Evidence of meeting #26 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was prorogation.
A recording is available from Parliament.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Thank you, Mr. Blaikie. That's nice of you to recognize.
Carry on, Mr. Turnbull.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I appreciate that as well, Madam Chair.
Mr. Blaikie, it's much appreciated. Thank you.
I want to make a few remarks in the hopes that we can move past this. I know, as I just mentioned, that Mr. Blaikie said the pandemic also matters. I know maybe he didn't mean it the way I took it, but I certainly think the pandemic is of central importance and we need to remain focused on that. I think that's what we have heard from members.
I also know that we've done some great work in this committee on a possible pandemic election, and that has resulted in, or at least contributed to, a bill that's before Parliament. That's really important as well.
I also want to reference a recent CBC article and raise this issue for the committee for consideration. It's really the issue of election integrity. To me, it's not just managing an election, but ensuring that—
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
We have an amendment. Now he's talking about a different bill. I really think it's important that we get back to the motion. I recognize that we're giving lots of people leniency on this, but now we're talking about Bill C-19, and we're talking about the election. Perhaps we could get back to the prorogation. Even if it has an impact on your community, Bill C-19 does not currently have an impact. It has nothing to do with prorogation.
Thank you.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
I apologize. I myself didn't hear that last sentence, so I can't really make a clear ruling on that.
I will remind the member to stay on the point of the amendment.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
To Ms. Vecchio's point, in a pandemic context, it's really important for us to be considering misinformation that's out there. This is an important topic that this committee should be studying. I put a motion on notice at our last meeting. I believe we should move on [Technical difficulty—Editor].
I move that the debate be now adjourned.
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
May we request a recorded vote, please.
(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Madam Chair, as I was saying, the recent Ontario Superior Court decision struck down amendments that were made to the Canada Elections Act. This is deeply concerning for me, because there's quite a bit of misinformation that seems to be circulating. I've seen quite a lot of attention on this issue. We need to start looking at this, within an elections process, if deliberately false statements are being put out by parties within an election process. I know Mr. Blaikie was reported in the media recently as being in support of this study. I had put a motion on notice. This would be a better use of our time. I digress and I'll move back to speaking to the amendment.
I have lots to say about the amendment that I've put forward, providing rationale and justification for that amendment.
First off, from the last two meetings, I've been making a real effort to articulate an argument that substantiates the reasons for prorogation. You'll probably remember, for those of you who were at those meetings, that I've been saying very clearly that a global pandemic is a good reason for proroguing Parliament. If not, then what is? When I look back at prorogations in the past, it's very clear that there were lesser reasons cited. There were recessions that were blips compared to what we're experiencing today.
With that said, I want to further my argument. We've heard from multiple opposition parties numerous times that they think the throne speech lacked substance and basically didn't include anything new. I beg to differ on that front. Actually, I should state it more strongly. I emphatically disagree with that statement. The throne speech was constructed based on evidence, research and data that was provided by the chief statistician of Canada, and a very robust consultation process that was undertaken by the government.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
There's an issue with your sound. There's a lot of static and I don't know how that would be for the interpreters. I think you were mentioning at the beginning that you had a connection problem. I wonder if we can get some assistance from the technical team to check out Mr. Turnbull's connectivity.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
It seems to be particularly bad right now. It's jumping in and out and I'm not sure why, because it was fine yesterday and the day before that. I'm not sure what's going on.
2:55 p.m.
The Clerk
Madam Chair and Mr. Turnbull, we'll look into it and see if there's anything on our end that we can do. We might need to get an IT ambassador to reach out to you directly and try to address the problem. Just stand by, please.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
Ginette Petitpas Taylor Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Madam Chair, the sound was bad at my end as well.
3:10 p.m.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Thanks very much. I have a point of order. Under Bosc and Gagnon, according to our procedures, after somebody has moved a motion to adjourn debate, he has conceded the floor. I know we have a speakers list. I believe it should go to the next speaker.
During the small break when Mr. Turnbull was having some issues, I just referred to page 607 of Bosc and Gagnon. As is noted in there, he has removed himself from the speakers list. He can put himself back on there, but he had moved a motion that ended his time.
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Ms. Vecchio, thank you for that point of order.
I will call upon our wonderful clerk to help us out here. I've just opened up our procedure book, but I'm sure the clerk can help us out quickly.
I'll review it as well so it doesn't happen again if we do find that it was not according to the rules of procedure.
Mr. Clerk, could you help us out there?
3:10 p.m.
The Clerk
Yes, Madam Chair. The passage that Ms. Vecchio read would be consistent with my understanding of the procedure. Generally when a member makes a motion after an intervention, when they get to the point of making that motion and a decision is made on it, that has the effect of ceding the floor to the next person on the list.
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Okay. So be it. We need to follow the rules of procedure.
Mr. Turnbull, that means we are now giving the floor to Mr. Lauzon.
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I'm pleased to resume the floor on the amendment of my colleague Mr. Turnbull, who will have an opportunity to address the topic again.
First, I want to thank Mr. Turnbull. I would also like to thank Ms. Duncan and Mr. Long for their inspirational speeches. They are passionate, they speak from the heart, and they are very determined. We're inevitably inspired when we have the good fortune to hear from these experienced individuals.
After the amendment was introduced, we had time to examine the reasons for excluding the Prime Minister's testimony and including that of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance. After analyzing the remarks of all the members and more closely considering the amendment introduced by Mr. Turnbull…
Something has happened. I have an issue.
Can you hear me?
Then I'll continue. As I was saying, I took a look at the report the government tabled on the reasons leading to Mr. Turnbull's amendment. I'm going to support the amendment because it's a good compromise, even though I would personally have liked to forge ahead and abandon the idea of hearing witnesses other than those we've heard to date, including Mr. Rodriguez.
That being said, the report that Mr. Rodriguez tabled in the House of Commons really paints a picture of the situation facing our government and country during the pandemic. The report also made me reflect on the cooperation we've observed among members, regardless of party. We've felt that we're here for Canadians despite the pandemic. Mr. Turnbull's amendment makes me wonder how far we could go by having the Deputy Prime Minister testify before the committee.
The words Mr. Turnbull uses in his amendment are entirely legitimate. My colleague Mr. Long has used terms relating more to the collective bargaining process. I don't want to use those terms because we aren't operating in a reciprocity context. I would say instead that this is a good compromise.
This good compromise, under which we would delete the first paragraph and invite the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth to appear before the committee for at least 90 minutes, is an extremely valid one. We've already made considerable progress toward asking all the questions to which we already know the answers.
I've also thought about the role of cooperation in a minority government context.
I'm a newcomer to federal politics, and I haven't experienced this in municipal politics. I've served two terms, but I've never had to work with the opposition when my party was in power. I experienced it in 2015, when the government came to power. Now I know what it means to work with the opposition.
We've done some good things. I was much impressed to see that a government could be functional even as a minority government. We've definitely shown how we can serve Canadians.
Again with respect to Mr. Turnbull's amendment, the Deputy Prime Minister could show us how the work was done before, during and after the prorogation.
I feel I have to support Mr. Turnbull's motion so I can say that open-mindedness still has a place on this committee. That's given me food for thought.
What I really find disappointing is to see that a party has decided that politics and scoring political points take precedence over the common good. That's what bothers me.
We've done a lot of work together. We're proud we're still here. We aren't yet talking about the pandemic in the past tense, but rather in the present. We don't want to abandon all the work we've done together. Some people say our government hasn't acted in good faith. However, we've made good decisions, and we'll have to make more. It's disappointing to see that people are trying to turn this into a political football.
The Deputy Prime Minister could confirm for the committee that we don't need to hear testimony from the Prime Minister. She could also confirm that we've offered emergency support to more than 8 million Canadians through the Canada emergency response benefit. That's not nothing. We've helped people who have lost their jobs by providing the Canada emergency rent subsidy. I still have to process certain cases in my riding even today. I have to intervene and call people back.
People are still trying to play politics over a motion.
Mr. Turnbull's amendment should be debated. Mr. Blaikie clearly indicated in his remarks that he's opposed to the amendment to the motion. What I want to do is continue arguing as long as possible so I can show all the members, including Mr. Blaikie, that we should forget about inviting the Prime Minister. We already have all the evidence we need to prove that achieved nothing on the outside.
We're trying to make a connection between the Prime Minister's appearance and the prorogation and between the Prime Minister's appearance and the WE Charity. I encourage my colleagues to reread the questions in the report. It states that, from the outset, they made a connection between the WE Charity and the questions we put to witnesses. So there's nothing new. They're saying that the Prime Minister must say it, but I would remind you that at no time did the Conservative Prime Minister of the time, Mr. Harper, have to testify before the committees with regard to the prorogation. A prime minister is usually not invited to appear before committee. However, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau did just that.
The work we've done together has helped support millions of Canadians. We've helped people stay in business and cope better with the circumstances of this economic and health crisis that we've discussed at such great length. We've also help people get back on their feet and put food on the table. We put in place old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. You know the latter is my baby and how important it was for me to make the right decisions.
With respect to Mr. Turnbull's amendment, the Deputy Prime Minister could come and talk to the committee about Canadians living in residential long-term care centres, seniors living in private residences and those living at home and who were isolated because they didn't even dare go to the grocery store or drugstore.
We put financial assistance in place for Canadians living with disabilities and advanced one-time non-taxable payments of $600. That also affects a large percentage of seniors who, as they age, suffer from disabilities that prevent them from readily fitting into society and performing everyday tasks. So we've assisted them. Canadians, particularly those living with disabilities, remember that the Conservatives tried to block that support. Imagine that! They tried to block support for persons with disabilities.
The Deputy Prime Minister could come and tell you that the government has invested in support for Canada's food banks and about what we've achieved. We don't need to see the Prime Minister because the Deputy Prime Minister is also the Minister of Finance. So it's important that she come and provide answers to all your questions on pandemic-related needs, measures that we have taken and why we prorogued Parliament.
We've also invested in food banks and assisted community partners in meeting housing needs and the safety-related needs of the homeless. We've also introduced a support measure to house 500 persons. At the very moment we were making major decisions, the provinces did the same. Some imposed curfews, which proved to be a problem for homeless individuals. So we had to act quickly. The Deputy Prime Minister could come and tell you about that and explain the homelessness situation to you.
We also supported more than 500 women's shelters and centres for sexual assault victims during the COVID-19 pandemic. The number of female sexual assault victims has increased during that time for all the reasons we are well aware of.
No one is in a better position to testify before the committee than the Deputy Prime Minister, who is a woman and is highly sensitive to the cause of women, to finance and the pandemic. It's not the Prime Minister's role to meet and speak with us since we have all the necessary staff and answers to the questions we've put to the right witnesses. In addition, Mr. Turnbull's amendment affords us an opportunity to hear from the Deputy Prime Minister in committee.
I also haven't told you about our cooperation with our first nations, Métis and Inuit partners. We've invested $2.2 billion to find community solutions and immediately meet the public health needs of indigenous persons. There's little discussion of the socioeconomic phenomenon caused by the pandemic in indigenous communities, but it's extremely important that we discuss it today.
The Deputy Prime Minister also could have come and told you about the students who had to face a very different labour market last year. Many students in my riding found themselves without a job because tourism is a large part of my riding's economy. We also have a lot of jobs in the restaurant and hotel industries, outfitting and access to watersports. All those students wound up unemployed.
The Deputy Prime Minister could also come and talk, as Mr. Turnbull's amendment proposes, about how we introduced the Canada emergency student benefit, which provided financial support to more than 700,000 students. A little later, I'll tell you about the WE Charity's approach to students. You'll understand what I'm getting at. I'm going to make the connection with Mr. Turnbull's amendment.
What the Deputy Prime Minister could come and tell you is that we've enabled small, medium and large Canadian businesses in all sectors to stay afloat. We introduced a business credit program and measures designed to support local jobs and the economies of all Canadian regions through all six regional development agencies in Canada. Our officials have worked hard from the start to adjust to the programs we're trying to develop to assist the public.
Dr. Duncan has addressed the health issue. No one on this committee is in a better position to discuss health. She's been criticized for not speaking directly to the amendment, but I'm pleased to take the floor to thank her for her efforts. She has made me think, once again, about how important today's debate is. We can ask Dr. Duncan all the questions we want to put to the Deputy Prime Minister about what we've done to improve the health of Canadians as a result of this prorogation. So her speech directly concerned the amendment. I tip my hat to her.
Despite some setbacks, such as those I mentioned a few moments ago, we've managed to do these things and to offer these programs because we've worked together. "Together" is an important word. We've put Canadians first.
Now we're witnessing a dangerous trend toward casting the interests of Canadians aside and focusing solely on political gains. We see what's happening in the committees. No one's trying to advance files; some just want committees to suspend their meetings until a later date, while others extend their sitting times, sometimes until early morning, if necessary. It's gotten that bad. It's a dangerous game.
I'm prepared to do my job just as I've done it, but I'll defend Mr. Turnbull's amendment tooth and nail. Mr. Blaikie said in his speech that he was completely opposed to the idea of inviting the Deputy Prime Minister and that he absolutely wanted to summon the Prime Minister, but I'll keep working as long as necessary to have Mr. Turnbull's amendment accepted.
The motion we're debating today is a clear example of that. The amendment that Mr. Turnbull has introduced is nevertheless a compromise, and that's evidence of an open mind. Mr. Blaikie has clearly shown us he doesn't have an open mind, and he's unfortunately not the only one. The same is true of the Conservatives. You need only look at what happened in the House: the Conservatives used every possible tactic to delay and block adoption of extremely important bills.
I don't want to join the debate on medical assistance in dying. We could discuss that for a very long time. I want to stick to Mr. Turnbull's amendment. Today let's conduct an appropriate examination of the bill on the fall economic statement. What does that bill actually contain?
We're going to talk briefly about figures because they're really important. Under this amendment, since she's also the Minister of Finance, the Deputy Prime Minister could come and explain to us how funding of up to $505.7 million [Technical difficulty—Editor], including funding to prevent the spread of COVID-19, outbreaks and deaths. These are decisions that have been made.
She could come and justify the prorogation and talk about emergency support for low-income families who are entitled to the Canada child benefit. Mr. Turnbull also discussed the importance of the child benefit. The amount of the benefit could range up to $1,200 for each child under the age of six in 2021. These families aren't just thanking the Liberals; they're thanking all members of Parliament for granting Canadians $1,200 per child to support them during the pandemic.
The Deputy Prime Minister could also come and discuss the elimination of interest on repayment of the federal portion of Canada student and apprentice loans for 2021-2022. That measure lightens the financial burden of 1.4 million young Canadians. Those young people are my children and your children, children who need support in order to pay for their studies, who need summer jobs. I have one daughter at university and another studying at a community college. They're at the age where education is expensive. My three daughters, of whom I am extremely proud, have received a good education. However, that education is costing me a lot of money. So I can tell you that student assistance is very much appreciated.
Incidentally, a single scholarship made it possible for one of my daughters to study in Europe, acquire incredible life experience and come home with an invaluable addition to her education. That's what subsidies are for, and that's the result of the decisions we make. Thanks to certain political decisions, my daughter had an opportunity to visit a number of countries.
The Europeans invest in high-speed trains and accessible and affordable public transit. We have quite a way to go in that respect, and we must follow their example. We absolutely have to put subsidy programs in place. We have to help young students develop here and elsewhere by providing grants so they can study as long as possible. As one teacher said, young people who study today will be supporting us tomorrow. They're our future and we must continue supporting them.
The WE Charity had, and still has, an objective, which is to help young people do volunteer work, get paid and save money to go back to school in September, all in order to assist parents like me. I have three daughters, two of whom are still in school.
It's important that every one of the decisions we make for young students is made in the greater interest of students and parents as a whole. We often see grandparents providing assistance. In so doing, they skip a generation. We see grandparents assisting their grandchildren because education costs include rent, books, Internet registrations, subscriptions, cell phone service, computers and tablets; in short, the equipment that young people need at university. Those costs are exorbitant, particularly for parents who have more than one child. They are already exorbitant for a single child; imagine when there are three.
The Deputy Prime Minister could explain all that to us because we're talking about money. She could even tell us about funding, which could reach $262 million, to support COVID-19-related tests, medical research, countermeasures and vaccine funding and development. We're standing in the midst of it all.
Parliament was prorogued in order to improve the situation. If the Deputy Prime Minister could come and testify pursuant to Mr. Turnbull's amendment, she would tell us how important funding is. She would also tell us about the decisions and measures made respecting transfers to the provinces to assist them with medical supplies and long-term care facilities. She could even include all the measures that apply to borders and travellers, as well as the extensive management of quarantine sites. The opposition parties enjoyed telling us that the process of booking appointments was long and complicated. However, we reinvent the wheel every week we make a decision.
Every time the integrity of the system was attacked, I felt uncomfortable for our public servants, and I found that unfortunate because they were affected by those comments. As you know, my riding is in the Outaouais region, where a lot of public servants live. It's largely rural, but some of my colleagues, Mr. Fergus and Mr. MacKinnon in particular, have many public servants in their constituencies. We're fortunate to cross paths with those public servants, and, when we do, they confront us and ask us whether we're aware of the work they have to do when we make a decision in the House of Commons or propose a program we would like to see adapted within a week. Can you just imagine the pressure these people are under?
For example, Ms. Freeland is the best person to tell us about and make us understand the delays caused at the Department of Revenue and those associated with a measure that we've introduced and that involves our officials. The Deputy Prime Minister is in the best position to discuss that with us because she has attended pandemic-related briefings every day. She could come and tell us about the budgets the various measures entail. She's aware of what goes on and regularly answers virtually all questions raised in the House. She's an exceptional woman who would be entirely capable of doing the upcoming work.
I initially wanted to abandon Mr. Turnbull's amendment. Having read, listened and spoken about it, however, I would now accept it. I would have good questions to put to the Deputy Prime Minister concerning the prorogation.
As a result of Mr. Turnbull's amendment, I would give the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance an opportunity to come and testify before the committee.
She could also tell us about the funding that could amount to [Technical difficulty—Editor] to support access to virtual care, including mental health care. I'm thinking, for example, of the substance abuse support program. I've discussed it at length since I'm particularly concerned by it.
Without wanting to repeat myself, the most vulnerable people are seniors in long-term care facilities. They suffer from isolation, often finding themselves in a small room with a sink, a bed and a chair.
The best person to tell you about that, particularly about the care of women, is the Deputy Prime Minister. There is no one better than a woman to understand and discuss the situation of women, including problems of family violence, isolation, mental health and declining independence. Women are more affected than men. I'm very sensitive to that.
I'm pleased to have a feminist Prime Minister, but I'd be even more pleased if the Deputy Prime Minister came and testified on the situation of women…
3:10 p.m.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
On a point of order, I don't believe there's any translation. Maybe I'm the only one listening, but I'm just letting you know there has been no translation.
3:10 p.m.
The Clerk
We'll have a check on that, Madam Chair.
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
Do I hit a button or something? Did I do something wrong?