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.