EVIDENCE

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs NUMBER 027 2nd SESSION 43rd PARLIAMENT Tuesday, April 13, 2021 Le mardi 13 avril 2021 Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs CANADA [Recorded by Electronic Apparatus] EVIDENCE April 13, 2021 Committee NUMBER 027 NUMBER 027 NUMÉRO 027 27 13 04 2021 2021/04/13 11:00:00 House Of Commons Comité permanent de la procédure et des affaires de la Chambre Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs PROC Chair Ms. Ruby Sahota 2 43 PUBLIC PART ONLY -

PARTIE PUBLIQUE SEULEMENT

(1100) [ English ]

The Chair (Ms. Ruby Sahota (Brampton North, Lib.)) :

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 27 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of January 25, 2021. Therefore, members are attending in person in the room, and remotely, using the Zoom application. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. So you are aware, the webcast will always show the person speaking rather than the entirety of the committee. We don't have any members physically present in the room. Is that correct, Mr. Clerk?

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Justin Vaive) :

That's correct, Madam Chair. There are no members in the room.

The Chair :

I'd like to take this opportunity to remind all participants in this meeting that screenshots or taking photos of your screen are not permitted. Given the ongoing pandemic situation, and consistent with public health recommendations, all those who are in the room in person, including staff, are to maintain a two metre physical distance and must wear a non-medical mask when circulating in the room. It is highly recommended that masks be worn at all times, including when seated. You must maintain proper hand hygiene by using the provided hand sanitizer at the front entrance of the room.

As chair, with the help of the clerk, I will be enforcing these measures during the duration of the meeting. For all those participating virtually, members and witnesses may speak in the official language of their choice.

Interpretation services are available for this meeting. You have the choice, at the bottom of your screen, of floor, English or French. With the latest Zoom version, you may now speak in the language of your choice without the need to switch to the corresponding language selection. Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you are on the video conference, please click on the microphone icon to unmute your mike. If there are any substitutes who come into the room, they'll have their mike automatically controlled for them. I remind members that all comments should be made through the chair.

A speakers list will come in very handy today. I'll be following the toolbar, obviously, and the raised hand feature is there, so just continue to use that. We are on committee business. There are several motions before the committee to consider. It's up to committee members as to how they want to proceed and move forward during today's meeting, and the discussion they wish to have about what they think this committee should be occupied with in the coming days. The last meeting, just a reminder for those who weren't here, was adjourned on March 25. At that time, we were on Ms. Vecchio's motion.

Right now, we have notices of motion from Mr. Blaikie and Mr. Therrien. There are three motions Mr. Therrien has regarding translation and

interpretation. They were submitted on February 23. Mr. Blaikie's motion was submitted on November 17. We've circulated a new motion. Ms. Petitpas Taylor has one on political entities, which was submitted on March 23. Mr. Turnbull also has a motion before the committee regarding the Ontario Superior Court decision. It was submitted on March 23. Yesterday, Mr. Blaikie submitted a revised motion. I don't know if it's a revised motion. We'll let Mr. Blaikie speak to that a little later if he has an opportunity.

There's a new motion on electoral reform or constituent assemblies, and it's a bit revised from the last motion. There's another motion that has just been put on notice by Mr. Nater. It also has been circulated. The few motions that have been brought to my attention, as of the last day or so, haven't been moved in committee yet, so I will move on to the hands we have up and the speakers list. I wanted everyone to be aware of all the things that have come before the committee as of late, especially the ones in the last few days. Ms. Vecchio, you are first on the speakers list.

(1105) Mrs. Karen Vecchio (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC) :

Thank you very much. Getting back to the business of March 25 regarding the request for the Prime Minister and additional members to come here, I wanted to bring that back to the floor as part of our discussion for today, so we could finish the work and get to a vote on it.

The Chair :

Thank you. Ms. Vecchio has moved to have debate on the amendment to Ms. Vecchio's motion on that issue. Would anyone like to speak to that issue? Dr. Duncan.

Hon. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.) :

Madam Chair, I would like a clarification. Have we continued to debate based on...? Can you just clarify it please?

The Chair :

Yes, I can clarify it. We are back on Ms. Vecchio's motion. We left off with Ms. Vecchio's motion on March 25. Before adjourning we were on an amendment to her motion. That would automatically put us back on that amendment. She would like to see a vote or any further debate on that and then an eventual vote.

Hon. Kirsty Duncan :

Thank you, Madam Chair, for clarifying that. We are back on the amendment that was brought forward by Mr. Turnbull. Is that correct?

The Chair :

That's correct.

Hon. Kirsty Duncan :

Thank you so much. Madam Chair, I will be saying how much I appreciate the amendment that was brought forward by my friend and colleague, Mr. Turnbull. I have been clear that I think it would be really important to hear from the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth . I will also make the same point that I have repeatedly made, namely, that there is nothing more important than the COVID-19 pandemic, and that is where our sole focus should be. Canada is in the third wave of COVID-19.

We are in a race between the variants and the vaccines, and our health system in Ontario is literally on the verge of collapse. Ontario field hospitals are being readied, but it's not just beds that are needed. Critical care staff are needed. We are hearing that this is absolutely unprecedented. This is the—quote—“nightmare scenario” we were all afraid of, yet this committee remains focused on a political motion. Our country reported over 9,200 COVID infections on Friday. That was the new single-day high since the start of the pandemic.

We have had the highest number of COVID-19 cases, and yet there is a partisan motion. Worldwide, more than 2,850,000 people have lost their lives, and all of us, we have lost them. Globally, new COVID-19 cases rose for a sixth consecutive week, with over four million cases reported in the last week. The number of new deaths also increased by 11% compared to the previous week, with over 71,000 new deaths reported. Far too many health care workers have died in the pandemic and millions have been infected.

The pandemic has taken a huge toll on their physical and mental health, with devastating effects on their families and communities. Anxiety, depression, insomnia and stress have all increased, and yet we have a partisan motion. The pandemic is exposing, exploiting and exacerbating inequalities. COVID-19 pushed an estimated 120 million people into extreme poverty last year. Gender inequalities have increased with more women than men leaving the labour force. Rich countries are vaccinating their populations while the world's poor watch and wait.

Health inequalities are not just unfair; they make the world less safe and less sustainable. Yet there is a partisan motion. Here in Canada, we have had over one million COVID-19 cases. COVID-19 has claimed the lives of more than 23,250 Canadians. That's another 1,250 Canadians since I updated this committee on March 6—in fact, when I was repeatedly interrupted at this committee. Madam Chair, I cannot imagine what could be more important than talking about COVID-19, the race between the variants and the vaccines and what this committee could actually do to ensure preparedness for pandemics going forward.

The numbers of deaths are not just numbers. They were our grandparents, mothers, fathers, loved ones, neighbours, colleagues, lifelong friends, mentors and heroes, and they matter to so many more people. All of us should be asking about the number of outbreaks of COVID-19 in hospitals right now, the number of health care workers who have developed COVID-19 and the number of health care workers who have ended up in ICU. All of us should be asking about the number of outbreaks in essential workplaces, in marginalized communities and in congregate settings.

A century after the 1918 influenza, poverty, hunger, well-being, gender, racialization and economic status still play a role in who gets sick, who gets treated and who survives COVID-19.

(1110) Non-emergency surgeries are on hold in Ontario hospitals as COVID-19 takes hold despite a backlog of postponed surgeries from the past year approaching 250,000. Ontario has not ordered such an across-the-board postponement of non-emergency surgeries since the first wave of the pandemic hit the province in March 2020. Dr. Kevin Smith, the CEO of the University Health Network, has written, “This is going to be the most extraordinary and demanding time most of us have had in our working lives.

It comes to us after a very long year which has left us feeling battered and drained.” They are battered and they are drained. In the words of one physician, “It's never-ending high stress and I'm actually afraid. I've never been afraid, but it's different with the variants. You have no idea what we see, the fear from the patient, the fear of families saying goodbye over Zoom, the fear of our families when we come home. It's unrelenting.” But here we are focused on a partisan motion. Let me be clear. We are still fighting the pandemic. Canada's cases have increased 82% over the last 14 days.

In Ontario more COVID-19 patients are in the ICU than at any other point during the pandemic. The expectation is that we are locked in for a 5% to 7% daily increase in hospital admissions for the next two weeks. The number of new variant cases more than doubled in the last week. An

article states, “Canada’s chief public health officer Dr. Theresa Tam said the rapidly spreading variants have now likely replaced the original virus, as more young people are getting sicker". This

article is a few days old now, but it states that to date, “more than 26,000 cases linked to variants of concern have been reported” in Canada. The variant initially reported in the United Kingdom accounts for more than 90%. For the variant first identified in Brazil, there have been more than 1,000 cases in Canada after doubling in the last week alone. The variant from South Africa is also picking up momentum, with cases in Ontario and Quebec. The

article goes on to sate:

Hospital admissions are also on the rise as health-care staff try to keep up with overflowing ICUs. Experts say the number of COVID-19 patients in ICUs continue to test hospital capacities with patients battling the disease.

My friends, we've done really good work in the past. Together we have done really good work. We did important work that allowed remote voting so that MPs weren't travelling back and forth to their communities and potentially spreading the virus. We did really important work in saying what was needed should there be an election during the pandemic. Now we have to step up again. We have to step up and do the work that's incumbent upon us. We need to look at the House of Commons' response so that we can make recommendations for when the next pandemic comes along. We need to do that work.

I'll come back to the motion that's before us. The original motion prejudges the need for prorogation. Mr. Turnbull's amendment refocuses the study on prorogation with research, evidence and facts, and reinviting our Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth . The Prime Minister prorogued in order to take the time needed to take stock of Canada's situation: How are Canadians doing? Where were we in the pandemic? How was the pandemic affecting jobs and livelihoods? How had wave one affected our seniors, and particularly those in long-term care?

Where should we go as a country after looking at the science, evidence and facts and hearing directly from Canadians?

(1115) I remember last spring when our Conservative colleagues wanted in-person Parliament with MPs travelling back and forth to Ottawa, possibly spreading the infection. They wanted in-person voting in Ottawa rather than electronic or remote voting. When dealing with a new disease, it's important to acknowledge that not everything is known. It's important to exercise precaution. With a new disease, new science and data, information will likely change. There will likely need to be adjustments and guidelines, policies and recommendations.

If we look at what was known last January versus what is known today, there are a lot of differences: the role of aerosols, the role of indoor versus outdoor spaces and the role of masks. Scientific knowledge evolves over time, and decision-makers have to be open, flexible and willing to change course. Decision-makers must stay humble in the face of the new virus. Colleagues, we're in the third wave. It is incumbent upon us to do our work so that in the future the House of Commons—Parliament—can be better prepared. If the Deputy Prime Minister were here, we could ask about the evidence.

We could ask about what consultations were taken during prorogation. It is for this reason that I am supporting my friend and colleague Mr. Turnbull and his amendment. I'm here to represent the constituents of Etobicoke North. We are a caring, strong and resilient community. Many of our community members are essential workers. I'm also here to debate the amendment at hand, which is to invite several ministers to appear in front of this committee. I support the amendment, as I said, but I would like to give further arguments as to why I think it's important to reinvite ministers.

Speaking for my constituents, I will first talk about COVID-19, as this is what is first and foremost—

(1120) Mrs. Karen Vecchio :

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

The Chair :

Go ahead, Ms. Vecchio.

Mrs. Karen Vecchio :

We're referring back to the invitation, but I believe that Minister Chagger has already been invited, or has she been invited previously? If so, in the last three to four months, has she responded to those invitations? We're debating something, but we know that there was already a motion, and an invitation has been sent, so perhaps we could find out from those ministers we've invited who in the last three months have answered and said they'll be coming. Or have they not answered the committee, and we're just continuing this filibuster, yet they haven't even answered the first request?

The Chair :

Mr. Turnbull's amendment calls for them to be reinvited. Maybe the clerk can help us with the first invitations as to whether there has been a response. We haven't had the opportunity, I guess, to chat about that in the last two weeks, but I can tell you that as of March 25 there was no response. Maybe, Justin, you could let me know if I'm correct that there might not be one up to date.

The Clerk :

Madam Chair, you are correct. To date, there has not been a response to the committee's invitations to Minister Chagger , Minister Freeland or the Prime Minister . We are still waiting.

The Chair :

Okay.

Mrs. Karen Vecchio :

On the point of order, Madam Chair, we are right now debating reinviting people who have already not responded. They're saying they want to do this. I appreciate all of the words we've had here today, but we've already sent these invitations out, not just once, but they've been reinvited. Now we're talking about wanting to reinvite them again. This is wasting our time, because we already have done that and they haven't responded. We're just talking about reinviting them. Well, they haven't come. How many birthday parties are we going to invite them to until we stop inviting them? I'm just wondering where we're going here.

The Chair :

Thanks, Ms. Vecchio. We've invited them once. We haven't reinvited as of yet. I guess there's been no decision made on that. That's the issue we're currently on. I will give it back to Ms. Duncan. Maybe there can be an eventual vote on this as to whether we should reinvite these ministers or not. Dr. Duncan.

Hon. Kirsty Duncan :

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Again, I'm going to say that I absolutely think we should be reinviting them. In speaking for my constituents, I will talk about COVID-19. This is first and foremost what is affecting their lives. I will speak about the issues that matter most in our community. I want people to understand that the years 2020 and 2021 are historic. It's been over 100 years since the 1918 influenza pandemic that sickened about 500 million people, which was about one-third of the world's population. The disease killed about 50 million worldwide. It was the deadliest pandemic of the 20th century.

COVID-19 is tragically historic. It is not finished. Rather, the pandemic continues to inflict unprecedented harm on people, societies and economies around the world. The pandemic has pushed the world towards one of the worst recessions in modern times and is having a devastating effect on the most vulnerable countries and peoples. The progress the world has made on eradicating poverty and hunger, increasing opportunities for all and reducing inequalities within and between countries is being eroded. I will finish by saying that I can't be clearer. We are in the third wave.

The focus for our constituents is protecting their health and safety and jobs and livelihoods. As variants continue to spread, we are in a race between the vaccines and the variants. We don't need politics right now. This committee has a very important job. We have all been living this. We've experienced this. I think it is on all of us to actually look at the House of Commons response to make sure that we do this important work like we've done the important work in the past, and that we make recommendations so that we are better prepared going forward.

Madam Chair, I look forward to speaking later, but I will turn it over to one of my colleagues. Thank you.

(1125) The Chair :

Thank you, Dr. Duncan. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux, it's nice to have you back. I know you had your hand up last time.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) :

Thank you, Madam Chair. You're right. I did have my hand up. I was hoping to at least get on the record the last time we met a couple of weeks ago. Fortunately for me, I'll be able to get on the record now. It's such a pleasure, it really and truly is, to be back on PROC and to be afforded the opportunity to speak. It's been a number of years. I've always thought of PROC as one of those standing committees that is held in fairly high esteem, Madam Chair, as you and other members are no doubt aware.

Often other committees will look at what's happening in PROC and things that take place in PROC will often disseminate to other committees. For many years I served in PROC, in particular while I was in opposition. Since being in government, some members may have preferred that I not attend PROC because I was a parliamentary secretary and maybe too strongly linked to it. Nowadays, given what's taken place.... The deputy House leader had it right on. I don't think anyone could have said it any better. The way in which she often speaks I always find very inspiring.

She speaks at a level that embodies what I think all politicians strive for. That's to have emotional passion and connection with real people, demonstrating so well how we need to care for people. In that, I think she is second to no other inside the House of Commons in her ability to empathize and sympathize with the public as a whole and as individuals. That's why I appreciate some of the words that she was starting to say concerning what the priority of this government really is. I've been afforded many opportunities to address a wide variety of issues inside the House of Commons.

I've never taken it for granted, nor have I ever taken for granted what takes place in this particular committee. This committee, I believe, needs to be able to demonstrate leadership—leadership that says that in a pandemic, we can get the job done, the job that's necessary; that we're able to get it done. I must say I am somewhat disappointed. I'm disappointed because I believe in part there's a certain faction rooted within the Conservative House leadership team but which goes beyond it, which is starting to play as a very destructive force.

I've made reference to the destructive force inside the House of Commons. The opposition is using partisan politics at a time when we want Canadians and others, including parliamentarians of all political stripes at all different levels, to work closer together. I have had the opportunity to watch over what's been taking place in PROC. I've witnessed the official opposition leading the charge in ensuring that PROC is not doing some of the things it could and should be doing. The official opposition is more interested in doing what it can to cause filibustering, as some refer to it.

I refer to it as more an opportunity for government members, in this particular situation, to try to focus members of the standing committee on what Canadians are so passionate about today. There is so much more that the PROC committee could be doing. I want to get into some of that, but not until I get rid of a few frustrations that I have.

(1130) There is a good example from earlier today. I was going into the chamber anticipating that the member for Elmwood—Transcona would be moving a concurrence motion. I must say I was getting a little agitated. I was thinking about why they would want to move another concurrence motion, especially with respect to PROC, because the member for Elmwood—Transcona would be very much aware of Bill C-19 . I'm sure that members of PROC are concerned about an election. After all, in a minority situation no one knows when the election is going to occur.

We continue to do whatever we can to stay focused on the pandemic, and minimizing the negative impacts of the pandemic. However, a part of that is that we need to be ready. As I say, the role that PROC plays is absolutely critical. As I was going into the House this morning, I received a text. I'm not too sure exactly where it came from, but it implied that the NDP were going to be moving a motion for concurrence in an election report. I know the member for Elmwood—Transcona is listening. I suspect that was his intent this morning.

I'm not trying to impute motive—I don't want to go against Beauchesne's here—but I would ask if that was the intent. The only reason it didn't happen is that the Conservatives moved another motion for concurrence. Right away, I'm starting to think, “Well, here we go again. The opposition is trying to frustrate the government.” We are trying to deal with substantial pieces of legislation, and the opposition wants to play games.

In one sense, I was expecting the member for Elmwood—Transcona to bring forward his concurrence motion, and then I was hearing that they were going to ask for leave to have the debate occur later in the day, after the House adjourned. I suspect at some point in time the member for Elmwood—Transcona will provide some clarification if that was the plan. Here's why it's so important to this particular committee.

When we talk about the agenda, when we talk about what it is that we should or could be talking about, staying focused on what the deputy House leader was talking about, and that is the pandemic, Bill C-19 is completely relevant and would be a wonderful thing for PROC to be dealing with. I was hoping that I would get the opportunity in that concurrence debate to go into details about the PROC report. In fact, the first thing I did was call it up on my computer in anticipation that we were going to see a concurrence motion.

Now, that would not have been my first choice, because, as the government has said day in and day out, there is a legislative agenda that the government is trying to get through the House of Commons. At the same time, the government's focus is on the pandemic. I would have preferred, if we were going to be debating something this morning, that it wasn't going to be.... I believe that Bill C-22 is being debated right now, for the very first time. It's an important piece of legislation.

(1135) I would have preferred that as opposed to debating the concurrence report, we would be debating Bill C-19 . Bill C-19 should have been a major discussion, a topic area for debate inside the House, weeks ago. It has been sitting there for a long time. We've actually attempted—

Mrs. Karen Vecchio :

Point of order, Madam Chair.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

We have called the legislation—

The Chair :

I'm sorry. Who raised the point of order?

Mrs. Karen Vecchio :

It's Karen Vecchio. I'm just wondering if there's any information when it comes to misleading, because he's talking about Bill C-19 , and he's fully misleading everybody. It has been scheduled twice for an hour and once for two hours. He's totally misleading any Canadians who are watching right now.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

Madam Chair, on the same point of order—

The Chair :

Maybe you can clarify, Mr. Lamoureux. I'm not aware of the scheduling, but I also wanted to let you know about the amendment that we are on as well.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

Madam Chair, I believe Ms. Vecchio was concerned about me misrepresenting the truth. I can assure the committee member and all committee members that everything that I have said is a hundred per cent accurate and can be demonstrated to be so by just looking at the record. For example, on one occasion in which Bill C-19 was called, a motion for concurrence was moved. The debate wasn't allowed to continue. For me, in regard to the comments about the relevancy, Madam Chair, relevancy is important in all discussions that we have.

When we talk about what has been happening in the procedure and House affairs committee and having witnesses come forward, I would suggest to you that for the procedure and House affairs committee, in dealing with the pandemic, in dealing with witnesses and subject matter that it is completely responsible for, Bill C-19 is one such piece of legislation. I don't know if you want to give me the green light to continue on, Madam Chair, because of the point of order.

(1140) The Chair :

I do just want to remind you.... I know that I've been fairly gentle with everybody. This is just a gentle reminder that we are currently on Mr. Turnbull's amendment to Ms. Vecchio's motion, which calls for witnesses to be reinvited. Those witnesses are Minister Chagger , Minister Freeland .... I should have the amendment right before me. You may, and I will pull it up in front of me so that I can remind you. He wishes to invite those witnesses and exclude the Prime Minister and his chief of staff from being on that list, who are currently in Ms. Vecchio's motion.

That's essentially what we're looking at within the context of the prorogation study, on which we've had several witnesses come before this committee. We're at a crossroads, I guess, on that prorogation study at this point as to whether we should have more witnesses invited. There's a difference in positions as to which witnesses should be invited, if any. Some are arguing that we should move on to the report stage of that study. That's essentially a synopsis of where we are and of the different perspectives we're hearing from committee members.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

That's wonderful, Madam Chair. Thank you very much. That is indeed quite helpful. I think in approaching this, there is a lot of validity in terms of just being able to talk as to why prorogation was in fact important and to go through the different lines of the throne speech. For now, I will continue to focus my attention on the need to ensure that the procedure and House affairs committee is able to remain focused on the pandemic. Bill C-19 is one piece of legislation that allows for procedure and House affairs to remain focused on the pandemic because of the changes to the Canada Elections Act.

I guess where I was going with this was to point out that earlier today, inside the House of Commons, we had a bit of frustration that was starting to get there dealing with concurrence reports. From what I was hearing, a concurrence report was coming, or the idea of calling for concurrence was coming, from the New Democratic Party. My advice was going to be that the New Democratic Party consider Bill C-19 as an area of debate being more important for the floor of the House of Commons than the concurrence report that was being suggested, from what I understand, by my New Democratic friends.

The reason I make that suggestion is that if you go through the report, this is something that PROC did a fantastic job on. Later on tonight, I hope to be able to go into a lot of the details of that particular report. It ensures that if there were to be an election during a pandemic, Canadians could feel that much more comfortable because of the work that PROC has done and the debate and discussions that would follow out of Bill C-19 .

That is the reason I would say that, if we are going to encourage additional debate on the floor of the House as opposed to having that concurrence report, the member for Elmwood—Transcona could consider having and encouraging a debate on Bill C-19. Madam Chair, we talk about prorogation and the calling of witnesses and the responsibility of standing committees. I had the opportunity as recently as yesterday to talk about the calling of ministers to committee. I can tell you that it started off with a member from the Conservative Party saying they wanted more than just ministers to appear.

I went through what was taking place in the finance committee. I used that as an example. Maybe I can repeat some of what I said yesterday, because I do believe it's relevant. When we talk about the importance of ministers and the ministers' roles at committee, it is really important that we recognize some of the things that have occurred in the past.

(1145) I go to Mr. Barrett who has played a leading role for the Conservative Party inside the House and in certain standing committees. He has indicated a litany of individuals who he would like to see called before committees. I indicated to him about accountabilities and ministerial roles and how, even in Stephen Harper's era, the minister played the critical role. I gave one specific quote. I'd like to repeat that because I do believe it's important here. It came from the honourable Jay Hill. For those members who aren't familiar with Mr.

Hill, he was actually the leader of the government in the House of Commons 10 years ago or so. In fact, if I look at it, it was on May 25, 2010, when Mr. Hill stated:

In our system of government, the powers of the Crown are exercised by ministers who are, in turn, answerable to Parliament. Ministers are individually and collectively responsible to the House of Commons for the policies, programs and activities of the government. They are supported in the exercise of their responsibilities by the public servants and by members of their office staffs.

Further on he said:

Accordingly, responsibility for providing information to Parliament and its committees rests with ministers.

As we look at witnesses and the calling of witnesses, I think some of the more important witnesses in terms of government actions will be found through ministers. The government has made ministers accessible and available for committees on a wide variety of issues. I think cabinet ministers are accountable to the House of Commons for decisions of the government and of political staff. This is actually a very long-standing tradition of ministerial responsibility. In fact, there have been multiple House committees that have studied, for example, the student service grant.

That's what I was making reference to, but one could easily reference other committees at the same time. If you look at the finance committee in particular, it really amplifies what a committee was able to do in terms of ensuring ministerial accountability. Some incredible individuals appeared before that committee at that political level. There was the Prime Minister , the Prime Minister's chief of staff, the Minister of Inclusion and Youth —

(1150) Mrs. Karen Vecchio :

I have a point of order.

The Chair :

Yes, Ms. Vecchio.

Mrs. Karen Vecchio :

Although I really appreciate this and I recognize that his earlier speech was from the defence committee filibuster, we're talking about this, but he's not referring to the motion. We're talking about having ministers here. There seems to be one staff member on here, which is the chief of staff for the Prime Minister , but there is absolutely no relevance if we're talking about staff. There's only one staff member that has yet to be discussed in the last two months of filibuster. Perhaps we can get onto the genuine motion, which is looking at calling these ministers, including the Prime Minister.

I'm hoping he can get back to relevancy and perhaps remind himself that he's at PROC, not the defence committee, finance committee, or ACVA, where we have seen these exact same statements. Thank you.

The Chair :

Something that I also left out last time, and I wanted to let you know is that, in Mr. Turnbull's amendment to Ms. Vecchio's motion, there are not just the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister Chagger , but other witnesses who are still being called forward once again. They are Bill Morneau, Craig Kielburger and Marc Kielburger. I believe what has also been removed from Mr. Turnbull's amendment in comparison to Ms. Vecchio's motion is the Speakers' Spotlight guests who were also invited. They are still a part of Ms. Vecchio's original motion, but they aren't part of Mr. Turnbull's amendment. This is to give you some more information as what witnesses the amendment pertains to.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'm not exactly sure what point Ms. Vecchio was attempting to make about relevancy. I'm just going to continue. When we talk about having people appear before committees, we have seen throughout the last number of months standing committees calling for and receiving a wide spectrum of ministers attending. Using the finance committee as an example, I think is a positive thing and hopefully will contribute to part of the discussion that is taking place when we talk about ongoing committee meetings and who we're going to be hearing from and so forth.

I want to emphasize that committee because it's something I was just talking about yesterday in the House, as it was information that was provided to me. We had, as I indicated, the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth . There was the former minister of finance. We had the Minister of Small Business, Export Promotion and International Trade . We had the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion . We even had the Clerk of the Privy Council. We've had endless other representations heard in committees from private citizens and organizations.

In fact, on government supply—and this goes in part to what you were talking about in your explanation, Madam Chair, and I appreciate it—there was a great deal of information provided. It seems to me that we have more than one committee attempting to do the same thing that other committees are doing. In this situation, when you talk about what was taking place in the finance committee, which was the WE Charity issue, and what PROC is looking at and follow some of the debates that occurred back then, there are some common themes.

There were 5,000 pages of documents provided to the finance committee—5,000 pages—dealing with WE Charity and the Canada summer youth program. There were documents that were also provided by the Prime Minister's Office. There were clerks who made presentations. The leader of the government in the House has been very strong on the issue of what's taking place in standing committees and in recognizing that standing committees operate on their own and that it is the standing committee that will ultimately determine what its agenda is going to be.

I believe that is why it's so important that we protect as much as possible the interests of that independence of standing committees. I believe what we have seen is an infection of sorts coming from primarily the official opposition, whose intent is to play partisan politics even more in our standing committees than we have seen before.

(1155) I've had opportunities to participate in PROC discussions in regard to the Canada Elections Act and the calling of witnesses, and who it is we should be listening to, and reports. I'm not 100% sure, but I believe we even submitted some form of a minority report from the past. My concern is, at the end of the day, what is it that the official opposition is attempting to achieve. We have indicated from day one our expectation of dealing with the coronavirus. That is where our focus has been. I would like to pick up on that, Madam Chair. Yesterday we had a very special celebration.

The Prime Minister was there. I know Ms. Duncan was there also, as were you, Madam Chair. Today is Vaisakhi and I would like to say happy Vaisakhi to all members of the committee, but also to the broader population and those who are celebrating. Vaisakhi is a very special celebration in our Indo-Canadian community, but many others, including me, also acknowledge the importance of Vaisakhi and celebrate it. A part of that celebration, as it was noted yesterday, is giving back, that we, as people, have a responsibility to give of ourselves to the community as a whole.

What was so nice about yesterday's event is that it highlighted two things. It highlighted the richness of Canada's diversity and it allowed us to recognize that important issue that all Canadians are facing today: the coronavirus. That is what members of the Liberal caucus have been trying to get the focus on, whether it's in PROC or on the floor of the House. At the celebration, that's what it was for me.

In recognition of Vaisakhi, the Prime Minister said a few words, but more importantly, listened to what health care workers from across Canada had to say about the pandemic and the impact it was having on Canadians in a very real and tangible way. Ms. Duncan, Ms. Sahota and I were there, but I think all members of PROC would have benefited from listening to what was being said, We were blessed to have had so many wonderful people not only wish us happy Vaisakhi but share with us their point of view as to what was taking place on the ground, and some of the things that we need to be working on.

There were a couple of them that really touched me and made me think that we need to spend more energy and more time talking about them. Ms. Duncan, I look to you and recognize your science background. We had the one doctor who talked about the backlogs of cancer patients that have been created because we've been so focused on the pandemic. The costs to our health care and our resources are so significant that we have not been able to do some of the things we've been able to do in the past in dealing with things like cancer detection. What is going to be the impact of that?

(1200) I appreciated those thoughts. Those are the types of issues that we need to be focusing on. We can all choose some very specific things. To use a few examples, I think, is good. I'm genuinely concerned that there could be an election, and if there is an election, we have legislation that should be talked about. I understand that we have a motion before PROC today that's talking about witnesses, that's talking indirectly about prorogation and why that had taken place. This is all related to it.

What's taking place today is related to why prorogation was absolutely necessary back in August, which is the reason PROC is where it is today. I would argue that it is happening in that fashion because the Conservative party has chosen to politicize. That's why I think it's good to bring up some examples of what real Canadians are saying. Towards the end of the discussion yesterday.... It didn't get anywhere near as much time as I and I'm sure other members would have liked to see. I know Ms. Petitpas Taylor, who is a former minister of health, is very passionate on the issue of mental health.

Imagine the impact the pandemic will have on mental health. And you wonder why we wanted to refocus the House of Commons with a new throne speech. You can only talk so much within the first hour or within one hour, and unfortunately, that was the limit we had yesterday in recognizing Vaisakhi and listening to those front-line health care workers who worked in emergency room settings and community settings. I can tell you that, even though it didn't get as much time, I believe that we have our work cut out for us on the mental health issue.

It's absolutely critical that we reflect on the impacts that the pandemic has been having. You see, prorogation ensured that the House of Commons would refocus its attention, because the first throne speech that we presented talked more about the economy, going forward and the previous four years when there were a lot of things that were done. The throne speech we heard back in September, I believe, allowed all of us, all political entities in the House, to recognize that there was a need for us to pay attention to what was the first priority for for all Canadians.

(1205) I was really encouraged yesterday when the Minister of Public Services and Procurement indicated that we are now on track to get 44 million doses of vaccine by the end of June. We need to recognize that the population of Canadian is 37.5 million, or maybe a little more than that. Depending on how provinces prioritize and how they administer the vaccines, Canada is in good shape today for a wide spectrum of reasons. When it comes to the ultimate answer of vaccines, we have reason to be optimistic and hopeful.

I think that's the type of thing for which all of us, whatever political affiliation we may have, can take some responsibility and start encouraging even more people to get engaged with the whole vaccination process. I look at the types of actions that we have seen from the government that encouraged the prorogation. We often talk about day one, when it first became very clear that we had something that we needed to deal with, that there was no choice in the matter. I can remember getting ready for budget 2020. We had the pre-budget consultations, which are fairly extensive in themselves.

We were getting ready to present that budget on the floor of the House. Then we started to hear more about the pandemic. We started to hear from the health experts from the World Health Organization, from non-profits, from the private sector, from provinces, and the list goes on. The Prime Minister made it very clear that the priority of the Government of Canada would be to have the backs of all Canadians, to be there in a very real and tangible way. There was a high sense of co-operation. There was very much a team Canada approach that we saw first-hand.

We saw people of different political parties, different levels of government coming together and working out what was necessary in order to get us started on this path. Even the official opposition back then recognized the value of it. We, with the support of so many, created programs that were absolutely non-existent prior to that time. We went from nowhere to a program that served almost nine million Canadians in every region of our country. Everyone knows it as CERB.

(1210) That was the beginning. As we started to move more and more into it, we saw the need to hit the reset button. That was a decision that the Prime Minister ultimately had to make. I support that decision. I support that decision because it reflects what Canadians expect of the government given the time. There was so much that was taking place. I can remember how fluid things were and how things were changing. First the message seemed to be to wash your hands and keep your hands clean and to make sure that when you're speaking, you're not spitting—either intentionally or unintentionally, obviously—on others.

That's how the coronavirus passed. Masks weren't compulsory anywhere. They weren't being made compulsory. Remember we were talking about staying below the curve. Everything was about the curve. We talked so much about the curve. Do you remember the need for sanitizers for your hands? The educational component was so high at the beginning. People had no real idea what they needed to do. They really did not. For the first number of weeks going into months, it was about education. It was about coming up with the support programs. It was about remaining under the curve.

With the team Canada approach that was almost completely universal, we made a difference in a significant way. Because of the experiences through that first wave, we were better able to deal with the second wave. Three weeks into it, how many people could have gone to a store and bought hand sanitizer? Do you remember the rush on toilet paper? PPE was very scarce. We were fighting to get PPE. We didn't have the stuff being produced or manufactured here in Canada. It was that first wave that woke everyone up. It was so encouraging to see that high sense of co-operation.

I said that we were just getting started on the debate on the 2020-21 budget. We were anticipating it. The House was going to be sitting and going ultimately into a budget debate, but then it was agreed amongst all the political parties that we needed to come up with some sort of a hybrid system. Even before then, we recognized that we needed to take a break and extend that break because of the coronavirus. How many of us back in March last year anticipated that we would be doing what we're doing today? Very few really understood it.

Today, because of the education, because of the programs that were put into place, we are in a much better position.

(1215) There should have been no surprise about the need to prorogue. That was something I would have thought was almost a given. Quite frankly, it was a bit disappointing to see the resistance toward it. If you go back, my belief is that sometime between June and July, you started to see at least a different attitude coming from some members, particularly in the opposition. We started to see more partisan politics being brought in at the national level. That is why we needed to prorogue the session. I wish that the non-partisanship that we saw back in April, May and most of June 2020 would come back.

We would be able to accomplish so much more if were able to see that happen. I support the idea of having studies done at PROC on House procedural matters, including prorogation. I wouldn't have a problem arguing that this is probably one of the best examples that one can give for proroguing a session. I couldn't think of a better example, other than a war maybe, but beyond that, it would be pretty tough to convince me.

I would have no problem at all comparing what our Prime Minister did in terms of the prorogation and the justification for it, to the last time under a different administration when the session was prorogued. I wouldn't have any problem at all doing a comparison of the two. I suspect that most Canadians would support what was done by the current Prime Minister. Read through the throne speech. Maybe later on tonight I'll get the opportunity to go through the throne speech, and you'll see very clearly what's in that throne speech.

The focus of that throne speech was about being there for Canadians in real and tangible ways. I go back to when I emphasized the importance of education. Very few of us had any real understanding of the depth of what it was the world was getting into with the coronavirus. The death, sickness and costs to society have been enormous. Are there things we could have done better? I'm not arrogant to believe we have been absolutely perfect. There has been, at times, a need for us to make adjustments. We have done that. We have listened and made adjustments where it has been necessary.

I mentioned the creation of programs. There is a suite of programs out there as a result of the coronavirus.

(1220) We continue to make changes all the way up to legislation that was being debated yesterday for Bill C-14 . When we talk about being there, working together and trying to provide the supports that Canadians need, there are the two extremes. I started off a few minutes back talking about how we were working so well together back in April, May and most of June. Contrast that with what's happening today. Look at Bill C-14 . It's an excellent example.

I don't know if it's because minority governments typically last 18 months and some people are getting the itch that they have to see something happen because of that. For me and I know for my colleagues, our focus continues to be on the pandemic. I mention Bill C-14 , because I think it's a great example of how the opposition has not responded well with the new throne speech. We prorogued Parliament. We came in with a new throne speech. Committees, including PROC, started to meet and they wanted to do X, Y and Z.

We're saying that we want to continue to focus, as we should, on the pandemic and fighting and minimizing the negative impacts of the pandemic. Bill C-14 , as many will recall, was necessary because of the fall economic statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister back in November of last year. The legislation was tabled in December, I believe. Think of what is in that legislation. There are things to support Canada's middle class through the child benefit program, for businesses and the government's ability to borrow. There are things there that are absolutely essential.

Government has called the bill on many occasions. It gets talked out or things will be brought up to prevent it from being debated. The only reason it passed—and I remember back in January getting it out of second reading—was that the opposition parties were shamed into seeing why they weren't passing this necessary legislation. I hope to expand on that later.

I can tell you that when we look at prorogation and you talk about wanting witnesses, or talk about who you should be calling, I think the Deputy Prime Minister is someone who would be able to provide a lot of detail as to why it is so important that we remain focused on the coronavirus and the impact it's having on our society. We should be taking advantage of the work that has been done by so many and looking at ways we can improve upon it.

(1225) Our Prime Minister often talks about building back better. That's not just a phrase; that's a reality. We can do that. The opportunity is there. It's real. It's tangible. I'm even hopeful that we're going to see some of that—more of that—in the upcoming budget on the 19th. I think we have an opportunity, in whatever capacity that we play, whether it's sitting in PROC and determining what it is we should be talking about, or the agenda of PROC and how we might be able to assist the process, or in some other capacity.

If you believe that the pandemic is the number one concern of Canadians, as I do, as Liberal members of Parliament do, you can still be a viable, strong and healthy opposition. I believe there is a need to refocus. I've been a parliamentarian for 30 years. I spent over 20 of those years in opposition. I've said on several occasions before that being positive and creative didn't hurt me when I was in opposition. There are still many different areas in which one can explore and contribute. Canadians aren't stupid. They will recognize the value of hard work. Earlier I referenced the CERB program.

I said it was a program that started from nowhere—

(1230) Mrs. Karen Vecchio :

Madam Chair, I have a point of order on relevance. The member is going on another tangent..

The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. Vecchio. I'll just remind the member to keep to the amendment by Mr. Turnbull. Thank you.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think it's important that when we talk about programming and we talk about witnesses, whoever the witnesses might be and whatever the agenda—prorogation and the need for prorogation—we need to take into consideration what has been taking place in the last 12 months. That's why I quickly made reference to CERB. I think it's an important part of the discussion and the debate, and it could even be something that might be raised with people who would be appearing before the committee, if in fact the committee is genuinely interested in what Canadians want Parliament to be talking about.

That's why I believe that, in going to use CERB, looking at what it is that the government has done that justified it calling for a prorogation is really important. We have, for all intents and purposes, provided a wide spectrum of programs. Those programs were put in place in good

part in those months that followed the alarms going off on the coronavirus. Then, once we got into the summertime, what became very clear was the need to make changes to these programs, because they were not perfect. I would recognize they were not perfect programs. That is one of the many reasons there was justification for prorogation. Going forward, if you're going to be dealing with the issue of prorogation or changing the rules or anything of that nature, there is a responsibility of committee members and others to understand what led to prorogation.

It is why members, in particular those of the Liberal caucus, have chosen to talk about the coronavirus as the number one issue facing Canadians today. I'm hoping that helps Ms. Vecchio understand why I'm talking about the program. Madam Chair, I indicated that out of the suite of programs, the one that really comes to my mind is the CERB, because of the numbers and where it came from. It came from virtually nothing to a program to service just under nine million Canadians. Why were programs of this nature so important?

If you check with what people in our communities had to go through, one very quickly understands the importance of government having to be there for Canadians in a very real and tangible way. That's what CERB was. Imagine, if you will, where concerns are being raised, whether it's in the province of Ontario, the province of Manitoba, or any other province or territory, for that matter. There's a need to have people stay at home, to not go to work.

(1235) If people can't go to work, and they work at store X, they will likely lose their income while they're not there. In a situation like that, we need to recognize that the same principle doesn't apply for utility bills or mortgage payments or the need to buy groceries. That is the reason the government had to bring forward a program that would support Canadians. That was the essence of the CERB. It allowed Canadians to have a disposable income during a very difficult time.

It was absolutely critical for the Government of Canada, and I think most parliamentarians to support the need for that particular program. That's the best example I could give for individuals. Then there are the small businesses. When you stop and think about the damage to the economy and the impact on the economy, is it any wonder that the Prime Minister would have given that extra consideration going into the need to prorogue the session. We've never faced that sort of situation in our past, where many businesses are being forced to shut down. It's not an option. Businesses were having a very difficult time.

Once again, the government needed to respond. Much like with the CERB, of course there were going to be some modifications to the program. The Canada emergency business account was there to protect the long-term interests of Canadians as a whole. Let me explain. When we take a look at Canada's economy, we need to recognize that small businesses are the backbone of our economy. Even my Conservative friends will acknowledge how important small businesses are, and I appreciate that. These programs that we're having to reflect on in terms of being able to justify prorogation made a difference in a very tangible way.

Let me give you some details on that, Madam Chair. Imagine, if you will, that you are a small business, and you are being told that you're going to have to reduce your business expectations because of the coronavirus. As a result, you're now going to have to lay off some people. Those people who you're laying off are going to be falling on some hard times. You might not even be able to start up again quickly. What could government do to support situations of that nature?

(1240) The wage subsidy program literally provided support to tens of thousands of businesses across this country. It enabled businesses to survive and employees to keep their jobs. By doing that, when the time is right and we're in a position to recover, we will see us in a better position, because there will have been fewer bankruptcies. It's the same thing with the rent subsidy program. Every government program that prevented a company from going bankrupt, or that assisted employees in keeping their jobs, made a huge difference.

They continue to do so in Canada's ability to build back better going forward and to keep those jobs. In fact, after the second wave, I remember the Deputy Prime Minister in the House talking about how Canada, as a whole, was having far greater success than other countries around the world, in particular, the United States, in recovering the jobs that were lost because of the coronavirus. We were very successful because we came up with programs to support small businesses.

By supporting small businesses and people through programs like the CERB, the federal government was in a good position to protect our long-term interests. At the same time, the government has been there for Canadians in a very real and tangible way during this very difficult time. I am not going to be able to stick around for much longer, but I did want to pick up on a couple of other points. When I talk about small businesses, there is one other aspect in which the government played a very important role.

I could very easily have talked about other aspects of supporting small businesses, like the emergency business account, the credit availability account and the regional relief and recovery funds. There are different programs that have been put into place. There's one thing on which I want to provide a brief comment. It's not just the Government of Canada, but there were other stakeholders, beyond the national government, the provincial governments and territories, indigenous leaders, non-profit organizations, for-profit organizations. Some of these companies have been absolutely incredible.

I talked about how this thing got under way in the first place, going back to March 2020 and how much PPE was actually being produced in Canada. Do a comparison today, and look at the companies today that are providing PPE for Canadians. There's no shortage today at all. It's there, and it's very real. I'm talking in particular about things such as masks for the public and hand sanitizer. If I were the PS for procurement, I could probably go on and on, but I'm sure Mr.

MacKinnon could speak endlessly on this issue regarding the number of companies, and how they contributed to take back industries that we had lost, and how we've stepped up.

(1245) When you talk about the situation that we were thrown into, that's what has impressed me the most. Prorogation was necessary because it ensured that the focus of the House of Commons would be on the pandemic and minimizing the impacts of the coronavirus. All we needed to do was to take our lead, as the Prime Minister did, from what Canadians were saying and doing.

Whether it was the individual, the private company that retooled or the non-profit organizations that stepped up to the plate, I hope to be able to expand on a number of these things later tonight when we talk about the immense contributions made that sent a very clear message. That message was very simple, that as a Parliament, we needed to be focused on the coronavirus and minimizing the negative damage that was being caused by it. I am very proud of the Prime Minister 's decision to prorogue the session. I'm quite happy at any point in time to have a discussion about when a session should be prorogued.

I would welcome that sort of a discussion, but I think it's important that, as parliamentarians, we be aware as to why the Prime Minister prorogued. It's there. It's real. It's tangible. From my perspective, I couldn't think of a better reason to do it. I believe Canadians see that and we are starting to see results. It's important to recognize that we are not out of it. The third wave is here. It's real. It's killing people. Our hospitals are filling. We need to be aware that the third wave is here and it's real.

That said, one of the most important things the Government of Canada had to do was to acquire vaccines. We made that very clear. Months ago, we set the target of six million doses by the end of March. We exceeded that. We got close to 10 million. We will get close to 44 million by the end of June. Vaccine doses are coming. That does not mean that we should lose our focus. We still have to do what we can. That's why I hope in the next go-around to be able to talk a little more positively about some of the things PROC could be doing, while reflecting, of course, on the amendment.

I will be sure to read through both the motion and the amendment prior to this evening in case I might have deviated somewhat. I can assure members that I really do appreciate the time that has been afforded to me this morning, and I look forward to being able to return later this evening.

(1250) Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Lamoureux. Although we love hearing from you, hopefully you won't have to return this evening, but I guess time will tell. We do still have a speakers list.

Hon. Ginette Petitpas Taylor (Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, Lib.) :

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

The Chair :

Yes, Ms. Petitpas Taylor.

Hon. Ginette Petitpas Taylor :

I notice it's 12:51. Since Monsieur Lauzon, I believe, is next on the list—and I'm assuming my friend and colleague has a lot to say—I'm wondering if we are planning to suspend the meeting at our regular time and start up again on Thursday, or if we are going to continue on. I just want to get a sense of what the plan of action is on that.

The Chair :

Thank you for that question. I'm waiting for direction from you, as members of the committee, as to whether we will have a consensus to suspend at our regularly scheduled time of one o'clock or carry on with the speakers list. I can put that question to the members to see if there is agreement at this point to end at the scheduled time.

Mrs. Karen Vecchio :

On behalf of the CPC, I think it's okay if we are suspending, as long as we come back to this discussion.

The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. Vecchio. It seems like there is some support to suspend at 1 p.m. Monsieur Lauzon, I don't know if it would be worth going to you at this time. I don't know how long your remarks will be. Seeing as we are going to suspend in eight minutes, would you like to pick up in Thursday's meeting at that point?

Mr. Stéphane Lauzon (Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, Lib.) :

I would like to start right now for eight minutes. I'll take my place on Thursday, so I'll be the first one on Thursday.

The Chair :

Okay. One thing I forgot to mention at the beginning of the meeting is that we do have the issue of the main estimates. Maybe I could have the clerk update the committee. If the committee does, eventually, want to report back to the House on the main estimates, we do have witnesses who would be ready to appear before committee, perhaps not this Thursday, but in the following week, on Monday or next Thursday, so we can complete that obligation. Justin, can you update the committee on which witnesses would be willing to come forward?

The Clerk :

Madam Chair, I did talk to the House of Commons administration with respect to the House of Commons main estimates, as well as to the Parliamentary Protective Service's senior officials and to Elections Canada about a potential eventual appearance by them on the main estimates before PROC. The main estimates are before PROC until the end of May. They did indicate to me that they are available to appear and they probably can appear on relatively short notice. Likely, though, that would not necessarily include appearing 48 hours from now at our meeting on Thursday. There shouldn't be a scheduling problem if we were looking at attempting to

schedule at least some of those entities possibly as early as next week.

The Chair :

Once again, it's up to the committee. I did want you to all be aware that is a possibility if you wish it to be so. Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP) :

Just on that matter very quickly, Madam Chair, if we don't have a vote on the motion that's currently before the committee before when we might want or expect testimony on the estimates, is there a mechanism—whether it's unanimous consent or something else—to be able to receive those witnesses and then return to this debate? I'm just wondering if you or the clerk have some advice on how we might go about implementing a negotiated solution, if we're able to arrive at one.

(1255) The Chair :

I'll have the clerk supplement my answer. According to my understanding, we could adjourn debate on this motion at whatever point the committee wishes and it could be brought back at another time. It's up to the committee, really, if they would like to adjourn debate or resolve it through a vote. It would either end the matter or put the matter on pause and then the committee could decide to move forward with the witnesses on the main estimates. Justin, do you want to supplement my understanding with anything?

The Clerk :

No, Madam Chair. I think that's pretty much exactly the procedural response. It would be for the committee, if it so wishes, to adjourn debate on this current motion, possibly

schedule a meeting or two on main estimates, and then the committee could decide to resume debate on this motion and continue on with this debate.

Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, CPC) :

Madam Chair.

The Chair :

Yes.

Mr. Tom Lukiwski :

I would only point out the obvious, that we still have seven weeks to go before the deadline for estimates to be discussed. That is, I believe, more than adequate time to continue on with this debate, and perhaps we can resolve it by coming to a vote. I would suggest we don't look at truncating this debate in any fashion until we come a little closer to a complete resolution. We have enough time to bring witnesses forward, to do a thorough analysis of the estimates and vote on the estimates, because that deadline is not until the end of May. I am certainly in favour of continuing the debate as opposed to adjournment.

The Chair :

Thank you for your feedback on that. I think it gives the committee some idea where members might be on the issue. You're right; the supplementary estimates are due sooner than the main estimates, so we do have some time on the main estimates. It's really up to the committee, depending on how many meetings...but I do just want to make sure that everyone is aware, because sometimes I get emails after the fact. It's easier for me to give you all the same information at the same time rather than have questions occur afterwards. That's that.

As I said, there are a few motions that have the appropriate notice given at this time and a few that have just been put on notice, but the notice requirement has not been met as of yet. Mr. Lauzon, do you mind, since we only have a couple of minutes left, if we pick up right at the beginning on Thursday?

Mr. Stéphane Lauzon :

No problem.

The Chair :

I'm sorry. I thought I was going to interject for just one minute but it took a little bit longer.

Mr. Stéphane Lauzon :

That's okay.

The Chair :

Are there any more questions? The meeting is suspended until Thursday. [ The meeting was suspended at 12:58 p.m., Tuesday, April 13. ] [ The meeting resumed at 11:50 a.m., Thursday, April 15. ]

(5950) The Clerk :

Madam Chair, I'm sorry to interrupt. We're having a technical issue here in the room. You might need to suspend for a minute or two while we try to figure out what's going on. The recording has stopped. The meeting can't go on unless we have the recording. Just stand by. Apologies for that. [ Technical difficulty—Editor ]

(6000) The Chair :

No problem.

The Clerk :

Sorry about that.

(6005) The Chair :

[ Technical difficulty—Editor ] had on the speakers list. I believe I have a two-person speakers list at this time. It's Mr. Lauzon and then Mr. Samson. That's all I have for now. I will refresh the toolbar and check it. Okay, after that, we have Mr. Long. That is the speakers list. Monsieur Lauzon, you have the floor.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Stéphane Lauzon :

Thank you, Madam Chair. Today we are honoured to have with us colleagues who want to assist the committee. I'll reserve my energy, thoughts and words for later and will be pleased to come back then. I'm going to yield the floor to my colleagues. I believe Mr. Samson is first to speak. Thank you very much.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Go ahead, Mr. Samson.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Darrell Samson (Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, Lib.) :

Mr. Lauzon, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak sooner than expected. It's always a pleasure to appear before a committee as important as this one. Yesterday Ms. Duncan and Mr. Lamoureux clearly established that the priority for Canadians is support for individuals, families, entrepreneurs and Canadians in general. This is an extremely difficult time for the entire country. The situation for the moment seems slightly better in the Atlantic region. I believe there were 6 new cases and 41 active cases in Nova Scotia yesterday.

We're doing quite well and that's because Nova Scotians are following Health Canada guidelines. That's for sure. It's extraordinary; we can see that people are following the guidelines. They've changed their habits. There are so many examples I could cite, but just just washing your hands—I've never washed my hands so often—makes all the difference. I have to say I was a teacher and taught grade one students for a year at one point. I had to wash my hands a lot, especially when teaching young children. It can be quite a chore.

You know as well as I do that we were supposed to open our border with New Brunswick next Thursday. The Nova Scotia government and other Atlantic governments have shelved that idea for the moment because the health system in some regions is under additional pressure with people suffering from COVID-19. We want to keep our numbers down as far as possible because then we can do contact tracing, determine where the COVID-19 virus infecting people came from and make sure they're self-isolating. For example, I made an announcement yesterday, and we rarely make public announcements.

We can see from what's happening in Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia that the situation is very serious, as Ms. Duncan said yesterday. It's critical, it's tough, and people are tired. All this stress and these mental health problems generally weigh heavily on people as it is. Add to that this entire COVID-19 business and Canadians want and need support. Canadians need the vaccine. Going back to the point I made yesterday, we rarely have to make public announcements, and we made a very important one yesterday. The federal government and Nova Scotia made an announcement.

I was the master of ceremonies for that announcement, with all the technical responsibilities that entailed.

(6010) It was an outdoor event and we had to keep our distance from one another. However, the announcement was extremely important.

[ English ]

Hon. Peter Kent (Thornhill, CPC) :

Point of order, Madam Chair. I'm enjoying somewhat Mr. Samson's account of the trials and tribulations of public announcements during the pandemic, but to the matter of relevance, I wonder if he could get back to the subamendment that we're supposed to be debating. Perhaps he could tell us whether he and his Liberal colleagues have urged Minister Freeland and Minister Chagger to respond to the outstanding invitation of the committee to appear before us.

The Chair :

You're correct, Mr. Kent. I was waiting to hear where our colleague was going with this, although I'm very interested about the public announcements. I will remind Mr. Samson to stay on the issue of the motion at hand, and the amendment to the motion.

Mr. Darrell Samson :

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Kent. Maybe, Mr. Kent, the delay in translation didn't allow you to really see the link I'm trying to draw, but there is a very important link here, because if you look at our amendment, it's about, as you said, hearing from the Deputy Prime Minister and hearing from the diversity minister about COVID. If you look at the initial motion by my colleague Ms. Vecchio, which is really about the reasons we had to prorogue, this is all linked together, so maybe you'll allow me to continue.

Maybe I'll do it in English for a little way and then I'll come back, because I want Mr. Kent to really see the link as I try to draw that link clearly. COVID is the issue and prorogation is a reason why.... I'll go into that afterwards, but this announcement was on an investment from the federal government that we're doing in all provinces, not just Nova Scotia. I'd like to say it's just Nova Scotia, but that wouldn't go well with you, Mr. Kent, and I could understand that. This is a federal government announcement, part of the $2 billion for education, to try to create space—outdoor classrooms.

Again, as I was saying, we need to pivot now. This challenge, this crisis, is allowing us to better understand the gaps. I'm a former teacher, Mr. Kent, and in my profession, we've been talking for probably 30 years—I'll be honest with you—about how important it is to teach outdoors and to have students actively participating and learning in the outdoor space, and here we are, finally. We've done something. It has been minimal to now, but here, finally, we officially are creating spaces and parks, or benches or seating areas, areas in which to play and learn at the same time.

The announcement was a contribution of $5.6 million to help us through COVID in education, Mr. Kent, as you can understand. The province is coming in with, I believe, $1.6 million as well. So that's $7.2 million. What's so important about the announcement is that, for one thing, we were able to do it in person, which COVID has stopped. In Ontario, it would be a dream, maybe, to get that done, but we were able to do it and keep our distance and wear our masks. Elbows were the closest way of touching, I guess. There were no handshakes, as you can understand. It was so important.

Because of this COVID challenge, this will create official space for every elementary school in the province of Nova Scotia. This is what I said to the people in the audience. For every elementary school in the province of Nova Scotia, they will have outdoor learning spaces, which they will choose with the school advisory councils and the school boards, to ensure that learning outside will be an integral part of learning in general. That is extremely important.

When we talk about young people, I want to stress that what we're seeing in this challenge, this crisis, is that there are more young people in Ontario and Quebec who seem to be experiencing COVID-19 challenges, more challenges than we have seen in the past. This is something that we really have to think about, because we saw a big gap in long-term care in terms of how we need to deal with that as politicians, as representatives of the people. This thing about parties—Liberal, Conservative, NDP, Green—is not what it's about. This is a team Canada approach.

We need to do the right thing, and to do that, we need to have our Deputy Prime Minister share with us some of the key things that we have done, that we are doing and that we need to do. That's extremely important by itself.

(6015) Now that I got that announcement by, I want to talk about prorogation, because that is actually the motion that Ms. Vecchio brought to the table, which is important. It is very important. I'll be very honest with you. When the Prime Minister announced that we were going to prorogue Parliament, I stopped for a second and thought, “Why would we do that? Is it the right thing to do? Is it what Canadians would want us to do?” I thought about that and the answer was very clear right away.

I can tell you all that it doesn't matter which party and it doesn't matter which stripe, I would have agreed with any prime minister that prorogation was an absolute necessity. I don't think anyone listening today would disagree with that. I know some of my colleagues might want to punch holes in that argument, but think, really think about what prorogation means. It means to restart, reset, refocus. Yes. I guess the only other reason that might be as important would be a war. We had no choice. As I have said before, I'm an educator by trade. All of us in all our professions, and I know, Ms.

Petitpas Taylor in her work prior to being elected, at one point or another would have had to contribute to strategic planning, to setting an agenda, to setting a vision, to setting the steps that are necessary to achieve the outcomes we're looking for. We would have done consultations with all stakeholders to set that plan. I like to call it the map. Who's responsible for those achievements? Well, my friends, we had no choice, because we as a country, prior to this prorogation, prior to this pandemic, prior to this challenge, were on the road of great success in a short period of time.

My friends, what I mean by that is in the four and a half or five years prior to COVID.... I still remember, as we all do, many of us, from different parties. I think, Ms. Vecchio, you might have been there, and Mr. Kent might have been there at the airport in the waiting lounge. We were going home on March 13. I thought we would be back in a month. We all thought we would be back in a month. We didn't realize the challenges that lay ahead. We just didn't foresee. Who could have foreseen at that time? That's why we had to reset.

We knew that we would have to have another look at the priorities we had laid out following the 2019 election. We would have to make sure that we were not trying to continue the great economy we had prior to March 13. You all know that Canadians had hired, and over one million new jobs had been created by Canadians. You all know that we had the lowest unemployment rate in the history, and they say in 40 years but there were no statistics prior to that. The economy was steaming ahead. We had lifted over 900,000 Canadians out of poverty. Those are major numbers.

(6020) The success was clear and we were on that track. It was a very positive track. Then we were faced with a cement wall, a crisis never experienced before. I say that but I have to share with you a very important story that is directly linked, Mr. Kent, to this very important discussion. I'm from Nova Scotia, as you know, but I'm also from Cape Breton, which is an island off the mainland. You all know that, I think. What you may not know is that I'm actually from an island off the island of Cape Breton. It's a very small island [ Translation ] called Isle Madame. Mr. Therrien may visit my island one day.

Some members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages had a chance to spend a few days there during the committee's trip. I mention Isle Madame, which Mr. Therrien will soon be visiting, because a Samson family monument was erected in Lévis, Quebec, to celebrate Canada's 100th anniversary. I want to speak to you about something very important. [ English ] In 1918, my friends, we were faced with a major pandemic. Millions and millions of people lost their lives.

What I want to share with you—because this is similar, there are a lot of similarities—is that the island I'm from, Isle Madame, was actually the island hardest hit by the 1918 pandemic, per capita, in Canada. As I told you before, of course, we only had 6,000 people on the island. Now we're down to 4,000 and some. (6025) [ Translation ] Mr. Therrien, 99% of them are Acadians. The remaining 1% became Acadian indirectly, being anglophones from Newfoundland who married islanders. They were ship's captains and fishermen. As you know, the Acadians were farmers before the expulsion.

Then we became fishermen because we weren't allowed to return to our fertile lands in the valley. We were sent to live near the sea instead because we were considered poor at the time. We weren't allowed to communicate, but we were allowed to fish. Remember, and Ms. Petitpas Taylor and others can confirm this, lobster was considered a poor man's meal at the time. [ English ] Today, it's probably the richest meal on the table, or close to it, and guess what? The land is next to the ocean and the water is probably the richest as well, so the tables have turned. We experienced challenges then.

In those days, there were 10, 15 or 20 people in a family. I've seen families from that generation who lost 50% of their kids to the 1918 pandemic. This is serious. They had their community and they had their family but government was not as present as it is today. That's why the struggle was even worse. Today, we have been able to support individuals and families. Let me get back to prorogation, because that's what this motion is really about, and I don't want Mr. Kent to tell me that I am not linking this yo prorogation, because it is crucial.

Again, there's no question it was a need that any government should have and would have done—I know that—and we did it because we had to. You know, I had to do a little bit of homework, because I wanted to see the government prior to our government. I wanted to check what the government of our friend Mr. Harper did. Some of you may have been in that government, but most of you were not. Did he prorogue Parliament? Let's look at the importance that lies in prorogation. Well, I found out that, in 2008, the Harper government asked the Governor General to prorogue Parliament. You ask why.

Well, let me share that with you. It actually happened shortly before, not after, not during—you guessed it—a vote of confidence that would have defeated the Conservative government, the minority government. It would have probably been a coalition between the Liberals and the NDP at the time, supported, I might add—for Monsieur Therrien, it's important—by the Bloc at the time. He prorogued. Now, I have to weigh that with proroguing in a pandemic, one of the biggest challenges in the world, the 2020 pandemic: prorogue to set a new agenda or prorogue to hide from a vote of confidence. I think this one would win.

Let's go to 2009. Let's go to the next year because—you guessed it—there was another prorogation. The government of the day, the Harper government, said, “We're faced with an economic challenge. We know there was a recession in 2008. We know that. We're not going to deny that because we're team Canada here; we're working together.” The Harper government decided to prorogue to consult with Canadians, with the business community, to see if maybe we should do some adjustments, some resetting, some refocusing of our priorities. Well, that's better; that's much better, I have to say.

Between 2008 and 2009, this one is better. It's still not as difficult and challenging as when you don't really, truly know what's coming at you, when it's directly linked to health, but, hey, the economy is up there. It's not as high as the one that we did in 2020, but it has more merit. I know that Mrs. del Vecchio will be pleased to know that this one is much better. I can understand the prorogation there. Now I'll go to 2013, if you'll allow me. Yes, you guessed it again: the Conservatives, the Harper government, decided to prorogue again.

Let's look now, because I want to go back to the question of Mrs. del Vecchio. Am I pronouncing del Vecchio right? I want to make sure. She's a good colleague of mine.

(6030) Mrs. Karen Vecchio :

Well, we'll just start with Vecchio with a hard “c”; drop the “del”, and we're good to go.

Mr. Darrell Samson :

It's Vecchio. There you go. Thank you. I appreciate that very much. In 2013, Parliament was shut down by the Conservative government through prorogation—part of this motion—to avoid questions on the Senate expense scandal, a particular senator and the PMO. That one I think is going to go back down to maybe even lower than the first one that the Conservatives did in 2008. The motion is asking what was the reason we brought this prorogation to the table.

I think I've drawn a pretty clear picture that the reason was we needed to refocus, to reset, to re-examine what would become the priorities, and how we were going to help Canadians in crisis. That was the big question. The economy, as I described to you earlier, was booming like it hadn't been for a long time and all of a sudden everything crashed. Let's not forget the main problem, the health and security of Canadians. With that came the economy. We saw millions of Canadians lose their jobs in weeks, in two or three weeks. Prorogation you say. Absolutely.

If anything, we probably should have done it a little earlier, but it had to be done. It had to be done because we needed to be out there supporting Canadians. I don't know if you can imagine, but I just cannot imagine coming home, looking at my family.... You know, I have five grandkids now in five years, so things are going well. They're working hard. I love spending time with them. Actually, I get to spend a little bit more time with them these days than I would because I've been in Ottawa for a stretch of 10 weeks out of 11, as you know. But just try to imagine. Let's just stop. This is not political.

I'm speaking to every Canadian now, I believe. Imagine anyone who shows up at home, walks through the door.... Some may have not wanted to go home for a long time because it's depressing. It's challenging. But imagine someone arriving home, looking at their family and telling them, “I was laid off.” That in itself is scary. I just can't even imagine having to live through that. But that wasn't even the scariest, because the scariest is we are in lockdown. I don't know if you heard what the Premier of Nova Scotia said. It went viral. You must have heard it because it's profound.

He said, “Stay the blazes home.” Stay the blazes home. I'm telling you, he was serious. When he said that, it wasn't on day one. It was probably on day 30. Do you know why he said that? He said that because people were not respecting the health recommendations.

(6035) People were not social distancing. People were still gathering in big numbers. That, we know, cannot happen when this pandemic is still storming away in its third wave, with variants and variants. We hear it every day. They know it in Ontario. They know it in Quebec. They know it in western Canada, in B.C. So, here you are. You arrive home, having been laid off. Nine million Canadians, in the end, had to go on CERB—nine million. I didn't teach math in high school, but we know that's about a quarter of the population of this country—9,18, 36; we're up at 37 million and something.

This was a crisis, but that's not the worst. The worst is we're in a pandemic. We don't have a vaccine. It takes years and years. Ms. Petitpas Taylor was minister of health. She knows how long it takes. It's scary when you know that you need something to help Canadians in their health, and you don't have it. That's why our government right away focused on PPE, focused on investing in vaccine research, and asked companies in this country, “Can you help us? Can you find ways to help us through this pandemic? We need gloves. We need masks. We need gowns.

We need and we need and we don't have.” This is the amazing team Canada. This is what Canadians are all about. It's amazing. Thousands of companies within Canada—thousands—raised their hands to retool, to help, because the pandemic isn't just in Canada. The pandemic is across the world. We needed Canadians to come together. It wasn't a question of whether you were Liberal, NDP, Green, Conservative. I say the only time politics counts for Darrell Samson is on election day. After that, I represent everyone, every citizen in the great riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook. Sackville is rural-urban, somewhat.

For those who fly into Halifax, between the airport and downtown Halifax, or if you're going to Halifax, or to half the province, you're going to pass through my riding. If I put up a blockade, you won't get in. It was so important. It was amazing how Canadians came together to help with what we needed, but we also needed the financial support. Stay the blazes home. Keep your distance. Wash your hands. Don't gather in big groups. But if you're staying the blazes home, and you're doing what you can, you also need some money, food, shelter. That's another reason, which was crucial for Canadians.

(6040) I cannot thank doctors and the health professionals enough. If I did it every day, still it would not be enough. I have to tell you that I also learned that the individuals stocking the shelves at Sobeys, Superstore, IGA, or Provigo— je crois que c'est à Québec —those people.... At the heart of the challenge, I think in April, May and June last year, people were scared. They're scared today, but there's hope today. Financially, they've been supported somewhat for now. Health-wise we have vaccines coming, but last April, May and June, people were scared to go outside.

We needed food and we would make our way to the IGA, or whichever grocery store. I looked in the eyes of the individuals stocking the shelves or the cashier, and I thanked them. Sometimes challenges are opportunities. We get to better understand and to see when there's a challenge. You look back at all the things you took for granted, and it makes you really focus on what it's all about. It's a lot bigger than politics; I'll tell you that. It's about Canadians; it's about communities; it's about a country working together to ensure that we have the successes that we should.

I could talk about the small businesses, because they, too, are struggling. Even with all the help, they're still struggling, but guess what? Communities are coming together. Instead of cooking these days, they're saying, “My son owns a little restaurant bar on that little island I described to you way back. He's only 26 years old. He called and said, 'Dad, now don't forget. You have to go out to eat three or four times a week. You have to help the small businesses, the small restaurants'”. That's how people are thinking today: local community partnership. That's what the focus has to be about.

We all need to be thinking of ways that we can contribute together through this challenge. Prorogation was absolutely necessary, and thanks to that prorogation, we have reset our agenda. I don't have any secrets to tell, but on Monday another big piece of the pie will come out, and I know.... I don't know what's in it. I told you I don't have all the secrets, as much as you might think so, or even as much as I would like to. I don't, but I have a feeling.

I have a feeling there's going to be some more help for Canadians, not just in Nova Scotia, not just in Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, but right across the country, all the provinces, all the territories. I know that we will be there as we should, as Canadians expect of us. Our Prime Minister has been out daily updating Canadians and sharing with Canadians what's happening, because as an educator, as I said to you before, one of the most important things you can do is to communicate. Communication is the key.

(6045) I can't thank Ms. Duncan enough for her communication work through this pandemic. Every night we were online talking about how we could help Canadians. The public servants came and worked non-stop. We've got to be talking about these things, but we've got to be talking about what we do next, how we get there and where we are going. Those are crucial. For the business community, as I said, the emergency business account really helped a lot. It didn't help all businesses—we can do more—but that was big. There was also the wage subsidy. People say the wage subsidy helped their businesses. Yes, it did.

That was the priority, but it also helped the individuals. Do you remember when I was talking to you earlier about going home and telling your family you lost your job? Now you could turn around and say, “Well, the government, who can afford it more than we can, can help Canadians and can help us.” The government funnelled some funding for the wage subsidy to keep people working and to keep industry going. Then there are the seniors. This has been very, very tough on seniors. We've done some key things to help them. There's more to be done. That's why we need to be talking about building back better.

We don't have all the answers, I don't have all the answers, but together we will find all the answers. That's what it's about. This committee is so important to help us move that agenda forward. Let me stop for a second and reflect with you on Bill C-14 , which we might be able to get done in the next day or so. I'm hoping, with all the individuals across this country and 338 MPs working together, to get the supports out as quickly as possible to Canadians, to individuals and to families.

One of the key economic stimulus mechanisms in Atlantic Canada—to stimulate the economy because of some of our challenges—is the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. ACOA offers business development assistance to support and stimulate the economy. They need some funds to help them do their job. We did have a system, the RRRF, through which we were helping companies that may have been missed. As I said earlier, Ms. Duncan and many of our colleagues helped us to talk not only about the programs and the initiatives we were bringing forward but also about how they were working.

We had MPs from right across the country. The parties didn't matter. That's an example of working together to make life better. We were all saying, “Yes, that's a nice program, but this group is falling through the cracks. We're not helping this group enough. What can we tweak to improve our programs?”

(6050) You know, I think that may have been my proudest time as a member of Parliament. I felt so connected to my community because they were sharing with me the challenges, and I was sharing those challenges with other MPs across this country. We were sharing this with government. We were sharing this with bureaucrats and we were tweaking programs and initiatives, tweaking them continually, to support Canadians. Think about that. That's what it's all about. I was elected the member of Parliament for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook to make life better for individuals, for families, for communities.

We know, and we don't talk about it enough, that there are so many organizations out there doing so much for Canadians. [ Translation ] We're dragging our heels on Bill C‑14; "on se traîne les pattes," to use that Acadian expression for Ms. Petitpas Taylor. We aren't moving very quickly to provide aid to Canadians. We can't afford to play politics, particularly during a pandemic. The fact that debate on Bill C‑14 has been dragged out and the bill itself challenged [ Inaudible—Editor ]…

[ English ]

The Chair :

Ms. Vecchio.

Mrs. Karen Vecchio :

On a point of order, Madam Chair, I just want to give the speaker some great news, because we'll be voting on Bill C-14 in just a few hours.

The Chair :

That is true.

Mr. Darrell Samson :

I want to thank my colleague for that, because I was going to land there soon. I'm glad that she helped point that out for all Canadians, because that's what team Canada is. You see how quickly she wanted to make sure that I didn't miss a step. She wanted to support me in my intervention and that's what it's about. She was coming to support us, because we're working together to achieve the same success, because Canada is a great country. Canadians are great people.

We are proud of our country and we must continue to work together. (6055) [ Translation ] As my colleague noted earlier, yes, we'll finally be voting in a few hours. I hope all my colleagues and all parties can join with us in voting for Bill C‑14 because Canadians have neither the time nor the appetite for partisan politics or strategies, at any time. They want us to work together for the welfare of Canadian citizens. I want to get back to seniors. I have to say that isolation is particularly hard on seniors.

It's hard on us too because we like to see our fathers, mothers and grandparents, but we're afraid to visit them because we know we're in the midst of a pandemic and don't want to increase the risk of infection. These are tough situations as well. Yesterday one of my constituents called me to discuss the difficult situation he was facing. He told me he hadn't seen his niece for more than a year because she had health issues, being acutely sensitive to environmental factors in particular and perhaps COVID‑19. He lives 10 kilometers away from her. Situations like these are really trying for many Canadians.

As I said a little earlier, there are two tunnels. The first tunnel concerns the health and safety of Canadians and the second the economy and support for individuals, families and entrepreneurs. We know that women have been the hardest hit economically; they have found the situation even harder, considering the greater and tougher challenges they've had to face. That's also the case of young people. We've doubled funding for student summer jobs. That will help a lot. In my riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook alone, [ English ] we just about doubled student summer jobs. This is crucial. Students need to work.

They need to make money to continue their studies, and we need to support them. We need to support them. That is why our government doubled our funding. I'm so proud of the support. Last year we didn't know if we could even get those jobs going or if companies would be able to function, but they found their way. We work together, as we must continue to do today and tomorrow. It's crucial that we do it. Getting back to seniors, we had to invest in certain areas to support them. I have so many stories. Down in Preston, a group of young people got together and brought some groceries to families.

We had Beacon food bank, the Red Cross and the United Way. These organizations play such an important role. If government had to pay them to do work, we wouldn't be able to afford it. They volunteer and do so much outreach. Transportation for seniors is crucial. I spoke to a few seniors the other day. Some of them haven't been out for months. They are just waiting now. They are hopeful. They are feeling much better today than they were feeling a month ago because the vaccines are coming out. Our government announced that we would have six million vaccines by March 31.

I hate to say it, but some parties on the other side said, “That's not going to happen. It's not possible. There's so much need across the world that we'll never get six million.” My friends, we got well over eight million vaccines. It's 10 million this week, and I think we're at 12 million next week. We're ramping up, and it's because of all of you and your support. I know the opposition has a role to play, and you've played that role. It's important to give us suggestions, and to give us your comments and your opinions, but at the end of the day, we must govern.

We must make decisions as government, and those decisions are very important. Going back to Bill C-14 , we're going to see some help in it for Canadians, but my friends, more good news will be coming on Monday. Again, I don't have a crystal ball, but I know that we have been consulting with Canadians. We have been listening. We've been having those conversations, putting the time in that's so crucial to help Canadians, and now we will be able to deliver a budget that will continue to support Canadians. If we had not prorogued Parliament, if we had not reset the agenda and refocused....

We've been doing that, to be quite honest with you, for a long time. Yes, we prorogued, but we're still working and focusing on where to put our priorities. That's what the fall economic statement allowed us to do, to start building that blueprint and start putting into action some key things that we've seeing through Bill C-14 .

(6100) Monday will be an important day for Canadians as we continue to support all Canadians right across this country. You know the old saying, from Newfoundland to Vancouver, and then the territories of course. I can't believe I skipped Nova Scotia and Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, but it's all provinces, all Canadians. You know, when we're Canadian, we have to make sure.... When it comes to long-term care, we learned through this pandemic that there are gaps. We need to build national standards together.

I have to say, that's where we need you to share with us what standards are necessary, to make sure that we continue to support and protect seniors. It's crucial. I'm Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Veterans are also struggling through this pandemic. It has been extremely difficult for them. It is our responsibility to care for, to support, to help and to work in partnership with our veterans community. I know that we work very hard to support organizations that support veterans across this country. It was very important to help those organizations stay afloat.

I'm talking about the Legion, which is another organization that is so important. I don't know if you know, but there are 1,382 Legions in this country. I'm sure that each and every one of you, if we took a poll right now, could tell me how many Legions you have in your riding. As I said earlier, I wasn't a math teacher—I've been in the profession of education for 30 years—but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that if there are 1,382 to 1,400 Legions across this country, and there are 338 members of Parliament from all sides, all parts of this country, on average, you have three Legions in your riding.

I have five. Some may have two. These Legions, these people volunteering in Legions are playing a major role in supporting our veterans and our communities every day. Legions were shut down. They couldn't raise money. The poppy fund was getting weaker and weaker as we moved about. We had no choice. It was simple. Government had to come to their support as quickly as possible. They're one organization. There's VETS Canada. They reach right across this country, and they're supporting veterans on the ground every day. There's also True Patriot Love.

There are so many great organizations out there, and we were able to get them some support, financial support. There was $20 million for all those organizations, about $14 million of which went to Legions because, as I said, they cover a lot of turf.

(6105) I want to thank all of you here today. It's because of you, all parties, team Canada, that we were able to deliver that funding and continue the supports on the ground for these individuals. It's very important. I understand we're going to vote on Bill C-14 today. I would like to think it will receive unanimous support because there are important investments in individuals, in Canadians, in this bill. It's already late, but together, as team Canada, we're going to get there because we need to get there.

I could go on for another hour if you want and talk about where our investments need to be when we talk about building back better because it's crucial. This is what the committee is supposed to be talking about. How can we work together to put forward the programs and initiatives and to create the investment environment? Mr. Long is a businessman. As he knows, government is not to lead. We are to create that positive environment for the business community to prosper. We need to get out of their way to some extent for them to do that, and this is what we can do together. I would love to continue on.

Maybe I'll get another chance sometime, but I have another meeting. This is my first reflection with this committee in which I've had a chance to talk about this important motion and the amendment. We should be focused on building back better, working together for all Canadians. (6110) [ Translation ] To all Canadians from Newfoundland, the Atlantic, Ontario, Quebec, the west, British Columbia and the territories, I say: together we can change things. I'll conclude with the expression I used for 11 years as executive director: "Every problem has a solution; together we can change things." Thank you very much.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Samson.

Hon. Ginette Petitpas Taylor :

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

The Chair :

Yes, Ms. Petitpas Taylor.

Hon. Ginette Petitpas Taylor :

I'm sorry to interrupt. I first of all want to thank Darrell. I also wondered if we could get a sense of how long we will be going today. I have no issues, but if there is anything I need to cancel, I would like to get a bit of a sense of whether we will be going on for an extended period of time or whether we're planning on finishing shortly. I wonder if we could get a bit of direction on that.

The Chair :

That's a good point. I didn't even realize it was past one o'clock. Mr. Nater has his hand up.

Mr. John Nater (Perth—Wellington, CPC) :

Madam Chair, why don't we move to a vote right now, and then we can adjourn after the vote. Why don't we vote on the motion and amendment, and carry on?

The Chair :

Is everyone ready for a vote at this point? Some are and some are not.

Mr. Darrell Samson :

No. We still have some speakers on the list, I think. It's crucial to hear from everyone on this important topic. Thank you.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Samson. CBC aired your announcement of the apology for the Black battalion from World War I, and I thought that was really well done. Your speech in particular was very moving. I got to hear you speak from the comfort of my home. I'm glad CBC aired it in that way. I thought it was really accessible for everybody. It was a well done event, different from the announcement you were recently.... You've been doing a lot of announcements. We will carry on with the list. We have Mr. Long next.

(6115) Mr. Wayne Long (Saint John—Rothesay, Lib.) :

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon to all my friends and colleagues in PROC. I'm happy to be back as a sub. I have been here so often that sometimes I feel like I'm a regular member. I always joke with my colleagues that I want to make sure I'm invited to the barbecues, the Christmas parties and all of those things when we can all get together. I want to commend MP Samson on that really moving, thought-provoking, unbelievable speech. It was a pleasure to listen to you, Darrell.

The Chair :

We may have to do that in the future when we are all together. Previously, I think under the leadership of Scott Reid actually, we used to meet every once in a while in the Parliamentary Restaurant and have an unofficial committee business meeting. We'd just talk about our hopes about where we want to go in this committee and what kind of work we want to do. I always found the times we did that were really good. It was beneficial to all sit together from across parties and break some bread without the pressure of a formal meeting. Maybe we can do that. Maybe it will be a barbecue this time, if you're cooking, Wayne. I'm sorry to interrupt, but it just brought back a memory. Go ahead.

Mr. Wayne Long :

I think times like that, Chair, when we can all get together in a more relaxed, informal environment are good. It's about team building and it's about talking to each other in a more non-political environment and surrounding. I think that's healthy. Certainly, in my days at the Saint John Sea Dogs, a wonderful major junior hockey league team here in Saint John, I was very big with team building and making sure our players could get together away from the pressures of hockey, billets, parents, coaches, agents and so on and so forth. I have lots of things I want to talk about.

I'm sure the Sea Dogs will come up, but first and foremost I did want to just thank you, MP Samson, again for your speech. I always enjoy sitting around at the Atlantic caucus and national caucus with you. You're a wonderful member of Parliament and your riding is certainly lucky to have somebody as passionate as you. I want to acknowledge a few things from your speech before I get started talking about MP Turnbull's amendment. One is your recognition of MP Duncan and the work she has done from, really, day one of this pandemic with all of us—the calls, the Zooms and just the leadership. I will be frank.

To get an email out of the blue from MP Duncan asking how you're doing means a lot. It means a lot to me, personally, that somebody who I have become friends with over the past few years.... A general out-of-the-blue email concerned about your well-being and how you are doing means a lot. Certainly, MP Duncan, kudos to you for your continued leadership. I still look back at the time when you were in Saint John. We did an announcement with Brilliant Labs on coding. I will never ever forget. We walked into the school. We did our announcement. We were there for probably 45 minutes, all in all.

There were 20 to 25 young adults, give or take, who all had an exhibit they wanted to show MP Duncan. During her speech, she recalled every child's name who was there. We wondered how she did that. We thought she must have had a list. No. She just remembered all their names. I will never forget that. I thought there must be some cue cards or something that one of her assistants was holding. No. She went left to right in that room and named absolutely everybody. Incredible. Kudos.

(6120) The Chair :

Mr. Long, could you move your boom mike up just a little bit more?

Mr. Wayne Long :

Sure. Is that better? I apologize.

The Chair :

It looks better.

The Clerk :

Madam Chair, yes, apparently it's better, so that's good. Thank you, Mr. Long.

Mr. Wayne Long :

Okay, my apologies. I hope I didn't take out the ears of our wonderful interpreters. Also, MP Samson, I want to acknowledge the two wonderful Legions in my riding of Saint John—Rothesay , Legion branch 69 and Jervis Bay Legion. They do wonderful work in our community. You are right. I believe you said there are 1,300 Legions across the country. My respect goes out to each and every one of them, and I'm certainly glad that, as a government, we were able to step in and help them, and when we help them, they help others. It's certainly a win-win for all of us. It has been an interesting day.

I gave a lot of thought to this meeting, the meeting we're in now, and the situation we're in. I did some preparation, obviously, and certainly saw some news of the day where the Leader of the Opposition came out with his climate plan. I looked at that with great interest. Certainly it looks like some parts of our plan are there. I remark at the use of green screens now. The leader of the party was out in space at one point, and then he was over a lake, and then he was going through the forest, and then he was in the woods. It was remarkable to see. He was all over the place.

Those presentations sometimes are difficult with green screens in the background. I know certainly the leader of the opposition in the previous Parliament did his supposed climate plan at what almost looked like Camp Crystal Lake from Friday the 13th . It was this small, little lake where he did his presentation. Not to harken back to movies, but I was always reminded of the movie Friday the 13th when he made his announcement. I want to build on MP Samson's speech. I never say that I was a businessman; I still am a business person. I've had great success. I've been lucky; I've been fortunate. I've taken risks.

I remember leaving a somewhat secure job. I had a $10,000 line of credit. I had two weeks' vacation. I remember sitting with my wife, Denise, and totalling up that I had about 10 weeks to make my business work, otherwise.... Denise at that point was home with our youngest son, Konnor, who was just two, and our oldest son, Khristian. I remember taking that risk. I remember being that entrepreneur. Sometimes people will look at entrepreneurs like they're just these risk-taking people, but that's how Canada was built. It was built by entrepreneurs and small business owners.

To link where I was as a small business person to where I am now, I love what I do. I thank God every day for the opportunity I have been given to represent my riding, my beautiful riding, its people and those who are in need and to be an advocate for them. Being a small business owner, I had to meet payroll. I had to balance budgets. I had to run a deficit at times. I had to strategically invest. I had to do those things.

I wanted to take those skill sets to Ottawa to contribute to our government and help with policy decisions and add my voice, whether it be in the New Brunswick caucus, Atlantic caucus or national caucus. You know, I wouldn't say I've become disillusioned, not at all, but then you fast forward to my committee work. I love what I did at HUMA. I see MP Vecchio, who was a big part of our team in HUMA in the first Parliament. We travelled the country.

We developed a report, if you will, a study on poverty reduction, which certainly was part and parcel of our poverty reduction strategy and our national housing strategy. I also sat on the ethics committee with MP Blaikie.

(6125) Committees can do great work. Look, I was the first person who was skeptical of committees: “Oh, yeah, committees, whatever. You go up there and you sit and you....” No. No. I tell my constituents that—no. We do work for Canadians in those committees, the work of Parliament—great work. We help with legislation. We help with bills. We study. We are the second sober thought at times. Chair, we just talked about getting together in a more relaxed environment, maybe have a barbecue for some togetherness and fellowship. There's no committee that probably holds more esteem than PROC.

It's a committee that a lot of MPs hold in the highest esteem. Here we are. I understand that politics is politics, and the job of the opposition is to challenge the government, make government better, to hold government accountable. I get it. I get it absolutely. I was elected in 2015. I guess I'm five and a half years in. I don't feel like a veteran. Some people call me a veteran, but I don't feel that way. I think we need to step back, and we need to understand why we are where we are. MP Samson covered many, many topics and many, many issues. His speech was wonderful. I appreciate that.

But in the end, to circle this back, we are here today and we're talking about MP Turnbull's amendment. Chair, correct me if I'm wrong here. As I said the last time I spoke,