Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 9th, 2021

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Chair, I had the same problem yesterday and had to reboot my computer. It updated. It took an hour and a half, and today it's now working much better. I don't know, but it could be that. That's just a thought.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

All I did was sign in and out, but you could probably....

Rather than that, let's hear from the clerk. He probably has some advice from IT. Maybe you could pull out your headphones and put them back in or something.

[The Clerk]

Madam Chair, we're trying to figure out what that issue is because Madame Petitpas Taylor's audio was working fine when we were doing the sound check.

Madame Petitpas Taylor, is it possible that on your headset, the cord for your headset, the little button, similar to what Mr. Lauzon is showing you...? There's a little button, and sometimes the mute gets hit on that.

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

Can you hear me now?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes, we can hear you. Thank you so much.

I take your point, too, Dr. Duncan, that a lot of on-the-record time in the House and in our committees is going to be spent saying, “Am I on mute? Can you hear me?” I guess these are the times of COVID.

Please, carry on.

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

My sincere apologies about that.

First and foremost, I want to say hello to all the members and a special welcome to Scott Simms for joining us today.

Scott, we know you have a long history with PROC, and we really appreciate having you with us. I have to say to start off that I'm not as eloquent, perhaps, as Stéphane. I can't seem to talk as long, but I will certainly do my best in order to address this really important motion. I appreciate the comments that Stéphane and Ryan have made over the past while.

I have to say, as well, that I missed a few meetings because of the Board of Internal Economy, and I felt really bad about that, because I missed a part of the debate.

Today I certainly want to continue on the theme that I spoke about last time, which was about how the opinion of the opposition as to why prorogation occurred has already been made up in their minds. I really want to address that.

To give Mr. Therrien a break, I will switch to French. We tend to speak in English, so Mr. Therrien has to listen to the interpreted remarks. We appreciate the work the interpreters do, of course, but it can be tiring to always listen to people speaking in a language that is not your own. For that reason, I will make most of my comments in French. As an Acadian from New Brunswick, I enjoy speaking in my mother tongue.

Turning back to the motion, I want to point out how many hours we have spent debating the motion put forward by our friend and fellow member Ms. Vecchio. Since many people are probably not familiar with the motion currently being debated, I feel the need to bring everyone up to speed. We are still discussing the same motion. It bears rereading for those Canadians following our proceedings.

Ms. Vecchio's motion reads as follows:

That, in respect of the Committee's study of the government's reasons for the prorogation of Parliament in August 2020, the Committee

(a) renew the invitation issued to the Prime Minister to appear before the committee, provided that if he does not agree, within one week of the adoption of this motion, to appear for at least three hours, the Chair shall be instructed to report to the House forthwith a recommendation that this committee be empowered to order his appearance from time to time;

(b) renew the invitations issued to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth, each to appear separately before the committee, provided that in respect of each of them who does not agree, within one week of the adoption of this motion, to appear for at least 90 minutes each, the Chair shall be instructed to report to the House forthwith a recommendation that this committee be empowered to order her appearance from time to time;

(c) renew the invitations issued to the Honourable Bill Morneau, Katie Telford, Craig Kielburger and Marc Kielburger, each to appear separately before the committee, provided that in respect of each of them who does not agree, within one week of the adoption of this motion, to appear for at least three hours each, a summons do issue for his or her appearance before the Committee at a date and time determined by the Chair but no later than one month following the adoption of this motion;

(d) renew the invitations issued to Farah Perelmuter and Martin Perelmuter, to appear before the committee, provided that if they do not agree, within one week of the adoption of this motion, to appear for at least 90 minutes, a summons do issue for their appearance before the Committee at a date and time determined by the Chair but no later than one month following the adoption of this motion;

(e) issue an order for the production of all memoranda, e-mails, text messages, documents, notes or other records from the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office, since June 25, 2020, concerning options, plans and preparations for the prorogation of Parliament, including polling and public opinion research used to inform the decision to prorogue Parliament, provided that these documents shall be provided to the clerk of the committee within two weeks of the adoption of this motion;

(f) issue an order for the production of records of all communications between the government and any of WE Charity (or its affiliated organizations), Craig Kielburger, Marc Kielburger, or Speakers' Spotlight, since June 25, 2020, in respect of the prorogation of Parliament, provided that these documents shall be provided to the clerk of the committee within two weeks of the adoption of this motion;

(g) issue orders to WE Charity (including its affiliated organizations), Craig Kielburger, Marc Kielburger and Speakers' Spotlight for the production of all memoranda, e-mails, text messages, documents, notes or other records, since June 25, 2020, concerning the prorogation of Parliament, provided that these documents shall be provided to the clerk of the committee within two weeks of the adoption of this motion; and

(h) all documents provided to the clerk of the committee in respect of paragraphs (e) to (g) shall be published on the committee's website as soon as practical upon receipt, once they are available in both official languages.

That is the motion we have been debating for a few meetings now. The last time I had an opportunity to comment, I mentioned that we had been studying the matter of prorogation for several weeks. We heard from a number of experts and academics on the issue. On top of that, Pablo Rodriguez and public servants appeared before the committee on the reasons that led to the prorogation of Parliament.

I believe my fellow members already made this point, but if a health crisis of this magnitude is not a good enough reason to prorogue Parliament, I am at a loss to understand what is.

I also want to say the opposition had preconceived ideas about the reasons for prorogation. I read a number of comments made by opposition members last time. I have to tell you I was on duty in the House this week to take part in a debate that had been extended, and I was one of the lucky ones who got to participate in the debate that evening. Opposition members once again brought up WE Charity in relation to the reasons that led to the prorogation of Parliament. The opposition members, the Conservative members, in particular, had their minds made up about why the government prorogued Parliament, when in fact, the reasons are the opposite. In 2019, during the last election campaign, I knocked on thousands of doors, and my constituents told me what their priorities were. I often shared my ideas with friends and fellow members. The throne speech delivered in 2019 did indeed reflect the priorities of the government and those of Canadians.

As we all know, things changed completely in 2020. For the first time, we were confronted with a global public health crisis, in addition to a global economic crisis. That was the case, not just in Canada, but also around the world. The priorities of Canadians changed, and the government had to change course. Naturally, certain themes overlapped, but the government had to rethink its priorities and figure out how to better support Canadians.

As I said, the opposition members have already made up their minds. I'd like to quote a few people I quite admire. The first is my friend and the member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock. Mr. Schmale was on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in 2015, 2016 and 2017, and he is someone I have always held in high regard. Here's what he said:

I do not think it is any secret that the Prime Minister, we all know, decided to prorogue Parliament because of his involvement in the WE Charity scandal. Following the words of the Governor General, there was absolutely nothing in the Prime Minister's address last night on prime time that could not have been announced in any normal press briefing or even here on the floor of the House of Commons. The Prime Minister, of course, as many are saying, pulled the wool over the eyes of our network executives, claiming that it was not partisan politics but an address to the nation on COVID-19. We all know, after the fact, that the address was entirely political, providing further evidence that prorogation was all about distraction.

Once again, the honourable members are telling us that all the witnesses I listed need to come before the committee, but they have already made up their minds. When I read that statement, when I hear the member say that the Prime Minister's address was entirely political and meant as a distraction, I do not agree. The Prime Minister spoke to Canadians every day during the pandemic. This is not about politics.

Constituents in my riding told me that they would tune in every morning at 11:30 to hear what the Prime Minister and our government were doing to help them. I dare say everybody probably did; I know I did. I would be working at my computer and making calls, but I also wanted to hear the daily update because it gave us hope. It wasn't about politics. When I would take my walks in the park, not far from here, people would stop me because they recognized their member of Parliament, and they would thank me for the job we were doing and the support we were providing.

It was not part of the 2019 throne speech, because we didn't know a crisis was coming, but people were truly thankful for the work we did. Was it perfect? No, absolutely not. We didn't have a manual or guidelines on how to manage the crisis. With input and suggestions from all the parties, we were able to introduce solid programs.

Accordingly, when I hear someone call the decision to prorogue Parliament entirely political, I disagree. The throne speech is not about politics. Yes, some of the themes in the 2019 and 2020 throne speeches overlapped, but the 2020 throne speech contained measures specifically tied to the pandemic.

I would also like to quote the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, who had this to say:

The Prime Minister prorogued the House to avoid scrutiny on his WE scandal. We all know this. The day after prorogation, the government announced these benefits, several of which would need legislation. Instead of spending time over the last month debating and passing these benefits, the Prime Minister shut down Parliament. Now that the CERB has ended and many Canadians are not eligible for EI, the government is playing politics with the well-being of Canadians.

Much has been said about the prorogation of Parliament, as we have all heard, but I think we lost less than two sitting days in the House. Our government took the time to rethink its priorities and set out guidelines to support Canadians throughout the biggest health crisis of our lifetimes.

The last person I'd like to quote is Mr. Bezan, the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman. On October 5, Mr. Bezan said this:

The only reason we had prorogation by the Prime Minister, since the throne speech is so uninspiring, is the WE scandal. It was not about resetting the agenda; it was about trying to do a cover-up and ensuring the opposition parties could not continue to litigate the government about its scandal and the almost billion dollars it was going to hand over to the WE Charity.

Once again, it's a bit much to call the throne speech uninspiring and to say that it was not about resetting the agenda. Let's look at the differences between the 2019 throne speech and the 2020 throne speech. The opposition likes to say that the 2020 throne speech was not about resetting the agenda and that it was essentially more of the same. I carefully read both speeches and compared them. Certainly, some themes overlap, including climate change. Just because we are going through a health crisis does not mean we should stop addressing the climate crisis.

In 2019, our key priorities and areas of focus revolved around the fight against climate change. When I was knocking on people's doors and making calls during the last election campaign, I was shocked by how many seniors were adamant that the government do something about climate change. Even though they had not been familiar with the issue or considered it a priority before, they told me their kids and grandkids had taught them about the importance of climate change. They felt strongly that the government needed to do the right thing and meet its targets. Climate change remained a priority in 2019. We took ambitious action to make sure we met our targets.

Another issue people cared about was greening the economy. We want to be sure we make those investments. If I'm not mistaken, the government talked about implementing a roadmap in its 2019 throne speech.

Strengthening the middle class was also a key issue for people. As a member of Parliament since 2015, I am very proud of the measures we have taken between then and now to support the middle class and Canadians in need. All of those actions have made a real difference in the lives of Canadians, whether it be introducing the Canada child benefit or lowering taxes. We can't just stop strengthening the middle class now. Those efforts have to continue.

Walking the road of reconciliation is an important focus as well. We must continue moving forward as a partner with indigenous peoples to meet our respective goals. That means working together. Indigenous peoples must show us the path to take, and we must work hand in hand to make sure we get there.

Lastly, keeping Canadians safe and healthy remains a top priority. That includes addressing gun violence. Many constituents told us how important it was that the government do something. Coming from a social work background and having worked on the front lines, I saw the devastating impact guns can have. I'm not proud to admit that New Brunswick has the highest rates of domestic violence and murder-suicide in the country. There is a long way to go to make things better, and we will keep up that work.

Another challenge, it seems, is consistent right across the country. Here, in Atlantic Canada, a lot of us have trouble getting a doctor. Our government made a promise to Canadians, who told us they wanted everyone to have access to a family doctor. That, too, is a priority.

It ties in with pharmacare. I know my fellow member Mr. Blaikie is in favour of a universal pharmacare plan, like many of us. That is a priority for Canadians. As health minister, I had the privilege of working on that file. We made progress and we will continue working to make sure all Canadians have access to national pharmacare.

I could, of course, read the 2019 throne speech in full. Instead of going through it page by page, I'll stick to the broad strokes to highlight the differences between the 2019 and 2020 throne speeches. I just talked about the 2019 throne speech, which was prepared prior to the pandemic. It is 2021 now, and like most of you, I have spent the past year almost exclusively in my riding. I had an opportunity to travel to Ottawa once, but here, in New Brunswick—

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

On a point of order, Madam Chair, I have really appreciated all the comments coming from all of our Liberal colleagues and their sharing with us the devastating impacts that we are all aware of with COVID.

I wonder if we can get back to the actual motion at hand again. We seem to have gone very far out, and I'm wondering if we can bring it back to the actual motion.

We seem to be speaking a lot about the throne speech and going into other matters there, which is fine, but perhaps we could get back to the motion. Perhaps there are some clarifications specifically on what they don't want to see when they look at the motion and who they don't want to appear. Maybe there's some actual information on that.

Perhaps we could get back to the motion and why they want to vote against it, rather than everything else.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I'll remind the member to stay on point, although I think she was talking about the issue of prorogation.

Also, to all the members, as we know this is not our first meeting with a lot of interest and lengthy debate on this motion. I'm hoping that perhaps the members can talk about maybe eventually either coming to a vote or having some kind of agreement on the motion.

We will continue to hear from the members. Hopefully, there are some proposals that are put forward at some point.

I do also—

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

I'm sorry, Madam Chair.

On that same point of order, it is difficult to make proposals. Liberal members are speaking a lot and not making proposals. I've been on the speaking list for some time. It's hard to make proposals when you don't have the floor.

I would remind committee members of that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

That is absolutely noted, Mr. Blaikie. You are on the list after Dr. Duncan today.

I will allow, obviously, Ms. Petitpas Taylor, to carry on with her remarks. Thank you for all of your contributions.

One more thing, though, there is a subcommittee meeting after the scheduled time of this meeting today at 1:15 p.m. That's the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business. I know it's important to all of our members to make sure that private members' business can continue forward. Hopefully, we can address that closer to the end time. If there is agreement, again, you can let me know at that point.

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

On a point of order, Madam Chair, I fully recognize the issue with the subcommittee. That is really important. Because I recognize that this will be another day of filibustering, I know there is very little change in today's schedule as well as the subcommittee business for members. It is relevant for the work that needs to be done on April 14. We do have ample time, just in case we do need to reschedule that as well.

I want to keep it just as a side note in the next hour that we could perhaps look at doing that at another time. We do luckily have some time on this.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you.

Ms. Petitpas Taylor, go ahead. You have the floor.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

In response to Mr. Blaikie's comment, I would just point out that I was on the speaking list for a while and I have quite a bit to say. Patience can wear thin sometimes, but I do understand the process can be long. Ms. Duncan also has things she would like to say. We are eager to hear what everyone has to say.

I will circle back to the motion now. To be honest, I think my comments were relevant to the motion because I was talking about the preconceived opinions of the opposition members. I simply expressed my position, which is that the government had valid reasons to seek prorogation. It was useful. The issue is not whether the throne speech was inspiring or not. The issue is whether it demonstrates a rethinking of goals and priorities. I know the committee has to hear what everyone has to say, so I will try to be succinct. We certainly want to make sure everyone has an opportunity to speak.

Briefly, I am going to run through what I consider to be the highlights of the 2020 throne speech, which opened the session of Parliament after prorogation.

Although I think everything in the throne speech is important, the part that's really crucial pertains to how the government will protect Canadians during a potential second wave of the pandemic. The recollection of some may be wanting, but at the time, we were extremely concerned about the second wave. It may not have been quite the same for those of us living in Atlantic Canada, but the second wave took a great toll on many ridings and provinces. Our government wanted to be there for Canadians and for small and medium-sized businesses. We wanted to make sure businesses could remain open.

As I said, the government built its approach around themes, while keeping the focus on helping Canadians through the second wave. As a government, we wanted to make sure the programs and supports were in place to build back better. The idea was not to rebuild by replicating what existed previously; we had suitable programs, but we now know some of them had gaps. Now seems like the right time to review the programs and tailor them more effectively to people's needs, so we can really help people, especially vulnerable Canadians. Not all Canadians enjoy the same privileges. We want to make sure everyone gets their fair share and has an equal opportunity to succeed. That is one of my top priorities, and it's also one of the reasons why I got into politics.

The pandemic has laid bare fundamental inequalities in our society. Owing to those inequalities, certain groups were hit harder by the pandemic than others. I repeat, the government wanted to pay special attention to the needs of those individuals, and see to it that programs and funding were in place to remedy the inequalities.

Furthermore, I was delighted that the throne speech included supports for people experiencing homelessness. Who would have ever thought that, in a small community like Moncton, the cradle of Acadia, people would wind up living on the streets or out of tents? That wasn't the case a decade ago, but we now see a lot of people who are homeless.

The throne speech mentions support for the rapid housing initiative; a number of organizations across the country have really benefited from the program. Under the initiative, the government is investing a billion dollars in housing units, and $500 million is already in the hands of municipalities. The other $500 million is available to organizations that apply for funding. I am happy to say that a program in my neck of the woods was funded through the initiative. We are working very closely with stakeholders to get housing units built for this population.

The throne speech also addresses the creation of national standards for long-term care facilities, an issue my fellow member Mr. Lauzon spoke about at length. According to figures released yesterday, 22,335 Canadians have died from COVID-19. The figure is heartbreaking, because that many human lives have been lost. Aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters and parents—gone. It is a painful reality.

In the early days of the pandemic, I lost my mother; she was in a long-term care facility. I miss her every single day. I even keep her picture next to me. In spite of everything, I am so glad she did not have to live out the pandemic in a long-term care facility; I think not seeing her daughter for a year would have done her in.

As hard as it may, making sure the provinces and territories work together to develop national standards is imperative. Neither the provinces nor the federal government is solely responsible. We must all come together to ensure seniors receive proper care. My mother spent some 10 years in a long-term care facility, so I had plenty of opportunity to see where the failings were. If we can learn one thing from what has happened, it should be this: we must invest what it takes to ensure seniors are properly cared for.

My apologies for becoming emotional. I wasn't planning to bring that up.

We also need to make it easier for women to participate in the workforce. As we all saw, women have suffered tremendously during the pandemic. They tended to be the ones who had to stay home. While not always the case, it was often women doing double duty: working from home while looking after the kids. The statistics show that, because of the pandemic, more women than men will not return to the workforce. Addressing the need for a national child care system is paramount, and I was certainly glad to see it among the government's priorities in the 2020 throne speech.

Moreover, we must acknowledge the supports that were put in place to help individuals cope with the pandemic. I won't list them all, but the government introduced some excellent programs to support individuals and families, such as the Canada recovery benefit, the Canada recovery sickness benefit and the Canada recovery caregiving benefit. The government also made temporary changes to the employment insurance system, provided options to defer mortgage payments, and made supports available to the provinces and territories. Although the programs may not have been perfect, we were able to make adjustments to get Canadians the help they needed. We asked them to stay home to prevent the spread of the virus, so we made sure they had access to supports.

Another issue of real concern, especially in my riding, was the capacity of organizations to help individuals. As I've mentioned a few times, my background is in social work, so I truly understand the important role not-for-profit organizations play as community service providers. When I hear opposition members call the throne speech uninspiring, I feel like asking, “How could it have been more inspiring?” We were there to help people, businesses and all those not-for-profit organizations.

In my New Brunswick riding, people are doing a tremendous job, working tirelessly. Even though they are seldom well-paid, they are really there to help people. They were there during the crisis, and they still are. I am very happy with the programs we put in place to help those organizations. A number of them in my community have really benefited from that extra funding, which meant they could keep their doors open and provide more help to their clients.

I'll give you an example of a small business here, in Moncton. It's called Inspiration Café. In partnership with the Moncton United Way, the owners opened a small café that employed people with intellectual disabilities and mental health problems. They receive on-the-job training. Folks in the community really got behind the business, going there to eat and so forth, but the café had to close because of the pandemic.

The employees still wanted to work; they went through something of a grieving process. In conjunction with the United Way, the business received government support but could not reopen its dining room. Employees and volunteers got together to prepare and deliver meals twice a week for seniors living at home. Seniors knew they would have at least two good meals a week thanks to Inspiration Café.

I was fortunate enough to do a bit of volunteering at the café over the holidays, since many of the volunteers were off to spend time with their families and children. I spent a few hours with volunteers and employees, cooking and delivering meals, and I saw just how grateful the seniors were.

The pandemic-related investments made by our government have made a real difference. I don't think I mentioned it, but the café currently prepares and delivers about 600 meals a week for seniors—a rather impressive accomplishment.

Alternative Residences Alternatives is another organization that received assistance. It provides housing to people dealing with mental illness. The pandemic, of course, meant that the organization had to restrict visits significantly. The funding we made available was used to create spaces where families could visit residents in accordance with physical distancing and public health rules.

When I hear members call the government's throne speech and investments uninspiring, all I have to do is think about those accomplishments to know the opposite is actually true.

In my New Brunswick riding, the Alzheimer Society was able to introduce a new program. The organization had a support centre of sorts for families living with a person with Alzheimer's, and used the financial support it received to provide families with education on COVID-19 and the public health guidelines.

Big Brothers Big Sisters is another organization I really admire. Naturally, in-person meetings could not take place during the pandemic, but thanks to the support our government provided, the organization was able to create digital spaces where youth and their mentors could meet via Facebook and Zoom.

The Boys & Girls Club of Moncton showed tremendous innovation, doing whatever it could to help youth. The organization has a multicultural clientele, which is wonderful. It really wanted to stay connected with young people, so it organized an activity where community leaders were invited to make a meal on camera so young people could cook along with them via Facebook. I had the privilege of taking part, and there were some really fun recipes for kids. Through activities like these, the Boys & Girls Club of Moncton has been able to reach out to young people, many of whom find it hard being separated from their friends and peers during the pandemic. The feeling of isolation is a real problem, so activities like these are helping young people.

I won't be too much longer. I know the clock is ticking, and I want to make sure Dr. Duncan has an opportunity to share her views today.

Ensemble Greater Moncton is one of the organizations that really benefited from the funding our government made available. It used to provide a lot of services to people living with HIV or AIDS, but with all the medical advances in the field in recent years, the organization now does a lot of work with people impacted by drug addiction.

SIDA/AIDS Moncton, or Ensemble Moncton, was very fortunate that during the pandemic they received some additional funding.

Oftentimes, they provide harm reduction supplies to people who use drugs, but they were not able to have that frontline service because their agency was often closed because of different colourings—they were going into a red zone or orange zone—and their agency is really small. Because of funding that we've been able to provide for them, they've been able to purchase two computerized interactive harm reduction resource dispensers that are available for people with addictions and disorders.

New Brunswick is a pretty cold province and we get a lot of snow, but these machines are outside. They're centrally located in our downtown. They have all of the safe supplies that they need. The temperature is controlled, so even if they want condoms or whatever the case may be, the temperature is not going to affect the security of any of the products that are given. It's really quite something how we've come a long way. As well, because of the pandemic, they've also made sure that there are face masks and hand sanitizer available in the dispensing machine. This was and is all free of charge.

We wanted to make sure that people received the safe supplies that they needed if they were using. The pandemic should not be a barrier to that. Ensemble Moncton has offered tremendous services over the past years to the community. I was really proud to be able to go to see them as they moved forward with the installation of that program because it was just so important.

Finally, I'm going to make one other comment. I could go on and on because I have so many great agencies, as I'm sure most of you have as well. The Multicultural Association of the Greater Moncton Area, which is a settlement agency that receives a lot of people, was overwhelmed during the pandemic with a lot of newcomers who just didn't know what to do.

They were provided with additional funding. At one event that I had just before Christmas, I asked for them to share with me what difference that had made in their lives and the lives of their clients. The director of the multicultural association had just indicated to me that some people had lost their jobs because of the pandemic. Because of the waiting period for the different programs, one particular client needed medication for their diabetes. The funding that we were able to provide to them bridged them.

All that is to say that when I hear folks say that the throne speech and the work that we've done wasn't inspiring and was just the same, I have to challenge that. We are here to help Canadians. We are all here to help Canadians no matter which party we're in. When we work together we come up with better policy. We really do. When we keep politics out of it—I know we're all politicians; that's who we are—I think we can accomplish so much more when we work together.

During the pandemic right now, people don't want us pointing fingers. It's not who's doing what. They just want us to get the job done. I think if that can be our focus, Canadians are going to be well served by that. Having a minority Parliament is a time for that as well. We have to take each other's feedback and move the best policies forward.

I still have an awful lot of other comments that I could make, but I really want to make sure that my friend and colleague, Dr. Duncan, is going to have an opportunity to share her comments. I'll come back. I'm sure we'll perhaps have another round. Dr. Duncan, we missed you for a few weeks when you were away. We're really happy that you're back with us.

I really want to thank the committee for allowing me time to speak and to share a few thoughts on this issue.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes, indeed, we're very happy to have you back, Dr. Duncan.

Thank you, Ms. Petitpas Taylor.

Go ahead, Dr. Duncan. The floor is yours.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Dear friends, Madam Chair, before I start, I really feel I have to acknowledge that today we come together to remember, pay tribute to and grieve for all those we have lost to COVID-19. We reflect on the sacrifice, the hurt and the suffering, and we offer comfort to doctors, nurses, frontline workers, survivors, families and communities. We promise to learn the lessons.

Thank you to my extraordinary colleagues, Ryan, Stéphane and Ginette, for your speeches.

Ginette, most recently, thank you for your caring. We are all so profoundly sorry for your loss.

To my dear colleagues, my apologies for my absence recently. I have missed you all.

At this time, it's nice to be able to celebrate, so to Peter and his wife, I wish a very happy 40th wedding anniversary. We all need some light, happy anniversary.

When it comes to the motion, I understand the politics of this motion. However, every single day, Canadians are becoming sick with COVID-19, they are being hospitalized and they're dying. Our focus has to be on Canadians. The COVID-19 pandemic remains a public health emergency, an economic crisis, a social crisis and a human rights crisis. There is nothing that is more important than fighting the pandemic, and we are still fighting the pandemic. We have new variants, and even if we suppress the virus in one country but it is allowed to spread to other parts of the world, the variants and perhaps with new mutations can cause new outbreaks, even in countries that seem to have the virus under control. We have all endured a year of tragedy and crisis. COVID-19 is the most challenging crisis we have faced since World War II, and it's not finished, yet we are arguing over politics.

Moreover, as countries and communities continue our fight to contain cases while rolling out vaccines, the global rollout has been far from even and fair. As of mid-February, 130 countries had not received a single dose of vaccine, and just 10 countries had administered 75% of all vaccines. We must remember that we are one human family, we are interdependent and what happens to one person can quickly affect many others. A cluster of pneumonia cases just over a year ago has translated into over 117 million infections and 2.6 million deaths. If we do not ensure vaccine equity, the virus will continue to spread, to mutate and will ultimately prolong the pandemic, our vulnerability, with devastating impacts. The reality is that we are one small planet with one human family. Disease knows no borders, and through the pandemic and beyond, we are truly in this together.

The point is that responding to COVID-19, recovering from the virus and preparing for the future must remain our focus. We all have to learn from the pandemic. We can't forget what we have all been through, and we need to prepare for the future. This includes our work at this very committee. Lessons learned and pandemic preparedness should be a focus of this committee. Each of us knows COVID-19 very personally. It has touched all our lives—doctors, nurses, frontline workers, survivors, family members and communities—and the virus has done so in ways we could not have imagined a year ago.

All of us know families who are grieving loss. We need to acknowledge their pain and be there for them. We must address the grief, loneliness and stress and provide much-needed mental health supports. We need to lift each other up and inspire hope. We need to think of everyone on the health care front line who has been at this for a year. It wasn't a wave. It was sustained and it has been gruelling and hard. I thank the tireless frontline health care workers, and in Etobicoke North, particularly William Osler Health System for their life-saving services.

I also thank the Rexdale Community Health Centre and its partners for their important community care, including providing health services, delivering food and providing computers and internet access.

A friend of mine who is a physician says that each patient who dies leaves a scar on the heart.

We also need to think of all those on the front line who do not have the luxury of Zooming in to work but who provide essential services, from those working in grocery stores to personal support workers, to truck drivers—everyone who worked to keep our community and country going. We owe them so much more than our collective thanks. We must tackle the glaring inequalities of age, disability, gender, income, race and more that have been laid bare by the pandemic.

In Toronto, where I'm from, in August racialized people made up 83% of reported COVID-19 cases while making up half of Toronto's population. They are more likely to live in poverty, poor housing, have precarious work and be victims of discrimination. All of these lead to worse health.

We have all been touched by the pandemic. I think of the mother who not only has to work but also help her young children learn. I think of students preparing for apprenticeships, college and university, or preparing to make their start in the world, and of what they have lost: a loss of contact with friends, a loss of activities, mental stress. One year is a long time.

I think of grandparents in long-term care, scared and alone. Long-term care facilities bore the brunt of wave one, with more than 70% of deaths occurring among those aged over 80, about twice the average of rates of other developed countries. Tragically, it happened again in wave two. I think of the several long-term care residences in our Etobicoke North community.

Deaths among seniors are not just numbers. Our seniors are people we know, people we have listened to. We have heard their life stories, learned from them, laughed with them, sung with them and danced with them. I dread going back to our long-term care, because I know those people, and I wonder who's not going to be there.

I think about the 48th Highlanders veterans at Sunnybrook Hospital for whom we danced. Eight decades ago, they stepped up for our generation and for future generations. Their motto was Dileas Gu Brath. It means “faithful forever”.

We owe all our seniors who have helped build this country safe and dignified care. The greatest tragedy of this pandemic is the lives lost in long-term care homes.

I think of people with disabilities in congregate settings. I think of the homeless. I think of indigenous peoples. I think of the taxi drivers and the truck drivers in the community I serve, who picked up travellers in the spring at the airport only to succumb to COVID-19.

The point is that it's our families and communities that should be top of mind now: protecting their health and safety, their jobs and their livelihoods. Think of the thousands who work here in the parliamentary precinct. Think of our clerks and the teams that support this very meeting. These are our colleagues, our friends who work to maintain the people's House. What lessons do they want us to learn? What lessons do they want carried forward for the next pandemic, disaster or for next time?

What Canadians needed this past year, what they need a year into the pandemic, is to know how best to protect themselves, their families and communities. They need economic support.

I strongly believe that our focus has to be on protecting the health and safety of Canadians, protecting jobs and livelihoods and the economic recovery, and not on scoring partisan political points.

In order to protect the health and safety of Canadians we closed the borders. We directly funded the provinces and territories. We bought personal protective equipment and testing kits, and we pre-ordered vaccines.

The most important thing we can do to address the spread of COVID-19 is to vaccinate, test, contact trace and isolate.

Our government bought the vaccines and tests and provided contact tracers and quarantine hotels. In the spring, when the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces were needed, they went in to care for our elders, for our families.

To protect jobs and livelihoods, the government put in place strong measures to protect businesses and workers. We had to do this because the virus could only be slowed or stopped by limiting social contacts. This meant reducing economic activity. It meant shutting down workplaces and later limiting the number of people restaurants served. It meant asking people to stay home from work if they were sick or their children were sick. It simply would have been unfair to ask businesses to shut down and workers to stay home without compensating them for lost income.

The reality is that the best economic approach is to stop the spread of the disease. The next best approach is to help Canadian businesses and Canadian families weather the pandemic without losing their livelihoods and without going broke.

We must provide meaningful investment to build our way out and to ensure our economy comes back stronger than before, laying a foundation for a green economy, an innovation economy and a fair economy that supports good jobs for all Canadians.

To rebuild from job losses and strengthen our economy, we will launch a campaign to create more than a million jobs. Families should not have to choose between their health and their jobs, and our families should not have to take on the debt that their government can better shoulder.

Pandemics are not the time for partisan politics. It's time for the country to come together to protect one another and to begin to heal, but we have to acknowledge the hurt first and there are a lot of people who are hurting.

We call daily into our Etobicoke North community to hear how people are doing. Our Etobicoke North families matter. They are good people. They work hard. What makes Etobicoke North such a special place to live, work and play is that we welcome the world. We are proudly one of the most diverse communities in the country. We learn from one another, and we learn each other's beautiful cultures, languages and religions. We look after one another, and we lift each other up.

We ask how our families are doing and what is on their minds, and the answers are invariably the same: protecting their health and safety, jobs and economic livelihoods.

My friends, we have done good work together in this committee in putting in place virtual voting and coming together to produce a report on the best way to protect Canadians and democracy should an election happen during the pandemic, but there is more good work to be done, important work.

Will we clearly remain in the throes of responding to the pandemic? Our focus must absolutely be the response.

It will also be important for this committee to review the parliamentary precinct response. Was there a pandemic plan? Who was consulted in the development of any pandemic plan? How often was any plan reviewed? Once it was known that something new was circulating in late 2019, on what date was any pandemic plan first looked at? Was any plan updated in January and February? What actions were taken during January and February to protect the health and safety of all those who work on Parliament Hill?

Was there any consultation with Canada's chief public health officer in December, January or February? Was there any consultation with Canada's chief scientists? Was there a review of Parliament's response following the 2009 H1N1 pandemic? When was any plan updated following H1N1? Was a tabletop exercise ever run for Parliament following the H1N1 pandemic?

Did each of the major groups in Parliament know about any plan for security, pages, those who provide food and more?

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

I have a point of order.

I absolutely appreciate all of the comments that Dr. Duncan is making. I know we've all seen that in our own communities.

I would urge her to perhaps actually table these motions. We're talking about them today, but perhaps we could get back to my motion. We can talk about those potential motions in the future, because I think they're all very critical. We have not seen the Liberals table any of these suggestions already. There's nothing on the table from the government at this time. Perhaps we could get back to my motion and then potentially talk about some of these great motions she's putting forward at a later time.

Thank you.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

I thank my dear colleague, Karen, whom I have so much respect for. I am coming to a point here. There are important points to make today.

Our sole focus has to be the pandemic, not partisan politics. Were political party leaders made aware of any pandemic plans? Were political leaders ever asked to make their parties aware of any plan? It's important to review Parliament's response to see what action was taken, when action was taken and whether it was taken early enough.

One of my fears is that we will forget. Should there be an election, would a new Parliament study the pandemic response, identify lessons learned and implement change? Whatever we learn must be incorporated for next time, because there will be a next time. Pandemics are not a matter of “if”, but “when”. Will we do our work so that future Parliaments are better prepared?

At this point I think it's so important for all of us on this committee to recognize all those in the parliamentary precinct who have worked tirelessly to protect health and safety and to ensure a functioning Parliament.

My friends, I have spent my adult life studying pandemics. First was the 1918 influenza pandemic. Then I helped business and industry prepare for pandemics. In fact, when H1N1 happened, the previous government reached out to me and included me in those conversations.

The 1918 influenza killed upwards of 50 million people, which was more people than the Black Death of the Middle Ages and more people than in all the fighting of the First World War. The entire pandemic lasted only 18 to 24 months.

I really want to bring this point home. The 1918 flu was a traumatic event. Doctors, medical professionals and people seemed hesitant to talk about their experiences. Because they were reluctant to talk or write about the flu, future generations weren't always aware of it. Despite its shocking mortality, historians largely ignored the 1918 flu until the 1970s, when they explored the epidemiology and the frightening nature of the disease. Later, they examined the social and cultural aspects, including how the disease revealed class and ethnic tensions.

For decades, the 1918 flu was the forgotten pandemic. For almost a century it remained a medical mystery. The point is that there were lessons to learn in 1918 and a hundred years later there are lessons to learn from 2020. We have to learn the lessons, update our plans and be better prepared for next time.

Going forward, we must all be prepared. I'll repeat that: We must all be prepared. It's governments, the private sector, non-governmental organizations and international organizations. When we are not prepared, we face not only deadly impacts but also devastating economic consequences, new inequalities and vulnerabilities. A virus can quickly undo economic progress or impede sustainable development goals.

Just over a hundred years ago in 1918, and today in 2021, it's poverty, hunger, good health and well-being, gender equality, racialization and economic status that determines who gets sick, who gets treated and who survives. We must understand that pandemics result from the vulnerabilities we have created through our relationships with our environment, other species and each other. We must urgently change course. The recovery must respect the rights of future generations. We must increase climate action, locking in carbon neutrality by 2050. We must protect biodiversity. We must learn what we always learn following a pandemic, namely that science and public health matter—not just when we are in crisis.

Research institutions have a crucial role to play in research and policy, in reviewing pandemic response, helping to define lessons and ensuring that we are better prepared. We have to learn from each pandemic. They also need evidence-based advocacy.

This year, it's science and public health that will remain key to fighting COVID-19. That research matters beyond the pandemic. It is a fundamental building block of our country that requires attention and nurturing for a better future, environment and quality of life for all.

My friends, I appreciate this committee. I appreciate the work we do together, but this is not the time for partisan politics. We are in a race between the vaccines and the variants. Our sole focus should be on how we get the vaccines to as many people who want them as quickly as possible. Our families and our communities want us to be focused on protecting their health, safety, jobs and economic livelihoods.

They're tired. We are all tired. People long for compassion, generosity and kindness. What this committee should be looking at is the House of Commons' response and how we can all be better prepared for next time.

Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts with our committee.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Dr. Duncan.

I know that this pandemic has really hit home for you and so many others, so we're always thinking of you.

Next we have Mr. Blaikie.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I just want to recall for the committee that we're at this point as a result of two main decisions.

One was in 2015 by the now Prime Minister. There was a decision to try to address what were seen as political abuses of prorogation with the previous government, so the Prime Minister made the decision to run on a platform that the way to mitigate those abuses was to require the government to report on its reasons for prorogation.

Of course, there was no prorogation in the last Parliament, which I actually thought was too bad. I thought that a routine prorogation would have gone some way to just help remind Canadians that prorogation is not always a bad thing. It's a bad thing when it's abused politically, as it sometimes is.

However, there have been and we've heard it in testimony that there have been a lot of routine prorogations in Canadian history. The Manitoba legislature under governments of various political stripes routinely prorogues every year. There's a new Speech from the Throne annually in the Manitoba legislature.

While the content can sometimes be controversial, the fact of having a Speech from the Throne is not. There are lots of different ways to use prorogation. This was a policy developed by the Prime Minister, and that he ran on, to prevent political abuses of prorogation, and then mid-last year he decided to prorogue.

That's the second decision that got us to here, because then the government tabled an explanation, which was, as the Prime Minister wished, brought here to PROC.

We've heard arguments on both sides, and obviously there's some disagreement about some of the real motivations for the timing of the prorogation and the length of the prorogation. However, what we have heard from a number of witnesses is that this all does ultimately come back to the Prime Minister, because it's the Prime Minister who ultimately makes the decision about prorogation and how to advise the Governor General.

I've said this before on the record, and there have been some conversations off the record. I know one of the arguments that Liberals have made at length, when they're on topic here at this committee, is that the demand for documents and the number of witnesses is an unreasonable burden on government. Again, I think reasonable people can disagree about that, and I do know that some other committees are making headway in terms of getting some of these witnesses before a parliamentary committee.

I do think that Canadians want to hear more about what happened with the WE Charity, but I think, in the context of our study, and I've said this before, I would be satisfied with an hour of the Prime Minister's time, for him to come here, to honour his commitment to be held to account for the use of prorogation and to offer that explanation.

Now we've had a document tabled. We've had the government House leader here. I'm not of the view that he's provided particularly good arguments.

We hear sometimes from the Liberals on the committee as if we're judges charged with making some kind of determination. This isn't a judicial hearing. Our work here is to hold the government to account for its decisions. Just accepting a written statement at face value doesn't really do that.

We've heard a lot of testimony identifying the Prime Minister as the principle decision-maker. We know that the Prime Minister is the principle decision-maker. He's the only one with the constitutional authority to advise the Governor General to prorogue Parliament, so all roads lead back to him.

It's his policy. This was his idea for how to prevent political abuses of prorogation, and it stands to reason, in my view, that he ought to come here and talk to the committee about it. That would be the way he could set an important precedent for how this mechanism to prevent the political abuse of prorogation is meant to work.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. For an hour of the Prime Minister's time, I think the rest of this motion can go away. I would be satisfied to have the Prime Minister here to answer questions about prorogation for an hour. That's not an unreasonable burden on the government. It's not an unreasonable burden on the Prime Minister, particularly in light of the fact that it's his own policy that has brought us to this point, and I think he would do well to honour that policy and to set the right precedent.

I imagine that, were we having this conversation about the politically controversial prorogation of Stephen Harper, Liberals, if we were all here at that time, would be keen to have then prime minister Stephen Harper appear to give some reasons.

I can imagine that in some circumstance in the future, where prorogation has been politically abused, or where there is the perception of political abuse of the power of prorogation, some Liberals might think it appropriate for the Prime Minister, himself or herself, to appear before the committee to provide reasons and answer questions. That is being held to account, which is one of the principal functions of Parliament, for decision-making. It's a cornerstone of responsible government that ministers and decision-makers be held to account for the decisions they make.

I hear in the Liberals' comments at committee that somehow this is an intractable situation, or that they're forced to hold up the committee because a vote on this would issue in some kind of unreasonable demand on the government. An hour of the Prime Minister's time to honour his own policy is not unreasonable. That's a way to break this loggerhead. A public commitment from the Prime Minister to appear....

He has already been invited. All he has to do is say publicly that he'll accept that invitation and come here for an hour. Then we can move on to other important work, as other members, particularly government members on this committee, have said many times that we need to do. They have given some examples, even, of some of the things we might move on to. I'm prepared to do that, but I'm not prepared to do that on pain of giving up the idea that we would set the precedent that the only person who really makes the call about prorogation would not be here to speak to that and be pressed on the reasons for prorogation. I think that's part of important accountability work.

That's what's there. A public commitment from the Prime Minister to appear for an hour could resolve this loggerhead. That is what's being filibustered here. It's not the lengthy motion that's before the table. I think there are good things about that. I think there should be accountability on those issues. I'm happy that other committees have found a way to make some more progress on those things, but let's not pretend that it's an either-or scenario—that it's either all of this motion exactly as it is or this ongoing chat-fest by Liberals at the committee.

There are other options we can proceed with that would help us do more meaningful work and get value for the resources that continue to be dedicated to this committee, despite the fact that we're not getting a lot done.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay.

I was about to say something earlier, but I also didn't want to interrupt. Mr. Nater had fallen offline, and at that point I felt like I saw some of his colleagues, some Conservative members, looking around.... I just wanted to say that I was going to wait for him. I was informed.

Generally, if anything comes to a vote and members, through no fault of their own, get booted out and don't intentionally leave, then of course I will wait for their technical difficulties to be resolved before any amendment or any issue goes to a vote.

At this point, do we carry on with the speakers list, or is this a formal proposition or amendment?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

There's no amendment being suggested.

I think what we need is a public commitment from the Prime Minister to appear before the committee. The invitation has already been made. All this motion would do is reassert that invitation. I think the Liberal members of this committee could do that very effectively in an informal way without a motion of the committee, but I don't see a reason to decline a motion that has a lot of merit in terms of what we might hear and things that I'm interested to hear and that I think a lot of Canadians are interested to hear, frankly, if it means we're just going to move on and not have the Prime Minister appear for what I consider to be his own study.

I'm not prepared to move on this without that commitment from the Prime Minister. There's no amendment or motion that's going to get that for us by virtue of a resolution of the committee. That's a decision the Prime Minister continues to make, which is to forgo this invitation. That's what's causing the logjam.

In terms of a lot of the other concerns the Liberals have raised, even if we don't agree.... The crux of this Parliament is negotiation and compromise. I don't come here expecting to get everything I want or that everything is going to go exactly how I want, but I do expect for people to sit down and try to hammer out some reasonable compromises.

The Prime Minister's appearing for an hour on a study that's the direct result of his proposal on how to prevent political abuses of prorogation is an eminently reasonable proposal. I'm disappointed we haven't seen any action on that. There have been conversations at this table, and particularly around this table, that haven't yet issued in that commitment on his behalf. We continue to have what I think is a structurally flawed conversation, because it rests on the idea that we either accept this motion whole hog or we move on as if there's no reason for the Prime Minister to defend his decision to prorogue Parliament. I don't accept that.

I do think there are a lot of good things in this motion. I do think there are some accountability questions about the WE Charity as yet unanswered. I do recognize some progress is being made at other committees. I'm willing to try to move on to other important work, if we can hear from the Prime Minister on an issue that is central to his constitutional powers. If we could do that, it would be great. I recognize nobody at this committee can make that decision for him today, but I don't want to continue on this conversation pretending there isn't a way out when there is. It's an hour of the Prime Minister's time, which I don't think is a lot to ask.

Let's have the conversation, but let's stop having it as if there isn't an offer on the table and as if that offer isn't reasonable. An hour of the Prime Minister's time is very reasonable for his own study, to do justice to his own proposal and to set a good precedent, a precedent that Liberals now may not feel is warranted, but I'm sure at some point in the future will feel would have been a good precedent. Let's get on with doing that good work, and then go on to something else that, hopefully, we can make some progress on.

I think that has to be the spirit of this Parliament, and we're not seeing that in this ongoing filibuster. There's no movement on the part of the government. That's the other side of this. If there's no plausible offer for how to meet somewhere in between coming from the government, I think people need to recognize that is itself a form of toxic partisanship. There are people willing to talk about solutions for how we move forward in a less partisan way, but jamming up this committee for meetings and meetings and meetings on end, because they know they're going to lose a vote on a motion, is not a non-partisan approach. Negotiating a solution is. If they don't like this offer of the Prime Minister's appearing, I think they need to start talking about some other options.

I appreciate the frustration Ms. Vecchio voiced earlier, which is “What are the other options? Put something on the table.” However, here we are. The opposition has a proposal. The government has made it clear it doesn't like it, and we're at loggerheads because we can't get any kind of interesting counter-offer on the part of the government. Here we are and here we will remain until there's some movement on this.

I'm proposing something. It's not up to this committee to decide whether it's a good offer or not, but I hope that members on the committee will be taking that offer back and urging people on their side to take that seriously. At one point it seemed there were some folks on that side who were taking it seriously, and then the trail went cold.

We should be thinking about how we get back on that trail to allow us to do some meaningful work, which is something we have neglected to do for some time now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Mr. Blaikie.

Do we have the correct order, Mr. Clerk? Is it Mr. Lauzon and then Mr. Simms?

[The Clerk]

We have Mr. Lauzon—then at one point we had Madam Petitpas Taylor but her hand has since been lowered—then we have Mr. Simms and then Mr. Turnbull.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay. I felt I had seen a slightly different order earlier.

Monsieur Lauzon, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for your comments, Mr. Blaikie. May I also congratulate you for your French. It's very pleasant to hear you speak the language, because you do it extremely well.

Despite that, I cannot agree with you when you say that this debate has no place. Nor can I agree that Canadians want to see appearances by the witnesses whom the motion we are studying seeks to invite.

Since the pandemic began and since this motion has been on the table, I have consulted thousands of Canadians in my constituency and all across Canada, and I can tell you that none of them, not one, has asked for the Prime Minister—