Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 9th, 2021

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

You can demand unanimous consent.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Since you're asking for unanimous consent, we'll see whether there is unanimous consent for you to move this amendment.

It is also not typical for the amendment to be moved by the person who moved the original motion, but we'll get to that.

Is there unanimous consent for Ms. Vecchio to even put this before the committee at this point?

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

No. I'm sorry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

At this point we don't have unanimous consent, but you may have the floor, Mrs. Vecchio, in the coming time, and at that point it would be completely appropriate for you to move it.

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

Yes, you could bring it back.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay.

Mr. Turnbull, you had a point of order.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I think you've clarified my points of order. I was just concerned about Ms. Vecchio's introducing an amendment. Although I was very happy to hear her willingness to amend her motion, I don't think it's appropriate on a point of order.

Thanks. You have already clarified that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay.

I just wanted to hear Ms. Vecchio out before I went down the road of making comments and responding. I think we will get to that point at some point soon.

Mr. Lauzon, I'm sorry for the interruption. You have the floor.

Actually, let me let everyone know who has the floor after that as well, so that there's an idea of the speakers list. There was a speakers list the last time when we had left. It is Mr. Lauzon and then Madam Petitpas Taylor. Mr. Simms was subbing in that day. He is not here so he'll be dropped. Next is Mr. Turnbull. Then Ms. Vecchio and Dr. Duncan would have the floor. That would be the speaking order.

Mr. Lauzon, I'm sorry for the interruption.

Go ahead.

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

Thanks, Ms. Vecchio, for your proposal.

However, we really are ready to debate as long as we need to do so.

Earlier, you talked about respect. No self-respecting government would allow a motion like that to be passed. Whether it's a majority or minority government, the Prime Minister was still elected by universal suffrage and is the people's choice. It is not true that we must pass this motion, which is purely partisan and whose purpose was already predetermined before we even discussed it and made recommendations on the proposal. It is very unfortunate.

As parliamentarians, we should be focusing on matters that Canadians really see as important. We are still in the middle of the pandemic. We know what happened. The current situation happened because of the break week. Two weeks later, the virus resurfaced and there have been more cases of concern. We are still in the second wave and we are heading towards the third. Do we not have to concentrate on something completely different today?

Our committee can make a difference, not on health or public health recommendations, but certainly on everything related to procedure. Today, I see no use for us in still being here, possibly for a long time. We are ready to face up to what is happening and we would like to focus on much more important matters, as we should.

This week, we made more than 1,240 calls to people in my constituency. Not one talked to me about prorogation, let alone that it was caused by the WE Charity affair. In fact, people were talking about what is happening today and what they need. They were concerned about the election and wondering how it would unfold, should there be one. That is about procedure. Canadians, including the Quebeckers in my constituency, are focusing on the millions of doses that we have delivered to them this week. The concern is knowing how they will be administered and how we can assist our governments in administering them.

Canadians are wondering about the economic recovery that will shortly be getting under way. We can ask ourselves the same questions, in order for the economy to recover properly. This is one of the biggest crises for generations, since the wars, in fact. Canadians are not focused on the partisan games being played in Parliament. They have no idea about what we're doing, right at this moment. Our entire focus should be on moving our issues forward so that the government moves forward too.

We have made some wonderful announcements. We are trying to work for the people and their constituencies, especially on Internet access. This week, the Premier of Quebec and Prime Minister Trudeau announced that thousands more Quebec households would be connected to high-speed Internet by September 2022. This is a partnership with the province that moves things forward, and that is what people are talking to us about.

They are talking about procedures, about innovation, about working at home, about the work-life balance, and about telework. At this very moment, 40% of my constituents have no Internet access. They are not even able to listen to us right now, or to see what is happening in the House of Commons, because they have no Internet.

It is essential for my constituents to talk about important matters like the economic recovery. We have such major, hot-button issues to deal with. For example, we want to talk about climate change, about the economic recovery, about the energy transition, and about investments.

The convention that took place at the end of last week has shown us that 55% of the hardline Conservatives do not acknowledge that climate change exists. But it is the reality and we must face up to it. That is what our constituents are talking to us about. We have to move forward on issues like these. Electrifying transportation, public transit, green innovation and access to high-speed Internet are the issues of today. This is about helping all our communities, not just mine, but yours too.

Canadians would like us to be debating other issues, not trying to associate the prorogation with a nonexistent scandal over the WE Charity. The opposition is trying to make it into a scandal, but after everything that has gone on in the other committees, we have seen no impact. So we all know that the real object of prorogation was the need to reset the government's agenda.

Let us be clear: as I said earlier, this motion is a trick, an illusion. Could it simply be a way to keep the WE Charity scandal story alive?

A number of other parliamentary committees have examined the documents and the testimonies in detail and found nothing at all that could show that anything inappropriate was done. The Prime Minister drafted a report on the prorogation and explained the problems that occurred in connection with the student grants.

Instead of all this, we could be focusing on matters that really concern Canadians. We have a lot of them to study at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The committee has produced a report that I work with every day and that deals with possible future business. It's a fine work plan. Personally, I like working with work plans. But they are supposed to provide us with direction. Are we providing ourselves with good direction by doing what we are doing today? I don't think so. I don't think that we are being useful. We should move on.

However the motion is amended, I am convinced that it is unreasonable to summon the Prime Minister in this case. We have met with witnesses and they have shown us clearly that the Prime Minister had a good reason to prorogue Parliament, the pandemic. It was a good way to react to it. If a pandemic is not a good reason to prorogue Parliament, I don't know what one might be.

So there is the real problem: the opposition cannot handle the fact that, since last summer, they have spent all their time, all their energy, and all their resources trying to fabricate this nonexistent crisis. The crisis was invented to try and create conflict and to implicate a government that is trying to make the best decisions possible to help as many people as possible during a pandemic, including those who live in your constituencies. They are our constituents, our companies, our workers and our students.

Sometimes, when we work quickly, we can make mistakes.

Let us not forget that we in all parties worked together on measures and found solutions. We wanted workers coming to one constituency not to be penalized and forced to go into quarantine before being able to work. We did not want to make it necessary to isolate, house and feed them for that time. We found ways to make it happen.

In all the decisions we made, we missed the fact that travellers coming back from holiday in the South could be paid during their quarantine. We had to take a step backwards, admit it and work together to make the correction. When we move fast, when we make decisions quickly, and when we are in the middle of a crisis, we may make mistakes. That's what the Prime Minister told us.

We could see the frustration on some faces after the Prime Minister, his Chief of Staff and his ministers came before committees and all said the same thing. In theory, the Canada Emergency Student Benefit was a good program that had a place. Our intentions for it were good. Unfortunately, we failed when we were putting it into operation. Nothing is perfect. Our government was in the middle of a global pandemic.

The important point I want to emphasize is that we work with public servants. Let me take this opportunity to thank them and to say “well done”. I congratulate them for supporting the government, when such support is so difficult in times like these. Think about the technological shift that public servants are experiencing at the moment. Think of all the rules that have to quickly change and of all the decisions that we are making. Each of those decisions has an impact on the financial system. Software is not even designed to handle this pressure on the system. We are making miracles happen, thanks to the work of the public servants who are trying to represent us as best they can. We must take this opportunity to say that, while public servants may work in the shadows, they are just as important as front-line workers.

Officials and politicians have worked countless hours to make sure that all the programs we have created are available to help Canadians in difficulty. Of course, mistakes were made, but far be it from me to point fingers at anyone. It's easy not to make mistakes; you just do nothing.

When you get into politics, it is because you are looking for the big picture. My father always told me that, if I did not try, I would not learn, but if I did try, I could make mistakes. I am not perfect either. I am perhaps not as educated as a number of you, but I can tell you that, when I have work to do, I always try to do it in the interests of Canadians as much as I can, to make the best decisions I can, to get as much information as I can, so that we can keep our promises and be as fair we can. On the day after an election, I turn the page. You may support the Bloc, the Conservatives, the New Democrats or the Liberals, but if you come with a request in my constituency, I will turn myself into a public servant in order to respond to it.

That is how public servants work, they work in a nonpartisan manner. They are there for us, so that we can move forward. I use them as my example in serving the public. In addition, I am Deb Schulte's parliamentary secretary. She and I have the same approach: let's help everyone. Never have so many multiparty consultations been held as for the New Horizons program. Now we are assured of fairness through all Canadian constituencies. We are here to work for all Canadians, to work together.

A pandemic is never good. However, there is nothing better than a situation like this to show Canadians that we can and we must move forward together.

The public service has served the government from day one. It dates from Confederation, 152 years ago. In the First World War, about 100 years ago, jobs at the Post Office and in Customs were given to people who had voted for the party in power. Today, the public service is nonpartisan. We have had the same model for 100 years and we must keep it.

Whatever the elected government, whoever the current Prime Minister, everyone have been able to count on the support of a neutral, nonpartisan, professional and merit-based public service. Public servants in Canada are there to serve the public. They are there to advise the men and women who have been elected to make decisions in Cabinet and in Parliament. It may also be that the same has happened to them as it did to us, and they have made errors, because having to make decisions creates a lot of pressure.

Once again, let me remind you that our officials did the best they could in the WE Charity affair. The Prime Minister's office had no bad intentions. It just moved too fast.

The biggest machine in Canada is the government. We are lucky in having a public service that is able to move from one government to another in the blink of an eye. They are able to adapt in a few days. However, to do so, they have to adapt themselves, adapt procedures, add regulations. They have to work with new regulations, with new members of Parliament who have new ideas. Freshly elected members of Parliament arrive with their heads full of ideas, with the wind in their sails, and with the desire to make change. In addition, each time Parliament changes, the procedures and the rules of the House have to be improved.

On my first day in the House, I remember being surprised by the voting system. I could not imagine that, for the rest of my political career, everyone was going to have to stand up in turn to say “yea” or “nay”, to spend an hour on each vote, and even to do so during the night. I told myself that we should be able to improve that process.

We have recently been able to move to our first electronic votes. We know that it was the result of a tremendous amount of work done in the shadows by our public servants. We know that procedures were added over time that allow us to experience what we are experiencing today. My hat is off to our officials.

In the middle of the first wave of the pandemic, we were working like crazy. Something was bound to happen sooner or later and it happened when decisions were being made and when we were wondering whether we had responded to everyone. We tried to do so and we tripped over some grey areas. We found some exceptional cases to which we were not able to respond.

Are we going to be able save all our companies? I am not sure.

Will our economic recovery be perfect? Will people quickly regain the jobs back that they lost?

Let us not forget that we already had a labour shortage before the pandemic.

Will the economic recovery and the rehiring reveal the fact that some areas, such as culture and tourism, will be more affected, given that people have relocated to other sectors?

These are questions that we must ask ourselves during the pandemic. At the end of last fall, after hearing countless hours of testimony, after examining thousands of pages of documents and the detailed evidence in those documents, the opposition recognized that it had overplayed its hand. This was the case in all the committees, I should mention.

What we are doing here is more or less repeating the failure in other committees. As I see it, it is important today for us to follow the example of what happened in the other committees, and to move on.

However, here we still are. We are still dealing with another motion before the committee, a motion that is clearly fixated on the WE issue, which is unrelated to, and has nothing to do with, the pandemic or the prorogation. However, it masquerades as an examination of the prorogation in August 2020. What they are trying to do is so clear that it borders on the surreal. This is not the example I want to provide to our young politicians of the future.

I hope that no university political science prof will use this kind of motion as an example of doing politics. The lesson that absolutely has to be learned, as various witnesses before this committee have told us, is that all our constitutional conventions give the Prime Minister the authority to advise the Governor General on prorogation. The Prime Minister just has to go to the Governor General to ask for permission to prorogue Parliament.

Basically, you just have to respect that. Basically, you just have to get it into your head that we have a Prime Minister who was elected by universal suffrage, whether you like it or not, whether you like him or not. Our Prime Minister is still Canada's highest elected official.

The decision to go to the Governor General to ask her for permission to prorogue Parliament was his alone. As a consequence, we should not even be talking about it anymore. Now, he decided to go further. He decided to do more. He decided to tell Canadians why he made that decision, something that no Canadian Prime Minister has ever done. He decided to justify the prorogation.

Some witnesses used the prorogation to say that he acted too soon; some said that he acted too late. We could see that some witnesses did not have a clear picture of what was going on in our constituencies during the pandemic. Let us not forget to mention our seniors and what they went through in the long-term care homes. At a time like that, while the Canadian Army and the Canadian Red Cross were coming to assist in long-term care homes in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, witnesses were telling us that it was not necessary to prorogue Parliament during the pandemic.

If you are telling me that that was not a preconceived idea, I do not understand politics at all anymore.

So, for all those reasons, the Prime Minister has the full authority to declare a prorogation and to restart our government. We have also learned that the Prime Minister does not need a reason to do so. We have heard witnesses saying “this is the reason” or “this is why we should prorogue” or “these are the reasons that have been used for prorogation in the past”. No reasons are needed. Prorogation is the prerogative of the Prime Minister, as authorized by the Governor General.

Throughout this country's history, prorogation has been used to start again from scratch. It is a reset, as it were, for the government, for the business of Parliament. The time between the dissolutions and the throne speeches has varied from a few hours to a number of weeks. Witnesses have told us that it could have been done in 24 hours. Work is needed behind the scenes. Who does that work? As I told you before, our public servants do it.

When you work too quickly, you can make mistakes. Today, I can tell you that the Speech from the Throne was well prepared. There was a lot in it and I found it very interesting. The opposition points to the time that elapsed between the prorogation and the Speech from the Throne in September to claim that it is linked to the WE Charity. Almost no time was lost in the House. Let us not forget that, in the fall of 2008, the former Conservative prime minister prorogued Parliament for weeks before coming back to the House.

I find it ironic that this is happening today. Given that this Prime Minister is not Conservative, the Conservatives now support a motion like this, just to stir things up or to create a crisis that does not exist. I also find it very ironic that some of the members sitting here today were part of that government. We cannot say that other members of Parliament were involved, because some of the ones here were there at that time.

Prorogation is an inherently political action, based on political considerations. There is nothing bad, nothing inappropriate in that. When I say that public servants are involved, I mean that they focus on the announcements that will be made in the Speech from the Throne. However, before the Speech from the Throne, came the purely political prorogation, the Prime Minister's prerogative.

Prorogation is an action. Why does one prorogue, why is it political and why is it acceptable? Those are questions we were asked during the testimony. It is because the government's program is political, which is why we became involved in politics. It is so that we can live every day to its fullest, bringing about change to benefit the citizens of our country.

When we make political choices like that, it's so that we can offer those citizens the choices in a better way. My opposition colleagues must make the distinction between a political action and a partisan action. The government was elected on the basis of its political program. Once again, whether you like it or not, we have implemented a program. Those elected in Canada are sticking with that program, such as the fight against climate change. Our citizens have chosen to put their trust in this government.

The government was elected on the basis of its program, but the Speech from the Throne is a political manifesto, establishing the government's roadmap that matches the program. Consequently, the need to prorogue Parliament and to update the program is purely political and perfectly acceptable. That is the nature of prorogation. To say that prorogation took place for reasons other than the pandemic, just means that we end up here today before a dysfunctional committee.

I understand full well that Ms. Vecchio has proposed amendments to the motion with a view to improving it. We know full well that, under such conditions, there is no real justification for the Prime Minister to be at the committee. We already know how and why the prorogation happened.

We are here today because we were obliged to prorogue Parliament and restart the government. In December 2019, the government presented a Speech from the Throne based on its political promises and the objectives it had set for itself in the goal of moving, Canada forward. However, no one could have foreseen the global pandemic that occurred in March 2020.

As parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Seniors, I became involved in increasing the old age security pension by 10%. We made that commitment when we were hit by the pandemic. We did not just increase the pension by 10%, we gave seniors twice as much money in various ways. We helped seniors by providing a one-time GST tax credit. During the pandemic, we gave low-income senior couples more than $1,500. Who could have foreseen that we were going to give seniors double the money that was intended during the first election campaign, in the space of a few days, in the blink of an eye?

My daughter reminded me of something this week. She told me that, on the same date last year, she was at a friend's house and that I called to tell her that I was coming to get her. She was not allowed to be with her friends anymore because a new rule had come into effect. My daughter did not understand why she had to leave her friends and no longer have any contact with them. No one could have foreseen that. A year later, she still cannot see her friends, except those who are in her class. Her school has major restrictions in terms of contacts. Who could have foreseen that? Because of the pandemic, my daughter could no longer see her friends. If a pandemic is not a good reason to prorogue Parliament, I don't know what it would take. We prorogued Parliament so that the government could make the right decisions.

This affects our families and it affects seniors. Seniors have suffered because of the isolation and they have suffered financially. Seniors who live in long-term care facilities have seen their neighbours die because of the pandemic. Front-line workers assisting our seniors have fallen in action trying to sustain the healthcare system. Those are all good reasons to prorogue Parliament and restart the government.

I am led to wonder whether we really are working in good faith, really working on specific ideas in the purview of committees on procedure. Once again, we have an attempt to link prorogation to the WE Charity to try to draw the media's attention to a crisis that does not exist. Everyone knows that mistakes were made with WE Charity, but it's over. Let's start the clock again and move on.

Once again, I need to thank all the public servants who have tried, through grant programs, to find the best possible ways of helping all the students whose jobs in tourism have been affected. In my constituency, a lot of young people work in tourism and agriculture during the summer. We have been badly affected at home. I have seen it in my constituency and you in yours. The entire program introduced in Parliament in December 2019 suddenly became obsolete, because we had been hit hard. All the priorities, the good intentions, the parliamentary sessions and the committee meetings are taking a different form because of the pandemic. There are so many things that we can do to improve things for people.

As a principle, we should be talking about the great projects that we had on our agenda. I am thinking of things like reviewing regulations. Even today, I dream of reviewing regulations so that I can add my two cents. I would like to have been with you from the beginning. I came to the committee late. For a few weeks, though a new, legitimate member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, I was like a guest. But I can assure you that, once I am in a boat, I can row and I can work with others. I would like to have made a number of points because the preamble says that members of Parliament can make suggestions for projects to be debated at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. There have been some good ideas.

I was talking earlier about the public service. But let us not overlook the interpretation services with which we are provided. The interpreters do a remarkable job. They keep us going through our long hours of work in both official languages. We often do not take the time to thank them or appreciate their work. We have an agenda item to study the interpretation services, to look for ways of improving their situation so that we can be better served in both official languages. If you can hear me in your language, in English, it is because we have exceptional services that make it possible and that our procedures provide for.

I was one of the founders of the rural caucus in 2015. Even today, the problem continues when elections come around. This is a matter I raised in 2015 and in 2019. In remote regions, some people travel 200 kilometres to get to a polling station in order to exercise their right to vote. With today's technology, with high security and with cyber security, would it be possible for our procedures to provide for ways of improving remote voting? We might, for example, call the topic “Rural and Remote Voting” or “Voting in Rural and Remote Areas”.

It would mean that the elderly would not have to depend on others else to drive them 200 km to vote and that we would be able to provide a more up-to-date service. These are matters that I would like to discuss at the committee. But I feel really useless.

So I will talk for as long as it takes, for three weeks if I have to, to point out that, for this motion, we should simply write a report, continue to work together, roll up our sleeves and move forward.

Believe me, it is not a good idea to summon the Prime Minister to a committee when everything has been said, when a report has been prepared, when we have admitted the problems with the WE Charity and also when another report was written as a result of the prorogation.

In addition, we have met with witnesses today and we are capable of understanding the issue. Really, we should be moving on.

Earlier, I talked about reviewing regulations. Just in terms of the review of the Canada Elections Act, a lot of work was done. My hat is off to you. A lot of work was done by this committee and by other committees. However, so many things are evolving so quickly because of the current situation that we have to constantly be aware of and open to changes. It is a role that our committee must take seriously so that we can play our rightful part as agents of change. The committees are the best places to produce reports along those lines.

I would also like to talk to you about an extremely important matter, which is to examine initiatives to improve the work-family balance in the House of Commons. This is a matter that we must focus on and to which I would like to suggest a refinement. In fact, not only are we talking about the work-family balance today but we have more women and more young people in politics. The young people have children and we all know the sacrifice made to be in politics when one has children. Can we do better?

Personally, I would like to establish a link between telework and the work-family balance. I would really like to discuss this issue with you and work to do a study, or to improve a study, along those lines. Nothing is more current. I feel that this matter should be moved to the top of the list. As a government, we would also be able to ensure a good transition.

No one is talking about this, but, currently, a number of public servants working remotely do not even know the difference between telework that the employer imposes, that is to say working from home because one cannot go back to the office, and choosing to balance work and family. In fact, the work-family balance allows a family to improve its quality of life when one of the two parents can work at home. It means that someone is there to greet the children when they come home from school; it means that people are no longer sitting in traffic for hours. That is possible, but only when the work done at home is equally effective.

I could talk to you about this for a very long time. I have read a lot on the matter. I have my opinions.

We absolutely have to work on the work-family balance issue, but we must also include the aspect of telework, because it is being imposed on workers. If people want to be paid, they have to work outside their offices, in other words, to telework. They are given the equipment they need to set up at home, but with no concern as to the isolation they might feel or the space they need. Some people are alone from morning to night because their socialization is done at the office. Their work is their family. They can't see their friends in the evening and, during the day, they are alone in their little apartments. We see this mostly in large centres, where public servants rent apartments closer to their offices during their first years of work. Let's put ourselves in the shoes of people living alone in small apartments for more than a year and who have set up their kitchen tables as Service Canada offices in order to work. It is extremely difficult.

These are the kinds of matters I would like to be talking about at meetings of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Let's also not forget the legal structure of the Parliamentary Protective Service. I've already talked about that a little, so I will not go back over it.

Everything happens quickly today. I am thinking of the news and the allegations we can see online. Everything that happens today becomes a pressing issue. You can even include recommendations on the study on issues of sexual harassment. That is a pressing issue. We also have the issue of medical assistance in dying for the healthy. Why do we not focus on those matters, even though they may not be easy to talk about?

We have to talk about the measures that must be taken against any form of harassment. We have to talk about the legal structure of the Parliamentary Protective Service. They are matters of great consequence, but we have to brave the storm and move forward. It makes no sense to be talking about prorogation and its links to an imagined scandal involving WE Charity, given all the work we have to do at the moment.

In addition, we know that our committee has to conduct a study on redrawing constituencies. It is our responsibility to do so. We have to start sooner rather than later, because the demographics are constantly changing. For example, in my constituency, some regions are developing exponentially. Since the pandemic started, there has been an explosion of people into remote areas. Cottages have become so important. Some are converting them into houses. The real estate market varies enormously. The Canadian market is overheated everywhere right now.

By all indications, the demographics are changing rapidly in each of our constituencies. The game-changing news is that high-speed Internet is going to be accessible. Some municipalities in my constituency were not developing because they had no Internet access. The provinces and the federal government have committed to ensuring that everyone has Internet access. With the minister responsible, they have established a number of programs. The CRTC has also created a program. My province had a program and the federal level had a program. So a project jointly funded by Quebec and the feds has just been announced. Just imagine the demographic explosion that this is going to create in rural areas and in the regions.

We have the data today. The data are probably realistic. We can use the data we have today as a basis; we can work with the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and assess the increase in the number of rural residents. The increase will result in some overload. In downtown Toronto, with block upon block that are 95% apartment buildings, nothing will change. We know that not a lot will change. However, we have to ask ourselves whether we need more constituencies, whether we need to increase the number of residents per constituency, and whether our constituencies need to be made bigger.

My constituency currently has 41 municipalities, spread over 5,000 km². That is a lot of ground to cover. When I go to the far end of my constituency for a dinner or an evening, I have to stay there overnight and come back the next day. You can see clearly how those things have to be thought through. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has to take a look, in order to change and improve the way we do things.

I would now like to discuss something other than constituency boundaries. It deals with recommendations about a study on a confidence convention. This matter was raised by a member, in fact. He wants to establish a confidence convention.

Reading that piqued my curiosity. I went to check what studying a confidence convention might entail. I couldn't find anything about it. I am ready to listen to others, to take the plunge and to learn. I am curious to move forward and to find out what is possible in terms of a confidence convention.

To me, it is not common political language, and I have been working in politics since 2009. I am open to it today. However, we are going to have to work as a committee, ask questions and plan for a working session on the approach to the upcoming motions we want to implement. We have to know what work we want to do.

Earlier, the Chair said that we have to pass a budget. We have to bite the bullet and pass a budget. Even though members are not travelling, there are still expenses for the technical equipment for our guests. The committee wants to hear the witnesses' testimony. That actually seems to be the greatest expense. Even though we are not travelling and the committee has no expenses, we still have to establish a budget and set priorities. So we are going to have to make decisions along those lines.

Basically, all the plans, priorities and intentions that we had for the parliamentary session at the beginning of 2020 have disappeared and been replaced by the urgent need to assist Canadians to make it through the greatest global event since the Second World War. It is therefore quite logical that, when the first wave subsided, in the summer of 2020, the government had to take stock and decide whether it was still possible to continue with the plan that had been established in December 2019. That was done in preparation for the Speech from the Throne.

No one here can argue the fact that it was necessary to reset the government's priorities after the first wave of COVID-19.

We had to concentrate on the economic recovery, on seeking vaccines, on the importance of working well with the provinces to prepare to vaccinate Canadians, and on the preparations for the likely second and third waves. It was exactly the kind of situation where prorogation was needed and was properly used.

Some have said that it was a political decision by the Prime Minister. As I said previously, it is perfectly understandable that the reasoning should still be the subject of debate. However, the committee was able to be made aware of the government's reasoning, and that is the important point. We on the committee expect to hear the explanations so that we can accept the answers. The Prime Minister himself took the time to justify the prorogation. In addition, Mr. Rodriguez came before the committee and explained the government's position. It was absolutely unnecessary for the Prime Minister or his Chief of Staff to appear.

Let us not mince words. Some of Ms. Vecchio's amendments would mean that the Prime Minister would have to appear with his Chief of Staff. We know that is pure politics. It is absolutely unnecessary for the Prime Minister to appear. Frankly, I wonder why we are back at this stage, given everything I have just explained.

In closing, I will spend a few minutes on that issue.

I will end on this, but this is very important.

Honestly, why would we be asking for those witnesses to appear here given that, in the court of Conservative and opposition opinion, they are already guilty of something? We can read as much in the questions and the answers: they are guilty before ever they come here. Notions have been preconceived. We have a motion to knock somebody down who is already on the ground. At this committee, the opposition has presumed the conclusion of the matter and has done everything it can to try and make the facts fit its story. What facts is it talking about? There are no facts, because those witnesses appeared at other committees. With what result? None.

Canadians are not interested in this political game. They are concerned by the political game being played by the Conservatives and their opposition cronies. Canadians do not believe in this fake crisis they are trying to create. The scope of the motion before us is so broad, and so inappropriate for this study that, as committee members, we have no other choice but to reject it. If you want, we can talk about a counterproposal or an amendment to the motion later, but I will be speaking for my point of view as long as it is necessary to do so.

I find it interesting to be talking to you about the way in which I do politics and the decisions we made in terms of the prorogation. As I reread the motion we are discussing today, I found it interesting to see how outrageous the opposition's attempt really is.

They are not trying to do a study on prorogation; this is about the WE Charity. Prorogation is only an excuse for them to bring that matter up before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I understand my opposition colleagues' frustration. For months, they have been trying to make this an issue, at a number of committees and in the media, and they have got nowhere. Now, they are trying one last time to use the WE Charity to embarrass the government. I understand their frustration.

During the pandemic, we helped seniors, especially the most vulnerable. To start with, we gave them a GST credit, which helped 6 million seniors in Canada. The Bloc Québécois has said publicly that we did not help seniors because the GST credit was made available to everyone, not just seniors. For us, “everyone” includes seniors. For me, all Canadian citizens have a place in the country that I am proud to defend.

Furthermore, the dates for which documents have been demanded, show that our colleagues are not interested in prorogation itself and they are actually trying to link the WE Charity to this study. When I arrived, I began to take notes, in order to trace the history of the study. Today, with a simple and concise analysis, it is easy to see the opposition's intention in introducing such a motion. These demands for witnesses and for documents are simply intended to slow down the work of the government, rather than to work in the interests of Canadians. We can see what is happening in the House in terms of medical assistance in dying. They don't want to move matters forward; they just want to hinder the work that the government is doing.

It is really funny to hear the Leader of the Opposition say that he wants the government to succeed in providing vaccines to Canadians. That is a joke. When we succeed, he's happy, and when the distribution is not going quick enough for his taste, he blames us. He would like us to move faster than the public health authorities and to be able to—

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

On a point of order, Madam Chair, can we just get back to the motion?

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

That is why it is important for our government to hear all the opinions it needs to move forward. Even if my colleagues say that the motion does not serve to slow down the government, nothing is going to stop me from saying what slows down a government and prevents it from working well, and this motion is directly linked to WE Charity. We need to move on. The opposition must stop playing partisan games. We must all continue to work together for the good of Canadians and our country. We need to get back to focusing on what matters to Canadians, which is reviving the economy and helping them through this global pandemic.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I give the floor to my colleagues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Mr. Lauzon.

It was interesting. On the study you mentioned—I mean, there are no motions that have been put on notice on that—we did look at modernizing Parliament.

I think even Ms. Petitpas Taylor was on committee when we first looked at the issue of a family-friendly Parliament. Then that study went on, and years later we picked it back up, called it modernizing Parliament, and made some recommendations. I still don't think the work was done, because there was at that time a lot of hesitation. I feel like we've progressed beyond that point now.

Anyway, it brought back some flashbacks on different things we've studied here before.

Ms. Petitpas Taylor, it is your turn.

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

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

Actually, yes, I was on the committee back then. Quite interestingly enough, the Province of New Brunswick right now is looking at studying a family-friendly type of legislature in New Brunswick. As Mr. Lauzon has indicated, we have an awful lot of young parliamentarians and, as such, they're wanting to look at things differently. It's good.

Before I begin, I wanted to say a special hello to Richard Cannings, the member of the NDP.

Thank you for joining us today, Mr. Cannings. I always have great memories of my first day in Ottawa. I met you and your wife in 2015 in our orientation session, and I think you and I both didn't exactly know what we were getting ourselves into. It's great to see you, and thank you for joining us. It's always great.

I have to also say, Monsieur Lauzon, thank you so much for all of your comments. I have to laugh when you say you're new to PROC and that you really want to make sure you're carrying your weight.

You are carrying your weight, no doubt about it.

You're continuing to work. I have to say you're certainly contributing a lot to the committee, Stéphane, and we appreciate your wisdom and your experience. Thank you so much for all that you do for us.

Before I start, I have to be honest. My comments are somewhat related to what Mr. Lauzon said earlier.

We are talking about the whole question of the relevance of prorogation. We are continuing this study that began several meetings ago. I think we can say that the opposition members have already made up their minds.

The last time I was in the House of Commons was on March 11, when Bill C-7 was introduced. That evening, I took the time to listen to all the debates in the House. Time and time again, members of the opposition, particularly the Conservatives, established links between prorogation and the WE Charity speech. I know they want to hear further witnesses at the committee, and I also think they want to reopen this debate.

I find it unfortunate that we are still debating this issue today. After all the attempts by the opposition members to make WE Charity the subject of this study, I was hoping that they would have finally moved on, but we are still here today. It's really unfortunate, because we want to work on issues and studies that matter to parliamentarians and to Canadians, but we need to continue to pursue this issue.

Like my colleague Mr. Lauzon, this past weekend, I had the opportunity to phone my constituents on what is called an action weekend. At no time did people talk to me about prorogation or the study of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. That said, what really came out of those conversations was vaccination. I could see that people were very hopeful. There was a light at the end of the tunnel as, finally, vaccination and delivery rates were gradually increasing.

Again, speaking about the many calls that I, my staff and volunteers have done over the past week, hearing about the issue of vaccination was really what was key and paramount to the people I spoke to. Prorogation certainly was not top of mind for people. I would again say that prorogation is not something that most Canadians think of day in and day out.

When it came to the issue of vaccination, when speaking to my constituents, again, they had hoped.... We know the big lift, as Minister Anand likes to say, is starting to occur now.

For me, I'm really excited when we're able to say to people that our original objective of having six million vaccines by the end of March is now not the case. We are actually going to have over 9.5 million vaccines in Canada by the end of next week. That's really exciting. I know that when constituents spoke to me this weekend, that's really what they were talking to me about.

They had questions about Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, and J and J. There are many opinions about that. However, what they also wanted us to focus on was making sure that Canadians had the right information about vaccines. They wanted to be reassured.

Health Canada regulators are doing a phenomenal job. When we hear that these folks are working around the clock to do the approval of vaccines, they really are. I know a lot of these people personally, and I can tell you that I see the black marks under their eyes, because they are literally working seven days a week to get the work done.

They deserve our congratulations. They are doing it because they want to keep Canadians safe. They also want to make sure that the work that needs to gets done, that we are not taking shortcuts and that vaccines are being approved in Canada.

What Canadians want is for us to protect their health and safety and their families'. They recognize that we need to get vaccines in arms as quickly as possible if we want to get a handle on COVID-19.

I also think what people are concerned about as well right now.... Again, I find it quite disturbing and really unfortunate that we're here debating this matter. Canadians are also really concerned about the third wave that's probably upon us right now. I shouldn't say “probably”; it is upon us.

Coming from New Brunswick, our numbers are a lot lower per capita, and I'm very pleased about that, but I'm concerned about all provinces and territories. Today alone—I was just looking at the numbers this morning—in the province of Ontario, we have 372 people right now who are in the ICU. That is the highest number since the peak of the second wave. The third wave is upon us in some areas, and it's really important to make sure that we continue to have all hands on deck to do the work that needs to be done.

Not only do we have to have vaccines in arms, but we have to continue to practise the public health guidelines. Last year, none of us knew what that was. We didn't talk about public health guidelines as much as we do now. However, we know that we have to do that. We have to have a multipronged approach to effectively gain control of this situation. I'm proud, as Canadians, that we continue to do that.

Again, in Ontario they were saying that over the past 24 hours, they've had 33 new admissions in ICU. We know that these numbers are creeping up again, so we have to work together and we have to make sure we have all hands on deck.

What Canadians want us to focus on is the issue of vaccines. They are really proud of the work that Minister Anand has been doing on this file. She's been doing a lot of heavy lifting. The job has not been easy and she continues to push those targets, because again, we want to make sure that the numbers of vaccines coming in are coming in as quickly as possible.

If I look at the province of New Brunswick, our small little province here on the east coast, population 750,000 total, and the number of vaccines coming in, that's what the people in my riding are really concerned about and really excited about. I quickly went through some of the lists of the numbers we're seeing in the province of New Brunswick. Last week, the week of March 15, we saw 9,300 vaccines come into our province. However, this next week—how exciting—we're receiving almost 25,000 vaccines.

That number continues on that trajectory, and that is without the additional 1.5 million AstraZeneca vaccines we are receiving from the U.S. We can see that the work we are doing is going to continue to ramp up and ramp up. From there, the speed that we can get vaccines into the arms of Canadians is absolutely key.

I also have to give a shout-out to Major-General Fortin, who has been doing a phenomenal job with respect to the issue of vaccine delivery across the country. We certainly recognize that is not a small feat. It's the biggest challenge, I am sure, that he's had in his career, probably, when it comes to logistics, but he's doing a great job and working collaboratively with provinces and territories to make sure that provinces get the supplies they need.

The other thing, as well, that I want to comment on was mentioned to me this week. Many Canadians aren't aware that the federal government is not only procuring the vaccines that are needed, but also all of the equipment that is needed to make sure those vaccines get into the arms of Canadians.

When we look at all of the PPE, the needles, the swabs and all the rest of it, a lot of work has been done in that area to make sure that we not only have the vaccines but the tools. If we don't have the tools that are needed to administer the vaccines, we're not going to be ahead.

Again, Minister Anand has done a phenomenal job in that area, in making sure that people have access to the tools.

I have to also comment that not all countries were as well prepared to have those additional tools that were needed. Some countries, because they didn't have the tools, weren't able to administer the vaccine. Therefore, we can see that Minister Anand has taken a global approach to making sure that all that was needed was—

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

I have a point of order. I'm questioning the relevance.

Could we get back to the motion? Thanks.

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

Absolutely. Thank you, Ms. Vecchio.

With respect to the tools and the procurement that was needed—and, again, this would be the area of priority that Canadians want us to focus on and what is really important for them right now—these are the types of things that people were mentioning to me.

With regard to the issue of prorogation, I can't say it came up at all in my conversations last weekend or during my busy week in the riding when I had meetings with many constituents.

If I focus again on the province of New Brunswick with respect to the PPE that the federal government has been able to procure, the province of New Brunswick has received 377,488 rapid tests for our little province alone. We have procured 578,000 pairs of gloves for frontline workers; disposable gowns, 5,900; respirators, 142,000; and surgical masks of all types, over 62,000.

Canadians want us to be prepared. They want us to make sure that, with the big lift of vaccines, we have the tools that are needed to administer them. I can see that our ministers have been hard at work making sure that gets done.

The other thing as well that I heard during my phone calls this weekend—and, again, my friend and colleague, Monsieur Lauzon, mentioned it—was on the issue of seniors. We have certainly recognized—again, we have said it time and time again—that the pandemic has certainly shone the light on the many inequalities and also the many vulnerabilities that exist within our system. The issue of people in long-term care facilities has certainly been key and highlighted and is really disturbing for all Canadians.

Throughout this pandemic, our government has tried to work hard with provinces and territories to make sure they received the additional supports that were needed, because we recognize that the issue of long-term care falls in the responsibilities of the provinces and territories. However, at the end of the day, I think it's all of our responsibility to make sure that our seniors are well taken of. They worked so hard to build this country that we are privileged to live in, and we have to be sure we are there for them. We have provided additional funding, through the safe restart agreement, in order to prevent and control outbreaks of infection. We have to continue working closely with them to make sure they receive those supports.

What's the relevancy is perhaps being asked. This weekend, again, the issue of prorogation was not the issue that was coming up. These are the issues, the long conversations that people wanted to have and wanted to make sure that our government was really focused on.

We have heard too many stories...and, yes, in my province of New Brunswick as well, we have had some outbreaks in facilities. We know how difficult it has been for our seniors. It has been difficult for our family members. It has been difficult for everyone involved. We have to make sure that our seniors are better protected and that support workers receive the training they need, the protection they need and the wage increase they need. Again, there's a lot of work that needs to be done, and I'm happy that our government has been able to work with the provinces and territories. That is going to continue in the short term, but also it has to continue for the long term.

The other thing as well that was brought to mind many times last week was the issue of long-term care standards. This is not something we can take lightly. It's something that we have to continue to work on with provinces and territories to make sure we get this done right.

The approach that “Ottawa knows best” is not the approach that is needed. We have to work in close collaboration with leading experts and also with the provinces and territories. The reality in New Brunswick is probably not the reality in Etobicoke, or in Whitby perhaps, or other areas of the country. I don't know the names of all the ridings of my colleagues, so I'm trying to divide them up.

I think we have to look at what national standards are needed to make sure that everyone at least gets a level of care that is similar across the country, just like our health care system. When we look at the Canada Health Act, we have a Canada Health Act that's imposed in order to make sure people have access to similar services. Again, we want to make sure, through our long-term care standards that we are going to be putting in place, that people are going to have access to similar types of services, and that should be expected of all.

Another thing I want to mention really quickly, which I think is good news when we talk about long-term care, is that we've seen thus far with our vaccine rollout that, as of last week, 89% of people in long-term care have finally been inoculated. That's really good news. I know it certainly warmed my heart when my 99-year-old aunt, Lillian, called me to say that she had gotten her vaccine. She was pretty happy. We need to make sure that we continue and that everyone who can be inoculated will be, but again, we have a lot of other folks we certainly have to focus on.

Another point that came out for me during the conversations this past week—and again, I don't want to take all the time, and I want to make sure that I share my time with other colleagues who have a lot of things to say—is that a lot of people were focusing on seniors who are living at home. I talked about 89% of seniors who live in long-term care facilities being inoculated, but in my province we're still at people 85 and over having appointments booked. Slowly but surely the age is going down. People in long-term care have been inoculated, but those who are living at home still have to wait for when their turn comes up on the list.

We're fortunate in New Brunswick. We have over 200 pharmacies that are providing the vaccines, so the rollout is going well.

I really have to give a shout-out to Dr. Jennifer Russell. She appeared before our committee during our study on election preparedness. Dr. Russell and her team have really done a great job of informing New Brunswickers and of keeping New Brunswickers safe. At the end of the day, Dr. Russell has the trust of New Brunswickers. Every day at two o'clock people still tune in to hear her message. That's where the decisions need to be. The decisions need to be with our public health experts and not with politicians. We need to rely on their expertise in order to move forward.

Coming back to what I was going to mention about seniors who are at home, I know I've heard from a lot of them and, I can tell you, when they got me on the phone last week they certainly wanted to talk and had a lot of thoughts to share about the handling of the pandemic. Overall, again, they were satisfied with the work that has been done, but a lot of them indicated to me that they were really lonely. This past year has been tough on them. We have these little bubbles, but many of them couldn't go out and their bubble was really limited.

They want to make sure that we continue to work hard in order, again, to get vaccines into arms but also to make sure that we do all that we can to prevent that third wave from happening, because they want life to get back to some sense of normalcy again—whatever that new normal is going to look like.

I think we all can be of the opinion that probably normal is not going to be what it was before. I think we're all going to be changing our habits, and that's not a bad thing. I think the quicker we can get to whatever that new sense of normalcy is going to be, the more beneficial it will be to all of us for our physical health and also our mental health.

When I was speaking to my seniors this weekend, prorogation was not an issue that came up. What they did talk to me about was making sure that governments provided additional services to people who were actually living at home. In the province of New Brunswick, the issue of connectivity sometimes comes up. I'm fortunate that in my riding we have high-speed Internet pretty well all over the place, but I know it's not the reality for folks across the province.

We talked a lot about some different types of investments that we've made and perhaps some financial support that we've been able to provide, as my friend and colleague Monsieur Lauzon indicated. I'm not going to go over the comments with respect to the amounts of money that have been given to individuals, but I do know that in my riding there are a lot of great community organizations that provide support to seniors and that things had to change because of the pandemic, because we couldn't have that physical contact with each other. I was really pleased a few weeks ago that we were able to make a few phone calls to folks in organizations in the area to tell them about some investments through the new horizons for seniors program, and I'm sure that probably all of us here in this committee have received some funding for different groups in our area. Sometimes they're not huge amounts of money, but it makes a huge difference to these organizations and how they can deliver services, and they can certainly stretch a dollar. This money goes far for them.

I'll give you just a bit of a snapshot of the types of investments we've been able to make and some groups that have benefited from them.

One group was the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. It wanted to provide some services to alleviate isolation for seniors who are visually impaired. Again, these are people who oftentimes would meet together in settings, and as a result of the pandemic they're no longer able to do that. This funding that we were able to provide for them is going to provide them outlets to alleviate that isolation that many seniors are going through.

We were also able to make some investments.... Again, this came up during one of my calls—prorogation didn't, but lawn bowling in my riding did, believe it or not. The Centennial Lawn Bowling Club has received some funding, and it's to increase their amount of equipment and to give people lessons and courses on lawn bowling. Spring is upon us, even in New Brunswick; it is going to start soon, and we know that physical distancing is possible when doing outside sports. They were thrilled to get some additional funding, and they'll be able to increase their participation when it comes to that program.

Another group that received funding was the Codiac Woodworkers Guild. A lot of people, like seniors, who have woodworking experience will be sharing their tricks of the trade and encouraging people to get involved, all while respecting social distancing.

I had to laugh. Last year I visited one of these groups, and many of the seniors who have now moved into apartments have donated all of their woodworking equipment to these seniors facilities and are using their own equipment to teach people. It's like a win-win for these folks because they didn't know whom to donate their equipment to. Their children in many cases didn't want the equipment, but these seniors still feel really valued. As a result, through the additional funding that we were able to provide to them, we can see that it's going to make a difference. Again, seniors want us to work on their priorities and provide them with the assistance and additional funding they need to help them during the really trying times of the pandemic.

I could go on and on, but I'm probably going to save a few examples in the event that we...wanting to share a bit of what's going on in the riding. However, one other thing I wanted to comment on was the United Way of the greater Moncton area. I know that many of you probably have United Way agencies, and the one in Moncton does phenomenal work throughout the southeastern part of the province.

This time around, with the monies we've provided to the United Way through the new horizons for seniors program, they have also received a grant, meaning that seniors are preparing meals for seniors and delivering them at home. They've seen that, throughout the pandemic, this has been really needed because many seniors haven't been able to go to food banks or get the additional support they need. This meal delivery program has made a huge difference in their lives, and we will hopefully continue to support them and find ways to support them as well.

I mentioned a lot of these types of examples today because, first of all, they speak to the pride of my riding. I'm really proud and pleased with the work that many committed people are doing in the riding. I also mentioned them to demonstrate that at this point in time, Canadians want us to focus on what's really important to them.

Talking about the WE Charity and other things is not a priority in the minds of Canadians. I know that people have indicated that this is about the study on prorogation. However, over the past several meetings we've had at PROC, a group of people has provided us with valuable expertise on prorogation. We've had academics. We've also had the House leader, who came forward to provide us with testimony, very openly and transparently, with his bureaucrats, on the reason for prorogation.

I truly believe that at this point in time, we are at the point that we should start writing our report with respect to our recommendations.

Again, I think it is time we wrote the report on our study on prorogation. It makes no sense to ask the Prime Minister or anyone else to come back here. It is obvious that the opposition members are fixated on one thing. They are convinced that they will find a smoking gun. Yet, after hearing all the witnesses who appeared in the WE Charity study, it is clear that there is no scandal in this story. So, I think it is time to start writing our report. This way, we can continue our important work for Canadians.

Frankly, why call all these witnesses if, according to the opposition, they are all guilty of something already?

The opposition parties have already made their views on this clear and public.

As I was saying last week, when we were debating the assisted dying bill in the evening, even then, time and time again, I heard people make that comment about prorogation and WE Charity. I really don't think we have anything to gain by continuing to invite witnesses.

Madam Chair, to conclude, I have a few comments to make before I hand the floor over to my honourable colleagues.

I understand the frustration of my colleagues in the opposition. They have tried for months to make this an issue in several committees and in the media, and have gotten nowhere. Now, they are trying one last time to embarrass the government with the WE Charity issue. Again, this has nothing to do with prorogation. This request for additional witnesses and documents is nothing more than an attempt to slow down the work of the government, to bog down civil servants in paperwork and to waste their time reviewing documents rather than working on implementing the government's agenda.

Madam Chair, this concludes my comments.

I would also like to give a notice of motion at this point in time, if I'm able to. Is that okay, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

You wouldn't be able to actually move it, but you can put it on notice.

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

That would be great.

The notice is as follows:

That, pursuant to its mandate to examine issues related to Elections Canada under Standing Order 108(3)(a)(vi), the committee undertake to study the issue of hate groups registering as political entities with Elections Canada in order to be able to access the tax advantages for fundraising and the voters list;

That this study include a particular focus on any legal space, given the existing transparency requirements for political entities laid out in the Canada Elections Act and Criminal Code offences related to hate speech directed towards identifiable groups, that allows hate groups to access benefits intended for legitimate political activity with the express purpose of disseminating messages of hate;

That the committee make recommendations to the Government on how best to address this issue, recognizing the limits to free speech as defined in the Criminal Code and without

—and I stress “without”—

undermining key tools required for political engagement of legitimate political parties with Canadian voters;

That the committee report its findings and recommendations to the House; and

That, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee request that the Government table a comprehensive response to this report.

That would be the motion, Madam Chair. I think it's really timely that PROC do a detailed study on this matter. We certainly recognize that this is an issue of grave concern. I think it would be very timely if this committee would be tasked to undertake this study.

For now, Madam Chair, I will cede the floor to my friend and colleague Mr. Turnbull.

Thank you so much.

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

Point of order, Madam Chair.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to Ms. Petitpas Taylor for bringing forward that motion.

Perhaps in an effort to move things along, why don't we seek unanimous consent to pass both Ms. Petitpas Taylor's motion and Ms. Vecchio's motion on division and get to work on the content of both motions. We'd pass both motions on division and move on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes, Mr. Nater.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Is there unanimous consent to do that?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

It was a good attempt to move us forward, Mr. Nater.

That motion is just on notice. As I mentioned before, we have the motion of Mr. Blaikie and also three motions from Monsieur Therrien.

Would you be able to email—

[The Clerk]

Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes, Mr. Clerk.