Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 9th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you.

We are suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I call this meeting back to order.

Mr. Lauzon, you have the floor.

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

Thank you.

I hope that the technical difficulties have been resolved.

I was comparing my experience in teaching, where one dedicates time and attention to gaining knowledge on a particular subject, to our work in committee. Let's say this motion passes today—I'm talking about the original motion, not Mr. Turnbull's amendment—the witnesses who were named appear before the committee, we wrap up our study and we want to move on. What would happen next? I was thinking about that last night.

If the committee were to call the Prime Minister to explain the reasons for prorogation, which we already know because they have been revealed in a statement, he would be repeating what he has already said and what we have already heard elsewhere. Minister Rodriguez has already made a statement before this committee, but the opposition members seem to want to ignore that and do as they please. Will they interpret the final decision differently? That is the question I have been asking myself. Why not just get on with it?

Last night, I wondered how I could possibly interpret what I experienced in this study. It is as if opposition members signed up for a course and refused to listen to the teacher or any other guest speaker. Why would they bother to read anything or take any tests if they clung to deep-seated beliefs, which they have already mentioned and which have already been widely written about? Nothing could change the opinion they already had.

If a student in my class told me that he was only there because his father forced him to be and threatened to kick him out, I would know right away that his intentions were not good and that he would have difficulty moving forward. This is exactly what happened in this case. In 2010, in response to the economic crisis at the time, the Conservative government House leader said:

Prorogation plays an important role in the effective functioning of our parliamentary and democratic systems. When circumstances change, as has been the case with the serious economic situation we have encountered, it is perfectly normal that the government would want to pause to take stock and to consult Canadians.

Compare that statement in 2010 with the statement made by the current Prime Minister following the prorogation that took place because of the pandemic. At the time, the economic crisis was cited as a justification. Today, however, there is a double crisis. Not only is there an economic crisis, but there is also a health crisis. The prorogation was therefore doubly justified, according to the Conservative government House leader at the time. We could add him to the list of witnesses, so that he can come and explain to us the importance of prorogation in a difficult economic situation, but we have already heard from Mr. Pablo Rodriguez, the current government House leader, on this subject.

The House leader of the time might have added that, in addition to the current economic crisis, we also have the health crisis. Consequently, if it was true at the time, why wouldn't it be true today?

However, we know the idea is preconceived. We know you already want the report to say the prorogation was due to the WE Charity scandal. Write it! Nothing will change today, apart from the fact that we're playing a political game here. It's completely natural for a government to want to pause, take stock of the situation and consult Canadians. I entirely agree with the House leader of the time and our current leader that proroguing Parliament gave us the time we needed. Government business had to stop, and we had to stop sitting in order to take a step back so we could move forward more effectively.

With that in mind, the government used the available time to take a close look at our agenda, plan the next steps in our economic recovery and adjust more effectively to the health crisis. The results of that effort are apparent today in the more than 4 million doses of vaccine that have been distributed and the way we're working hand in hand with the provinces and territories.

I know it troubles the Conservatives to see that people are satisfied with the results, but they're our collective results, those of the House of Commons. We're providing Canadians with the care they need. I could explain at length why proroguing was justified in every instance. However, we have a much bigger and more consequential economic and public health crisis that requires a single government response. No government in the history of Canada has faced this kind of crisis. Canadian citizens are at least entitled to that much.

In the midst of this economic and public health crisis, the government must take time both to plan the next steps needed to protect the health and safety of all Canadians and to conduct broad-based consultations on economic recovery measures that should be taken.

I'd like pause here for a moment to address a point that's of the utmost importance at this time. With respect to the economic recovery, although the government must manage the economic and public health crisis, it nevertheless needs to look to the future and consider how it plans to restart the economy. We've been extremely troubled by the situation of our seniors and Canadians with poor Internet service. What have we done? Canada has invested $1.7 billion to ensure that Canadians are connected. We've introduced programs in partnership with the provinces. We've put in place programs to assist indigenous communities. We've introduced programs together with the CRTC.

We've just announced a partnership in Quebec. Last Monday, the Quebec premier and the Prime Minister of Canada appeared together to announce the rollout of an Internet project to connect all Quebecers by September 2022. We know that's what we need in rural areas. Quebec has expansive rural areas. I believe you're now familiar with my riding, which is very large. I could even have two or three riding offices, but, for budgetary reasons, I limit myself to two, one at each end.

My home is situated roughly in the middle of my riding. I'm not far from Ottawa, an hour and a quarter away. So I can have offices anywhere, but it also forces me to travel a lot. It's hard for me to stay in touch with my community because 40% of my constituents don't have Internet access.

I therefore have to allow for that fact in every communications strategy, whether it be for elections or simply to contact my fellow citizens. The fact of the matter is that our the local newspaper is more popular in my riding than the Internet. We have no subways, buses, public transit or fast lanes, and virtually no bike trails. Since we have to stick to the shoulders of the main roads and highways, it's very dangerous to ride from one town to the next. There are 41 municipalities over an area of 5,000 square kilometers.

It's important for us to discuss the economic recovery, which, in my case, will be based on the small businesses and micro-businesses that have been forced to close as a result of the pandemic. However, I can tell you that it's also extremely important to have Internet connectivity. Our government is working hard on that [Technical difficulty—Editor] even though we're facing an economic crisis.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Lauzon, did the interpreters say that your sound cut out?

Just pause for a moment, please. I was actually very interested in listening about your riding. It was bringing a lot of thoughts to my mind.

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

I just want to end on this. I'm very interested in my riding, so I want to conclude on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Clerk, can the interpreters hear Mr. Lauzon?

[The Clerk]

Yes, Madam Chair, they're telling me they can hear him now. It may have been just a momentary hiccup.

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

I will stay in French, as I don't want to disturb the system.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

You had a great flow going there. I love hearing your French.

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

As you know, I can speak passionately about the economic recovery and the measures we've introduced in my riding. And since I'm the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Seniors, I'm a fan of seniors and have extensive relations with them.

I'd like to let my colleagues speak. I think they'd like to speak to this topic too.

Having said that, I'd like to add something before I yield the floor. I still have a lot to say.

I will raise my hand again to come back.

Let the report be written, and let the opposition members say what they want about prorogation; in any case, the die is cast.

So the appearance of witnesses would make no difference or alter the situation in any way. All the testimony and, more particularly, the drift of the questions that have been asked point directly to a predetermined solution. I noticed that as I read them.

This confirms that you've already made up your minds without even considering all the factors. In addition, yes, under the amendment to Mr. Turnbull's motion, many witnesses may still appear. In fact, we could continue discussing that.

I yield the floor to my colleagues.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Turnbull, you are next.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thanks to my colleague Mr. Lauzon for his remarks and specifically for his work on seniors and the incredible work he does for his constituents. It's clear to me that he has unending passion for advocating for his constituents, and that's great to see.

I hope I do as good a job as he does.

This amendment I put forward does attempt to appease the opposition. I know that it doesn't necessarily include all the witnesses and the documents and things that were a part of this fishing expedition, or the continued fishing expedition that's already been done several times in other committees. I don't think it needs to go on ad infinitum.

I would hope that people recognize we're willing to move in that direction and have some more witnesses come to the committee. I think they're witnesses who make sense, given the argument I've made over and over again, and I have mountains of evidence to substantiate my argument that the throne speech reflected the data and the consultation process that was undertaken during the prorogation.

I think I have made that very clear in past meetings, but I will continue. I have a lot more to say today.

Before I pass the mike to my wonderful friend Wayne Long, who is here, who is someone else whom I greatly admire and respect, I want to say that the witnesses who are included in the amendment focus on understanding the deep economic and social impacts of COVID-19. I've argued that the throne speech's main message of building a more inclusive and equitable, sustainable, resilient economy and society in Canada reflects the data and evidence.

I think my amendment also attempts to call witnesses who can speak to that as well. I think it's very consistent with what I've been arguing, and I am anxious to hear what my colleague Mr. Long has to say about this. I know he is equally as passionate as Mr. Lauzon, so I'll hand it over to Mr. Long.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Just as a reminder, because some people had to log on and off when we were having difficulties, I want to let you know my speakers list.

We have Mr. Turnbull, who just finished. Then we have Mr. Long, Dr. Duncan and then Mr. Blaikie. What is reflected on your toolbar might not be the proper order because it's out of order.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

I believe my hand was up before Mr. Blaikie's. My understanding is that my name was on the list from the previous meeting, so I just made a short remark. My understanding was that my hand was up at the beginning of this meeting, and I distinctly remember raising it right after my colleague, Dr. Duncan, so I would like—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

You were already on the list, Mr. Turnbull, so I don't know how we're to....

Mr. Clerk, can someone raise their hand twice if they're already on the list? Do I add them back on?

[The Clerk]

Madam Chair, there is no firm rule with respect to that.

Mr. Turnbull is correct. He was on the list from the previous meeting and his turn hadn't come up yet by the end of the meeting two days ago. Then when this new meeting started today, he also immediately put his hand up, with several other members.

Part of the problem might be my fault. I wasn't sure if you were simply putting your hand up again to guarantee a spot today, or if you wanted a second slot, essentially.

You had your hand up from the previous time, you gave up the floor and then when the meeting started again today, you also put your hand up. That's my understanding. I may have led the chair to the wrong conclusion on that. I apologize.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay.

We have Mr. Long, Dr. Duncan, Mr. Blaikie, Mr. Turnbull [Technical difficulty—Editor].

[The Clerk]

Mr. Turnbull just gave up the floor. What I have here is Mr. Long next, with Dr. Duncan after that. Mr. Turnbull will then go again and then Mr. Blaikie.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay. I got it.

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

On that point of order, Madam Chair, I'm trying to understand the [Technical difficulty—Editor] raising one's hand to get on the list in that case.

Perhaps a demonstration might serve to make my point. If I do this—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I'm sorry, your screens are moving all over the place. Is this just happening to me?

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

I'm lowering and raising my hand and now wondering if I have four spots on the speaking list. If I continue, I'm wondering if I'm reserving future spots on the speaking list.

From my understanding, usually when you have a speaking list, once you have a spot on the list, you can't reserve another spot until you've spoken. It seems like an odd practice, and I'm concerned about the nature of how that might unfold.

If Mr. Turnbull has more to say now, I'd encourage him to say what he has to say now. If he wants to get back on the list, I'd encourage him to put up his hand after he's had his turn to speak, or I think this could get rather ridiculous pretty quickly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Blaikie, I agree. Once the person is done speaking, then they can obviously raise their hand after that if they want to go again after the next speaker. I think it would be more appropriate to go to Mr. Long, Dr. Duncan, Mr. Blaikie and then Mr. Turnbull.

Dr. Duncan, you can go ahead and lower your hand in the list since we already have you. You'll be going after Mr. Long.

Stéphane, is your hand up from before? If it is, then Mr. Turnbull's turn would come right after Mr. Blaikie's.

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

I will lower my hand right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Perfect. That's my understanding.