EVIDENCE

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs NUMBER 025 2nd SESSION 43rd PARLIAMENT Tuesday, February 23, 2021 Le mardi 23 février 2021 Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs CANADA [Recorded by Electronic Apparatus] EVIDENCE February 23, 2021 Committee NUMBER 025 NUMBER 025 NUMÉRO 025 25 23 02 2021 2021/02/23 11:10:00 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

(1110) [ English ]

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

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 25 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. You are aware that the webcast will always show the person speaking, rather than the entirety of the committee.

I would like to take this opportunity to remind all participants to this meeting that screenshots or taking photos of the screen are not permitted. Given the ongoing pandemic situation and concern with public health, there are recommendations made by public health. To all those attending the meeting in person, you are to maintain a two-metre physical distance. You must wear a medical mask when circulating in the room. It's also highly recommended that the mask be worn at all times, including when you are seated. You must maintain proper hand hygiene by using the provided hand sanitizer at the room entrance.

As the chair, I will be enforcing these measures for the duration of the meeting. I thank the members in advance for their co-operation. I'm sure Justin will help me out with being able to maintain those rules. For those participating virtually, I'd like to outline a few rules to follow. Members and witnesses may speak in the official language of their choice.

Interpretation services are available for the meeting. You have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English or French audio. With the latest Zoom version, you may now speak in the language of your choice without the need to select the corresponding language channel each time you switch. You will also notice that the platform's “raise hand” function is easily accessible at the bottom of the screen. For members participating in person, just proceed as you usually would when the meeting is proceeding in person. Before speaking, wait until I recognize you by name.

If you are on the video conference, please click the microphone icon to unmute yourself. For those in the room, your microphone will be controlled by the proceedings and verification officer. As a reminder, all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair. When you are not speaking your mike should be on mute. With regard to a speaking list, the clerk and I will try to keep a consolidated list, since we do have people in the room as well. You know the drill. Just unmute yourself and say you have a point of order. I'm sure there will be quite a few today.

We'll maintain a speakers list in the toolbar, and one in person. Before we start, I have just a couple of questions and then we will get to the issue that is first at hand, which is the witnesses for prorogation. I did want to say that we had the estimates come forward, so we have some time for the estimates. That would be due back in May, at some point. Justin, when are the estimates exactly due back, so that everyone has a frame of reference?

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

It is May. I'll find the precise date for you and pass it on to the committee.

The Chair :

Okay. I wanted to state that there has been a Standing Orders debate taking place in the House, as well. Andre, I had a question for you. Usually you prepare a document for this committee regarding the Standing Orders debate. Is that something we could look forward to in the near future?

Mr. Andre Barnes (Committee Researcher) :

Thank you, Madam Chair. Laurence and I had not yet turned our attention to doing that. We were waiting to see what the committee's views were, and when the Standing Orders study would follow in the sequence of work that the committee would like to undertake.

The Chair :

As a reminder for me, there's no time frame for that. The time frame is only for the debate to occur in the House, but not for our review. Is that correct? Okay. One piece before we get started is a budget. I think it would be best if we were able to pass that budget at the beginning of the meeting before we start, so that we can make payment for the headphones used by witnesses and the costs of the lines. I believe that was circulated to everyone. If you haven't taken a quick look, please open that up. I just wanted to see if there was consensus from everyone to adopt this budget.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: I see nodding. Justin, is that good for you?

The Clerk :

That will do it. Thanks.

The Chair :

Now I see some hands up. Mrs. Vecchio, go ahead.

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

Thanks very much. This is an important day today because I think we're going to be starting to talk more about the prorogation study. I know that we've had a great assortment of different witnesses who have come in and provided great scholarly and academic views. However, as many of them have indicated, and as our motion indicated previously, there are, ultimately, a few people we need to hear from. Those would be the people who put forward the prorogation, and the Prime Minister himself. I would like to move another motion. I know that Justin should, perhaps, have just received this motion to share with everybody.

The Clerk :

I've just sent it out.

Mrs. Karen Vecchio :

It reiterates our point in the first place and our original motion. I will just read it into the record:

That, in respect of the Committee’s study of the government’s reasons for the prorogation of Parliament in August 2020, the Committee:

(

a) renew the invitation issued to the Prime Minister to appear before the committee, provided that if he does not agree, within one week of the adoption of this motion, to appear for at least three hours, the Chair shall be instructed to report to the House forthwith a recommendation that this committee be empowered to order his appearance from time to time;

(

b) renew the invitations issued to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth, each to appear separately before the committee, provided that in respect of each of them who does not agree, within one week of the adoption of this motion, to appear for at least 90 minutes each, the Chair shall be instructed to report to the House forthwith a recommendation that this committee be empowered to order her appearance from time to time;

(

c) renew the invitations issued to the Honourable Bill Morneau, Katie Telford, Craig Kielburger and Marc Kielburger, each to appear separately before the committee, provided that in respect of each of them who does not agree, within one week of the adoption of this motion, to appear for at least three hours each, a summons do issue for his or her appearance before the Committee at a date and time determined by the Chair but no later than one month following the adoption of this motion;

(

d) renew the invitations issued to Farah Perelmuter and Martin Perelmuter, to appear before the committee, provided that if they do not agree, within one week of the adoption of this motion, to appear for at least 90 minutes, a summons do issue for their appearance before the Committee at a date and time determined by the Chair but no later than one month following the adoption of this motion;

(

e) issue an order for the production of all memoranda, e-mails, text messages, documents, notes or other records from the Prime Minister’s Office and the Privy Council Office, since June 25, 2020, concerning options, plans and preparations for the prorogation of Parliament, including polling and public opinion research used to inform the decision to prorogue Parliament, provided that these documents shall be provided to the clerk of the committee within two weeks of the adoption of this motion;

(

f) issue an order for the production of records of all communications between the government and any of WE Charity (or its affiliated organizations), Craig Kielburger, Marc Kielburger, or Speakers’ Spotlight, since June 25, 2020, in respect of the prorogation of Parliament, provided that these documents shall be provided to the clerk of the committee within two weeks of the adoption of this motion;

(

g) issue orders to WE Charity (including its affiliated organizations), Craig Kielburger, Marc Kielburger and Speakers’ Spotlight for the production of all memoranda, e-mails, text messages, documents, notes or other records, since June 25, 2020, concerning the prorogation of Parliament, provided that these documents shall be provided to the clerk of the committee within two weeks of the adoption of this motion; and

(

h) all documents provided to the clerk of the committee in respect of paragraphs (

e) to (

g) shall be published on the committee’s website as soon as practical upon receipt, once they are available in both official languages.

Madam Chair, I want to bring this motion forward. As you know, this is ultimately where we're at in this study. We can continue to ask for academics to be here. We can continue to ask for people from across this country and across the globe to come here to give us their perspectives, but ultimately, there is only one perspective we need and that is that of the Prime Minister .

Regarding the people who have been asked—just in case any of the members are asking—you will see that this is all to do with the prorogation study and, perhaps, additional information that has been provided previously to the witnesses we have asked here. Was there any plan for this prorogation? This is something that we would like to look into. The Prime Minister himself changed the Standing Orders, and these are things that he said he would put forward. When it comes to being an accountable and transparent government, let's see it.

Thank you very much for your time, Madam Chair, and I look forward to the conversation.

(1115) The Chair :

Thank you. I see in the motion that you're looking forward to seeing all of these people coming in, not just the Prime Minister . When you wrapped it up, you said—

Mrs. Karen Vecchio :

No. I put forward the motion, and there was a post-amble, I guess you would say. This is the motion that I would move here. I would prefer that we took it to a vote as soon as possible so that we could get this work done, but it is up to the members of the committee. Thank you.

The Chair :

Okay. Should we put it to a vote? Mr. Turnbull.

Mr. Ryan Turnbull (Whitby, Lib.) :

I know we received testimony from about 12 witnesses. I'm just wondering why, in this particular situation, we can't move to formulate recommendations within a report. It seems to me that we've had quite a number of strong witnesses. We've heard from the government House leader . It certainly seems to me that the opposition parties have had their theories about why prorogation happened. I think we all have differing opinions on this. I have all of the evidence printed out here. It's quite a substantial package of information with really lots and lots of testimony. We've heard the opinions of experts.

We've heard from some officials. I think the most appropriate official is the government House leader. Mr. Rodriguez came and answered our questions. From my perspective there seems to be lots of information from the witnesses we've had with which to start formulating some recommendations.

(1120) The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Turnbull. Ms. Petitpas Taylor.

[ Translation ]

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. First, I entirely agree with my colleague Mr. Turnbull. Since December, many witnesses have appeared on this subject before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. On December 10, we heard from Barbara Messamore, professor of history at the University of the Fraser Valley; Daniel Turp, professor at the Université de Montréal; Kathy Brock, professor at Queen's University; and Philippe Lagassé, professor at the University of Ottawa. Yes, they are academics, but they nevertheless gave us their views and opinions on this subject.

On January 28, we had Hugo Cyr, professor at the Université du Québec à Montréal; Ian Brody, professor at the University of Calgary; and Lori Turnbull, professor at Dalhousie University. Once again, these are highly qualified people who gave us their views. I had a chance to reread their testimony yesterday evening. It contains very good information that I truly believe will help us make good recommendations. At the February 16 meeting, we had, in his capacity as Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Pablo Rodriguez, who outlined his views and answered many questions. I think that went very well.

He was accompanied by Alan Sutherland and Donald Booth. Lastly, on February 18, we heard from Duane Bratt, professor at Mount Royal University, and Patrick Taillon, professor at the Université Laval. Once again, we may not agree on all the opinions that were given, but I nevertheless think that, thanks to all the information conveyed to us by those academics and Mr. Rodriguez, we are in a very good position to begin working on recommendations. Thank you.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Okay. Mr. Kent.

Hon. Peter Kent (Thornhill, CPC) :

Thank you, Chair. I must say that I agree with Mr. Turnbull and Ms. Petitpas Taylor that we have heard from a substantial body of witnesses, many of them academics, and I think that it's important that a number of those academics agreed that it would benefit this study to hear from the Prime Minister and to hear from the other individuals most directly involved in the circumstances leading up to the prorogation.

Certainly the government House leader was interesting in his appearance before committee last week, although I think his testimony was undercut somewhat by his denial that the PMO frequently sends directions to committee with regard to the behaviour of committee members, both in terms of filibustering and directly in terms of their vote. This motion would serve this study well and would add substantially to the body of testimony that we already have.

(1125) The Chair :

Thank you so much. Go ahead, Mr. Blaikie.

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

Thank you very much. I want to back up for a moment and consider why we're doing this study. We're doing this study in part because there was a new mechanism established in the last Parliament having to do with prorogation. It was based, not on this particular prorogation but on a controversial set of prorogations under the Harper government. This was supposed to be the thing that was going to dissuade governments from abusing the power of prorogation.

I'm thinking of those other two prorogations and wondering if members, all members of the committee, would be satisfied if a study like this took place in the face of the 2008 prorogation, for instance. If Peter Van Loan, as the House leader of the day, I believe—Peter can correct me if I'm wrong on that, but I believe that's the case—appeared here, and the Prime Minister didn't, it seems to me that would be quite dissatisfying in terms of trying to get at the root of some of the conversations that would have taken place within the government about prorogation in 2008.

I'm mindful of the fact that this is a mechanism that has a history, even though it's the first time that it's being used, and that we're setting a precedent here. I think it would be totally unsatisfactory as a precedent if the Prime Minister didn't appear to speak directly to the issue of prorogation and the government's reasons for prorogation, given that the Prime Minister ultimately is the person who gives the advice to the Governor General on whether or not to have a prorogation. If we're going to vote on this motion on a straight up and down vote, I'll certainly be voting for it.

I'm open to the idea that we would vote on something that is pared down if it meant that we could get strong unanimous support for calling the Prime Minister here. The other person I think would be interesting from the point of view of this particular prorogation, who is mentioned in this motion, which for me is another reason to support it, is the former finance minister, because the prorogation was coincident with his resignation.

For those of us on the outside looking in, it's very hard to imagine that it is a coincidence and that the former finance minister doesn't have anything to add or a part of the story to tell that would shed some light on the reasons for prorogation. Along similar lines, I think we've heard something somewhat similar both from Mr. Turnbull and Mr. Kent, among others now, to the effect that we have heard from a lot of academics. I don't think we need more context.

I think what we need is more direct information from decision-makers in order to make an assessment about the nature of this particular prorogation and whether it constituted an abuse of the power. I don't think anybody is suggesting that the Prime Minister was outside of his constitutional powers to advise for a prorogation. The question is whether there was a kind of political abuse of that power, even though it was done in accordance with constitutional convention. How do you get at that? You can only get at that by talking to the Prime Minister and those around him at the time.

It seems to me that the Prime Minister and the former minister of finance are the people to talk to. That's why I'll be supporting this motion. If members have a proposal for paring it down so that we can get closer to those two people, that's fine by me. If there is a desire on the part of some members to move to a report, I'm really reticent to do that without hearing from the Prime Minister , as I say, because I think it's a bad precedent. We'll see about that, but I don't think we're ready to move on to writing a report.

If we did, I can't see doing anything but an interim report, because I don't think we can have a final report until we speak to the Prime Minister about this.

The Chair :

Thank you for your contribution. Mr. Turnbull.

Mr. Ryan Turnbull :

Thanks. I appreciate the perspective of my colleagues here. In terms of the comments being made, I think this study is really designed to continue to reflect on what's already happened. We've gathered a diversity of perspectives and opinions on that from witnesses who were, I would suggest, mostly proposed by opposition parties. We've heard from them. They've had their opinions. They've presented to us. They've shared those thoughts with us. Mr. Blaikie, I might have to disagree with you on the point you made about context, because I think in this particular case, context is everything.

We're in a worldwide global pandemic. I believe we're staring down the barrel of a likely third wave of COVID-19 with the variants of concern that are percolating and starting to rear their heads. We're seeing the impact of that in Newfoundland, for example, where the election is being affected by these new variants. I have this concern that's forward-facing, that's looking at the work that this committee needs to do—for example, to prepare to pass Bill C-19 and perhaps maybe even look at a prestudy on that. We've seen some delays with that with some concurrence motions.

I feel that we need to be able to equip Elections Canada with the possibility that an election could be called at any time. They need to have the tools to do so, yet here we are looking back, debating how many more witnesses. How many more meetings do we really need to have? I think we have a diversity of perspectives. You're going to formulate your theory and rationale with the evidence that you've heard, and we're all going to debate that and see, to my mind, how that plays out in terms of the recommendations we'd like to make in a report moving forward.

To me, that process seems pretty substantive when you contrast it with the past, when there was no study on prorogation and there were many examples of prorogation in more controversial situations than the one we're seeing here, which, when we look at it, there was a really good rationale for. We were in a global pandemic. There was a first and second wave in between, and there was naturally an opportunity to reflect on where we're going as a country and to renew our agenda. To me, that just is plainly obvious to most Canadians out there. I think it's intuitive. It makes sense.

I don't know why we need to have more and more witnesses come forward when it really seems like we've done the job of entertaining the different theories and speculative perspectives on why prorogation happened. We've heard directly from.... Government tabled a report. It's substantive. It's never happened before. I would say that's a positive step in the right direction. I think we can all agree. We heard from the government House leader directly. Who better to give us that testimony than the government House Leader? I think that's the most appropriate person to provide us that perspective. We have that.

I'm sorry if it's not what the opposition parties are looking to prove here, but from my perspective, we have that perspective already in two forms, in a written report and in the testimony from the House leader. What more do we really need? What are you going to get out of having more and more witnesses come forward to basically tell you the same thing? If it's not what you want to hear, I understand, but are you really going to get anything different? It's all consistent. It's a very consistent rationale for why our government took those steps and why the Prime Minister exercised that right. Thank you.

(1130) The Chair :

Monsieur Lauzon.

[ Translation ]

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to speak to you in my capacity as a new member of the committee. I've taken the time to read all the documents available on the website concerning the witnesses the committee has heard from. I have inquired into the witnesses, read the testimony of each of them, and, like my colleagues, I have concluded that, as a committee, you have done a very good job. By inviting professors, physicians, public servants and even the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons , as has been emphasized several times, you made sure you established a clear overview.

From my viewpoint as an outsider, because I haven't been following the committee's proceedings, I think the committee has enough information to go ahead and draft a final report. Many witnesses have addressed this prorogation issue. We don't all agree on the conclusions of some witnesses, but we have the information we need to draft a final report. Consequently, I would like to bring the matter to a close.

Then we can talk more about measures to facilitate work-life balance, which is all the more important in the context of the pandemic, and indeed one of the very important and current topics that remains for us to address. As we all very well know, we've had to adjust to this new reality. Many of us members are parents of young children, and we function very differently when they are at home. In addition, several witnesses suggested modern solutions to us and pointed us to new technologies that would assist in adapting the electoral system in the event an election is held during the pandemic.

They will also be useful in normal conditions following the pandemic. They are tools that we will have developed during the pandemic and that will remain available to us. I would also like the committee to discuss at greater length the legal structure of the Parliamentary protective service, another hot topic. We've received threats; Canadians are experiencing many mental health problems and pressure is mounting. As a committee, we must examine the legal structure of the Parliamentary protective service very soon.

I wasn't here at the time to suggest study topics to the committee, but I really would have liked it to conduct a study on the conduct of elections in rural areas. You're familiar with the issues we generally encounter during elections. You've also heard testimony from many individuals on the problems people have experienced during the pandemic. However, we've focused very little on the problems experienced in pandemic conditions during elections in a constituency such as mine or that of Serge Cormier, for example, where polling stations are in extremely remote locations.

Voters there have to drive two or three hours without even being able to stop because the road stops and restaurants are closed due to the pandemic. And no consideration is given either to seniors or persons who are losing their independence. These are things that I would have liked to discuss, and that's still possible if we work together to draft the final report. Since the Leader of the Government in the House did a capable job of presenting the government's view, and members were able to ask questions and get honest answers, we are now in a position to draft the final report.

I'm new to this committee, but, as I see it, we have enough information to go ahead.

(1135) Since the prorogation, there has been a throne speech and the fall economic statement. Many significant changes and events have taken place since the members of the committee began the prorogation study. I'm thinking in particular of the general election in Newfoundland and Labrador, which was held during the pandemic. I believe the committee must react quickly and conduct a study on those elections. The committee must adjust to events as they occur. And then there's the arrival of the COVID variants. Some witnesses discussed the underlying reasons for prorogation. Their opinion does count.

However, the specific reason for prorogation was to let the government take a necessary step back in order to make the right decisions for restarting the system. That's precisely what the Prime Minister has done. I understand the differences of opinion in the evidence, but the document already contains all we need to make a good decision.

(1140) [ English ]

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

Madam Chair, on a point of order, I am just wondering if you are able to check the translation for MP Lauzon. The translator and his voice are coming through at the same level. Sometimes that's because you don't have the proper button clicked on your screen.

The Chair :

That's not supposed to happen anymore. I keep being told that with the upgrades it doesn't matter what button you select, but I don't know if that could still be an issue. I'll check on that.

The Clerk :

Madam Chair, that problem should have been addressed. Depending on the version of Zoom that members are working on, sometimes it can still be an issue. The latest versions of Zoom should have resolved that, but if you have on your computer a prior version of Zoom, the issue may still occur and it might require members to toggle back and forth between the English and the French.

Mr. Wayne Long :

It's okay. I just wanted to point it out. I don't know if other members are hearing the same level of voices or not.

The Chair :

I don't know if it was at the same level for me, but it was loud. You had to focus really hard. Mr. Lauzon, you were on the French

interpretation button. Did you have French selected?

[ Translation ]

Mr. Stéphane Lauzon :

Yes, I selected French, but I could have switched it off, and it would have worked all the same under the new system.

[ English ]

Mr. Wayne Long :

Madam Chair, I'm not trying to be difficult. I just thought that if it was a quick switch, we could fix that. It's not urgent.

The Clerk :

Madam Chair and Mr. Long, I'm going to have an IT ambassador reach out to Mr. Long to see what the issue might be, so that we can try to get a higher volume for him so that he can hear more clearly.

Mr. Wayne Long :

Thank you very much, and thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair :

Thanks for pointing that out. Mr. Lauzon, I'm sorry for the interruption. Mr. Long just wants to be able to hear everything you are saying. Please, carry on.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Stéphane Lauzon :

I'm sorry not everyone can hear me clearly. I hope the technical issue is resolved as soon as possible. I was discussing the fact that, as a new member of the committee, I have examined its proceedings from the notes the clerks have provided me. I'd like to thank the clerks and all the members of their teams for the work they've done. Although I arrived in the middle of the committee's proceedings, I was quickly able to get up to speed thanks to the service the clerks provided me. I'd like to thank them for all the necessary documents and explanations, and in French to boot.

In closing, I would like to point out that the committee recently heard from two Privy Council Office officials on the conventional norms regarding prorogation. They once again confirmed that prorogation is a prerogative of the Governor General on the advice of the Prime Minister. That's precisely what we did. It's important to consider the dates and facts stated in the government's report. The prorogation took place in August 2020. According to the evidence I read, when the question was put to the witnesses, they often responded that it was not the right time for a prorogation.

Then what would have been the right time? When you're in the midst of a pandemic, new factors arise every week. A vaccine appeared in Canada in the first week. We had heard about vaccines in other countries, including China. A series of events then followed. So there's no ideal date to request a prorogation. That's what appears from the evidence. That's at least what I sensed in reading it. All the witnesses began their testimony by explaining their position on the idea of a prorogation. Some said that it was done too quickly, others that it was too late. Still others told us it should not have occurred.

Those are opinions, and I agree that people should express their opinions. However, the opinions presented in the report will help us make the right decisions. Even if the Prime Minister came and explained to us what we already know, that wouldn't change those decisions in any way. If he had to come before the committee to explain to us why prorogation was requested at that specific moment, he would tell us that Parliament was prorogued at a point where we had to take a step back. We could have done it sooner, just as we could have done it later.

In actual fact, we could even prorogue Parliament today, given what's coming, so we could take a step back and address the delivery of vaccines, the Newfoundland and Labrador election and the arrival of COVID variants. Then we could focus on distributing the vaccines in all the provinces. Those would all be good reasons. The Prime Minister , who was elected by the people, decided to go and see the Governor General and ask her to prorogue Parliament in order to take a necessary step back so he could move forward more effectively. Everything has already been explained through the opinions presented in the report.

We have to be honest with Canadians and to explain our decisions to them. Unlike the former Conservative government, which constantly prorogued Parliament without providing any explanation, we explain actions. When the Conservatives were in power, they prorogued Parliament three times, in 2007, 2008 and 2009, for a total of 63 days, without providing any explanation or answering any questions. They simply prorogued Parliament. We, on the other hand, went further. We've been transparent. Let's not forget we're going through a crisis like no other government has experienced in Canadian history.

In 2017, our government instituted a change that will now require every government to table a report in the House outlining the reasons for a prorogation. We're the ones who made that change. That report will explain why the Prime Minister decided to prorogue Parliament and will therefore stand in lieu of testimony by the Prime Minister.

(1145) Of course, the committees may examine other matters. That's entirely appropriate, and that's what we have done. I know the committee has previously studied cases in which the government of the time requested a prorogation. This isn't the first time that's been done. You can see from the archives that prorogations have previously been studied. The report is based on the remarks of certain experts in an effort to explain the prorogation we're now discussing. Those explanations may encourage us to review certain matters.

Our committee could look more closely into the circumstances leading to the prorogation and determine whether changes should be made so that other governments may use prorogation for reasons other than those stated today. However, that's not what we're discussing today. What's important is knowing whether we can now make recommendations in light of the prorogation we have experienced. The committees may of course examine certain questions. However, all members, including those from the opposition parties, have had an opportunity to tell us loud and clear what they felt were the reasons for the prorogation.

Those reasons were clear in their minds. Whatever the case may be, no study has ever gone as far as this one. At this stage, I'm not at all sure why we need to take this study even further and make a spectacle of it. I think that we're responsible enough and that, given all the testimony we've heard, we could avoid all this theatre and spectacle. We definitely have all we need to draft the final report. In reading the evidence, I noticed a statement that our honourable colleague from the New Democratic Party made on January 28, at the start of this study.

He felt at the time that the prerogative to request prorogation had been abused because it had been used to get the government out of a political crisis. In view of his remarks, I wonder whether the member is even taking

part in the committee's study and meetings in good faith and with an open mind. We're here to work together and find solutions. You have to listen to the government's arguments. Even though the member is hearing those arguments, he already seems to have made his decision. He's drawing his conclusions even before the study is done. Decisions were already made even before the expert witnesses—physicians, professors, officials and the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Mr. Rodriguez —were heard. What bothered me when I read the evidence were the intentions of certain individuals.

When I saw that one committee member told the committee that he had reached his decision even before taking the time to examine the matter, I thought nothing would change even if the committee heard testimony from the Prime Minister. The member had abandoned the fundamental role he's supposed to play on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and instead was playing politics, content to express his own opinion before even hearing the witnesses.

In addition, at the last meeting, the House Leader of the Bloc Québécois spoke even before we had heard witnesses that his own party had suggested should be heard. He said it was very clear to him that Parliament had been prorogued to put a stop to the work of the committees investigating the WE Charity scandal. Why then did we conduct a study on the subject? Why do we have committees to assist in the proper operation of Parliament? Can we say this is evidence of good faith? Certainly not. The leader of the Bloc Québécois also made his bias clear before the study was even complete.

(1150) I nevertheless tip my hat to all the witnesses who came and testified on the matter. We asked them whether they thought the government had had valid reasons to prorogue Parliament. They all began by saying that all the reasons justified seeking prorogation. Is it appropriate for those people to express their opinions? Yes. We, as parliamentarians, have a role to play when witnesses appear before a committee to assess the situation.

I personally consider it a delicate matter for a committee member or party leader to make a public statement about a study under way in order to announce his own solutions for the decisions he has previously made even before the committee has completed the study. That at least is my

interpretation of the situation. I joined this committee when it was already under way; I carefully read all the documents, and that's what I sensed. One can imagine how ordinary people reading the reports without having attended the committee's proceedings might not feel any better than I did after spending the weekend, as a new member of the committee, reading documents to bring myself up to speed.

On September 24, 2020, the Conservative member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock stated in the House that we all knew the Prime Minister had decided to prorogue Parliament as a result of his involvement in the WE Charity scandal. That was said in the House even before we had presented all our work. The member said that the prorogation was a distraction. When he said that, we were in the middle of a crisis, seniors were dying, physicians and nursing staff were on their knees, emergency rooms were full, not a single bed was free and our staff was exhausted.

We're working hand in hand with the public in all constituencies, whether Liberal, Conservative, NDP, Bloquiste, independent or Green. We're all supposed to work hand in hand during this kind of crisis. We have to earn the public's trust, give them hope and make them feel supported. All the parties worked together and sent us recommendations that we relied on in implementing programs. We made adjustments along the way. The step back taken as a result of the prorogation was extremely important in helping us move forward more effectively and developing more responsive programs.

For example, we're all aware of what's happened to travellers. There are 338 members in the House of Commons. We read the documents and we make decisions as quickly as possible, and to the best of our ability, based on what we know. All parties are in the same boat. When we realized that a traveller could return from a trip and be fined $1,000, we had to review our decisions and amend the measures. No one saw that coming because we have to make the kinds of decisions no one has ever seen before. The pandemic didn't come with an instruction manual. We all had to adjust at every stage and take a step back.

We prorogued Parliament so we could take a step back. On October 5, the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman claimed that the Prime Minister 's main reason for proroguing Parliament was to attempt a cover-up. Once again, fellow citizens were told that we had tried to conceal files concerning the WE Charity and in other cases. We should bear in mind that we had a crisis to manage during the pandemic and that we had programs to implement for students, workers who had lost their jobs and seniors, who we sensed were in distress.

As parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Seniors , I was in contact with seniors across Canada from the start of the pandemic. I sensed their distress, particularly among those living in long-term care centres, which are called CHSLDs in Quebec. I can tell you that the crisis is still raging in long-term care centres in Ontario.

(1155) I think that that's the priority of every government, that the Prime Minister has a lot to do in managing a pandemic crisis and that we have to prepare a report as soon as possible. I started reading around December 10, when the initial meetings on the committee's study began. In my initial reading, I saw that Dr. David Williams had said the following: Over the spring and into the summer we flattened the curve down to a very low fewer than 100 cases a day, even lower than that… So, on December 10, he said we had flattened the curve to fewer than 100 cases a day in Ontario.

He's a physician in that province. He continued, saying: …and then they started rising again in September, much as in other provinces, and more recently as in some territories. We're now in February 2021. When I began my reading, we were already talking about…

(1200) [ English ]

Mrs. Karen Vecchio :

Madam Chair, I have a point of order. It's absolutely wonderful hearing from the member, but could he just stick along the lines of the prorogation? I know that he is sharing all of the other things that we could be working on, but we have a motion on the floor and perhaps he could just continue speaking to the motion. Thank you.

The Chair :

All right. I guess the members heard that comment. It's to relate your comments to the motion at hand. Thank you.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Stéphane Lauzon :

Thank you very much, Ms. Vecchio. Sometimes I get carried away with emotion. When I dive into a file, I get down to the bottom of it. However, I can say that everything I've told you is directly related to the prorogation. Canadians and I myself have never been as sensitive to seniors as in this pandemic or in the history of Canada. Prorogation was also one of the measures we took for seniors and the general public. It was effective in helping us take a step back so that we could move forward more effectively. Everything I've explained to you to this point is related to the prorogation.

On January 28, 2021, at start of the meetings on the prorogation study, the member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan said the following in his

preamble, before putting his question to Dr. Ian Brodie, Prime Minister Harper's former chief of staff, “We are charged with the responsibility of conducting a study on the reasons why this government and the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament.” Remember, I just told you he is Mr. Harper's former chief of staff. Mr. Lukiwski continued, saying, “Quite frankly, the reasons are crystal clear, and we all know it.” At the last meeting, on February 16, Mr.

Lukiwski continued to show his bias and inherent partiality on this issue, declaring on the basis of no study or approval by this committee: It is clear to everyone in this committee, and I know it's clear to you as well, there was only one reason for prorogation being called in early August… As a member, when I read that, I had to stand up, have a glass of water and take a deep breath. Remember what we were going through in my constituency and yours in August. The weather was beautiful, we were having a bit of a break, there was some fear and apprehension, and we weren't safe from a second wave.

Life was very hard for the general public. I respect the testimony of an expert who comes and tells us that there was only one reason to prorogue Parliament, and we will take it into account in the report, but let me tell you that I happened to read other testimony stating that the prorogation assisted in making decisions and in taking a step back so we could move forward more effectively. When he says there was only one reason, does the member also think that prosecutors should be able to sit on the jury and vote even before an investigation? Fortunately, he's not the one who…

(1205) [ English ]

Mr. Daniel Blaikie :

I have a quick point of order, Madam Chair. There's a bit of confusion. The member said he doesn't want to spend more time talking about the WE Charity scandal, but I take it from his intervention that he does. He just doesn't want to do it with witnesses that could contribute meaningful information about the nature of the prorogation decision.

The Chair :

Is this really a point of order, or is it just debate?

Mr. Daniel Blaikie :

That's for you to decide, Madam Chair.

The Chair :

Seeing as you have your hand up, you will get your chance to make your reflections known to the members of the committee. Carry on, Mr. Lauzon.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Stéphane Lauzon :

I think that position's ridiculous. Given what I've read, I can tell you I would be very pleased to take

part in a good-faith debate with some of these witnesses or with opposition members. However, it's increasingly hard for me to give them the benefit of the doubt, first of all, because they've made their decision even before appearing before the committee. What could I do about that? The member continued by saying there was a singular reason for doing so. The record should show that the member was referring to the prorogation. He found it disturbing that he and other members of his party, and of the opposition, could sit here and say they would examine the prorogation matter and get to the bottom of things.

To shed light on what? Madam Chair, it seems they already made their decision long ago. The decision of some was already made even before they testified. We nevertheless listened to them, and we nevertheless received some very good evidence. We heard from 12 witnesses, all equally expert and equally partisan, and we listened to them. We asked good questions, thanks to the democratic system we have here, and each of the parties was granted the same number of minutes. We heard a broad range of testimony, and we could therefore prepare a comprehensive report today. I want to make the following point for the record.

The member I'm referring to regularly argues fiercely against this government, even going so far as to tell the Leader of the Government in the House, during the previous meeting that I attended, that he felt sorry for him. That same member advanced an entirely contrary argument in 2010. The situation was different in 2010; today, he feels sorry. In that year, this committee conducted a very similar study when the Conservative government prorogued Parliament. At the time, the member represented the former riding of Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre.

As you can see, he is an experienced member because he was already a member in 2010. At the time, I was a municipal councillor. When the Conservative government prorogued Parliament, he argued that prorogation was a fairly common and routinely used procedure. Parliament has been prorogued three times by the Conservatives and only once by the Liberals, and, in that case, during an international health crisis. I would emphasize the word “routinely.” Today, however, the opposition parties contend that this prorogation was a kind of abuse of Parliament.

Today, they're trying to prove, supported by examples, that it was an abuse and an extremist measure. However, they still forget the pandemic aspect. It's that aspect that troubles me a little more. It's as a result of that aspect that my human side has trouble accepting the idea that we said we did it for nothing. It's as though there were no pandemic and we didn't need to take a step back. It takes a lot of work to prepare a throne speech and an economic statement. I heard here that we could have turned on a dime, stopped for two days, prepared a throne speech and presented it in public.

However, that takes hours and weeks of work. You have to mobilize all members and employees of the Prime Minister's Office. You have to conduct consultations. When you prorogue Parliament, you do so to take a step back, not to take a vacation. It involves six weeks of intensive work during which we review every line of the programs we've put in place, every flaw in the system.

(1210) And there were some flaws in my riding, and they're still there. No system is perfect. The prorogation let us take a step back, gather strength and make good decisions. Now you want to invite everyone in turn. All that's missing from the motion tabled is the pope…

[ English ]

Mrs. Karen Vecchio :

I have a point of order, Madam Chair. Mr. Lauzon has indicated that he is a new member. In our previous motion, providing this information had been agreed to unanimously by the entire committee. Because there has not been anything received, this is why we're reinviting. It's not a new list at all. These are already current and all members of this committee did support it.

The Chair :

Maybe for further clarification, I will let you know what happened. Witnesses were invited through the subcommittee, as they would normally be invited. At some point, there was a motion brought forward with four witness names. One of them was the House leader , and the House leader has attended. The other three were the Prime Minister , Ms. Telford and.... Who was the third?

Mrs. Karen Vecchio :

It was Morneau.

The Chair :

The third was Morneau. That was Mrs. Vecchio's motion. At the subcommittee, since they were potential witnesses who were already on the list, there was consensus to go ahead and invite. That report was presented to the committee, and the whole committee voted to go ahead and invite. We are on this motion, because some invitations have not received a response. Go ahead, Mr. Lauzon

[ Translation ]

Mr. Stéphane Lauzon :

Thank you very much for that clarification, Madam Chair. Thanks as well to Ms. Vecchio for raising that point. I'm still learning, and I very much welcome any clarification. I received the motion today and I read it briefly before joining the committee meeting. The witness list is quite long: the Prime Minister , the Leader in the House, who has already testified, the Prime Minister's chief of staff, former members, citizens and so on. I can't name them all.

I would like to point out that the Prime Minister appeared before Canadians at a press conference and explained why the government had had to prepare for a potential second wave of the pandemic that was under way. He had to review his priorities relative to those he had announced in the 2019 throne speech, and he set other legislative priorities. In other words, we had to reset the parliamentary agenda. That's somewhat what I've been explaining to you from the start. We really pressed the reset button. The Prime Minister could not have been clearer than that.

He organized a press conference, and he clearly expressed that to the public. He also told all members in the House. He wanted to have those priorities front and centre in the context of the pandemic crisis. As we said, and as academics and officials have also stated, the prorogation mechanism was justified. No other mechanism could reset the agenda in that kind of situation. The Prime Minister therefore decided to seek leave from the Governor General to prorogue and end the Parliament. Previous governments have also used this measure for much longer periods and for far less valid reasons.

It appears that, in wanting to invite the Prime Minister back, opposition members did not consider the severity of the crisis Canada was facing. We had just emerged from a brutal first wave. A second wave arrived, and the government went into crisis management mode literally to save—and I would emphasize that word—as many lives as possible, to support Canadians during an unprecedented crisis. That was a priority; that's what we should take into consideration. We must address the points that I indicated at the start of my speech. In other words, we must focus on other extremely important matters.

We abandoned them during the election campaign and election process. If my memory serves me, the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, in March 2020, monopolized all public health authorities. We were virtually certain from the outset that there would be a second wave. How could we have requested prorogation at that point without living through what we did in our respective constituencies during that new pandemic wave? We experienced various problems, we saw they were serious, and we looked for solutions. According to some experts, we could have prorogued Parliament when the pandemic started.

However, since we didn't have a crystal ball, we couldn't see the future. I had to make changes in my riding and adapt to the situation. Some of the improvements could not have been made if the session had ended when the pandemic started. As I have said and now repeat, it would've been a good idea to prorogue Parliament at the start of the pandemic, and it was also a good idea when we made the decision. It would still be a good decision today. This kind of process enables us to take a step back and review the measures in place.

(1215) Every time we make a change, we hear that prorogation made it possible to establish the mechanism that enables us to make those kinds of changes. Even now, members rise in the House saying it takes a lot of time to get a telephone line. However, you can hire 2,000 persons if you want, but you still have to train them. You have to find them the necessary equipment and help them settle in. Prorogation helps you make those decisions and take a step back so you can come back stronger.

[ English ]

Mr. Daniel Blaikie :

I have a point of order, Madam Chair. This time I hope you'll find that it is, in fact, a well-founded point of order. [ Translation ] Perhaps it might help Mr. Lauzon's learning and that of other members of the committee. There was a mechanism during the last parliament. [ English ] When there were filibusters in the last Parliament at PROC, I think it was Liberal MP Scott Simms who developed a mechanism that was accepted by this committee.

The Chair :

It was the Simms method.

Mr. Daniel Blaikie :

It may already have been used in this committee in this Parliament. It is that once we know that members are committed to talking out a meeting, other members could be permitted to speak at the discretion of the member who has the floor, without that member ceding the floor. I think that makes for a more conversational meeting. Mr. Lauzon has already made a number of substantive claims about the nature of this study. I'm sure certain members, me included, would love the opportunity to respond to some of those claims.

Unless the plan is for him to wrap up shortly and proceed with the discussion in the normal way or to proceed to a vote, I just want to recall that the mechanism exists. It may be a way for other members to address some of the substantive points that Mr. Lauzon has made.

(1220) The Chair :

This came out of a time of necessity in a previous Parliament, Mr. Lauzon. In the middle of a long discussion, our colleague Scott Simms had created a mechanism in which there was trust among opposition and government members—all parties on the committee—that they could interject and make some comments and then give the floor back to the speaker who was speaking at the time. Generally, the regular procedural rules would be that if it's not a point of order and another member is speaking, the first member would cede the floor and no longer have their position in line.

Through this method, there was a cordial way to have sometimes necessary interventions, which could maybe lead us to some type of compromise. Mr. Blaikie is suggesting that he would like to make a few comments and still give you the floor back so that you can continue the rest of your speech, unless you only have a couple more minutes. If there's much more that you wish to say, Mr. Blaikie could just interject. The interjection is supposed to be short—a few minutes. It's not a long interjection, but something that would maybe carry the conversation forward. Mr. Lauzon, it's up to you.

Then you would have the floor back.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Stéphane Lauzon :

I have great respect for Mr. Blaikie, but I think every one of the points I raised was directly related to the study I made last weekend. You can see the work I've done to catch up to you. However, I do understand your argument, Mr. Blaikie. So I will stop here and wrap up my analysis of the reading I did on the weekend concerning another component. Since I see some raised hands, I'll let those people respond and come back after that. [ English ] I will raise my hand again.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Lauzon. We'll hear from Mr. Blaikie for a short interjection. There is a long speakers list, too. I don't want to have a whole bunch of other people put far behind because of this. Go ahead and make your points, Mr. Blaikie. Hopefully, they move the conversation forward.

Mr. Daniel Blaikie :

Thank you. I'd like to respond to a few things that Monsieur Lauzon had to say, and then I'll end with a proposal, Madam Chair. The first thing I want to say, because I know Monsieur Lauzon has made quite a big deal out of comments that members of Parliament have made about the nature of the prorogation as somehow prejudicing what I think at one point he even called a “commission”. Of course, this is a committee study, and we're not a court of law. We are a political place and our function primarily is a function of accountability.

An important dimension of accountability is that of calling on decision-makers to defend their decisions and to articulate the reasons for their decisions. The decision-maker when it comes to prorogation is the Prime Minister, of course, so I think it's perfectly reasonable to still want to hear from the Prime Minister . The committee has already agreed that we want to hear from the Prime Minister, so it's not like this is a new thing or that we didn't have some kind of agreement on that before. I don't think our study is done until we hear from the principal decision-maker in this regard.

I just wanted to correct the record there. I don't see my role here as that of a judge. My role here is that of an elected official who is trying to hold the government to account by getting it to explain its actions. I'm entitled to have opinions about whether or not I agree with those explanations, and I'm entitled to go into the investigation with some opinions about what I think really happened, for precisely the reason that I'm not a judge. It would be inappropriate, in my view, to behave like one in this regard, because it wouldn't allow me to do the accountability work that I was elected to do.

I think we've been called to work together in this crisis. That's true. I think there's a lot of evidence of that having happened. I actually think the prorogation got in the way of that. I was part of an effort on the part of the NDP to call for more sittings in August and September in order to deal with the looming CERB deadline.

I think it was a mistake from the point of view, substantially, of CERB policy not to engage Parliament on that question in the lead-up to the deadline of the expiration of CERB, and I think it was a mistake from the point of view of parliamentary collaboration not to continue and to even create more time within the parliamentary forum to hammer out some of those issues. We've seen problems with the sick day program, for instance, because we didn't have the time up front to be able to look at that.

I take his point about collaboration, but I propose that prorogation is not the way to encourage parliamentary collaboration. I think that's pretty obvious on the face of it, frankly. Those are just some things I would offer in response to a few of the points—what I would call the more interesting points—that Monsieur Lauzon has made over the past hour or so. My proposal is to recognize that there are other things that this committee could be looking at, and I do see value in addressing other topics, but as I said, I think we also have to recognize that what we're doing is precedent setting.

While Liberal members of the committee may be satisfied that they know the reasons for prorogation and that there's no value in questioning the decision-maker, which in this case is the Prime Minister , I disagree. I suspect they might feel differently if the Prime Minister were wearing a different colour of tie. Also, were we having this conversation in 2008 or elsewhere, they would feel that it was appropriate for the Prime Minister to appear. I'm interested in establishing an appropriate precedent.

If it would help to move this conversation along and reach a decision, we could call on the Prime Minister alone to come and testify at this committee. I would be prepared to support that if it helps us get to a decision. If we do that and the Prime Minister is ragging the puck on his appearance, I could see myself supporting the idea that we would file an interim report with the House of Commons, provided that the report expressed the committee's view, if it is the committee's view, that the report is not complete until we hear from the Prime Minister.

I think that would go a long way to establishing a precedent, in the context where the Prime Minister refuses to appear, of at least making it clear that the committee thinks it's appropriate for prime ministers to appear in the context of these kinds of studies. In the future, of course, I'd prefer if the Prime Minister did appear. I think it would be helpful, and I also think it would show the kind of leadership in support of his own policy that he proposed in the 2015 election. Obviously, I can't make that decision for the Prime Minister.

What I can do is ask for support on this committee to continue to beseech him to live up to his promise of 2015 and to set the precedent that this kind of accountability for the Prime Minister on the decision of prorogation is appropriate.

(1225) That's my proposal, Madam Chair—that we might find a way to hasten this conversation and reach a decision if we move in that direction. I leave it to committee members to weigh in on whether or not that is acceptable to them as a way to proceed.

The Chair :

I guess it's up to the committee members and Mr. Lauzon to respond, since he has the floor back, if he wishes to move in that direction, but you would need the support of other members as well. Mr. Lauzon.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Stéphane Lauzon :

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Yes, my colleague opposite is trying to strike a compromise on a motion I can't go against. I can't go against it for all the reasons I've given. The Prime Minister has a lot to do during this COVID-19 crisis, and I think we have enough information to go ahead and prepare a report to assist our government and the Canadian public. Then we can move on to something else. You added an important point when you said there are subjects we would like to discuss at greater length.

We can't avoid what we've just experienced as a result of the pandemic, which started in the middle of an election. In addition, we absolutely have to review initiatives designed to facilitate work-life balance. That has come along with the pandemic, and it's up to our committee to do it. As I previously said, there's a lot of work to be done on the legal structure. We have to make some major changes to the way we deal with mental health problems that have arisen during the pandemic. We all know someone who has been affected. People have been isolated.

We also have to review the provisions respecting the legal structure of the parliamentary protection service. The Prime Minister has received threats and members have been affected. I don't think we should wait until an incident occurs. We shouldn't postpone this or fail to examine what happened during the election that was just held or the cases in which threats were made.

(1230) [ English ]

Mrs. Karen Vecchio :

On a point of order, Madam Chair, I'm just going to say that he's well over an hour, and we have half an hour left of this. Unless he's going to cede the floor, he has not provided any new information regarding the study and regarding the motion that we're supposed to be discussing. I know there are other members on the waiting list who would like to speak, so perhaps we can actually get back on topic. Thank you.

The Chair :

Thanks, Mrs. Vecchio. I'm sorry. I was just conferring on some procedure with the clerk, but Mr. Lauzon does have the floor, and I can't really force him to—

Mrs. Karen Vecchio :

It still needs to be relevant. That's all.

The Chair :

I apologize again. I may not have heard what was said in the last 30 seconds, but we'll remind Mr. Lauzon to stay on the point of the motion. Thank you.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Stéphane Lauzon :

There's still a connection to the motion, but I'll be more careful. Would the official opposition have preferred that the federal government simply disregard the upcoming second wave and act as certain provincial Conservative premiers did who disregarded warnings about the second wave? Would that have been better? The Prime Minister spoke responsibly on national television, urging Canadians to limit their contacts and travel, among other things. In spite of that, some people are still gathering and others travelling.

It's all well and good to use prorogation as a way to take a step back, to make the best possible decisions and to send clear messages to our fellow citizens, but they are nevertheless the ones who spread the virus. The Prime Minister spoke responsibly when he urged Canadians to limit their contacts. He tried to save Christmas, since it's an important celebration for Canadians. The prorogation made it possible for us to take a step back before making that decision. During that time, the official opposition ridiculed his national speech, characterizing it as alarmist and unhelpful.

What he was told was that there was no need to fear. They thought we were scaring people. And yet, today, thousands of people are dead. The committee has conducted a study on the prorogation. I listened to the opposition members and witnesses at our most recent meetings. I read everyone's testimony. I also listened to the Leader of the Government in the House. I think the members of the committee at times show partisan tendencies that shape the way they view events, but there has to be a limit to that. You have to be honest with the committee. We have to work together to achieve something new.

I'm a team player, and I often wear the captain's “C” on my jersey. With your permission, I'm going to quote the former Conservative member for Elgin—Middlesex—London. In 2010, he said, “Prorogation, as I have stated, is at the core of the separation of powers. It provides the Crown with a mechanism for responding to changing circumstances.” In the government's mind, is there any greater change than COVID-19? We now have to vote remotely. There was also a serious global economic crisis last year, as a result of which we began the new parliamentary session with new priorities.

Those priorities were stated in the throne speech, which was presented to parliamentarians and the Canadian people upon our return following the prorogation. I suppose that a one-of-a-kind global pandemic that changed the lives of some 7 billion people around the world doesn't amount to a change in circumstances in the opposition's view. I don't know what it takes for the opposition to change its opinion. We have to work together once and for all to move forward and draft a report. I will now let my colleagues take over, Madam Chair. Thank you. I will come back later, if necessary.

(1235) [ English ]

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Lauzon. For the committee's information, I know procedurally that things can get a little.... There can be a lot of questions. When Mr. Blaikie made his brief interjection, he made some suggestions to come to a compromise. My thinking on that is that if you are to make a formal amendment to any motion, then that would have to be when it's your formal turn to speak and when you have the floor.

If through consensus the committee continues to use the Simms protocol through this discussion, I wanted to make it clear that the Simms protocol is only to be used for a very brief interjection and not to move anything formally or any of that stuff that you would do when you have the floor through the proper procedural mechanisms when it is your turn on the list. That's just a reminder because it's something that is not codified nor in the formal rules of procedure. However, it is something that this committee has been doing for some time before this Parliament.

I know there are a lot of new members too, so I wanted to give more clarification on that. We would only be using such a mechanism for brief interjections, if there is consensus among the committee, as well. The person who has the floor does not have to cede the floor. They also don't even have to allow for the interjection if they don't find it valuable or don't want it. It's more a cordial thing, as I mentioned before. Mr. Therrien.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Alain Therrien (La Prairie, BQ) :

Thank you. I don't want to go back over everything that's been said. I'll simply go back to the motion. We of the Bloc Québécois find it very interesting. It refers more to Mr. Trudeau's appearance. Several experts have told us that Mr. Trudeau's appearance would have been essential to our forming an opinion of the prorogation of last summer. I therefore think that the motion will simply comfort the experts in their suggestion that the Prime Minister should be invited to appear. The Liberals are obviously telling us that the Leader of the Government in the House nevertheless came and answered questions.

However, we didn't learn much. He failed to answer me when I asked him what had happened on August 17,

whereas the answer was that Mr. Morneau, the Trudeau government's number two, had resigned. When I asked him why they had chosen August 18, he said he didn't know. So, in all honesty, it appears the leader wasn't aware of what was going on within his government. That's my perception. It's either that or else he just didn't want to speak. When I asked him why the government hadn't prorogued Parliament on September 18, as Mr. Lauzon mentioned earlier, he answered that it took time to prepare for a prorogation. He found that an odd question,

whereas, in response to the same question, the experts subsequently told us that the government could have prorogued Parliament on September 18. Furthermore, that would even have been appropriate, given the context of the ongoing pandemic and the fact that tough decisions had to be made. Among other things, Mr. Taillon said that the government shouldn't have deprived itself of the parliamentary toolbox in the face of a pandemic as vicious as the one we are currently experiencing.

Consequently, if we want answers to our questions and consider the suggestions from all the speakers who came here, the Prime Minister must absolutely come and see us to answer our questions. We of the Bloc Québecois support this motion and hope it's adopted.

(1240) [ English ]

The Chair :

Thank you for your input, Mr. Therrien. We know where you stand. Ms. Petitpas Taylor.

[ Translation ]

Hon. Ginette Petitpas Taylor :

Thank you very much, Madam Chair Mr. Therrien won't need to use the

interpretation service very much today since our conversation is mostly taking place in French. That will at least give them a break. As this meeting is public, I wanted to make a few preliminary remarks, since many Canadians are probably listening to us. On the weekend, I spoke to hundreds of citizens in my riding of Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe. I speak with them roughly once a month to see how they feel, particularly as a result of the pandemic.

It's a habit I acquired a few months ago, and I have to say the reception from citizens is still very positive; they know we're concerned for them and that we want to hear their concerns. They tell me they're very pleased that the various levels of government, and in many instances even the parties, have recently worked well together to manage the pandemic. That doesn't mean we always agree, but my fellow citizens tell me they expect us elected members to work closely together to establish good assistance programs. I'll be very honest with you.

Among the concerns my fellow citizens have mentioned, I have never heard anything about prorogation. I'm satisfied that it's nevertheless an important study that we must conduct and for which we've heard 12 witnesses. However, the priorities and concerns of the Canadians who are watching us focus on the measures their elected members will be taking to assist them during this global pandemic. In Canada, more than 800,000 Canadians have already been diagnosed with COVID-19. That's enormous. We've seen that we can work hard to establish programs.

I think Canadians want to see us continue working together in close collaboration in order to serve them well. The Standing Committee of Procedure and House Affairs is very important. I was fortunate to sit on it in the first year I was in Parliament and saw the truly essential work that can be done here. Once again, we've done a great deal of work on this question since the prorogation. I would say we're ready to make recommendations. The reason I say so is that I'm concerned that the opposition already has very fixed opinions. My colleague and friend Mr.

Lauzon—who, I have to say, is a good talker—has reported some quotations from people. I've also done a little research on opposition comments. I have here the comments by a member of Parliament for Vancouver Kingsway: (1245) [ English ]

For the record, as health critic for the NDP, I want to register my deep objection to the unnecessary and politically motivated prorogation, which was done transparently to cut off committee examination into various political scandals of the Liberal government, including the WE matter.

[ Translation ] Reading this kind of comment, you understand that this person has already made up his mind. I have a great deal of respect for my colleague Mr. Blaikie, the member for Elmwood—Transcona. Here's a comment that he made on January 28: [ English ]

I think it's pretty clear for a lot of us that the prerogative for prorogation was abused and was used to get the government out of a political crisis, which I don't think is the legitimate use of that.

[ Translation ] I'm afraid their minds are made up. They already have an opinion on the findings of this study. Consequently, I'm suspicious of their intention to invite other individuals to testify on the subject. However, I think it's genuinely important that we continue to work together. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has recently done an outstanding job and, I'm convinced, will continue to do so. I'll try not to take too much time, since several hands are raised.

However, as I was doing a little preparation for this committee, a number of thoughts came to mind that I think are relevant and should be heard by my colleagues on the committee and by all Canadians. First of all, I want my colleagues to reflect on the precedent they established in causing delays, by both summoning witnesses and calling for documents. I know that, when you're in opposition, you're always looking for creative ways to hold the government accountable, as it were.

For those watching us at home, yes, we all occasionally use parliamentary procedure or any other tool at our disposal to challenge the government. By the way, Madam Chair, I believe you were with me during the first year of this iteration of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. During one of the first meetings I attended, Mr. Christopherson, a member I greatly respect, spoke for two hours. As a new member, I really couldn't understand what was going on.

[ English ]

The Chair :

It was our first meeting.

[ Translation ]

Hon. Ginette Petitpas Taylor :

I was moved and somewhat traumatized, but I nevertheless understood that these are work tools that can be used. I have considerable esteem for Mr. Christopherson, and I very much miss his speeches in the House. Once again, we acknowledge that the opposition has these tools at its disposal. This is acceptable and has been the case since the advent of the Westminster parliamentary model. However, there are nevertheless limits on everything within our field of work. What is true, or at least what was true until 2020, is that a prime minister appears before a committee only in rare and exceptional circumstances.

We must remember that Prime Minister Trudeau appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance in August 2020 as a sign of openness and transparency and to answer relevant questions. He had previously spoken before the committee only a handful of times. We must realize that the Prime Minister testified before this committee for an hour and a half. He didn't just make a brief visit; he answered all questions from the members present. Consequently, I find the present debate on the subject of inviting the Prime Minister to our committee somewhat concerning.

I frankly believe that, if the opposition members really wanted the Prime Minister to discuss prorogation, there would be at least a minimum of relevance to their request. Not so long ago, we heard from the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons , and the purpose of that appearance was somewhat relevant. It was logical and related to the topic of the prorogation study. Mr. Rodriguez was with us for a good hour, if not more, on that occasion, and answered questions. We may not always agree on the answers he gave, but he was nevertheless honest and provided us with information.

He explained to the committee the government's reasoning on the prorogation on behalf of the Prime Minister and his cabinet. We have heard from the Prime Minister in the course of testimony on this subject, as we have on all other government policy matters currently before the committee. How many the times has the Prime Minister appeared before a committee on a matter pertaining to the activities of the House or to questions pertaining to the Privy Council Office? The answer is simple: based on my research, that has never happened. Let's put that on the table today.

Today, the opposition members want to summon the Prime Minister to come here and discuss the WE Charity affair. We all know that this is what they're trying to do, and we all know why they're doing it as part of this prorogation study. Its relevance is a problem. They've tried this in several other committees, slyly linking the WE Charity to all aspects of government operations and to the COVID-19 response. The Conservative Party attempted these theatrics when the committee went back on the road for the second session of the 43th Parliament.

It tried to bundle another committee study on the WE Charity scandal with the prorogation study. Our camp believed at the time that it was an inappropriate move, which it still is today. Now our colleagues opposite are going to continue trying to say that's not the case, but, once again, we have an idea of what the members of the various parties are saying. All we have to do is look at the list of witnesses they're calling and it becomes quite clear. The Prime Minister, Ms. Telford and Minister Chagger have all appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance.

Remember that, in the case of Minister Chagger and Ms. Telford, those witnesses didn't testify for a mere half-hour, hour or hour and a half, but for two full hours. They provided two hours of testimony and answered all questions, even though they were tough.

(1250) The theory advanced by our opposition colleagues has been dismissed and even rejected on numerous occasions. Mr. Poilievre tried it against the Prime Minister at one point, but it fell flat. Mr. Cooper tried to do the same to Ms. Telford, but it was even less successful. As we can see, the theory is an empty shell. The ridiculous theory that the Prime Minister and his family had a personal interest in the decision to hand responsibility for a federal program over to the WE Charity is absurd and has been rebutted.

The Standing Committee on Finance, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics and the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates have tried on many occasions to keep the WE Charity affair alive in the minds of Canadians and the media. However, no one believed what the Conservatives and their opposition allies proposed. Frankly, I must say that Canadians are more intelligent than that. They saw this political ploy for what it was and promptly moved on to something else. They wanted a proper government, focused on them, that could help them make it through the pandemic.

That's exactly what we have done. Who would've thought, one year ago, that we would be in this situation today? The past year has been incredible. Last March, when we left Ottawa, few of us knew what COVID-19 was. Now we know the vocabulary associated with it, and we use it regularly. Before the pandemic, who ever thought of physical distancing and rigorous hand-washing? Everything has changed. Canadians had expectations, and we have met them. We've implemented programs to help them, and we will continue to do so during and after the pandemic. I spoke to many of my fellow citizens last weekend.

What did they talk to me about? They talked about vaccinations—they want to make sure their parents and seniors get their vaccines—the financial assistance program that the government has established to help small and medium-size businesses, transportation and so on. Canadians simply want to be sure that their members and their government are there to help them and that they're working for them. That's precisely what we've done. If I may digress for a moment, Madam Chair, all the parties worked very well together in the initial months of the pandemic. We made adjustments to established programs.

They may not have been perfect at the outset, but, as a result of feedback from all members in the House, we made changes to introduce good programs that could help Canadians. That's precisely what Canadians expect from us. And yet, here we are again. Once again, we're facing what we hope is the last effort by a desperate opposition that's now trying to keep this baseless story alive. Let me be clear, Madam Chair: the motion we are debating today is nothing more than a political ploy designed to destroy the last vestiges of decorum.

The Conservatives and other opposition parties have done what certain other politicians do: they are prepared to disconnect completely from reality and to say whatever it takes to achieve their goal. To my mind, their only goal is power. Today, my colleagues on the other side of the table have contended that we needed to hear the persons cited earlier in order to determine what led to the decision to prorogue Parliament in August 2020. That was said on several occasions, but, for the benefit of the members of the committee, I won't repeat it.

The international pandemic struck our country in March 2020 and continues to ravage our population. The throne speech of December 2019 was simply no longer relevant at all as a result of that pandemic.

(1255) Throughout the first wave, the government worked relentlessly to ensure Canadians had the support they needed. Many of us thought the first wave was behind us and everything would be fine, but the second wave, which was even worse, hit us hard. In August 2020, with restrictions relaxed and the country returned to some degree of normalcy, the government took stock of the situation and realized that the established roadmap did not take into consideration the most relevant factor: the global pandemic.

Consequently, a reset was needed to ensure the government as a whole was prepared to face the imminent second wave and to restart the economy. Prorogation was thus a parliamentary tool that the government could use to wipe the slate clean, as it were, and to recentre the government's agenda. No one, not even my cynical colleagues on the other side, can contend that the previous throne speech was still relevant and that a new plan was unnecessary.

[ English ]

Mr. Daniel Blaikie :

On a quick point of order, Madam Chair, I'm just looking for a little bit of clarification on what happens. I know we're approaching the end of the scheduled meeting time. Am I right that we will be taking this up at the next meeting?

(1300) The Chair :

For Thursday's meeting, we have nothing on the agenda, so I would be in favour of putting committee business back on the agenda. Right now, if we have consensus, we can adjourn today's meeting and pick back up with the same speakers list for Thursday's meeting. However, if we don't have consensus, then.... It's really up to you guys. I'm waiting for signalling from you.

Mr. Daniel Blaikie :

I'm sorry, Madam Chair. If we're looking for consensus on that, my thought would be that consensus would include continuing this in a public session as we have done today.

The Chair :

That's correct. I see no reason to change how we're having the meeting. We would just carry on. I will adjourn if there is consensus to adjourn. Is there consensus to adjourn today's meeting?

Mrs. Karen Vecchio :

There is not at this time. No.

The Chair :

We will carry on with Ms. Petitpas Taylor.

[ Translation ]

Hon. Ginette Petitpas Taylor :

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I don't know exactly where my opposition colleagues are headed with this motion. They want to bring in witnesses to give us the same testimony they've already presented elsewhere, and which could simply be consulted by reading the proceedings. If that's not a political sideshow, I don't know what is. The truth is that the opposition members have already come to a decision on issues related to prorogation and the WE Charity affair. We've repeatedly given them evidence against their theory, but they continue to look for ways of getting people to believe their storyline.

Unfortunately, I have some bad news for my opposition colleagues. The fact is that the public does not believe that Her Majesty's loyal opposition is investigating this issue for the public good. Canadians know that the purpose of this motion is to promote the political interests of the Conservative Party and the other opposition parties. Why bother to have these witnesses appear if the opposition has already decided what their evidence demonstrates? The evidence the committee has heard on this matter has been clear.

Public servants, politicians and constitutionalists are all agreed: the power to prorogue Parliament belongs solely to the Prime Minister. It's a political decision, and there's nothing wrong with that. Governments are elected because of their political leanings, and even their programs are inherently political. It's therefore only logical that the reboot of the government agenda should be a political decision, and that's precisely what the Prime Minister did.

Our constitutional conventions assign the power to prorogue Parliament to the Governor General, who exercises this power on the advice of the Prime Minister. Just as calling elections or choosing ministers are by their very nature political and wholly—

[ English ]

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

Madam Chair, I have a point of order. I apologize for interrupting. However, I would just point out to my colleague Ginette that I believe, although I'm not certain of this but if I'm reading the tea leaves correctly, if she or any one of her colleagues who have the floor would move for adjournment, she would probably find that a vote to adjourn would be carried. That's just my opinion, and of course, I do not have the floor, so I'll let her make her best judgment call on that one.

The Chair :

You must have great intuition. I know you were a former chair of this committee as well. Thank you. Ms. Petitpas Taylor, the floor is yours.

Hon. Ginette Petitpas Taylor :

Madam Chair, my only question is that, if that is the case, I certainly want to make sure I will still have the floor at the next meeting.

The Chair :

Yes. If a member were to move to adjourn, what I could do is commit to putting committee business back on the

schedule for Thursday and carrying forward with our current speakers list—

Mr. Daniel Blaikie :

Madam Chair, if I could....

(1305) The Chair :

—so that this particular motion would be back on the floor.

Mr. Stéphane Lauzon :

Madam Chair, I have a point of order.

The Chair :

I think Mr. Blaikie was first. Go ahead, Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Daniel Blaikie :

It's just to say, if we're on a point of order, I think what's happening here is a little awkward. If members aren't prepared to come to some kind of agreement as a committee to adjourn the meeting, then I don't know who's going to vote for adjournment.

Either the committee should get to the point where we agree that we're coming back to this the next day, in which case there is no point in carrying on, if we can do that as a committee by consensus, or if there are members who think we should continue to sit around the table when we have a scheduled time to deal with this next time, I guess we'll continue to sit around the table. We're all mature adults here, and we have a next scheduled meeting. There seems to be, from a number of sides now in the meeting, a desire to adjourn.

We should just agree on that, rather than having a non-debatable motion where a vote is going to be forced and I think members might be surprised by the outcome. They might not get the adjournment they're expecting.

The Chair :

The last time I posed this question, we didn't have consensus, because at least one vocal member did not provide consensus. I don't know if there were maybe non-vocal members who felt the same way. The only way we could move forward is that I could ask again whether we have consensus—

Mr. Stéphane Lauzon :

I have a point of order.

The Chair :

—or somebody could move the motion. I'm willing to ask again whether we have consensus so that it is clear. Do we have consensus to adjourn today's meeting and resume on Thursday? I'm seeing nodding in the negative from Madame Normandin, so it does not seem we have consensus.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Stéphane Lauzon :

Madam Chair, I would like to intervene and move the following motion.

That the committee now be adjourned.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Mr. Clerk, if you could help us with a vote on that?

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

Madam Chair, on a point of order, you can't make a motion on a point of order.

Mr. Stéphane Lauzon :

You'll have to check the record. I didn't say “a point of order”. I only said, “Madam Chair, can I propose a motion?”

Mr. John Nater :

Which he cannot do—

Mr. Stéphane Lauzon :

Check the record. The first time it was a point of order, and the second time it was “Madam Chair”.

The Chair :

Just one moment, please.... Mr. Nater, you are correct. The floor goes back to Ms. Petitpas Taylor and we can resume.

Hon. Ginette Petitpas Taylor :

Madam Chair, I just wonder if it's possible for me perhaps to move to adjourn.

The Chair :

Yes, it is.

Hon. Ginette Petitpas Taylor :

I will move the motion for adjournment.

The Chair :

All right. We will take a vote, and Mr. Vaive will help us with that. (Motion negatived: 6 nays; 5 yeas)

The Chair: Okay. Mr. Lukiwski, I guess your intuition wasn't that good.

Mr. Tom Lukiwski :

Apparently it was not.

The Chair :

Perhaps it was not even good enough to know what your next move was. Ms. Petitpas Taylor, you have the floor. You may resume.

[ Translation ]

Hon. Ginette Petitpas Taylor :

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll be happy to continue with my thoughts on this subject. In accordance with our constitutional conventions, the power to prorogue Parliament rests with the Governor General, who, let us be clear on this, exercises this power on the advice of the Prime Minister. Similarly, the calling of elections and the selection of ministers are political actions left entirely to the discretion of the Prime Minister. There is nothing wrong or inappropriate about it, and I'm convinced that the Conservatives agree on this point, at least when they are in power.

Furthermore, opposition members may continue to draw conclusions about the amount of time that has gone by between prorogation and the Speech from the Throne, or twist things around in the hope of making things match their version of the facts. They have maintained that in the past, there was only a day or two between prorogation and the subsequent throne speech. And yet, they know very well that it isn't true. Let's not forget that the previous Conservative government prorogued Parliament and stopped working not only for a few days, but for weeks.

At the time, the Conservatives gave as a rationale for their actions the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the 2008 economic crisis. In many respects, the situation in which we found ourselves at the end of the 2020 year was much worse than the one faced by the Conservatives in 2008. The government had to deal concurrently with an incredibly widespread international pandemic and huge economic problems. No one here could have anticipated what happened over the past year. It was not the time to produce a roadmap to set a course for our government.

Instead, we took the time to conduct consultations to ensure that we would be able to take the right approach on behalf of all Canadians. The welfare of Canadians was this government's top priority throughout its term, particularly during this unprecedented pandemic. Unlike our opposition colleagues, we have not been wasting our time attempting to score easy political points. Over the weekend, I had the opportunity to speak to my fellow citizens, and they are well aware that as members of Parliament and as a government, we have worked tirelessly to help them and will continue to be there for them.

It's perfectly clear that the appearance of witnesses being requested by some members of Parliament is not necessary. The Prime Minister , Ms. Telford and Minister Chagger have already testified in connection with this file. The clerk could easily request their testimony from the Standing Committee on Finance. As for Minister Freeland , frankly, I wonder why she's on this list at all, because she has nothing to do with the prorogation debate.

Although she performs a key and important function in government management, she's not the Prime Minister and therefore has no role to play in the decision to prorogue Parliament. What Canadians need in the future is for parliamentarians to focus on the task in hand. The economic recovery to come will be the greatest since the Second World War. Canadians don't have time for political gamesmanship. I'd like to reiterate what my fellow citizens told me repeatedly over the weekend: they want us to work together and they want us to be there to help them.

My colleagues said that they were prepared to join us in putting together a team Canada that could rebuild our economy after the pandemic. We are therefore prepared to lend a hand and to ask them to join us so that the we can work together on it. Canadians expect us to do that for them. This isn't the moment for a political offensive on the WE Charity. This whole matter was investigated in depth and put on the back burner. It's now time to focus on the welfare of Canadians.

Once again, as I said before, I had the opportunity to speak to a hundred or so of my fellow citizens last weekend and no one mentioned the WE Charity. What they really wanted from us was for us to put all of our energy into the economic recovery and for us to continue to give them the assistance they need to manage this pandemic. Of course, vaccination is central to these efforts.

(1310) I'm asking my colleagues on the other side of the table to withdraw this motion and join us to work on behalf of all Canadians. Madam Chair, I'll stop there, because I can see that several hands have been raised. I still have a lot to say, but I can wait until the next round.

(1315) [ English ]

The Chair :

Monsieur Lauzon.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Stéphane Lauzon :

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Your comments were very apt, Ms. Petitpas Taylor. You were emphatic about not requiring an appearance by the Prime Minister , and the need to simply get on with it. I'd also like to remind everyone of the importance of the subject under discussion here, which is prorogation. That's the main reason for our meeting today. We need to produce a report that might possibly suggest changes that would improve the prorogation process. Having said that, the Prime Minister has spoken clearly to the people. He explained his position on the prorogation of Parliament and the resumption of parliamentary work.

[ English ]

Mrs. Karen Vecchio :

I have a point of order, Madam Chair. I'm just recognizing how much we're going to be going over time. With all the fear, I know there's been a lot of confusion and concern about

interpretation. I want to make sure that reinforcements are available. We don't want any problems involving the health and safety of all of our interpreters. Could we make sure that everybody's available or see how we're going to go around the logistics of this issue?

The Chair :

Yes, we're working on that on the back end. We just had a vote. It seems like the will of the committee is to move on, so we'll be doing that work on the back end to make sure that the will of the members can be carried on. I think, however, that we may not have backup after two o'clock. I'm trying to figure that out, but I will give the floor back to Mr. Lauzon. Thank you for bringing that point up, Ms. Vecchio.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Stéphane Lauzon :

Ms. Vecchio, It is indeed important for our support staff, and in particular the interpreters, to be able to meet our needs and remain healthy. That, moreover, is one of the reasons why we introduced a motion for us to continue the discussion at the next meeting. Unfortunately, a partisan motion was introduced which prevents us from ending our meeting today and forces us to continue to explain why this motion should be withdrawn. It's very unusual in Canadian history for a prime minister to come and give evidence. We know the intent underlying such a request.

Indeed, the opposition's game plan was established even before we had these committee discussions. That's what I've understood in light of what I've heard in the House and during the evidence given by those invited at the suggestion of all parties. The claim was that a solution had been found even before discussions began on this committee. So the reasons why this request to have the Prime Minister appear remain nebulous. We received many documents and I have read all the testimony as of the month of December, including that given by Dr.

David Williams, the Chief Medical Officer of Health for the Ontario Ministry of Health. On December 10, he told us that intensive care units had reached their capacity. This was in December, when you began to receive witnesses. The hospitals were already seriously tested at the time. There was already a shortage of beds in intensive care. Today, the situation is different. It's important to understand that prorogation allowed us to take stock. There is more than just the health system. We haven't yet spoken about how the crisis has affected tourism or rural companies like the ones in my riding.

A riding like mine, which has 41 municipalities, depends on micro-enterprises. Most employers there have one or two employees. Sometimes, the owner is the only employee. It was therefore extremely important to request a prorogation, to size things up and to find an approach that could provide assistance to ridings like mine. In Ontario, Quebec and other provinces, the system has become very vulnerable. People are exhausted, fed up with COVID-19, and want to move on to something else.

Our understanding of this request is that they want to pour fuel on the fire and generate more debate so that the Prime Minister or anyone else invited further to this motion would provide testimony that would be included in the proceedings. We already know what this evidence would say, because the government has already addressed the people through a Speech from the Throne, an economic statement and public meetings. The Prime Minister has spoken almost every day to keep Canadians informed.

How do you go about keeping everyone informed about a federal system that has been seriously affected by a crisis that a country like ours has never experienced before? It's the worst event to have ever happened, with the exception of the world wars. Try to understand why a prorogation is important in such instances. It's not the right time to talk about the ideal moment to request prorogation, the best way to proceed, or the ideal length of the interval between a prorogation and the resumption of work. These six weeks were extremely important to take stock of the whole situation and make a forceful return.

During that period, there were discussions within the government and public servants worked tirelessly.

(1320) A government's organizational systems and programs are not designed to manage a pandemic. They are used to implement government decisions, which always have an impact on the public service. May I remind you of the Phoenix pay system, whose failures completely short-circuited the workings of the government apparatus. Decisions made during the pandemic, including the decision to prorogue Parliament, placed an increased burden of work on the public service, particularly with respect to managing the required portfolios.

When a $300 billion deficit is reported, that's how much money was spent on administering them. The money, from government coffers, is being used to help people, and our fellow citizens in the various ridings. Our public servants manage these funds directly. Ms. Vecchio raised an important point earlier. She emphasized that it was important to take care of our employees and interpreters. The same goes for all public service employees, who are having to deal with an added workload within the federal government machinery.

This pandemic is a life lesson both administratively and politically, one that we must, together, put to good use in moving forward. Nothing good would come from this motion. It doesn't help us advance, and it could frighten Canadians. We need to write a report, for one thing, but we also need to work on courses of action to improve the system. Being able to sit on the Standing Committee on Procedures and House Affairs is a godsend. It gives me the opportunity to help improve House and electoral procedures so that we can move forward within a modern system.

We have developed modern tools, including an electronic voting application. It's going to change the world of politics. We're in step with the latest methods that will enable us to change, and to adapt to today's technology. Proroguing a government like ours is a decision that will pay off. The Prime Minister requested the prorogation of Parliament with a view to making it better than it was before. In life, it's important not to be afraid of taking one step back to move two steps forward. In the course of my career, I've acquired positive values.

Ambiguous situations frequently came up, and decisions were difficult to make. I've learned that taking a step back can allow you to see more clearly. I'm particularly fond of an English expression that expresses that idea well. (1325) [ English ] We have to look at the big picture. [ Translation ] Stepping back provides an overview that makes you better prepared to move forward. Our Prime Minister reassured Canadians when he mentioned the need to change the data tied to certain programs, and that had to be adjusted over time.

I am thinking in particular of the Canada Emergency Response Benefit and the controversial Canada Emergency Student Benefit. Allow me to give you another example. Before prorogation, there was a problem in my riding for companies that operate ferryboats. Four ferries were going back and forth between Ontario and Quebec. There were no provisions in the existing programs that could help companies like these, which operated seasonally. It was impossible for them to come up with numbers for the previous year, because on the specified dates for that year, they had been unable to operate because of floods.

What happened in my riding was unprecedented. Who could have predicted that another flood would occur on the same date of the following year, during the pandemic? To receive assistance, a company had to demonstrate what their net revenue had been during this period. The companies in my riding provided essential services because it was the only way to cross the river between Ontario and Quebec. As there is no bridge in my rural riding, people depended on the ferryboats. People have no idea of the challenges faced by the ferries in my riding during the pandemic.

We were able to deal with the situation, and not because I'm a member of the same party as Justin Trudeau. During the pandemic, I was in the same grey area as all members of Parliament. In the House, I heard some of my colleagues talking about specific cases. We all vehemently defended a number of these. In the House, when members reported a situation in their ridings, the minister would tell them to send the matter to his department and they would look into what could be done. He did not want to proceed on a case-by-case basis in the House.

There was often no real solution, and there was no perfect recipe for dealing with these matters. To move forward, a government must sometimes take a step back. I've heard that there was only one reason for the prorogation, and that it wasn't the pandemic. I'm sorry, but if that's what people are thinking, then this motion is inappropriate here. My way of thinking agrees with what Canadians think. We're not here to frighten people, but to help them and give them grants, as we did for seniors. We made decisions. During the pandemic, we helped elderly couples because they had financial needs.

They had to pay more to have their groceries delivered, for their prescription drugs, and all kinds of other things. The government provided $1,500 for elderly couples. That's very important. We were there for seniors and everyone else. I find it very disappointing to hear what my colleagues are saying, when what was needed was perspective. I even asked a witness what he thought would have been the ideal time to prorogue Parliament, and how come he thought that the prorogation should have lasted two days in August and that that would have been enough. I agree that we need to consult specialists.

However specialists are not members of Parliament who work in the field and who meet their fellow citizens; they're not public servants who have to work on the recovery or on rebooting the government; they're not ministers who meet every evening in order to be able to make the best possible decisions. The Prime Minister and his ministers redoubled their efforts and worked long hours to take care of citizens. They worked relentlessly to make the best possible decisions. And yet, here we are being told that the solution was simple. We're being told that prorogation could have occurred earlier.

My colleagues and I don't have a crystal ball. We therefore can't know what's going on in every riding. We can't put ourselves in the shoes of the seniors in long-term care centres. In Ontario and Quebec, we had to send the military and the Red Cross to these centres. Doctors, nurses and armed forces client care attendants came to support the system, because it was failing during the pandemic.

(1330) The Canadian health system couldn't cope with the suffering caused by COVID-19. Now I'm being told that these aren't good reasons to prorogue Parliament. My fellow citizens are more important than the underlying reasons for such claims, and in a situation like this, they need to be the priority. We need to move ahead and finalize the report. As a new member of the committee, I want to make a contribution. I'm not yet familiar with all of the procedures, but there are a few points that make me sorry for not having been here before.

I would have liked to do more to defend certain subjects as a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs by proposing solutions, studies or adjustments that could be made to the studies in progress. I promise to be here for what comes next. Right now, it's important not to send a negative message to the people. We don't need it. What people in need is reassurance. We need to show solidarity among all government parties and to encourage collaborative decisions.

This week, I feel obliged to defend seniors, in Canada and Quebec, because of the false allegations made by the leader of the Bloc Québécois. How can you get things moving in the right places when the leader of the Bloc Québécois is giving seniors false information to frighten them? Today, this prorogation—

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ) :

Madam Chair, I have a point of order.

(1335) [ English ]

The Chair :

Go ahead with the point of order.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Christine Normandin :

I can understand that things can get heated sometimes in our debates, but isn't it unparliamentary to accuse the leader of the Bloc Québécois of lying ?

Mr. Stéphane Lauzon :

Madam Chair, I said that the leader of the Bloc Québécois had not told the truth, which is true. The information he sent to seniors was false, and we need to call it out. I take full responsibility, Madam Chair.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Okay, Mr. Lauzon. Go ahead.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Stéphane Lauzon :

In any event, it's important to reframe the prorogation debate. It's important to make decisions and to work together. That's the message I want to send today. Why make the Prime Minister come here, and pour fuel on the fire. Continuing to call for the presence of the Prime Minister, which is something that happens only in exceptional circumstances, when we already have everything we need to make decisions and produce a report, strikes me as pointless. According to Dr. David Williams, Ontario is in agreement with our committee. He is a witness, and I will therefore quote his sentence:

...the administration of an election should be executed without creating further barriers to voting, especially in consideration of providing every individual who is legally able to vote with the opportunity to vote, regardless of accessibility needs.

There is an important point in what he said afterwards:

That means using assistive voting technology and other types of assistance at the voting location...

It's important for us to keep up with what's happening, and we need to discuss it in this committee. We could bring a motion simply on the basis of Dr David Williams' December 10 evidence. He believes that technology could play an extremely important role. Think about the challenges to be met and the problems to be dealt with in a riding like mine, where barely 40% of the population has access to high-speed Internet, and where people have to drive for an hour to get to the nearest polling station.

We need only think of elderly people or those with decreasing independence who need transportation assistance when there is none in rural areas. They need a friend or family member to help out. There are also those who live alone. We need to debate the procedure and some factors that are extremely important for the future of this committee, not to mention the fact that we have a long list of other subjects to discuss. For all these reasons, I sincerely believe that we should reject this motion and concentrate on writing the report.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Lauzon. Mr. Turnbull.

Mr. Ryan Turnbull :

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate this. I really appreciate the comments and sentiments of my colleagues. I substantially share them. I feel that the message from Mr. Lauzon about working together is really key for us to keep in mind here. From my perspective, this feels like there's partisanship, a desire to win political points and assume what the conclusion will be of this study. I've done a bit of reading on this.

Just looking back at some of the questions and testimony by members on this committee and other members of other parties in the House, it's obvious to me that quite a lot of comments have been made that assume this study's conclusion. I would say this. What is the point of doing a study if we don't bring real, clear, honest, good-faith intentions in undertaking the study to get to a conclusion? If it's a foregone conclusion, then it seems like it's done for other purposes, and I call that into question. I just don't know.

I would like to say, for the record, that this committee has heard from senior officials from the Privy Council's Office about the norms and conventions regarding prorogation. Their testimony has reconfirmed for us what we've heard from multiple witnesses, namely, that prorogation is within the prerogative of the Governor General at the advice of the prime minister. This has been consistent. We've heard this over and over again. Our government obviously believes, and has maintained all along, that we are being upfront with Canadians and explaining our decisions.

This has not been the standard practice in the past. Conservative governments have made no attempt, as far as I can tell based on my research, to explain why they prorogued in the past. Stephen Harper prorogued, I think, four times. I calculated that Parliament was prorogued for something like 181 days in his time as prime minister. Some of those moments were quite controversial. Certainly, I'm sure the opposition benches were rightly skeptical about some of those, and I think that's fine.

In particular, in 2017, as members know, our government instituted a change that requires all governments going forward to table a report in the House of Commons explaining the reasons for prorogation. We have that report. This is a major improvement from the past, and I don't really hear anyone acknowledging that. Here we are in a pandemic and the government prorogued. I think there was a real rational basis for that based on the massive, full-court press approach that we all took collaboratively, and I think quite successfully, in the early stages of the pandemic and through the first wave.

Here we are, and the government has provided a detailed rationale. Instead of looking at the merits of that report, we're calling it into question. If there was a good-faith attempt at doing that, then I could see myself being very supportive. I think we have been very collaborative, in the sense that when the opposition parties wanted to dig further into this and do a study, we were very willing to undertake that. At this point, I feel like we've exhausted that study. We had witnesses who came forward—12 of them, in fact. We heard some substantial evidence.

Perhaps that doesn't fit with what the opposition members want to try to prove, which they have no evidence for, which is something that is, really, from what I see, just being assumed. Of course, committees have the ability to study certain matters. I know that PROC previously studied the prorogations of former governments.

(1340) Madam Chair, my concern is this. We've already heard loud and clear from opposition members and members of all parties on what they view to be the reasons behind prorogation. They've been clear on what they perceive the reasons to be, so I'm not sure what the purpose is of moving forward. We can belabour this, and keep studying and studying and studying, but there is so much other important business that we could be doing. I believe in the role of opposition parties and the constructive relationship we can have in a minority Parliament. I really believe that this working together is extremely important.

I'm just finding it hard to believe that there are good intentions here. There seems to be a presupposition of the con