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:
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.
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:
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.
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.