Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 7th, 2024

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will simply conclude for now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

The next member on my list, then, as Mr. Gerretsen is not here, is Madam Romanado.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm glad to have an opportunity to address this, along with the subamendment.

The reality is that there are 11 meetings between now and the end of June, and 22 meetings between now and October 31. I understand from the subamendment that the date was removed and the reference is “after it has completed its study on foreign election interference”. The reality is that this committee has always functioned in a way where we can walk and chew gum at the same time. In the event that witnesses are not available one week, there's nothing stopping this committee from having multiple studies going at the same time, which we've done in the past.

Nowhere did anyone say that we were finished with foreign interference. It is still ongoing. I don't understand why we can't do both. I have been very patient with respect to the request for my study, which I brought forward a while ago. We finished the study on the question of privilege for Mr. Chong, so I thought it would be time for us to bring forward that study. It doesn't mean we're not doing any other studies.

I just wanted to clarify that for colleagues who seem to think I'm planning on bouncing the other study. That's not the goal here. I would just like us to do two things at once. I know that's crazy talk, but I think we can actually do that. In the event witnesses for one study aren't available for a meeting, we can do the other one.

I'm trying to find some common ground here. I know my colleagues have been talking for the last two hours about the previous study, which is still important to us. We still have other things we need to do on that. That doesn't mean we can't do both at the same time. The reality is that it was a Conservative member who came to me to ask us to do this study. I will not reveal who it was, out of respect for them, but that's why I brought it forward. There's no big master plan—there honestly isn't. There's a loophole and I'd like to fix it. I think we can do both. I'm throwing this out there to my colleagues. I think we can, and I think we should.

Can we find a way forward? That's my point. I think we can all agree on that. If both are important, we can do both. We're pretty talented.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Ms. Gaudreau, I know you have the floor, but if you'll allow it, Mr. Berthold would like to say something.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I will, if he does so in under five minutes.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

My comments will be very brief.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Very well.

Mr. Berthold, you have the floor.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to seize on the proposal that Ms. Romanado just made, namely that we could accomplish two things at once.

Mr. Chair, we should suspend the meeting so we have time to discuss it before Thursday's meeting and see whether we can indeed reach a compromise allowing us to conduct both studies. We could at least discuss it outside of this meeting, and avoid using resources until 2:00 p.m.

I therefore move that this meeting be suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Berthold.

Here's what I'm thinking, colleagues, so we're all on the same page. I suggest that we suspend for two minutes so this can be discussed to make sure we're on the same page. Then we can come back, and if there is agreement that we suspend, we'll suspend until Thursday's meeting.

Is that okay with everyone?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

It's for two minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Do you need more than that?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

I love your optimism. Let's try it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Let's start with a few. Colleagues can talk among themselves to see what the decision will be after this brief suspension.

We're suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Colleagues, I leave the room for two minutes and we've solved some problems. It's becoming quite obvious I'm the issue here.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

I understand there have been conversations among colleagues and the parties about suspending until our next scheduled meeting, which would be Thursday. I'm looking around the room for agreement on this.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Colleagues, thank you.

It's a pleasure to join you, and I look forward to continuing.

The meeting is suspended.

[The meeting was suspended at 12:58 p.m., Tuesday, May 7]

[The meeting resumed at 11:02 a.m., Thursday, May 9]

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome back to meeting number 114 of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

I do want to remind colleagues of something. I don't think I'm going to read the entire script again, but I will remind members that there are some new provisions in place for our translation devices to avoid audio feedback. Please make sure, most importantly, that when you are not using your earpiece, it's placed face down on the sticker that has been provided in front of you on the table. This is to help ensure that our translators who work very hard on our behalf and do incredibly important work have the ability to do so in a safe environment.

At our last meeting, colleagues, we were considering a subamendment put forward by MP Cooper, which was in relation to an amendment from MP Mathyssen, which was in relation to a motion that was moved by MP Romanado. We are going to, in a moment, go back to our conversation about that subamendment. Currently, colleagues, on the list, I have simply Madame Gaudreau, who would like to speak to this. Mr. Cooper, I'll add your name.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

I believe I was on the list.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

I perhaps have failed to put it down, but I'm happy to add it now.

Mr. Cooper, can I add him first?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

It would be Blaine and then me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

That's not a problem. I definitely have Madame Gaudreau first, but then we'll go to you, Mr. Calkins, and then we'll go to Mr. Cooper.

I will remind you that we also have a fairly comprehensive second list, and when I refer to the second list, it is simply the list that, should we get back to the debate on the amendment, we will respect the list of names that were there, and it turns out, Madame Gaudreau, that is you as well.

Then with no further ado, the floor is yours, Madame.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to congratulate you for this first meeting. I think we will be increasingly constructive. That is my hope.

I feel compelled to provide an overview so you can all understand where I stand. I will speak slowly for the benefit of the interpreters.

As to the motion on harassment, I think it's important for us to be concerned about this issue, because it is ultimately about safeguarding our democracy. Harassment leads us to censor ourselves. It's exactly like foreign interference. We must keep that in mind.

I would also like to talk about our values. I think the other parties want to preserve Canadian unity. I myself can take the liberty of saying certain things, because I'm not grappling with partisan interests. As you know, we are in favour of what is good for Quebec and we are opposed to what is not.

I would like to raise awareness. You will no doubt recall the 70 meetings we held on foreign interference, more specifically on Beijing. For those who were not here, let me point out that we were able to ensure that there was an independent public inquiry. Then the process was launched.

That takes time. I can well understand that some people want to hear everything that's being said and offered up in dribs and drabs as a result of the proceedings of the Commission on Foreign Interference chaired by Justice Hogue. However, I think we have to respect what we—I'm talking about all the parties here—have managed to achieve. Remember that, during the summer, we adopted the whole process, and we achieved that together.

Obviously, any topic can bring out complementary aspects, but if we feel trust and respect for the Commission on Foreign Interference, we must restrain ourselves. We have to give it a chance and show some respect. I understand that some might be tempted to act in parallel or to meddle in things that are not up to us. I have to tell you, however, that I heartily disagree with that parallel approach. I agree that we would all like things to move more quickly. That is what I wanted to say.

As for our motion on harassment, I am grateful that we took the time to conduct an analysis. I asked myself a lot of questions, and as a result, I have answers before I can even vote or judge anything. Let me explain.

That harassment policy comes up every five years, I think. So it is now being reviewed. The motion to ensure that there is no vacuum when it comes to harassment between members was moved two years ago, I believe. It is very important that this policy and this rule truly reflect our reality. I understand that. It will also have a very positive impact on relations between parliamentarians.

Before we try to adopt anything, however, I'd like us to get some information from the analysts, the Sergeant-at-Arms or the clerk. As suggested by my colleague Ms. Mathyssen, we have to ask ourselves whether it's really here, in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, that we should be doing this important analysis. As you know, the Board of Internal Economy adopts a lot of regulations.

I don't know if you've spoken to your whips. For my part, I've spoken to my whip, and I have a lot of questions. I'm not wondering about the study as such, but rather about its scope; indeed, it will require six meetings. That's a very broad scope. Basically, we need to know what our weaknesses are so that we can adopt a policy which, I hope, will enable us to change our way of doing things a little. I'm telling you, we're going off the rails.

We're all adults. Last Tuesday, I received a visit from 38 high school students during which I had to answer questions for half an hour. You know what high school students are like; they ask the essential questions, so I had to give them essential answers.

I don't know where you stand on this, but, for my part, I was really ashamed. If our job is to restore confidence and make sure there are no flaws in our democracy, I can tell you that we are going off the rails. That's what's happening. We're right in the middle of it, and it's very embarrassing. Let's not forget that.

Today, I want to say that something is happening in the House. We have to be constructive and efficient. I know that not many people are watching us, but we're being watched all the same. Call your fellow citizens, and they'll ask you where you're going with your skis. I don't know how the interpreters will translate that.

We're being judged. Maybe you like being judged. We are being criticized. People wonder what this institution is all about, what all these slip-ups are. People are faced with concrete difficulties and they wonder what we're doing with their money. We mustn't forget them.

It's normal for partisan strategies to take up space in debates. However, if the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs doesn't act with dignity, respect for democracy and the issues we face, seriously, we'd better stop, go do our homework and come back next session.

Before continuing the discussion on the subamendment, I need some clarification. What has been done? What needs to be done? What do we need to do here in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to achieve the objective of Ms. Romanado's main motion?

I'll stop here, but it felt good to vent my feelings. We often forget to do that.

I can't wait to hear what my colleagues have to say.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Ms. Gaudreau.

Mr. Calkins, we'll go to you.