Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 13th, 2021

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

That's good, because there are a few more things I want to get on.

I think the Prime Minister stated clearly why he needed to prorogue and the reasons for it. I have clearly shown how the hockey leagues, which I obviously know and love, prorogue, if you will, to get a new mandate, to reset their schedules, to reset travel dates and a president's cup and things like that. It's normal. We needed to do it. It was the proper thing for us to do.

The fact that we need to study it and hear from the Prime Minister.... Let's call a spade a spade. That's what it's about. It's about hearing from the Prime Minister when the Prime Minister has already clearly stated the reasons for prorogation. Anybody who thinks they're going to hear anything different from what the Prime Minister has already stated is, I think, missing the mark, to be perfectly blunt.

He has already said it. Why would he say anything different from what he has already said? I just don't understand that.

Again, we're here. We should be seized—every one of us, every minute of our day—with looking after our constituents, with doing the work we've been elected to do by our constituents, which is representing them, standing up for them in Parliament, advocating, challenging, pushing and debating. Those are the things we should be doing.

I think this PROC committee has done great work. I think there has been a lot of collaboration and a lot of good effort, in a bipartisan way across the aisle and what have you. We all have so many common interests, all of us, but instead of being seized with vaccines and, as I said earlier, fighting vaccine hesitancy and promoting the fact that we're getting vaccines.... More and more are coming. Our procurement has been outstanding. We have millions more vaccines coming. Within the G7, our number of vaccines administered per 100 people is rising.

We should be proud of that. We should be proud that we are starting to lessen curves. I'm certainly not going to understate the challenges that some of my colleagues in Ontario and Alberta and Quebec are obviously facing, but those are the things we should be doing. We should be trying to look forward. We should be trying to focus on Canadians and on making sure we're there for Canadians.

Also, each and every one of us in every party should be focused on recovery, getting ready for the recovery, making sure that our ridings receive proper investments in infrastructure, investments in housing and so on. These are the things I am working on. As I said, I have one eye on the pandemic, making sure that the residents and the constituents of Saint John—Rothesay are being looked after, but I also have one eye on the future and on making sure that Saint John—Rothesay is poised and set for success once we get past this.

I've dealt with Conservatives, in my riding even, who say we were too generous with the CEBA and with the CERB, that the wage subsidy shouldn't have been as long as it was and the ratio shouldn't have been as generous. To be perfectly blunt, I don't know where we would be as a country if we, as a government, didn't provide the support that was needed.

I appeal to you, my friends and colleagues on the committee. I want everybody to please step back and do your own proroguing. Step back, reconsider, reset and come to the next meeting, or later in this meeting, with a new attitude and a new way to get this done. There's a way out of this.

This is the last thing I'll say, for now. I'll quote, very quickly, MP Turnbull's amendment. It says to replace paragraph (b)—and I won't read MP Vecchio's paragraph (b)—with “renew the invitations issued to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance”—which is obviously Minister Freeland—“and the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth, each to appear separately before the committee for at least 90 minutes”.

MP Turnbull is basically saying that the Deputy Prime Minister will come before this committee for 90 minutes, yet that's not good enough. We need the Prime Minister to come, when he has already stated why we prorogued and why we had to reset. No, that's not good enough.

Madam Chair, I thank you for allowing me to speak again today. I certainly do have a lot more I'd like to say, but I see that five of my wonderful friends' and colleagues' hands are up who also would like the floor. I don't want to take too much time.

Hopefully I'll be able to come back sooner than later and speak some more. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Mr. Long.

Ms. Petitpas Taylor.

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

Madam Chair, may I ask for a five-minute bio break before I start my speech? Could we suspend for two minutes, even? I'm not looking for a long time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

That's fine. It's been some time and we haven't had any kind of a break to eat or anything.

A lot of people are saying five minutes. I'll say 10. I think everybody will be okay with a 10-minute break. It gives everyone some more time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I will bring this meeting back to order.

We had Ms. Petitpas Taylor before we suspended temporarily.

Ms. Petitpas Taylor, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you so much for allowing us to have a short bio break. It has been a long afternoon, as was last night. I think we're probably all feeling a bit of the late night vote we had. Getting up at three o'clock in the morning is not always my favourite thing, but having done a lot of on-call work in my career, I'm lucky I'm able to get back to sleep, so that's a good thing.

Again, we are back here debating the motion of my friend and colleague Mr. Turnbull.

Ryan, we're so happy to see you in good form. Everyone's commenting on your hair today. Your hair always looks fine, but anyway, it makes me laugh that everyone has commented on that today.

I also want to take a moment to thank my good friend and colleague Dr. Duncan for her really thoughtful remarks today.

Kirsty, every time you speak at PROC, you educate us. I know you work really hard in all of your speeches that you prepare, and you stay up late at night in doing that, because you truly care about your folks in Etobicoke, and you believe in the science. This is your area of expertise, and when you speak, I truly believe we all need to listen. As the government, as parliamentarians, we are really better because of the contributions that you make, so I really want to take a moment and say thank you.

On that note as well, I would be remiss if I did not give you a shout-out on your motion 38 that you're putting together hoping for a standing committee on science. I think it's fantastic, and again, a continuation of the work you do. We're so proud of you, so thank you for that.

I also want to thank you, Ryan, for your thoughtful comments again today as always. Again, there's a lot of passion, and we really appreciate all the work you do. You may be a new parliamentarian, but you're an old soul, I have to say. You certainly contribute a tremendous amount to our committee.

Will, our friend and colleague, is gone, but, again, it was really great to get Will's perspective as well. I should probably call him MP Amos, but we're amongst family and friends here. He gave some really great comments.

Emmanuella, finally you had a chance to speak today. You have been with us on several occasions and we seem to always be cutting you off, so thank you for sharing your thoughts on this.

Finally, last but not least, is MP Long. Wayne always has an awful lot to say, and we always appreciate his sharing his thoughts and also speaking about—not the Wild Cats—the Sea Dogs. I better get that straight. He will be quite offended if I don't get it right.

Over the weekend I was thinking about this whole debate we have been having over the past several weeks now. Perhaps some of it sounds a bit redundant or a bit of a refresh, but when I was thinking over the weekend.... It's funny how I wrote something that my friend and colleague Ryan said today about the willingness to be influenced when we have a debate.

I wrote that down today when you said that, Ryan. I thought to myself that you were absolutely right, because this weekend, when I was reflecting on the motion before us.... For those of you who have been at committee for some time, you have heard my comments indicating that I was really prepared to go straight to writing the report.

If we look at the witnesses—and there are many new members with us today—in preparation of this prorogation study, we have heard from a number of witnesses who have appeared before PROC. We heard from many academics. We also heard from parliamentarians like Pablo Rodriguez and also staff from the Privy Council. With the thorough and thoughtful comments they made, I was really of the position that I thought we were prepared to go straight to writing the report. But, again, Ryan has brought forward an amendment, and, again, trying to be the mediator....

I always consider Ryan to be a bit of the mediator amongst us, always trying to find a spot for us to be able to agree upon. I started thinking over the weekend, though, yes, I conceded that I would agree with Ryan's amendment, but this weekend it dawned on me, and I don't know why I knew this, but it dawned on me that Minister Freeland is not only the Deputy Prime Minister, but she is the first female Deputy Prime Minister, I think, in Canada. She's certainly the first female finance minister, but even more importantly, why I think that Minister Freeland should be called before our committee is that she chaired the cabinet committee on COVID for a number of months, so who better than Minister Freeland to appear before our committee to really talk about the issue as to why government prorogued?

Ryan, to your point when you talk about the willingness to be influenced during debates, you know what I mean, to really challenge our thoughts, I think, more than ever, I absolutely agree with. Not only did you have to coax me, but now I say, yes, we absolutely need to have Minister Freeland appear here, because in actual fact, I truly believe that she'll be able to contribute an awful lot to this discussion. Again, she's the second in command, if you will, but more importantly, she chaired the cabinet committee on COVID. Over the past year and a half we know that our government has really been seized with this.

This morning, I have to share with you, I was speaking to one of my former colleagues who worked with me when I was in the health department. He called me regarding something. He had a baby a year and two months ago. I was asking him how his baby was, and he was telling me how she's growing up, but he shared with me something today that is relevant to this. He shared with me today that his daughter, at this point in time, is starting to talk a bit. What is she doing when she's playing with her dolls right now? She's taking a thermometer and checking the temperature of the doll's forehead, because when she goes to day care every day, that is what they do.

If we stop and think, just a year and a half ago, we would have never thought that our children would be playing with their dolls and putting a thermometer on their forehead to check their temperature. I just mention that short story, because when he said that it really made me reflect on how life has truly changed in the past year.

Again, when we look at the relevance as to why we're talking about the issue of prorogation and why that.... Again, I truly feel that we've done a great study, but we know we certainly can add the Deputy Prime Minister and also Minister Chagger. I guess I'm still stuck with the point that I know that many of our opposition colleagues have already prejudged the study. They've already made their points of view known. Even yesterday and over the past week or two I've been fortunate that I've had a lot of House duty, a lot of long hours in the House, and I've been able to listen to many debates.

Again, I'm hearing time and time again members of the opposition talking about the WE issue and making the link between that and prorogation. Again, I just feel it's a bit of a fishing expedition, and I truly believe that with the work we've done so far ,we are prepared to move on.

With that being said, I think that we also have to recognize that when we look at the realities of when we entered an election campaign in 2019 and when we came up with our throne speech, that was the reality of the time, and that was pre-pandemic. None of us anticipated that we would be dealing with this situation. We've been dealing with it over the past year and a few months, but, let's be frank, we know this pandemic is going to be with us for many more months to come, and we are going to have many challenges ahead for months, if not years.

Now, if last August was not the time to prorogue and to do a reshift and a reassessment or retooling, if you will, I really don't know, again, what would justify proroguing Parliament. When I hear my colleagues.... I'm going to quote the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île when he said last year, “What purpose did...prorogation serve? It was used as a diversionary tactic, because the government was in a conflict of interest with WE Charity.” Another member, that same month, the member for Berthier—Maskinongé indicated, “The main reason for the prorogation was to put a lid on the WE scandal.”

If I truly felt that our colleagues were looking for more information with respect to why we prorogued, and if we really want to get the reasons for prorogation—the true reasons—I think we would have to look at having someone like Minister Freeland come to the table to share her knowledge with respect to all of the work that was done during the pandemic months and what we needed to do to move on. She's probably even better positioned to do so, because she was the captain of the ship, if you will, in many ways when it came to the COVID cabinet committee. I think she would have a lot to share with us.

Now I'm going to make a few comments in French.

We've heard many comments from our fellow citizens about the priorities the government established and included in the 2019 Speech from the Throne.

I'm going to speak in French now. I have a few more comments to make.

Let's talk about the priorities the government outlined in its 2019 Speech from the Throne. We really were inspired by what our fellow citizens had told us and established many themes for the Speech from the Throne. They included the themes that we had campaigned on but also the important ones our fellow citizens hoped we would address.

In my riding, the fight against climate change was a major issue. My fellow citizens are clearly very concerned about the situation and it's a priority for them.

The other theme we heard a lot about was the need to support the middle class and to help people who are trying to join it. We talked a lot about that.

We also talked about the path to reconciliation with indigenous peoples as well as the health and safety of all Canadians. It was an absolute priority for me as a former health minister to ensure that good programs were in place and that Canadians would have access to health services.

We also wanted to ensure that Canada had a good international image, and we campaigned on that theme.

These were all absolute priorities in 2019, but the situation quickly changed in 2020, as we all know. We all remember Friday, March 13, 2020, when we had to leave Ottawa. We flew home and many of us haven't been back to the capital since then. I was fortunate to be able to attend meetings in person for four weeks. Since my province was shut down, I had to self-isolate for two weeks before I could get back to my family. I was only able to be in Ottawa for four weeks.

As my colleagues mentioned, upon our return, we really had to make sure we met our fellow citizens' needs. We asked them to stay at home, practise social distancing and comply with public health measures. We asked them to do that and we also made sure we provided them with the necessary resources to pay their bills, feed themselves, pay their rent and so on.

The government and members of all the parties worked hard. I clearly remember receiving two or three calls a day from our colleagues. We discussed various issues. Sometimes we conducted a critical examination. We really wanted to ask the right questions so we could develop appropriate social policies. Members from the opposition parties asked appropriate questions. Lastly, we developed good policies. They may not have been perfect, but they were good.

I'm not going to review all the themes that were addressed in the 2019 Speech from the Throne, but, generally speaking, we did it all. Then the pandemic hit and we had to address all the related issues. We obviously didn't have the magic formula for managing a pandemic, but together we were able to do our best.

Then the pandemic hit again in August 2020. Many programs had been proposed and we had to continue putting assistance in place for Canadians. Since Parliament was prorogued at that time, the Deputy Prime Minister was available and we asked her why the government had prorogued the session.

Personally, I think it was the right time to do it. If you think back to the situation in August 2020, COVID‑19 cases were starting to decline. We knew that a third wave might be imminent. We were starting to develop vaccines and there was some light at the end of the tunnel, although we knew there was still a lot of work to do to help and support Canadians.

I think it was the right time to prorogue Parliament. We subsequently consulted Canadians and asked them what they thought we should do. We also reset our 2019 agenda since it didn't reflect the reality of 2020‑2021. So the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament.

I think all the members at today's meeting have spoken with people in their communities, with young people, and have conducted consultations. The Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe Youth Council in my riding meets every month. When I met with them during that period, we discussed what we should add to our new throne speech. I have to say that the young people in my riding are more politicized than others elsewhere, but they didn't know what a throne speech was. It was a great opportunity to explain to them what it was and to ask them what they thought we should do and what we should add to it.

I make telephone calls to my constituents every month—as I imagine many of my colleagues do—to ask them what their priorities are. In 2019, we heard a lot about their priorities. I really think the 2019 Speech from the Throne actually reflected what we had been told and what I'd heard from the citizens of Acadie and New Brunswick. They thought we should continue focusing on pandemic-related priorities and post-pandemic preparation. In the end, that's exactly what we did.

I've heard some colleagues say the Speech from the Throne wasn't ambitious enough. On the contrary, I personally thought it was very ambitious. It's a grand roadmap indicating where we stand right now and what we should do to help Canadians.

Providing assistance to Canadians during the pandemic was a central focus of the Speech from the Throne; it was the key message. We wanted to ensure that Canadians knew we were there for them for the short and long hauls. I feel the throne speech clearly outlined that plan.

I'm not going to talk about the budget that we introduced a few weeks ago, but I will say this: there was a subtle difference between the Speech from the Throne, or roadmap, and the budget. What we were going to do in an attempt to help Canadians was very clear: we wanted to help Canadians get through the tough times.

We introduced many economic programs for Canadians. I know that the citizens of my beautiful region, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, wanted the government to be there for them and to continue working for them.

Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe is the best riding in Canada, but I'm sure all members think the same of their constituencies.

To give a break to my anglophone colleagues, I'm going to speak in French and English today. I'm also trying to speak slower for interpretation because I know that sometimes when I get going I can speak very quickly.

Madam Chair, I hope I'm doing better today on that note.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

You're doing fantastic. I'm sorry I had to stop you the last time. You're doing great.

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

When I get on a roll, it's bad.

Anyway, I've always said I'm a very good listener and when I was a social worker.... I've always been, I have to say, a good listener, but when I have an opportunity to talk, my gosh, just give me the stage.

Coming back to the matter at hand, among my constituents in Moncton, Riverview and Dieppe during this pandemic, during the whole issue of a new throne speech and the issue of prorogation, no one spoke to me necessarily of prorogation. But when we talked about readjusting and retuning and redefining what our goals and objectives were, my colleagues, my constituents wanted to make it clear that, front and centre, they wanted their government to be there and to continue to be there for them during the pandemic and post-pandemic.

I can tell you that when we talked about the Canada emergency response benefit, and when we all think of when we first started.... I'm looking at my friend, Irek, here and I'm sure that we asked him a lot of questions, as he was the parliamentary secretary to the minister responsible, I believe. We certainly had a lot of questions with respect to what CERB was going to look like. Again, the program may not have been perfect, but we certainly were there to help millions of Canadians.

When I look at the CERB, the Canada emergency response benefit, in my province of New Brunswick alone that program helped 165,000 New Brunswickers. In my little province, we have a population of 757,000. When you stop and think that 165,000 New Brunswickers benefited from that program, that's about one in five New Brunswickers, when you break it down.

More importantly, a lot of women were the ones who had to leave the workforce and had to use those benefits. Yesterday I met with a group of people in the care economy. I shared with them that 63% of the people who had to leave the labour market were women. Again, a lot of them were negatively impacted, so we certainly have to be there for them.

The Canada emergency response benefit certainly helped a lot of people in our province. People want us to be there for them in the short term and the long term.

The other pillar that we have to look at when it comes to the economic programs that have been put in place is the Canada emergency business account. Again, why did we prorogue, why did we feel that we had to get things back and to look at the priorities because of the pandemic? I don't know about you guys, but folks in my riding, in small and medium-sized businesses, were really grateful for that program.

There's a small vendor here in Moncton called the Starving Artist. I don't know if I have mentioned it before, but it's a really great co-op, a small business. Actually it's quite a big shop and many local artists go there and sell their pieces of art. It's a mom-and-pop shop but if we weren't there to provide them with the business account, that organization would be closed. They actually support over 200 local artists. If ever you come to Moncton, Mr. Long... I know you're always talking about Saint John, but come to Moncton and look at the Starving Artist shop. It's quite a neat spot. Over Christmas I tried to support local as much as possible and got all of my Christmas gifts there because they were just really great.

Again, those types of benefits that have been put in place have really helped these small and medium-sized businesses. Again, when we look at proroguing and what we needed to do in the short term and also post-pandemic, we have to look at all of that.

The other program as well that I know of, which I heard a lot about this summer as well, was the issue of the Canada emergency commercial rent assistance program. That's another program that many—

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Chair, I'd like to raise a question of privilege. Is that possible?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

A question of privilege—that's unusual, but I'll hear you.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

On my question of privilege, I want to point out that I'm currently not able, as a member of Parliament, to attend the HUMA committee where we're discussing matters related to housing, might I add, in the middle of a pandemic where people are dying, certainly in my riding where people are burning up in makeshift shacks, in order to accommodate this gross level of privilege.

It is a total disrespect to our electorate and people who are expecting us to keep them alive during the pandemic to play these games. I want to point out what a serious matter this is when people in my riding and around the country are dying, and we see this gross level of privilege here. Especially as members of Parliament, upon whom people are counting to keep them alive, I see people around this circle, when I am supposed to be in committee, snickering and laughing. I don't find it funny.

I am wondering what we can do about this, because my privileges as a member of Parliament to fight for my constituents and Canadians whose lives are on the line are being violated.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I can survey the committee to see if there is consensus to suspend at this time, or members are free to move to adjourn. Those are two options, so I will survey.

Ms. Gazan brings up some very serious points. I'm sure the work that she's doing there is very important.

Those are the only options I have at this point.

Would the committee be interested in suspending until our next scheduled meeting spot?

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

On a point of order, I just wanted to ask if I could ask Ms. Gazan for a little more information.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

What information are you looking for, as to her HUMA committee?

Go ahead, Ms. Gazan.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I'm finished my remarks. I have nothing left to add.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

She says there is important work going on at the HUMA committee and that, right now, because this committee is going over time, they're having to cancel or delay that committee, as far as I've heard.

Is there consensus to suspend at this time until the next scheduled committee date?

There's no disagreement. I guess I need to ask this question a different way. I'm just getting blank stares. Is everyone okay with it? If no one speaks up, then I will consider everyone being okay with it.

We're suspended until next Tuesday. Thank you.

[The meeting was suspended at 4:15 p.m., Thursday, April 29.]

[The meeting resumed at 11:02 a.m., Tuesday, May 4.]

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I call this meeting back to order.

Good morning, everyone. It's nice to see everyone's lovely face.

We're resuming meeting number 27 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. This meeting started on April 13, 2021.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the order of January 25, 2021. Therefore, all members can attend in person or virtually. I believe at this point we are all attending virtually.

This is just a reminder not to take screenshots or photos of your screen and also to mute and unmute your mikes. Make sure you've selected your interpretation channel.

Also, try to refrain from speaking over top of each other. Make sure you are wearing your boom mike and that it's positioned in the right spot so that we can make things as easy as possible for the interpreters.

If anybody attends the meeting in person, I may remind them of the rules that are in place in the room.

Having said that, we are not at an unfamiliar place. We are resuming from where we left off in the last meeting. We are on Mr. Turnbull's amendment on the issue of prorogation.

We had a speakers list last time. Ms. Petitpas Taylor had the floor when a point of order was made. After her, we have Dr. Duncan and a couple of others who are currently not here, so we'll drop them from the list. Then we have Mr. Long, who is here, and then Mr. Turnbull, and then another NDP member who is not here right now.

Everyone who is not here will be dropped from the list. The list currently would be Ms. Petitpas Taylor, Dr. Duncan, Mr. Long, Mr. Turnbull. Then anyone else who wishes to speak or make any other comment or raise a point of order can just state that they have a point of order, or if you wish to speak, you can raise your hand in the participants toolbar section.

Mr. Lauzon, you're also on the speakers list.

We'll start by giving the floor back to Ms. Petitpas Taylor.

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

Before I begin, I wonder whether Justin would be able to confirm that my sound is okay, because we were having a few issues at the beginning. I want to make sure that the interpretation—

[The Clerk]

Yes, Madam Petitpas Taylor. I can confirm that your sound is good for the interpreters.

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

Great. Thank you so much, Justin.

Once again, thank you Madam Chair for allowing we to speak again regarding the amendment that was brought forward by our friend and colleague Mr. Turnbull.

Before I continue with my comments, I would also like to take a moment to say welcome back to Stéphane Lauzon. We're happy to see you in good form and happy that you're recovering. PROC seems to be difficult on some of our members lately. Hopefully this isn't going to continue.

We're really happy, Stéphane, all kidding aside, to have you back.

I believe that last Thursday was the last time we were here in PROC. I'm not going to get into all of the comments I made last week, but to recap very quickly, I indicated at one point that when it came to the main motion, I made it very clear that I felt we were prepared to move forward with writing the report, because I feel that we've heard from a substantial number of witnesses. Again, though, I want to give consideration to Mr. Turnbull's amendment.

Once again I have to indicate that I was willing to be influenced by hearing the arguments that were brought forward. I truly believe, now more than ever, that welcoming our Deputy Prime Minister, the Honourable Chrystia Freeland, to appear before committee in actual fact makes a whole lot of sense.

I have to take a few steps back, I guess, because not last weekend but the weekend before, when I was reflecting on this motion and on this amendment, it struck me that Minister Freeland in actual fact was the chair of the COVID cabinet committee for a number of months.

Again, I know that different parties have different points of view, perhaps, as to why a prorogation was called, but I truly and firmly believe that it is because of the pandemic that we had to readjust our agenda. In Ms. Freeland's case, we certainly recognize that Ms. Freeland's being in charge of that COVID cabinet committee, it would make a lot of sense to ask her to come forward and to explain to us the reasons behind it.

As I previously said, the pandemic forced us to review our priorities; the ones from 2019 had to be changed. I won't read the entire throne speech, but, broadly speaking, if you look at the key themes from 2019 and priorities for 2020, you'll see that many changes were made. As a result of the pandemic, many adjustments had to be made to meet the needs of all Canadians. If Ms. Freeland testified before the committee, we could ask her questions. Who would be in a better position than her to explain the government's priorities and the reason for the prorogation, especially now that she's Minister of Finance?

The fight against climate change was an absolute priority for the citizens of my riding during the election campaign. I assume that's also true of the people my colleagues represent.

We wanted to help people in the middle class and those working hard to enter it. That was one of our priorities, and some programs have in fact been established to assist them.

The Speech from the Throne also addressed reconciliation with indigenous peoples and issues related to improving the health of Canadians. I think those were the priorities in 2019. I'm not saying they're no longer priorities in 2020, but some adjustments had to be made as a result of the pandemic.

I repeat that Ms. Freeland would be in a very good position to discuss that with us. Mr. Turnbull has laid out his arguments, and I think his testimony was very helpful. We could also ask him some tough questions.

The programs we established obviously weren't perfect. We were honest in our efforts. We did our best to respond to Canadians' immediate needs. The priority in the 2020 Speech from the Throne was to protect Canadians during the second wave of the pandemic. Today we sometimes forget where we stood in 2020. The situation has vastly altered since then, and changes have to be made.

In August 2020, we suspected there might be a second wave. Many scientists and experts even told us to prepare for a third and possible fourth wave.

The long and short of it was this: no vaccines were available in August 2020. We had hoped vaccines would soon be available, but that wasn't yet the case. A lot of things changed quickly from August to the following May.

Minister Freeland could come and testify before the committee to explain the reasons why we opted for prorogation. I think she'd be able to answer some very specific questions.

Many programs have been established to assist Canadians, but I won't name them all. However, I would definitely like to ask Minister Freeland how her government went about introducing the financial assistance programs.

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

Point of order, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I was just communicating with the clerk. Mr. Lukiwski has dropped off.

[The Clerk]

Madam Chair, he just got back into the meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Justin, can you hear me at all?