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

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

I haven't had a good answer yet, so I continue to give you opportunities to impress.

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

I'm sorry if you don't like my answer. I am doing my best—

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

You continue to disappoint.

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

—to give you a good answer, but the thing is that we needed that plan and I said it in both languages before. We went as far as we could. We did everything we could to try to manage this crisis, project by project, bill by bill, this and that. We needed a master frame that would lead us to fight the second wave, and this is what we did, and it was—

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

What I am saying is that you had a duty to prepare that plan, if you really felt that was what was needed, while engaging with parliamentarians on the question of how to replace CERB, so it wasn't done at the last minute, as it ultimately was.

There have been issues with some of the programs that were designed and agreed to there, which we might have been able to foresee and prevent had we had parliamentary time to study them.

You had a duty to prepare that framework even while answering important questions about how you guys really let down a lot of students in the summer because you didn't give them access to CERB. You gave them access to a reduced emergency benefit on the pretense that there was going to be a job program for them that never came to be, because people were playing footsie under the table with folks at WE Charity. It was students who bore the real price of that because they didn't get the job program that was promised to them, to make up for the fact that they didn't get the same income replacement they would have had on CERB.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Mr. Blaikie.

Next we have Mr. Lukiwski, for five minutes, please.

Mr. Lukiwski.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

Minister, it's good to see you again. You and I go back a long way.

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

Yes, we do.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

We were both elected in 2004. We've been here ever since, except you took a four-year hiatus in 2011, but it's good to see you back here again.

I'm going to speak very honestly and candidly with you, Minister, and I hope you reciprocate.

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 and that was to shut down committees that were investigating the WE Charity scandal. That was the singular reason for doing so. Every academic who has come before this committee—and we have had several—admits that was the reason. They all agree to that. They all agree, in addition, that prorogation was not necessary. If it had been the case that prorogation was necessary, it could have been called much later, even literally days before Parliament resumed.

The prorogation excuse that you are offering, Minister, is weak. I know most Canadians who are paying any attention to this understand that fundamentally. One of our academics went so far as to say that the Prime Minister's decision to prorogue Parliament was an abuse of power. I agree with that as well. Prorogation is a tool. The Prime Minister chose to use it and that was his decision, that was his prerogative.

I want to go back to what Mr. Nater, my colleague, was saying about the extension of prorogation and one of the ancillary effects of prorogation and that is the impact it had upon committees. Because, since your Parliament shut down committees through prorogation, it took it one step further when Parliament and committees were reconstituted in mid-September. That is, Liberals on both the ethics and finance committees started filibustering.

You have stated, Minister, on the record before this committee that it was independent of any decisions from your office, the whip's office or the PMO that parliamentarians on those committees made those decisions.

I've been around a long time. I've filibustered on many occasions and you know that. You were on the same committee as me when I went on for about eight and a half hours and you know—

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

You filibustered my bill.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

You know as well as I do, Minister, that filibustering doesn't just occur when committee members wake up one morning and say, “Hey, you know something, let's filibuster today.” They are instructed to do so. There are consultations, there are meetings between the whip's office and committee members, they are given a game plan and they follow it.

Minister, I don't expect you to admit that you or the whip's office instructed parliamentarians to filibuster, but can you at least show some modicum of honesty and tell us exactly what discussions were held between committee members, your office, the whip's office and the PMO, prior to the filibustering of those two committees?

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

Hello, Mr. Lukiwski. It's good to see you, by the way.

You did filibuster a lot of the time. If you remember, you filibustered my bill. I had a private member's bill on Kyoto and you did speak, I think, for two hours during that meeting. You were pretty good at it.

That being said, of course, you will not be surprised that I disagree with your comments, because you see it one way and I see it the other way. I'm part of the government—

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

It's a simple question, and you are compelled, Minister—and I know you know and I don't have to lecture you on this—to speak the truth at committees, particularly in your role as a minister.

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

Of course.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Are you saying for the record that there was no influence, no direction given, no suggestions given from anyone in your office, the whip's office or the PMO to committee members to engage in filibustering? Are you saying that on the record, sir?

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

Mr. Lukiwski, you know very well that committees are independent. You sat on committees for years. I sat on committees for years. They're independent. Again, if I may, you have said a lot of things, but I'll be short: There's no recipe to manage a pandemic. We're doing our best. You're doing your best. All of us, we're doing our best. We went as far as we could by adopting bills here and there, and we needed that master plan—

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

You didn't answer my question about filibustering and whether there was any direction given to committee members to filibuster. Were the instructions given by someone, in your office or the whip's office or the PMO, to committee members to engage in filibusters of the ethics and the finance committees, yes or no?

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

Again, it's the same question, Mr. Lukiwski. Committees are independent. We have very smart people on all sides sitting on these committees and they know what they have to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Minister.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

If you honestly think that's the truth, Minister, I feel very sorry for you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you.

Next we have Ms. Petitpas Taylor. Then we'll say goodbye to the minister and we'll have the officials on for the remainder of the meeting.

Ms. Petitpas Taylor, you have five minutes.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

Before I ask a few questions, I just want to, for the record, indicate that we also had some academics who appeared before committee. Some of them indicated that they approved. They felt that it was very appropriate that we used prorogation, that it was at an appropriate time and that it was called for, specifically when we are dealing with a global pandemic and that pandemic is not just a public health crisis but touches all parts of our society. I just wanted to make sure that was clear on the record.

Mr. Minister, thank you so much for being with us today. It's always a pleasure to see you.

I'm going to have a few basic questions to ask you, questions that perhaps we as parliamentarians believe are basic but for Canadians who are watching PROC.... I'm sure there are many people out there watching this committee work today, and I thought it would be good for the record for people to understand the language that we use. I bring this up because in August, September and even October, I met with my youth council members in Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, and I took it for granted that they knew what prorogation was all about, the purpose of it and even throne speeches. Then my staff person kind of winked at me and said, “Ginette, perhaps you could explain to people the purpose of prorogation, and the steps that are taken when that occurs.”

First and foremost, could you just explain to Canadians the purpose of prorogation? What does prorogation mean? What steps are taken when proroguing Parliament?

Those are my three questions, and I'll give you my remaining time to answer.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Petitpas Taylor, and thank you for all the work you do, especially with the caucus. It's really appreciated, especially during this tough time. I know it's difficult for all of us, all caucus members and all different parties. I want to thank you for what you and all our colleagues have done.

Basically, when you prorogue Parliament, it's temporarily dissolved. It's been used in the past. We think that it's an important tool, but you have to explain why it is used. That's not what was done in the past. Mr. Lukiwski was there when Mr. Harper prorogued twice, and he prorogued for weeks and there was no reason. I think it would have been important for Parliament at that moment to have received this type of explanation.

That is why we included the following in our 2015 platform. Any government using prorogation must table a report in the House of Commons, which I did on the government's behalf. That report is directly passed on to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, as in this case, and the government must explain why it wants the prorogation. That is what I am doing today before you on the government's behalf.

It is extremely important for us to have added that layer of transparency, which I would refer to as a strengthening of democracy, as it may occasionally be necessary to prorogue Parliament. This has been seen in many governments, no matter what party was in power. What is just as important, Ms. Petitpas Taylor, is that the House receive the report and understand why it is necessary for the government to proceed in this way.

I am appearing before you today to explain that this prorogation was absolutely necessary because we were facing the worst pandemic since the Spanish flu and the biggest economic crisis since 1929. We worked with the opposition parties—the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP—to introduce bills. It was absolutely necessary to build this comprehensive plan that would allow us to focus all our efforts on the fight against COVID-19 to help all Canadians.

When we did this, we were not wondering whether there would be a second wave. We knew there would be one, but we did not know how serious it would be. We now know that it is very serious. We wanted to focus the government's efforts on that crisis, and that is what we did.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you very much.

Madam Chair, I have only 15 seconds left. I will yield the floor to someone else.

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

Thank you.