Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 13th, 2021

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

Madam Chair, I just want to understand. Maybe I've missed something here.

With respect to the proposition of having something in writing, is that a definite no? Is it not on the table? I just want to understand that because it would just help our caucus and my Liberal colleagues to look at and reflect on what exactly the proposal is. From there we would be in a better position to respond. I just want to get a sense of whether that is off the table. Is that still an option?

I'm sorry, Karen and Daniel, I may have missed that.

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

No, I think everything is on the table right now. That is a great opportunity for us to start having those conversations. I'll do whatever I can to help on those efforts.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Great, Ms. Vecchio.

Go ahead, Mr. Blaikie.

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

I'm sorry, Madam Chair. Likewise, I think it's hard. There is no proposal that preceded today's meeting, so it will just take a little time to kind of sit down and hammer out what that might look like. I'm certainly happy to provide a proposal in whatever format is most useful.

In respect of today and in response to Ms. Vecchio's concerns, I would be prepared to agree right now to have a vote on the amendment at five to one eastern time and end our meeting at the usual time, so that the way is cleared for Thursday.

We are, as I said, closer than we have been in a while to a position of having some meaningfully productive conversations. Unless my Liberal colleagues see a lot of virtue in extending the time of today's meeting, I'd be happy to have a vote on the amendment five minutes before our regular meeting time would end and end the meeting on time. Then we'd try to come back on Thursday with some kind of game plan for how we move forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay.

Ms. Petitpas Taylor.

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

Again, nothing is planned here. We're just really trying to negotiate. Perhaps we're trying to work through things.

This is just a thought. Would it be appropriate to suspend and allow the Conservatives, the NDP and the Bloc to prepare in writing what they suggest? Then from there we could see it before any further direction would be taken. Then we would know what is being proposed, and perhaps we would be more comfortable in moving forward from there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Ms. Vecchio.

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

I appreciate that, Ginette. I understand that. But I think, really, we're now being asked for the solution. The solution, all this time, lies on the steps of the Liberal Party. We are happy to bring forward some ideas for you, but I don't think this should be a yea or nay. I don't think there should be a yea or nay on that, if you know what I'm saying. I think we all have to work together on this.

There's a trust thing. If we don't vote.... If we vote his down we still know there's an opportunity now for an amendment to be there. At this time we don't have an opportunity to put an amendment there at all because Ryan's is taking that spot. Right now it's....

Yes, I hear what you're saying. At the end of the day, it's either going to be that we talk about Ryan's or we talk about my motion. That's how it will roll out. I think that, at the end of the day, we know we're going to be voting against Ryan's. We know that you will not be supporting ours and that this will continue as a filibuster.

As we continue to work back and forth on this, we know, at the end of the day, there's going to be something coming from opposition parties, probably about the Prime Minister being the person who needs to come to this committee meeting. Ultimately, that's what the holdup is.

We will work on these types of things and ensure we all know where we're going, but let's get that going. I don't know. I think there's going to be a lot of work done on the Liberal side as well. I don't know if suspending or actually just having this conversation right now, where we're actually talking about it, is more beneficial. I'm not sure, so I'll just pass it on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Blaikie.

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

Madam Chair, I would add that I think it might take a little bit of time for us to agree. As I say, nobody came to this meeting, I think, even anticipating that there might be the degree of openness to the new conversation we're seeing. I think it's going to take a little time to hammer something out. I'm loath to try to do that within the meeting time. I think, after it's taken a very long time to get to here, it feels like a bit of an artificially urgent deadline. I know that there are so many Liberals on the committee who have more to say on the amendment, who thought that they were going to have a lot more time than it turns out they may.

I don't want to catch anyone off guard or foreclose on an important opportunity to say what has not yet been said, so I think that giving it the rest of this meeting, having the vote on the amendment, and then being able to come back on Thursday is the best way to proceed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I was just going to say, in follow-up to Ms. Vecchio's and Mr. Blaikie's comments, I think, really, we have tried to put forward what we thought was a reasonable compromise. I realize that you don't necessarily see it that way or share that perspective. I understand that, but I really think the impetus is now on the opposition parties to say what is a counter-proposal. You obviously can put forward a subamendment. As Ms. Petitpas Taylor said, I think rightly, what do you want to see the outcome of this to be?

It sounds like there have been several opportunities here to compromise even on having written submissions with the Prime Minister, and to get answers to the burning questions that you have. That's fine, but it doesn't sound like there's an interest in that potential solution.

I'm just wondering if we are still at an impasse or if there is a genuine, concerted effort to compromise here. That's not really what I'm hearing. I'm hearing quite a bit of talking about it, but how do we get past this? If you really want to get past it, then put forward a substantive amendment in writing that we can have some confidence in.

I've put forward a substantive amendment in writing that we're now debating. I have lots of reasons left to speak to that and the rationale for why I think it's reasonable. I think some of my colleagues do, as well. In an effort to try to get past this moment of deadlock that we seem to be in, it would be great to have that in writing, if possible. Whenever the opposition members are ready to put something forward, I think it would be great. I'm very open.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Ms. Vecchio.

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

Time out: Am I understanding that, after two months of filibustering, you're asking us to get you out of the filibuster, because we need to come forward with an amendment? We've put ours forward. Why don't you withdraw your amendment and we can start where we're at?

To be honest, Ryan, I felt that the conversation was going very, very well until just moments ago. We have been working on this. We have all been working on this. Unfortunately, for months you guys have known that you're not getting the support over this. You've known. The leader on this committee has known. So please don't put that false pretense out there. No one on this committee can say that the opposition members will vote for this amendment. That's why this filibuster has continued now for two months. Let's not be disingenuous about this. The fact is that it is not up to anyone on the opposition. I am saying that where there is important work to be done....

I'm looking at the people I've been negotiating with in the past couple of minutes. The fact is that we all know that there's important work to get done. We need to get there.

Here's the idea: You're asking us to perhaps withdraw this and then maybe come up with something. Do not put this on all our shoulders. You've been speaking on this for two full months. Do not put this on our shoulders to provide you an amendment so that you guys can get out of this filibuster. Withdraw your amendment and let's put forward a proper amendment, or let's do what Daniel had said earlier, but please do not think that for the last two months opposition parties have not tried to negotiate multiple times.

We have not taken the floor for more than probably an hour in the last two months, unless you're talking about the number of times you had a call of repetition. Let's be honest here. If we want to get to something, if you want to withdraw this motion, then show us that you guys really want to negotiate. Don't put it on us.

Show us, Ryan, that you guys actually want to negotiate, then. If you're questioning the fact that this is where we're at, take this motion down, then, seriously, and let's do real business, because we've wasted our time on this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Dr. Duncan and then Mr. Blaikie.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Friends, I'd like to begin by thanking Ms. Petitpas Taylor for coming forward with this and starting a good conversation. I think we need to take this as a good conversation. We actually seem to be talking to one another. Might I suggest that we take a half-hour suspension and do some talking as opposed to, well, you know...? Let's continue on this. We'll go back to deciding that this will happen after the committee meeting. We're actually talking to one another.

Friends, as I've said before, we have done good work together in the past. We have done really good work. What we were able to do with protections in Parliament and remote voting, and what we did on the pandemic, coming forward with real recommendations—that was good work. I think it would be worth it to suspend for half an hour and talk to one another.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Blaikie.

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

Sure. If I may say so, I think we're at a delicate moment, and there is some promise of progress, which I certainly don't want to lose. I think it is important to start from a place of not impugning motive.

There are, it seems to me, two proposals from my Liberal colleagues for going forward, which I think are not consistent. The committee has to choose one way forward. On the one hand, we've heard Ms. Duncan's plea to have a bit of a suspension and a conversation among all the parties on how we might move forward. On the other hand, we have Ms. Petitpas Taylor and Mr. Turnbull, who have asked for something in writing from the opposition. Of course, the opposition is not monolithic. We're three different parties with three different interests, and quite often, three different points of view. Sometimes we agree on certain matters—we've agreed on the substance of Ms. Vecchio's motion—but other times we do not agree on many things.

If the Liberals on the committee would like something in writing or a concrete formal proposal from three different parties working together, that will take some time. I don't think that's something that's going to happen with a brief suspension of this meeting. It's something I'm open to offering if the three parties that I just referred to can find a common proposal. I'm hopeful that we can, but there is no guarantee at the outset. That's its own process.

What I think would be productive for us to do, if the government members want something formal from the three opposition parties, is for us to have some time in order to do that. There is time between today's meeting and the next meeting. In the meantime, as Mr. Turnbull said, he's very excited about offering more thoughts on his own amendment. He can do that today up until five minutes to one, eastern time, at which point we should have a vote and decide on that amendment, and then enter into that period between meetings in which the government has asked the opposition parties to speak and to see if we can come up with a common proposal, which we will bring to Thursday's meeting.

At that meeting, we will already have cleared the way, so to speak, for some kind of new attempt at a compromise. It may end up not being any more successful than Mr. Turnbull's first attempt, but at the very least we'd be trying something new and working towards some kind of new compromise. It might precipitate a second productive conversation.

That's why I think it would be best to go with the idea that the opposition parties are going to try to propose a way forward. We will do our best. That is going to take some time. I don't think it will happen during a suspension of this particular meeting.

As a sign of the progress of today's conversation, dispensing with the current amendment would be a good way to conclude this meeting and have the kind of maximally open posture at the beginning of the next meeting to try to get towards some kind of compromise.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I believe, Ms. Vecchio, you had raised your hand as Mr. Blaikie was speaking. Do you want to respond?

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

Honestly, I feel like saying, “Thank you, Dad,” as in, thank you, Daniel. You've done a great job. If you were at the head of my family circle, those would have been exactly the types of words my father would have said.

Thank you, Daniel. You've done a great job. I really appreciate those words.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

All right, we have a speakers list. We went down an off-ramp for a little bit there, which was probably a good thing. I have been keeping track, and so far on the speakers list are Ms. Petitpas Taylor, Mr. Turnbull, Dr. Duncan, Mr. Kelloway and maybe Mr. Blaikie, but I'm not sure. That was probably a hand that was up and down. There were a lot of hands. Okay, Mr. Blaikie is not on the list.

Ms. Petitpas Taylor, you have the floor. It's back to you.

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

Madam Chair, I guess I'm going to get back to my reflections on the extended debate we're having on the amendment Mr. Turnbull brought forward.

Before I get going on my comments, I first of all want to thank the members who are joining us today. Mike Kelloway is subbing in for one of our members. As well, Andy Fillmore and Robert Morrissey are here. It's always great to have our colleagues with us. I have to say I feel as though I have the Atlantic Canada brigade with me today, so that's always great.

As well, before I get going, I know we're talking about the amendment Ryan has brought forward, and I think perhaps there are two camps.

I think there's one camp that certainly believes the reason for prorogation was related to WE. That is the argument that continues to be brought forward. Again yesterday in the House of Commons—I was fortunate that I was there on House duty—a lot of the comments again made reference to exactly that.

On this side I have to say that I am truly convinced, and my opinion is still that if a global pandemic is not the time to set an agenda, then I don't know when an appropriate time to move forward with setting new priorities would be. I truly believe that if we look back to August of last year, we knew what the situation was back then. Many of us spoke about a possible second wave or third wave, and, hopefully not, fourth wave. Those were the types of things we were talking about, knowing very well that they could be a possibility.

I have to say I'm extremely pleased and proud that our government chose to reset that agenda. I really want to reflect on where we are today and make reference to how, if we didn't make the changes back then, we would have been really ill-equipped to deal with the challenges that many Canadians are faced with.

I know that my honourable colleagues sometimes don't like to hear me talk about where things are right now, but I think we can't forget. Sometimes we do forget. Last year we thought we were in a bad situation. We never thought we were going to get to where we are. Maybe some of us did. We had to make sure that the plans were in place.

I want to talk a bit about the justification, and again why I feel that Minister Freeland and Minister Chagger would be well placed to provide us with some information as to the thought process that was involved in putting together a new throne speech and in resetting and recalibrating to move forward to deal with, really, a huge reality that we had to face.

We have to begin by reminding ourselves that the COVID‑19 pandemic is not a partisan matter and that no political party is involved. Honestly, COVID‑19 is not interested in political division. Most of the time, the COVID‑19 pandemic exploits such divisions. It recognizes that we are not always capable of working closely together, and it takes advantage of this.

I hope that we'll be able to continue to work closely together as parliamentarians to put an end to a global pandemic that has had such a negative impact on so many people. I think that we have all been affected in one way or another and we now need to recognize that we all have a role to play in putting an end to this pandemic.

My sympathies go out once again to all Canadians listening to us today. I understand their concerns for themselves, their community, their province and everyone affected by the pandemic.

Like them, I am very worried. I worry for my fellow citizens, my neighbours in Nova Scotia and people in every province affected by COVID‑19. Combatting COVID‑19 has reached a critical point, and the third wave is already hitting many regions from one end of the country to the other.

I'm going to use my friends in the province of Nova Scotia as an example. A month ago, COVID‑19 cases were under control in Nova Scotia. But as we can see, the situation can change quickly.

That's why it's important to make sure that Minister Freeland will be able to come and speak to us. If you recall, I had mentioned that Ms. Freeland was not only the Deputy Prime Minister, but also the chair of the Cabinet Committee on the federal response to the Coronavirus disease, COVID‑19. She could come and tell us about what the members of this committee think and how they were able to develop programs to help Canadians. Through her many discussions with members of cabinet, she would be in a good position to tell us why they developed a new plan and explain the decision to prorogue Parliament.

The number of hospitalizations and admissions to intensive care has been breaking all records. Unfortunately, it is true that this third wave is hitting Canadians hard. As I mentioned earlier, the situation we are in is unprecedented. We need to respond together quickly through special measures.

The government has truly helped all of Canada. We are of course continuing to be there for all citizens. We have recently taken action, as we did for all of the provinces that were experiencing an increase in the number of COVID‑19 cases. We are collaborating on an ongoing basis with our provincial government counterparts to exchange information and provide support that would strengthen the provinces' capacity to combat the pandemic.

I won't review all of the programs that were introduced over the past year, but I think that Minister Freeland could give you a lot of information on that score. I repeat that she should give us her views, as well as what her colleagues and the Prime Minister think.

We are continuing to deliver vaccines to the provinces as they extend their vaccination programs. According to the numbers available to me, approximately 18 million vaccines were delivered across Canada and approximately 16 million doses administered. The situation has been progressing extremely well, but as the vaccination process continues, we need to continue to protect one another. The virus has repeatedly shown that it can be cunning and insidious, and that it can spread very quickly if we don't take it seriously.

As I mentioned earlier, COVID‑19 is non-partisan. It tries to gain a foothold in our communities, and that is why we need to do everything we can to prevent it from doing so. I will reiterate that having Minister Freeland and other potential guests come and speak to us could help us write our final report on the prorogation.

We need to stay on course to reduce the number of infections, protect one another and ensure that people remain safe in their communities. We can all admit that we are tired, but we need to continue to follow public health guidelines and do everything possible, individually and collectively, to stop the spread of the virus.

Vaccination may be the finish line, but until we have all been vaccinated, we need to protect one another. Companies, governments, families and communities need to do everything possible to reduce the risk of transmitting this virus.

Last week, I mentioned that my husband was privileged to receive his vaccination. I am pleased to announce that mine will be at 1 p.m. tomorrow. I'm not going to miss the opportunity and I'm looking forward to it.

Health Canada has authorized four COVID‑19 vaccines, Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson. Only last week…

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Ms. Petitpas Taylor, the interpreters are hearing some popping of your microphone. It seems to be positioned very well. I don't know what to suggest, necessarily. We had Mr. Blaikie fold it inwards. Maybe you could fold it a little bit outwards, or move it outwards a bit. Then the popping might stop.

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

I'd like to ask the interpreter if it's better now.

[The Clerk]

Ms. Petitpas Taylor, according to the interpreter, everything's working properly now.