Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 9th, 2021

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Okay, I just wanted to clarify. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank my colleagues for their previous speeches, and I thank Mr. Turnbull for bringing forward this amendment.

I'll begin by saying that I really appreciate our committee and the work we have been able to do together on establishing electronic voting and providing recommendations for a possible election during a pandemic. While I get the motion, the politics of the motion that was at hand, I can't fathom that there is anything more important than addressing the unprecedented global crisis we are still fighting. I will, of course, support the amendment that my colleague made.

I think it's important that we recognize we've lost more than 22,000 Canadians. They are not just numbers. They are our grandparents, mothers, fathers, loved ones, neighbours, colleagues, lifelong friends, mentors and heros, and they matter to so many people.

Many people have lost their jobs and businesses. Health care and frontline workers have faced great risks and challenges, and all Canadians have made sacrifices to keep others healthy and safe.

Almost two weeks ago, Canadians came together to remember, pay tribute to and grieve all those we have lost to COVID-19 during the last year. We reflected on the hurt and suffering, the sacrifice. We offered comfort to doctors, nurses, frontline workers, survivors, families and communities. COVID-19 remains an unprecedented global health crisis that has shaken the foundations of economic, political and social security.

I'll just share this with our colleagues. One analysis of premature and excess mortality estimates that over 20 million years of life have been lost. According to the World Bank, the pandemic pushed 124 million people into extreme poverty. The Economist estimates that two years of COVID-19 will cause, as my colleague Mr. Turnbull said, a downturn twice as deep as the great recession.

Yet, here we are with a partisan motion focused on scoring political points. Again, I will support the amendments that Mr. Turnbull brought forward—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Dr. Duncan, can you put your mike a little bit higher, because it was popping.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

I'm sorry, my apologies to the interpreters.

Madam Chair, before I continue, can I ask what time we will be going to because of question period?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

You're right. It's 2:01.

It's really up to the committee. If you would like to suspend for question period and come back or suspend until Thursday's meeting, we'd have to have a consensus from the committee for that.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Should I ask that question, Madam Chair, or are you asking that question?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I'm asking that question right now and taking a look.... I'm seeing some nodding in the negative, so just continue.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The point is that none of us will ever forget 2020. It's been a year of tears, tragedy and trials. The pandemic turned our lives upside down under lockdowns, office buildings emptied, streets quieted and schools closed, and Canadians and communities adapted.

There are so many Canadians to thank for adapting, including health workers in the William Osler Health System and the Rexdale Community Health Centre in our Etobicoke North community for their dedication and sacrifice, as well as other essential workers who kept our country running, and Canadians across the country who learned to work, learn and live in new ways. They followed science and public health and safety protocols, and they stood up to COVID-19 deniers and disinformation. They all helped save lives.

Instead of focusing on the pandemic that continues to rage with new waves of sickness and death, we have a motion before this committee that focuses on politics. Again, I will of course support my colleague Mr. Turnbull's recommendation.

Every day, Canadians are becoming sick with COVID-19 and being hospitalized, and they are dying. We are still fighting the pandemic. A few days ago, the director-general of the World Health Organization made the point that after six weeks of declining cases in January and February, we are now on track for a fourth consecutive week of increasing cases. Cases globally are increasing in most regions, and while the number of deaths is still declining, it is doing so at a slower rate. The director-general explained that these are worrying trends due to the variants, the opening up of society and inequitable vaccine rollout.

Thankfully, here in Canada, the largest immunization campaign in our country's history is well under way. According to our country's top vaccine coordinator, there should be enough COVID-19 vaccines available to give every Canadian who's eligible a first dose by the end of June.

The pandemic isn't over, and until all Canadians have access to a safe and effective vaccine, we all need to continue to follow public health advice. That means working from home if you can, keeping two metres apart from others, wearing a mask and downloading the COVID alert app.

COVID-19 is the most challenging crisis we have faced since World War II. It is not finished, and the global vaccine rollout has been far from even and fair, yet we have a motion aimed at scoring political points.

We have new variants. Even if we suppress the virus in one country but it is allowed to spread to other parts of the world, the variants can cause new outbreaks, even in countries that seem to have the virus under control. Vaccines are necessary to help the world move from locking down societies to locking down the virus.

Many low-income countries have not yet received a single dose of vaccine, and there are many examples of vaccine hoarding. If we do not ensure vaccine equity, the virus will continue to spread and to mutate and will ultimately prolong the pandemic and our vulnerability with devastating impacts.

Canada has agreed to top up its funding for vaccine rollouts in lower-income countries, pledging $75 million more for the COVAX international vaccine-sharing program. As our wealthy countries step up their commitments, the new pledge brings Canada's total contribution to $940 million.

We must remember that we are one human family. We are interdependent. What happens to one person can quickly affect many others. You only have to remember that our cluster of pneumonia cases just over a year ago has translated into almost 123 million confirmed cases of COVID-19 and 2.8 million deaths. That's a real increase since our last meeting.

As of March 19, over 390 million vaccine doses had been administered worldwide. While the world needs to unite to produce and distribute sufficient vaccines for all, which means at least doubling manufacturing capacity around the world, this committee is arguing about partisan politics. We have to keep fighting COVID-19 and rolling out the vaccine to as many Canadians who want it, as quickly as possible. We have to stay focused on what matters most to Canadians: their health and safety, jobs, livelihoods and the economic recovery.

Each of us here knows COVID-19 very personally. We have to think about the children and what the pandemic has meant to them. Imagine being five and COVID-19 having taken up 20% of your life, with having to stare at a screen to learn, not seeing your friends, playing in the schoolyard or attending birthday parties. Imagine being 15 and COVID-19 having taken up about 7% of your life, with lost connections to lifelong friends, lost activities and lessons, mental stress and uncertainty about the future. We have asked so much of children and young people. Life and health are precious. People of all ages are valuable.

I think of seniors. Everyone will remember Captain Tom Moore. As he approached his 100th birthday he decided to try to raise 1,000 pounds for the United Kingdom's National Health Service by completing 100 laps of his garden. He ended up raising more than 30 million pounds and received a knighthood for his service. Captain Tom, Sir Tom, became a symbol of hope for millions around the world. He demonstrated that although older people are among the most at risk from COVID-19, they make incredible contributions to our society.

Closer to home, in our Etobicoke North community our seniors make a real difference in brighter times, volunteering at hospitals, teaching language and culture, tending community gardens and looking after the next generation. We also have wonderful seniors' clubs in Etobicoke North. Many of them meet daily. They talk, play bingo and cards, and they eat and pray together. They are there for one another. They support each other. They deliver food to one another when they are sick or grieving.

The clubs are lifelines, but it's COVID-19 right now. These are hard times, and our clubs cannot meet. Seniors have lost their connections, friendships and their lifelines. COVID-19 not only changed seniors' daily routines but also the care and support they receive and how they are perceived.

My heart breaks for those in long-term care. During the first wave of COVID-19, 70% of the deaths were of those over age 80, or about twice the rates of other developed countries. It tragically happened again in wave two. The greatest tragedy of this pandemic is the lives lost in long-term care homes. We have to root out a dangerous narrative that older people are frail, vulnerable and dispensable. This is absolutely wrong. Seniors helped build the country that we have inherited, and they deserve to be safe, to live with dignity and respect, and to receive the care and support they need.

Although long-term care falls under provincial and territorial jurisdiction, our government will take any action it can to support seniors, while working alongside the provinces and territories. Our government will work with Parliament on Criminal Code amendments to explicitly penalize those who neglect seniors under their care, putting them in danger.

Our government will also work with the provinces and territories to set new national standards for long-term care so that seniors get the best support possible, and we will take additional action to help people stay in their homes longer.

COVID-19 also hammered home that we need to address poverty, inequality, hunger and violence against women. I know that both of my colleagues Mr. Turnbull and Ms. Petitpas Taylor have spoken eloquently about both issues in the past.

However, instead of staying focused on Canadians and their needs, we have a political motion. Responding to COVID-19—recovering from the virus, learning lessons and preparing for the future—should be our focus. It should remain our focus.

We have all been touched by the pandemic, and we have to learn from the crisis. We can't forget what we've all been through. We need to prepare for the future, and this includes through our work at this very committee. This committee should focus on lessons learned and pandemic preparedness.

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

On a point of order, Madam Chair, I hate interrupting and I normally don't do this and I apologize to Dr. Duncan, but I do feel it's important to remind her and all committee members about the rules of relevance.

While I take no issue with any of the comments she's making regarding the health and safety of Canadians, we are really talking about an amendment dealing with prorogation. I would appreciate it if we could continue this discussion but focus on the main issue of the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I know there have been a lot of points of order as to relevance. I don't know how Ms. Duncan feels about the amendment, but if she is of the opinion that the study should be brought to an end and we shouldn't be bringing witnesses forward, then I think her comments might be relevant.

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

My point is, Madam Chair, that we are speaking to the amendment. That's all I'm trying to get at here. I have no issue whatsoever with Dr. Duncan speaking as long as it's relevant to the amendment, which is, of course, central to prorogation. If we could focus our remarks on that, then I think this discussion would be much better served.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay.

Perhaps Dr. Duncan can inform us as to how her remarks are relevant to this study coming to an end or continuing with the witnesses being called forward in the amendment.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you.

Madam Chair, can I just have clarification—and I apologize that I do not know the rules—as to whether we break for question period or if this continues?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

It's up to the committee whether we break for question period or suspend at any point or adjourn. I am, however, required to suspend in the case of votes. That's the only time I would have to suspend the committee. The rest would be up to the committee.

So far, since we haven't had the consent of the committee, we're moving forward with our meeting of March 9.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Okay. Thank you.

I think this is really relevant. We are speaking about an amendment to the motion that the Conservatives brought forward.

I obviously support the amendment, but I think we also have to address the original motion. We should be focused on the crisis that's ahead of us rather than on politics, because there will be a next time. Pandemics are not a matter of if—

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Chair, I have point of order.

When we are doing an amendment, it's specifically about the amendment. We can go back to the original motion once we have voted on this.

We should keep it really tight to the fact that they want to invite the WE brothers and all of those others and just dismiss the Prime Minister from coming. Could we keep it focused on these new people they would like instead...?

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I'm not going to assume who is supporting or not supporting, but however you find it relevant to that amendment, Ms. Vecchio is correct. We are on the amendment. We're on the amendment to the original motion.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you. I find it very strange and somewhat disturbing....

I'm sorry, Madam Chair. I really would like to continue and I will make this relevant.

I support what my colleague Mr. Turnbull has brought forward, but this committee cannot forget what this country is facing and that pandemics are not a matter of if but when. My greatest fear is that we will forget.

Can you hear me?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes, we can hear you.

I know we've made you lose track of the thought you were on, so you can take a minute.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Could I have a minute? I have indeed lost track of where I was. I'm not used to being interrupted. I'm also very careful about not interrupting my colleagues.

Dear colleagues, I'm really asking that we think about what is most relevant to Canadians at this time. We have to learn the lessons. We have to be prepared for next time. I'll support the amendment. I'll support the motion, but we cannot forget what we've all been through. If there were ever to be an election, would a new Parliament study the pandemic response? Would they identify lessons learned and implement change so that we are better prepared for next time?

I really would like to share a few of the lessons. This is something we can be asking colleagues. We have to understand what is known and not known. When dealing with a new disease, it's important to acknowledge that not everything is known at the beginning. With new science and data, information will likely change. There will likely need to be adjustments in guidelines, policies and recommendations.

Look at what was known last January versus what is known today. There are a lot of differences—the role of aerosols, the role of indoor versus outdoor spaces, the role of masks. Scientific knowledge evolves over time. Decision-makers have to be open, flexible and willing to change course. Decision-makers must stay humble in the face of a new virus. We have to understand that misinformation is common when there's a new disease. When people are scared, it's easy for false ideas to spread. I'm going to tie this right back into the amendment.

If we look back at the start of the AIDS pandemic, people though HIV could spread just by being close to someone infected. Many believed only members of the LGBTQ community could get the disease. To be clear, we know that both of these ideas are absolutely false. As the world fought COVID-19, we saw a dangerous proliferation of harmful falsehoods and lies. Conspiracy theories infected the Internet. Hatred went viral, stigmatizing and vilifying people and groups. What we really needed was science, solidarity and trust in institutions.

We have to stop blaming others. COVID-19 was traced back to Wuhan, China. We have heard the disease called by egregious names. As a result, we have seen an increase in discrimination and violence against Asian people. Data from Statistics Canada in July 2020 suggested that Canadians with Asian backgrounds were more likely to report noticing increased racial or ethnic harassment during the pandemic. The largest increase was seen among people of Chinese, Korean and South Asian descent.

A separate report prepared by the Chinese Canadian National Council in September 2020 found that Canadians had reported more anti-Asian racist incidents per capita than the United States since the start of the pandemic. Just last week, eight people were killed by a white gunman at several massage parlours in Atlanta, Georgia. Six of the victims were Asian-American women. The shooting sparked outrage around the world, putting a spotlight on the rise of anti-Asian racism fuelled by COVID-19 pandemic.

Our colleagues from across our parties have also spoken publicly about the discrimination they themselves have faced.

Yesterday, once again, we were all able to come together as Canadian members of Parliament and pass a motion to condemn the rise of anti-Asian racism and racist attacks in North America and to express our unanimous horror at the shootings in Georgia.

Again, it would be very relevant, with the amendments that Mr. Turnbull has put on the table, to have our colleagues back.

I think, Madam Chair, with that, I will cede the floor to my extraordinary colleagues. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Dr. Duncan.

Monsieur Lauzon, you are next on the speakers list, and then Madam [Technical difficulty—Editor].

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Dr. Duncan, thank you very much for your remarks. They were very interesting.

I want to come back to the amendment proposed by my colleague Mr. Turnbull.

At the outset, I made it clear that I did not think it is relevant to invite the Prime Minister to appear before the committee once again. The other amendments also seek to renew this invitation.

Mr. Turnbull has suggested some very good alternatives. Paragraph (a) talks about not asking the Prime Minister to appear before the committee. We remember very well why we concluded that it was not necessary to have the Prime Minister at the committee, especially since Mr. Pablo Rodriguez came to give evidence on behalf of the government.

What is important to recognize in paragraph (a) is that we did make some concessions. Indeed, our original objective was to defeat the motion and to move forward. Mr. Turnbull has gone a long way in replacing paragraph (b). He renewed the invitations to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth for 90 minutes. Anyway, you already know the answers.

Out of respect, I will vote in favour of Mr. Turnbull's amendment, but you already know my opinion: I do not think it is necessary to invite them. However, in order to present my vision and the ideas that we can put forward to advance committee proceedings, I am prepared to make this concession, which for me is the biggest one I am prepared to make.

I'm ready to defend my arguments in direct relation to Mrs. Vecchio's motion.

We've made some changes to paragraph (c), but Mr. Turnbull still retains the essence of the paragraph, which is to renew the invitations to Mr. Bill Morneau, Mr. Craig Kielburger, and his brother, Mr. Marc Kielburger, to appear for 90 minutes. I think that brings us full circle to a series of testimonies that will allow us to conclude this study.

I hope that you'll accept Mr. Turnbull's amendment, because it will allow us to move on.

We've come a long way with this motion. We must remember where we're coming from to understand Mr. Turnbull's amendment. I was a latecomer to the committee, but on December 10, 2020, you were already talking about this motion.

On December 10, even before the whole process was set in motion, the reason for prorogation was already clear to some. I was WE Charity that was at issue. Despite the many nuances brought by several witnesses, people wouldn't budge about the reason for prorogation: it was still connected to WE Charity. Yet, more than 100 days have passed since December 10.

We have evolved since then. Many witnesses have come to different committees. We have to take into account that it is not only our committee that is moving forward. There are also other parliamentary committees, which have asked the same questions to the same people. We need to talk to each other. We need to look at what is being done elsewhere in order to move forward.

If we want to have a good economic recovery to fight this pandemic, we have to go ahead, to go for it, to bring innovative ideas and to be very imaginative. In the private sector, I've been on boards of directors, and I can tell you that there's not a lot of duplication and waste of time. If we ran a private company the way we run the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, we'd be in bankruptcy as we speak. There is no need for the CEO of a company to come into the hot seat for purely political purposes.

Today, we must take the opportunity to say that we have prorogued Parliament for very specific reasons. My colleague Mr. Turnbull has presented an alternative that already goes too far, but shows that we can move forward with teamwork.

I am convinced that we will all win if we include in the report everything that has been said and done so far.

I want to take this opportunity to thank you for the work you did before I arrived. I thank all those who took the time to write the report line by line. It allowed me to get on board at the same time as you to be in the same place. I am convinced that my reading has allowed me to be as informed as committee members who have been there from the beginning.

The proposed amendment makes the motion more viable, more humane and more achievable. I sincerely believe that it will allow us to collectively demonstrate to other committees and to our organization that we are capable of reaching a consensus and putting politics aside for a while. I am really eager to see the work of the committee move forward and to contribute to the progress of other issues.

I would remind you that the process started about 105 days ago and that a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then. I could talk about the nuances brought by several witnesses, but the fact remains that when we started the process on December 10, some witnesses already had preconceived ideas about what the committee should recommend. So I want to show that progress has been made since December 10.

I know that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is independent. However, we still have to look at other committees to determine exactly how we move forward in this committee.

I am not saying that we are dependent on the Standing Committee on Finance or the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. What I'm saying is that listening to evidence and questions from other committees allows us to add to our report today by showing that we have met with the array of witnesses on the list. We could also add the questions and answers from Mr. Rodriguez, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, and the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion of Youth.

Today, this amendment by Mr. Ryan Turnbull prompts us to make a concrete decision on the nuance between what happened at the start on December 10 and what is happening today. It is no small thing to dedicate over 100 days to a study in government. Decisions taken on the spot in the private sector would not have taken more than 100 days. Of course, we are not in the private sector; we are in government.

I remember that when I entered politics in 2009, I thought there were two speeds: slow and standstill. Coming from a private company, I had difficulty getting used to the pace of politics, which included a lot of discussion. I realized that, in politics, mistakes are made when you go too fast.

This is more or less in line with what I said at the beginning. I was saying that we have indeed recognized that mistakes had been made, and by everyone. I also include myself, because I am one of the first culprits. I am usually the one who uses the expression

“I'm here to raise the flag.”

I missed out on a few opportunities to speak.

I didn't see the flag arrive.

I really missed the boat when we put in place bills that would have allowed a worker returning from the South to receive $1,000 for his quarantine. We managed to correct this situation. It's important to take a step back.

I want to highlight the testimony of Dr. Kathy Brock, who is a professor at the School of Policy Studies at Queen's University, on prorogation. It won't matter if we call the Prime Minister in to say that the reasons for prorogation in August were, first, to start over and to focus on the government's priorities after a situation had changed, and second, to take into account that the government was exhausted and under enormous pressure in 2020.

Although the opposition members were getting answers to all their questions, they were presenting complex problems that were the same as those experienced in our constituencies. Every day, we had meetings to try to find solutions. I have never seen so much accessibility to the organization and the administration to try to find solutions together. The reason for prorogation will make absolutely no difference today, 100 days after we started the study. The amendment proposed by Mr. Turnbull is THEREFORE extremely valid.

The Queen's University professor said that starting over is one thing. Today, the government and the public service were able to catch their breath. We've been able to take a breather and to start afresh. It is hard to be politicians during a pandemic; the population used us as punching bags. For a human being, it is not easy to take blows. In the ridings, many seniors are grouped together in the same place, in large residential centres or in long-term care facilities. These people are our builders, our grandparents, our friends, our acquaintances, our friends' fathers or mothers. We needed to take a step back. People should have thanked us for proroguing and for starting over with a vote of confidence and a Speech from the Throne, for thinking of the people. That's the way to look at it.

I understand the political game behind all this. The openness that Mr. Turnbull has shown in proposing an amendment to the motion means that we are once again demonstrating that we have the opportunity to move forward and to address the other issues that we would like to address. As I was explaining, prorogation made it possible for the government to take a step back, to set priorities for Canadians in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic, but also to set priorities for the economic recovery. I talked about the seniors who suffered greatly because of COVID-19, the schools and the parents who were stuck at home with their children, but I am thinking especially of our merchants and our small businesses. The more rural your environment was, the more isolated you were and the more you were affected.

Again, we cannot save every business and every small business, but we have done everything we can, and we are doing it again today by announcing the extension of the assistance available to businesses. This can greatly help businesses in my riding and in my colleagues' ridings. During the prorogation, we reflected on this. Today, we need to put things into perspective and adopt Mr. Turnbull's amendment.

Now there are two possibilities. The first is that we can vote in favour of the amendment, which would allow us to move forward and demonstrate that we are working as a team. The second is that we can vote against the amendment, which would allow us to open the debate and propose even more robust changes. As a member of Parliament, I am prepared to debate for as long as it takes. If we have to debate until an election is called, we will do so. We will not tolerate this situation. I am prepared to roll up my sleeves, to work hard, to prepare accordingly and to debate for as long as it takes.

It is important to understand how important December 10 was. The witnesses appeared before several committees, and the government heard all the answers. We heard a whole range of evidence in this study. In addition, Mr. Pablo Rodriguez testified on behalf of the government.

Now we absolutely must move on to another issue.

I talked to you about prorogation, but I want to quote Ms. Barbara Messamore from the University of the Fraser Valley, who came and talked to us about prorogation on December 10. Things have changed a lot since then. Here's what she said:

[...] there is also a strong case that can be made that the unforeseen eruption of the COVID-19 crisis since the start of the 43rd Parliament provides a rationale for a new session, with a new Speech from the Throne setting out a fresh legislative program. For this reason, I think prorogation was entirely justifiable.

Today, we are being criticized for not having prorogued Parliament earlier. Let's think about everything that has happened since then. We have done a lot to adapt and to help the population. I am thinking of all the bills we have passed. Today, the distribution of vaccines alone could justify a prorogation so that we can step back and prepare for a good recovery, but we have already done that. There was no right or wrong time to prorogue Parliament. The Prime Minister did it during the pandemic, and Ms. Barbara Messamore told us that it was totally justified to do so.

Despite all the evidence to the contrary, at every meeting since December 10, opposition members have been saying that the only reason Parliament was prorogued was because of the WE Charity case. Despite everything that has been said at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, the Standing Committee on Finance and everywhere else, they are unable to admit that they are wrong.

Our citizens are not talking about a scandal surrounding WE Charity or the reasons behind the prorogation. My colleagues have talked about that in their speeches. Mr. Turnbull clearly stated that his constituents had never questioned him about the reasons behind prorogation and WE Charity. That is not what our citizens are talking about. Mr. Turnbull has tabled an amendment that I would not even have tabled myself, but I am prepared to support it and say that it is very valid. It shows goodwill on his part.

Now, no matter how many times the opposition parties have heard it, I do not mind repeating it: nothing is going to change their opinion, because they are trying to fabricate a scandal surrounding WE Charity through the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. As good parliamentarians, we will never accept that. They had a preconceived idea from the start. I do not understand the relevance of summoning the Prime Minister, political staff and dedicated citizens who have tried to help people when opposition members have already formed their opinion on this. It is unfair. It is not right to summon these people with the ultimate aim of trapping them in a political war.

I do not mind recalling the reasons for prorogation. They were set out in the report on the subject. Indeed, the COVID-19 pandemic led to the tabling of a document of some 40 pages, including annexes, which talks about the prorogation that took place in August 2020.

If you haven't read the Prime Minister's report, I invite you to do so. It's about forty pages long and well explained. The Prime Minister did not have to justify himself, but he took the time to come and testify before he was even asked. His testimony is simple. He explained line by line the reason for prorogation. He wanted to give decision makers, civil servants and senior officials some time to let the dust settle a bit. This way, they could be better, come up with better solutions and avoid mistakes.

We make mistakes when we go too fast. This happens with our staff, but also with our colleagues. It is often just one irrelevant word in a sentence that could be corrected, but is already considered a mistake. It's a fine line. Imagine being a big decision maker and having to quickly implement policies that affect millions of Canadians, that go directly into their pockets.

My father always told me to be careful in life. He said that if you want to hurt someone, you go for their family or their money. But the pandemic has affected both. It's affected taxpayers' pockets, our seniors' grocery baskets, budgets spent on expensive deliveries, the businesses of workers who could no longer get to work. Indirectly, it's affected families who were isolated, families who suffered loss or illness.

A personal friend of mine—a young man in his forties—has contracted COVID-19 and has not yet recovered. Week after week, he is tired and he struggles. Months after getting sick, he has not fully recovered. This virus has left its mark. This friend is an elementary school principal under pressure to manage staff and students and to control everything. For instance, if a child has a bit of a runny nose, he must call the parents. He has to manage all this while being personally affected by COVID-19 and struggling to get through his work weeks without feeling the fatigue caused by COVID-19. Imagine how much this can affect families.

This is real, this is what is happening on the ground. We absolutely must be able to come up with a motion that will be accepted by everyone.

We will have to leave soon for votes in the House. However, I don't know what the procedure is.

Madam Chair, about the vote, I don't want to go too fast. I didn't read anything, but what about the vote?

Can you tell me if we have a vote at three o'clock?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes, we have a vote at three o'clock.

If you want, you have the floor until three, but at that point we'll have to suspend this meeting for the vote.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

You'll cut me off for the vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes, I will.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Don't be shy. I don't want to miss the vote.