Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Feb. 16th, 2021

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Thank you for your question, Mr. Blaikie, and thank you for the work of your party during this crisis, because we were able—as I said to Monsieur Therrien and Monsieur Deltell—to work together to help Canadians. That includes all of you.

We needed to send a clear message that the government was fully concentrating all its efforts on this—a clear message to the population and a clear message to all the public servants. We needed that reset so we could focus and consult. There's been a lot of consultation. That takes time. It doesn't take three days—

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Indeed it does, but what is the work that your government did not perform that it otherwise would have done if there had been no prorogation? What you're telling me is that prorogation let you off the hook for certain kinds of work in order to focus on the Speech from the Throne. What work was it that you weren't doing as a result of prorogation that gave you so much more time, which you're telling us was needed, to get the Speech from the Throne right? What were you not doing during prorogation that you would have been doing if the House had been sitting?

Incidentally, it was only supposed to sit for one day out of the entire period it was prorogued. Was it just during that sitting day that you guys were working on the Speech from the Throne and you really needed the time, or were there other days you weren't doing things that you would have been doing otherwise?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Blaikie, you know that a Speech from the Throne takes time. It takes time because you're not there sitting by yourself in a room drafting a few notes here and there. You have to consult. You go out and you consult. There are people are on the ground, experts from the business sector, from the social sectors, from everywhere, and this is what we did.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

During the pandemic response, while Parliament was sitting, you weren't consulting with people.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

We were.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

You're telling me you only had time to consult if Parliament was prorogued, and that civic consultation and Parliament sitting are incompatible for your government. Do I have that right?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

It amplifies the efforts. It puts a focus on what we're doing. It sends a clear message to public servants and to all of us, to everyone, that we're really concentrating on this. Through all the discussions also with the provinces.... There's no recipe to manage a crisis, Mr. Blaikie. You know that. When we got here, who knew about COVID-19? No one.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

In what ways was Parliament distracting you from consulting with civil society on the direction that we should be taking? What was the burden you were relieved of in order to be able to focus more on consulting with Canadians, which apparently you hadn't been doing much of prior to prorogation, at least not effectively, which is why you needed the time off from Parliament, if I understand you correctly?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

I wouldn't call it a distraction because the work that Parliament and committees do, and you guys in the opposition do, is fundamental. What we wanted—

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Could we not have continued doing that work while your government consulted?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

We did everything we could.

Listen, we've been going out for months, sitting down with the opposition, putting pieces here and there. I think we needed a clearer vision, something more broad, something that was based on consultation and very, very clear. We needed a path to follow because, again, none of us is an expert in managing a crisis the size of this pandemic.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Did it make sense to take that time while there was a looming deadline for the expiration of CERB and millions of Canadians were wondering what was going to happen to their household incomes and looking to Parliament to be hammering out a solution, and instead saw that the work of Parliament had stopped in that regard? I mean, couldn't the timing of this have been different?

If your government really felt the need to have an expression of confidence by the House, a Speech from the Throne is not the only tool to do that. The opposition had been calling for a budget for some time by then. Also, there's the option for your government at any time to introduce a motion to the effect of whether or not the House has confidence in the government. You don't need a Speech from the Throne to do it. You don't need a budget to do it. A simple motion would have been good enough. It would have allowed the work of Parliament to continue through the weeks between August 18 and when Parliament went back.

Why not choose those options? Why not test the confidence of the House with a simple motion and then wait for the consultative effort until after we had done right by Canadians and made it clear what would happen on the day that the CERB program expired, instead of leaving it until the eleventh hour, which caused a lot of unneeded stress and anxiety for many Canadian families in very difficult positions.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Blaikie, getting the confidence of the House on this broad, very detailed program sent a clearer message, and I think that was necessary. It was definitely the right thing to do.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

I just have to disagree that the Speech from the Throne provided a detailed program. Most of it was a rehash of things we'd heard before.

The details Canadians were really interested in were the details of what happened with the WE charity scandal, particularly students—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Mr. Blaikie. That's all the time you have.

Mr. Nater, you have five minutes.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Minister, for joining us.

I'm curious. Did the government or the Liberal Party undertake any public opinion research informing the decision to prorogue—polling, focus groups, anything of that nature?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

I could not tell you that. I can tell you that there were clear indications that we really had to focus and reset to make sure that we could build this very comprehensive and detailed plan to move forward, which would then also, as I said to Mr. Blaikie, get the confidence of the House to move forward.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Would you be able to undertake to go back to PCO, or to the Liberal Party, and confirm whether or not there was research undertaken, public opinion research? If so, could you share that with our committee?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

You can ask the chair. You can make decisions. You're a committee so.... I've been sitting on committees and your work is super important. I'm not preventing you from doing that. I'm here to answer your questions.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

On what date did you become aware that the House would be prorogued?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

The exact date I don't know.

We had discussions about the second wave that was coming and, at a certain point in time, it was not about whether we would have a second wave anymore. It was about how hard it was going to hit us and how all our energy had to be focused on that second wave, preventing it as much as possible but also attacking it and fighting it.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

You don't have an exact date, but was it a couple of days before, a couple of weeks before? When did those conversations start?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

I don't know. Honestly, I don't know. Those are discussions that go back and forth, but the main discussion was on how we would focus on this and how we would send a clear message to the public servants, to the population and to the provinces that we really had to focus our efforts on fighting this huge tragedy, the huge crisis that is COVID-19.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you, Minister.

I often go off-script myself. I don't always read things word for word, but I noticed a small change in your speaking notes. When you spoke today you said the “one reason” we prorogued was to come back to the House with a new plan. It doesn't say that in your speaking notes.

Can you confirm that the one and only reason for proroguing was to come back to the House...?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

I changed it this morning when I woke up. We do that all the time, right? We change our notes.

For me it was clear, so I just wanted to make it clear. There's never been a doubt in my mind that was the reason. COVID-19 is a big enough reason for that.