk...;
Last but not least, it says:
(h) all documents provided to the clerk of the committee in respect of paragraphs (e) to (g) shall be published on the committee's website—
—and so on and so forth.
You can bring motions forward. It's within the rights of any MP to bring motions forward like that. MP Turnbull—and I respect him so much—wanted to compromise. He wanted to find some common ground because he recognized.... Let me say this. For a newly elected member of Parliament, MP Ryan Turnbull is as good as they get. He is sincere. He researches. He cares. He has depth. What a wonderful addition not only to our party, but to Parliament as an elected representative.
I know MP Turnbull has consulted other members of PROC about a compromise and something that was arguably a middle ground. Negotiations are all about give and take. I lived it with the Sea Dogs in negotiating with agents and players. You give a little; you take a little. You say to get this out, but let's give this back and let's come to some form of consensus here.
MP Turnbull, I feel, came up with something that's very meaningful, so that the motion of Karen Vecchio concerning the committee's study of the government's reasons for the prorogation of Parliament in August 2020 be amended by deleting paragraph (a).
I won't go back and read paragraph (a) again, but basically it's deleting the paragraph that calls the Prime Minister to come to testify and:
II. by replacing paragraph (b) with the following: “(b) renew the invitations issued to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth, each to appear separately before the committee for at least 90 minutes; and
III. by replacing paragraph (c) with the following: “(b) renew the invitations issued to the Honourable Bill Morneau, Craig Kielburger and Marc Kielburger, each to appear separately before the committee for at least 90 minutes.”, and
IV. by deleting paragraph (d) to (h).”
As I've said many times, I'm no...sometimes I catch myself saying that I'm not a politician. Well, I am a politician, but you know, I'm not a procedural kind of person.
I try my best, and we all have strengths and weaknesses as parliamentarians, but I looked at that and said that is a very valid compromise, a very valid compromise, that we.... There are still people called to testify. The Prime Minister's already on record. The opposition parties can interview or ask questions, but no, that's not acceptable, so here we are.
Where do we go? I want to reflect and think about the level of collaboration we've seen in the past among members, regardless of political stripe or affiliation. I mean, from the CERB to the wage subsidy—