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.
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.
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.
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…
