Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 13th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Ms. Vecchio.

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

I know that this is a dilatory motion, but when there are other members on the speaking list and we had wanted to adjourn the debate, I'm just looking for why we're going to a vote when we've been asking for this debate to end for the last two months.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

You were asking for a vote on the amendment previously.

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

It was the vote. Okay, got it. Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I'll just let you know that it does not do away with your motion, Ms. Vecchio. Just like I mentioned before, your motion would still stand. It's just to move to a different topic of discussion.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

We are back on the same motion, Ms. Vecchio's motion. We have Ms. Shanahan next on the speaking list.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

If I have understood correctly, we are returning to Ms. Vecchio's motion. I am happy about that because I'll be able to continue to explain my concerns with respect to point (a), about inviting the Prime Minister to appear before this committee. I don't think that it's at all necessary, particularly as people in my riding of Châteauguay—Lacolle have for months been speaking to me every day about other problems, and no one is asking me any questions about prorogation. On the contrary, people are happy that we have been focused entirely on the crisis since the beginning of the pandemic. They are also pleased about the new direction we have taken for the future and about our focus on delivering vaccines, which have now in fact been delivered.

We are very pleased with the progress that has been made in Quebec on the vaccination rate. As the premier said this week, we are expecting a single dose for everyone by the summer, which means that we will be able to consider organizing activities with families and friends in our communities. Needless to say, we will have to continue to comply with a number of health measures, but we will be much safer than we have been over the past months. Our goal, is to have given a second dose of vaccine to everyone who requests it by the fall. I am hoping that the vast majority of people will do so, and that we will be able to truly restart our economy.

It's precisely the August 2020 prorogation that enabled us to reboot the entire machinery of government. I recall that opposition MPs were worried because Parliament was not sitting as usual in the early days of the crisis. That was inevitable because we were in isolation. We were holding meetings, but not in accordance with the usual parliamentary procedures. We had to explain clearly to Canadians what our plan was for surviving, fighting and beating the pandemic.

Some of my colleagues who are members of this committee are more familiar than I am with the House Standing Orders and could explain to us how requiring that the government explain its reasons for prorogation could be considered innovative.

While we understand that the decision is solely the responsibility of the government, I would fully agree that it is reasonable for the government to explain its reasons for the prorogation.

I have the report in front of me. It's very clear. I don't think that a prorogation had been planned for the first term. Nobody could have have anticipated the pandemic. However, changes to Parliament's standing orders allowed a report explaining the reasons for the prorogation to be written.

I think that it's a good idea because it never hurts to learn more and and it's always possible to explain our system more clearly to people. We are very often influenced by what happens elsewhere, particularly in the United States, and we are not always aware of our own parliamentary traditions.

I think that everyone will have understood that the December 2019 throne speech was not at all applicable during a pandemic. The priorities in the 2019 throne speech were mainly economic investments, in addition to environmental expenditures and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

While it's true that these aspects of the throne speech were important, the priority quickly became fighting COVID‑19. I'll speak later about what our priority is now.

The throne speech that was delivered after the prorogation stated clearly that in spite of our convictions and our fundamental principles, when the house is on fire, it's not the time to redecorate do housecleaning. The important thing is to put out the fire.

The 36‑page report gives details about all the reasons why Parliament was prorogued. That had never happened before. I may be wrong, and if so feel free to correct me, but prior to the changes made to the standing orders, the Prime Minister made the decision and did not have to justify it or explain it.

The Prime Minister said:

The Prime Minister said:

We are proroguing Parliament to bring it back on exactly the same week it was supposed to come back anyway and force a confidence vote.

In a crisis, it's important for all members of Parliament to indicate whether or not the government has their confidence.

The Prime Minister continued:

We are taking a moment to recognize that the throne speech we delivered eight months ago had no mention of COVID-19, had no conception of the reality we find ourselves in right now. We need to reset the approach of this government for a recovery to build back better. And those are big, important decisions and we need to present that to Parliament and gain the confidence of Parliament to move forward on this ambitious plan.

I have trouble believing that the opposition members were against the idea of indicating whether they had confidence in the government. That was when they had the opportunity to do so.

The throne speech was delivered a few weeks after prorogation, which was declared on August 18. We returned to the House on September 23, 36 days later. We're not talking about six months or even six weeks. We took the shortest possible amount of time to prepare the new plan that we were going to present to Canadians. The Governor General delivered the throne speech on September 23. The speech said that the government's top priority was to implement measures to continue to fight the pandemic and save lives. It was a question of life and death. It was definitely an emergency.

The speech also said that the government's objective was to invest all possible technological, research and resources on testing and on distributing tests to Canadians. Emergency measures like the CERB were introduced for individuals, along with assistance for Canadian businesses experiencing serious needs. We at least had to help them avoid bankruptcy.

It's not easy to implement these assistance measures, and public servants had to do an extraordinary amount of work to get it done. The situation also required leadership and we had to have the confidence of the House to implement these plans.

Some vulnerabilities also came to light. We all know what happened in long-term care facilities, which resulted from a lack of investment. As we saw, women hold many essential service jobs. In Canada, with the exception of Quebec, there were problems with affordable and accessible child care centres. For the first time in ages, people got together and showed solidarity, in the Black Lives Matter movement, for example. We were all experiencing the same health crisis. People could see that there was social injustice. The will was there and it still is.

In the Châteauguay—Lacolle riding, groups of young people, businesspeople and citizens got together in support of more vulnerable groups like visible minorities and low-wage workers. We expect other gatherings; it's important to keep these feelings and this determination alive in the future. Right now, we have a little more hope for the future. From now on, people will understand what a crisis like the climate crisis really is. We have no control over mother nature. As human beings, we have to do everything possible to prevent crises like these because something that happens in one part of the world can affect the whole planet.

I saw a documentary about Greta Thunberg, and what this young lady did during the year of the pandemic. She continued her work. It was inspirational to see what she accomplished. I think we now have an opportunity to change our behaviour, not only to become more healthy physically, but also environmentally.

The thrust of the throne speech was the importance not only of coming up with a plan, but also a vision to inspire Canadians. The first wave was in September. We had hopes of getting through it, but we were not sure.

And, as we all know, we had a very bad winter, followed by an equally difficult third wave.

I can't see how the government could have continued last year to work on the basis of a throne speech that was no longer relevant. The fact that the government and the Prime Minister decided to put their cards on the table and ask the elected members of Parliament whether they had confidence in their actions was also proactive.

Some did not have confidence, and it's up to them to explain why. However, we were fortunate to have enough people placing their trust in the plan we came up with. We followed the plan, which guided us as we dealt with the situation. It was sometimes difficult, even extremely so. We didn't have a crystal ball. We didn't know which way to turn, or what should be closed or left open.

It was like being in an experimental laboratory. Different parts of the country took certain approaches and we'll soon know which worked best.

That was the idea behind the prorogation discussed in the report tabled by Minister Rodriguez in the House of Commons. As far as I know, the Minister also appeared before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to field questions.

Some are saying that it was not enough, and that they needed to hear from the Prime Minister, and that Mr. Rodriguez was not who they wanted to see.

I myself always strive to get to the bottom of things and I like to examine the terms of reference for the committee I am sitting on to understand what we really have in front of us. Sometimes we are not discussing the right topic or trying to do something that has no relevance to the work to be done here.

However, this is certainly the committee where we can speak about the government in power and about the fact that ministers can indeed, in accordance with the concept of cabinet accountability and solidarity, provide answers.

I would even say that it's up to the government House leader, Mr. Rodriguez, to explain the reasons for the prorogation to MPs, to present the prorogation report and to provide explanations. As for procedure, he is the person responsible for explaining things and answering questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I just want to check with the interpreters. For a while I've been noticing a problem with the sound, but I haven't heard them say anything. Is it okay for them?

I hear the interpreter coming through fine, but your original sound seems to be crackling going in and out, Ms. Shanahan. I'm just wondering if they're waiting for me to pick up on it or if it's fine for them.

[The Clerk]

Madam Chair, they've indicated to me here in the room that everything is fine on their end.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Maybe it's just on my end. I continue to hear her sound cutting in and out. I figured that since nobody else said something I would let it go, but it was getting worse for me so I thought I would say something at this point. If it's fine for the interpreters, then it's okay. The interpretation part is coming through quite clear to me. It's just the original sound that keeps cutting in and out.

I'm sorry, Ms. Shanahan. I hope you still know what spot you were at. I'm sorry for the interruption.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

No problem.

It's important for the interpretation to be working properly.

I'd like to refer to a document prepared by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat in 2005. It's an overview of ministerial responsibilities and accountabilities. It's interesting. I'm going to quote a few excerpts.

It states:

Ministers, who together as the ministry form the government of the day, exercise executive authority in this system.

Here, “this system” is the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy. It continues:

These ministers...are accountable to Parliament both individually and collectively. All accountabilities in Canadian government flow from ministers’ individual and collective accountability to Parliament.

Although Parliament does not exercise executive authority, it is the principal guarantor of the government’s accountability, scrutinizing the government’s policies and actions and holding it to account. Parliament has a spectrum of tools for doing this, ranging from its role in the passage of legislation to the review and approval of public expenditure to the interrogations of Question Period.

I'm going to get back to question period in a bit. You'll see why it's relevant. It continues:

But while the specific tool may vary, the environment remains constant—that of partisan politics.

This is in a Treasury Board document. It continues:

Parliament and its processes are inherently political.

Here's what I would like to say there.

I know that the concept of partisanship can have a negative connotation for many Canadians, but all it really means is that most elected representatives are members of a party and take a apolitical approach. They believe in a set of ideas, values and policies, and a way of seeing the world.

Within each of the political parties, there is a shared vision of how the organization is run, how to deal with problems and how to govern society. There's nothing wrong with that. You can't mince your words. If a partisan reason is given, then that needs to be pointed out. To be sure, most parties focus on having their members elected. However, I can tell you that's definitely not the goal of the Bloc Québécois...

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I don't know about anybody else, but I'm not getting interpretation.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Chair, I have a point of order.

The interpretation isn't working very well. I hear Ms. Shanahan and the interpreter speaking at the same time.

I'd like to congratulate Ms. Shanahan on the quality of her French, and particularly for speaking French most of the time. I'm very grateful for her efforts. It's great and I'm pleased about it.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Well, I did to study history at the Université du Québec à Chicoutimi...

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Okay, that explains it.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Yes. The member can understand.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

I saw the name Concordia University in the background.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

That's right, the word "Concordia" is there. The Université du Québec à Chicoutimi degree is right above it.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Okay. I couldn't see it.

Good.

Thank you, Ms. Shanahan.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

For the interpretation, it might be my fault. I shouldn't switch back and forth between English and French.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

No, I don't—

[The Clerk]

Madam Chair, we seem to be getting the translation fine here in the committee room, but perhaps the members participating through Zoom are not getting the interpretation feed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes. Mr. Therrien and I are having the opposite issue, but in a way the same issue. That means there is something going on.

I have my proper channel on. I don't have a problem hearing Ms. Shanahan anymore at all. Actually, the sound got clearer; I just lost the interpretation part.

Maybe you can test it out.

[The Clerk]

Yes.

You may want to suspend for a minute while we test this out.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

How about we suspend for five minutes for just a quick bio break. I'm biased. I kind of need to take one. Please let know whenever somebody else does.

We'll suspend for five minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I call this meeting back to order. There are a couple of things before I give the floor back to Ms. Shanahan.

At around 12 o'clock today, I got an email from Minister Leblanc's office. They have reached out to appear before the committee on the urgent matter of studying Bill C-19.

They stated:

As you know, the Opposition has voted 14 times for an election in recent weeks, and it is the responsibility of all parties to make sure that the necessary protections are in place if the Opposition send Canadians to the polls.

That is what they wrote. I'm just reading what they wrote. I just want to let you know that. It's up to the committee, really, at the end of the day who they want to see as witnesses and whether we move to that study. However, I just want you to all be aware that I did receive that email. I forwarded it to the clerk as well.

Also, our window is narrowing on the main estimates. We still have those witnesses on the sidelines waiting if you want to call them.

Considering what Mr. Blaikie said earlier and the reason I'm stating it, maybe it gives parties the time to have some space before they move on to whether they're having a vote on this issue or moving on to another study. It might make some space to do something else in the meantime, but it's really up to the committee again.

Last time, on Tuesday, I felt there was no desire to even undertake the main estimates. I'm not sure if those were the thoughts of everybody. Nobody really verbalized it. I just got a lot of no responses to the question, so my guess was that there was not that much interest in doing the main estimates. However, I don't want to mistake that by you just not wanting to start them this week versus, after the constituency week, maybe there is interest in taking up the main estimates. Just let me know if you are interested, once again, because we have those witnesses on standby.

Those are the two announcements: the email I received and the main estimates.