Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 13th, 2021

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

On a point of order, Madam Chair, for today, I just want to try to stay on topic as much as possible. We're talking about the prorogation, and although we can talk about these great programs with Minister Freeland, perhaps we can do that in the finance committee. Right now, we're supposed to be studying prorogation, and so those questions we should be asking her should be regarding the prorogation. I don't think we need to ask her about CERB or any of those programs.

Could we get back on topic of the prorogation, please?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I think that may be a slight bit of debate there. If Ms. Petitpas Taylor can explain how it's linked to prorogation, then it would be in order. I'll give her the opportunity to do so.

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

Once again, Madam Chair, I think we all have different points of view with respect to why we prorogued. I clearly believe that the reason for prorogation was that we were in the midst of what we hope is a once-in-a-lifetime global pandemic. The issue for prorogation was really to look at not just programs, but the priorities of Canadians during this time.

As I have indicated, if we look at the priorities of 2019 and 2020, and if you ask my constituents, they were really different. Some of them were similar, but some of them were different in protecting the health and safety of Canadians, making sure that Canadians stayed home, encouraging them to protect themselves and protect others.

We had to be there for them. When I say “we”, I mean all of my colleagues, because we all had a role to play in putting together these programs.

I absolutely appreciate Ms. Vecchio's point, and I absolutely do want to stay on topic. I will continue to stick to the points I want to raise with Minister Freeland in order to ensure that we can get these questions answered, because I truly believe this was a big part as to why we prorogued Parliament at that time.

There are some other programs that I would like to ask her about. Again, some programs were elaborated during prorogation. There was the whole issue of wage subsidies. Many people in our riding still continue to benefit from those types of programs at this point in time. In my little province of New Brunswick, we have a whole lot of people that have applied for that program. We have been very fortunate that many of our establishments have been able to benefit from it, so I would have some questions with respect to that, as well.

The whole issue of rent subsidy support during the lockdown would also be an area that we should explore with her. We could get a sense as to why the government moved forward and continued with that.

The list continues with respect to the programs. I'm not going to continue to harp on that, but someone indicated that repetition sometimes can be helpful. Sometimes we need to make the point that these programs were put in place.

A reset was needed because of the pandemic. The only way we could really get that reset was to make sure we prorogued, that we consulted Canadians, that we consulted folks on the ground, and from there we could come up with the priorities.

It has also been said that the opposition parties felt our new throne speech perhaps wasn't ambitious enough. However, I would say that our Speech from the Throne was very ambitious since our absolute priority is still to be there for all Canadians.

I'd like to make a comment. As I noted earlier, we want to invite Ms. Freeland because she's the Minister of Finance as well as the country's Deputy Prime Minister. She plays a very important role and I'm certain the Prime Minister consulted her to determine recovery priorities during and after the pandemic.

I'll make sure I speak slowly. When I speak in French, I tend to do it very quickly. I'll do my best for the interpreters.

Earlier I mentioned that Minister Freeland chaired the cabinet committee responsible for the federal response to the coronavirus disease, or COVID‑19. In all the work that was done over months, Minister Freeland really played a central role in all decisions. I'm very grateful to her for that and I think she could provide us with a lot of information on the subject.

Canada has constantly adapted its response based on new scientific data since the start of the pandemic. The sole purpose of all the government's decisions is to protect the health and safety of all Canadians.

Canada is literally being hit by this third wave right now. All members of the committee discussed the potential third wave, but we're all somewhat surprised by its scope.

Like many other countries, we've had trouble maintaining public health measures due to concerns about economic and social consequences.

Once again, we're telling people to stay at home, and I know that people are concerned about the economic aspect, their businesses and our economy in general.

Once again, we want to be there to protect them and the only way to protect ourselves is to follow public health guidelines while we wait for our vaccine.

As in many other countries, the number of cases in certain provinces has risen with the relaxing of certain public health measures and the arrival of the new variants.

Once again, even here in Atlantic Canada, we've done a very good job of managing the pandemic to date, but we can see that we too are beginning to have concerns in Nova Scotia and even New Brunswick. We're starting to see a gradual rise in the number of cases. We really have to do everything we can to protect ourselves.

Increasing case numbers have obviously led to rising hospitalizations and admissions to intensive care. Even more worrisome, hospitalization rates reflect not only seniors, but also young people and very young children who are winding up in hospital, and the health systems of certain provinces have now reached capacity as a result.

It's therefore more important than ever—and I want to emphasize this—that we minimize the spread of the virus in order to lower the infection rate as far as possible.

Once again, I come back to Minister Freeland because she chaired that committee, and I think she could really explain the processes that have been put in place to ensure we're there to protect Canadians during the second wave and the third wave as well. We hope there won't be a fourth wave, but that could happen too.

We all know what has to be done to protect the public. The variants haven't changed the actions we take to stop the spread of the virus. Despite daily increases in the number of people vaccinated, we must continue protecting each other even as we see the light at the end of the tunnel. As I said, it's truly motivating to see that part of the population has been vaccinated, but we still have a long way to go to reach the percentage where we're all protected.

We can all sense that the end of the pandemic is approaching. That's why we have to put appropriate measures in place so we can make it safely through this crisis. We have to do it all together. The number of young adults who are infected with COVID‑19 and must be hospitalized or sent to intensive care is constantly rising, and that reminds us that, regardless of age, we can all catch COVID‑19 and develop serious illness.

I'll stop there, Madam Chair.

As we've said, I think we all know what we have to do to avoid catching or spreading COVID‑19, but, once again, we, as a government, must provide Canadians with programs and social policies.

I think Ms. Freeland could come and inform us about the government's decisions and the reasons why the session was prorogued at the time.

The number of cases in the country has more than doubled in the past month. However, every newly infected person can in turn infect many more. That's how the pandemic continues to expand in scope. If we're to believe the forecasting models, there may well be a resurgence if the most worrisome variants continue to spread at the same rate and public health measures remain the same.

That's why we must all limit our contacts as much as possible because we need to reduce the risk of being infected ourselves and unintentionally passing the virus on to others.

On another, more positive note, we're starting to see the effects of vaccination. As I said, the news isn't all bad; there's light at the end of the tunnel, but we still have a lot of work to do.

As of April 10, more than 84% of seniors 80 and over had received at least one vaccination against COVID‑19. The number of complications among the 80 and over age group has fallen sharply in the past few weeks and risen more slowly in the other age groups. The number of outbreaks in long-term care homes is still declining among seniors and the most vulnerable. The more vaccination efforts advance, the more the public will see their impact.

Once again, Madam Chair, I think that Ms. Freeland, as chair of the cabinet committee responsible for the federal response to the coronavirus disease, or COVID‑19, can explain to us all the programs that have been established to assist seniors in our provinces and territories and to tell us what we have to do to really slow the spread of the disease.

The growing number of variants is worrisome because they're associated with more serious consequences. The number of variant cases in Canada is still rising sharply and nearly doubled in one week. In addition, this spring, many governments are still reporting variants of concern during the third wave. On April 20, 70,000 variants of concern cases were reported in Canada, and they now represent the majority of cases in the four largest provinces.

Atlantic Canada isn't safe from the variants. As I was saying, there's been an outbreak of cases in Nova Scotia, just next door to New Brunswick. It's very disturbing, and people are very concerned about the variants.

If Ms. Freeland came to see us, we could ask her the questions that trouble us all and ask her to explain the reasons for the decisions that were made and the reason for the prorogation.

With the emergence of variants of concern in late 2020, the Government of Canada established a strategy to detect and combat those variants. The government invested $53 million as part of that strategy. What will the strategy be? Its purpose is to expand capacity and sequencing across Canada to shorten the time it takes to achieve results. That will assist in taking prompt public health measures and creating a robust, results-based research network. We will thus be able to understand these new variants and their impacts in very short order. This work is being done in partnership and cooperation with the provinces and territories and has helped expand sequencing capacity, which has gone…

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

Madam Chair, on a point of order, I recognize that we're being very lenient, but we are getting into details of some programs and some options now. Our path has gone miles outside of the actual motion that's on the table right now.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I'll remind the member to rein it in.

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

Of course, Madam Chair.

I think Minister Freeland has a lot of information to pass on to us since she chaired the cabinet committee responsible for the federal response to the coronavirus disease, or COVID‑19. I won't go into any of the details here. I'm simply providing an overview of what the minister had to consider, including investments, in dealing with COVID‑19-related problems.

Once again, I appreciate Ms. Vecchio's comments. I'll continue.

The Government of Canada has also cooperated with major networks such as the COVID Genomics Network and the Canadian Public Health Laboratory Network using current and new sequencing capacities for the rapid introduction of public health measures.

I'm thinking in particular of the development of rapid screening tests for known variants and a national sequencing strategy that combines outbreak investigations, monitoring, Canadian trends and targeted tests such as those related to travel. Canada now requires travellers returning to the country to undergo a screening test and positive samples are sequenced. This measure helps us monitor variants that enter Canada and provides us with another measure to support our border policies.

All these decisions, all these programs and all these directions didn't simply appear overnight. The cabinet committee and all the consultations it had to conduct focused on what had to be done. That explains, once again, why I think Minister Freeland could provide us with information that would be very useful in developing our final report.

Canada's vaccination strategy is clear. We're trying to vaccinate as many Canadians as possible, starting with those at greatest risk of being sick and hospitalized if infected. This approach helps protect both the persons concerned and those close to them.

Vaccination is definitely still the absolute priority, but we're nowhere near that yet. It's our ultimate goal, but first we have to ensure that Canadians get the assistance they need to stay at home when they're sick.

Since we're receiving increasing quantities of approved vaccines, Canada is well equipped to ramp up vaccinations and optimize public protection even more quickly. We know that millions of doses have been administered to date and that this work is being done in close cooperation with the provinces and territories. As I mentioned earlier, the provinces and territories all operate differently.

My husband was on a waiting list yesterday evening and was able to get in quickly. We're saying that the provinces and territories have all established their priorities and we're working in close cooperation with them.

In cooperation with our partners, we're monitoring the situation as it evolves and learning a great deal in real time about the efficacy of the vaccines and the best way to distribute and use them. We're relying on all the information we have, while of course ensuring everyone's safety and protection.

Studies conducted in Israel and the United Kingdom show that two doses of mRNA vaccine provide excellent protection and are more than 90% effective in preventing asymptomatic infection, symptomatic infection, hospitalization, serious forms of the disease and death.

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes, Ms. Vecchio.

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

What is the relevance of this? We're still talking about Mr. Turnbull's motion regarding the prorogation study and hearing from Madam Freeland as well as a few others. Perhaps we could get back to that. We are now going very off key. I would hope that, as the chair, you would keep the comments relevant.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I'm in a difficult spot because, I guess you're not seeing the link, but I can see the link as to why one might prorogue. Ms. Petitpas Taylor is continuing to explain that this is her view of why prorogation happened. Maybe on the details of the programs and all of that, I can see how that may be seen as going off on a tangent a little bit, but I can surely see the linkage, so it's difficult for me to make any direct ruling.

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

On a point of order, Madam Chair, perhaps you can give us a framework, maybe, of what would be relevant and irrelevant. I'm wondering if there are timelines and things that have led up to prorogation. We seem to be talking a lot about things that....

I'm really happy that Ginette's husband is getting the vaccine—my husband has it as well—but I think we really need to talk about the actual motion, the prorogation motion. We are talking about everything we could see in every single standing committee right now, and although I think this is great, we are watching now almost 40 hours of filibustering. I'm just wondering when we're going to actually get to a vote or if we're going to just continue to do this.

I mean, honestly, if you're going to allow there to be anything said as long as it's under the Government of Canada, I question that. I really want to ensure that we're staying on the motion. As the weeks have progressed, I'm finding that we can talk about almost anything as long as it has to do with the Government of Canada and COVID. That is not what this study is. We are studying prorogation, not the response to COVID-19. We are studying the reasons for prorogation. That's what we should be getting back to. When the minister is here we can ask her those questions. Unfortunately, she has yet to even respond.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I take that point.

As for a framework, I'll think on that and see if I can come up with something. That's an interesting request. I'll see if that's possible.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Chair, can I speak to that point of order?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes. Go ahead.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Is it not the case that COVID-19 was the reason for prorogation? If that's the case, then Ms. Petitpas Taylor is bringing up, I think, relevant information, data and examples of how COVID-19 may provide the rationale for prorogation, which is something that I think our members have maintained all along.

I fail to see how this is not relevant, to be honest. I'm sorry to differ with Ms. Vecchio, of course, but that is the nature of debate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I'll take both points into consideration and see if, after talking with the clerk maybe at a later point today, there is more or better advice on the side that I can guide you all with.

At this point, I'll give the floor to Ms. Petitpas Taylor.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I want to thank my friend Ms. Vecchio once again for her comments. She mentioned that we're here to discuss the reason for the prorogation. As my other colleague and friend Mr. Turnbull clearly said, I think the reason for the prorogation was the global pandemic. The comments I'm making are related to this issue.

I realize that my comments today are somewhat lengthy, but I think it's very important that Canadians understand that we're now debating the reason why the government chose to prorogue Parliament in August 2020 and that that reason was the global pandemic. As I said, I genuinely hope we never have to face this kind of crisis again. However, this crisis was the reason why the government prorogued Parliament. I'm going to try to keep my comments short, but I nevertheless want to present all the points in the speech that I worked on. These are points that I want to present to the committee.

We know that public health measures are effective while we wait for the vaccines to be distributed. Experience in other countries shows that we must comply with strict health measures in order to control the rapid spread of epidemics and to allow countries the time to vaccinate their citizens. Lastly, some countries that have high vaccination rates have experienced equally high rates of spread as a result of relaxed public health measures. Once again, with regard to the policies we need to develop, I think it's important to hear from Minister Freeland so she can explain the reasons why the government made certain decisions.

Since many Canadians have yet to receive any vaccine and some have received only their first dose, it's still important that everyone, whether vaccinated or not, continue following public health guidance. We must continue practising physical distancing, wearing a mask and avoiding gatherings, especially indoor gatherings. That will help us keep the epidemic at bay. Public health measures are still extremely important while vaccines are being distributed because they guarantee a degree of protection among the population. As we've seen in other countries, if measures are lifted before enough people have been vaccinated, outbreaks may occur and require repeated adjustments to control the rate of infection. That was actually one of the preliminary findings from Israel's vaccination campaign.

Information is circulating at an unprecedented rate. Of course, we're using the information, evidence and local epidemiological data that are coming in at a rapid rate to guide our approach. We have to continue complying with public health measures. We won't be able to relax them until the data show that a gradual increase in social interaction and economic activity doesn't put the population at risk. The determinant factors include the spread of variants, severity of symptoms, vaccine efficacy, the capacity of the healthcare system and the efficacy of public health measures to control transmission.

I'm going to take a short break, since I think Ms. Freeland plays a central role in all these measures that must be introduced, all the policies that have been established and all economic decisions. She was also responsible for deciding on a direction for all the departments that had to make decisions. Once again, I think it would be a very good idea for her to appear. It's important right now to rely on the work that has been done by taking measures based on evidence and cooperating with all levels of government.

The past year of fighting COVID‑19 in Canada has taught us two things. Considerable effort is required to manage the issue. All levels of government and the public must abide by public health measures, take precautions and get vaccinated in order to limit the number of COVID cases.

Now I'd like to discuss the vaccination campaign in Canada. I think we could question Ms. Freeland on that subject. The Government of Canada has adopted an overall approach to fighting the COVID‑19 pandemic, and the vaccination plan is part of that approach. We're now entering the second phase of the vaccination campaign and vaccine deliveries should accelerate sharply starting this month.

As the Prime Minister recently announced, Pfizer plans to deliver doses earlier, in June. That means Canada should be well on the way to receiving some 50 million doses of vaccine by the end of June. As a result of those deliveries, all Canadians wishing to be vaccinated will receive their first dose by summer. Then we can provide second doses, which will afford greater protection against the virus, by late September of this year. Every eligible Canadian who wants to be vaccinated can be. Ms. Freeland could give us her observations on the vaccination strategy, its purpose and the decisions made with respect to it.

Canadians are somewhat relieved now that the warmer weather has arrived and vaccinations have started. However, they want to know what impact that will have on their personal situation. How will we be able to transition to a new normal? I believe we're all asking ourselves that question. What will the new normal look like? In the circumstances, we may be tempted to change our habits, but we must understand that the message for Canadians is crystal clear: this is no time to let our guard down.

We know the virus is still spreading at an accelerated rate in certain regions of the country, causing unprecedented problems for the health system. Our neighbours, friends and families rely on the cooperation of all of us. Ms. Freeland could come and discuss the path and approach we've taken to get here. There's light at the end of the tunnel. The vaccines are here; they've arrived. However, we will continue providing support programs to our citizens, to all Canadians, to ensure that everyone is protected until the desired vaccination rate has been achieved.

I don't want to monopolize the entire meeting today. I've been speaking for a long time. I'm going to yield to my friend and colleague Dr. Duncan, who will give us her comments on the subject. I always enjoy her comments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you so much, Ms. Petitpas Taylor.

We have Dr. Duncan next, then Mr. Long, Mr. Turnbull and Mr. Lauzon.

Dr. Duncan, please.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Madam Chair, I'd like to thank my honourable friend and colleague for her wonderful remarks.

Mr. Turnbull came back recently. I know he is eager to speak, so I will pass my time to my friend Mr. Turnbull.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Dr. Duncan.

Mr. Long is next.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good afternoon to all my friends and colleagues. It's certainly a pleasure to be back on PROC. I'm looking forward to the discussions today, but, Chair, at this time, I'd like to yield my time to Ryan Turnbull.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Go ahead, Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks to my generous colleagues who graciously gave up their spot in the speakers list to have me speak. I do appreciate that.

Madam Chair, I just wanted to tell you a funny story. Before PROC meetings now, I'm bringing my cappuccino maker into my office just so I have it on hand. I find I need extra caffeine for these meetings to keep me going.

I want to make a bit of a plea to my colleagues on the committee. We know that the finance committee is seized with a big responsibility right now, which is to review Bill C-30, the budget implementation act. They have to do this by the end of June. Pieces of that bill are being hived off and given to committees that have a mandate for different sections.

There's a section in particular which this committee would be responsible for if you look at the mandate of PROC. These are the changes to the Canada Elections Act. It's division 37. It's specifically the section that deals with publishing knowingly false statements that affect an election result. This is a concern that I have and that other members of this committee have expressed in the past. There's been quite a lot of debate in past Parliaments about this particular issue. The word “knowingly” is one of the hot-button issues.

With the recent Ontario Superior Court decision, I think there's some reason to study this. I think that the finance committee would have a very hard time if PROC doesn't undertake some work on this topic to help them meet their deadline. It is within our mandate and within the Standing Orders. I believe it's Standing Order 108(3)(vi). It basically says PROC is responsible for studying anything to do with the election of members of Parliament, so I think it is within our mandate.

In this regard, I think it's our duty to move on to doing some work on this particular issue. I think we could hear from witnesses and have some meaningful discussion about this.

I want to move the following:

That the committee proceed to the following motion: That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(vi), the chair write to the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance indicating that the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs wishes to conduct a study on the amendments to the Canada Elections Act contained in Bill C-30; that the committee shall hold a minimum of three meetings each for a minimum of two hours; that the first witness called shall be the Chief Electoral Officer; that the witness lists must be provided to the clerk no later than Friday, May 7; and that the report from the committee on this study shall be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance not later than the timeline received from the finance committee.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Mr. Turnbull.

If everyone on the committee would give me a second, I want to review something.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

I think we would take this as a notice of motion. I don't think you can move a motion such as this when another motion is on the floor.