Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 13th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Blaikie has his thumb up.

Ms. Normandin, are you okay with that?

All right then, thank you everyone.

We'll suspend for today and resume at our next scheduled time.

[The meeting was suspended at 2:29 p.m., Thursday, April 22.]

[The meeting resumed at 11:22 a.m., Tuesday, April 27.]

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I call this meeting back to order. We are resuming meeting number 27 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which started on April 13, 2021.

Today's meeting, as you know, is taking place in a hybrid format. We have our clerk present in the committee room and of course supporting staff, but at this point there are no members there.

The rest of us will be participating virtually. I'd just like to remind you to unmute your mike—I myself sometimes forget to unmute—and when you are about to speak, raise your hand on the toolbar below if you'd like to speak to anything, or call out if you have a point of order, so I can distinguish whether you want to speak on the regular speakers list or would like to raise a concern.

Other than that, just as a reminder, you have interpretation at the bottom. Let's make sure with the points of order and other things as well that we wait for the speaker to stop speaking and not interrupt so that it's easier for the interpreters.

We are still on Mr. Turnbull's amendment from the last meeting. We do have a speakers list. I do have both the motion and the amendment before me, so if anyone needs a refresher as to what the nuances are between the main motion and the amendment, let me know.

Ms. Shanahan had the floor when we suspended, so I will give the floor back to her. After her we had Ms. Lambropoulos, who she is not here at this time, so she'll probably be dropped off the list unless she's back to resume her spot. Ms. Petitpas Taylor is after that, and then we had Mr. Long who is also not here currently and will be dropped off the list.

We have Ms. Shanahan, and then most likely Ms. Petitpas Taylor would be after her.

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

Point of order, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes.

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

I note that Madam Shanahan is relatively new to PROC, so I welcome her and I welcome her perspective. It's always good to get new perspectives, but I would encourage you, Madam Chair, to remind all members that the topic we are discussing primarily is on prorogation. I remind you of that, Madam Chair, because in weeks past, we have seen several members who had a propensity to veer off topic and at times become completely irrelevant to the topic we are supposed to be addressing.

I would hope, Madam Chair, that you will remain vigilant in your duties to keep people on topic, and if they do tend to veer off, that you offer a course correction to get them back to the topic we are discussing. That will, I think, allow us to have a far more productive meeting and stop the interventions coming from people like me and others, reminding of the rules of relevance and repetition.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Mr. Lukiwski. I'm sure all the members are heeding your warning, and we appreciate the reminder. I'll do my best to keep everyone on topic.

Ms. Shanahan, I'll give the floor back to you.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I do just want to note how pleased I am to be here in this committee and to make a reacquaintance with my good colleague Mr. Lukiwski, who was an excellent chair of the government operations committee. I think we did tremendous work together in the last Parliament, and I so respect his words of guidance and wisdom. I hope that what I will be saying today will be germane and useful to the topic at hand.

It's true that I poured out my heart last week. I have to say that, as members, we don't often have an opportunity to participate in the proceedings of other committees, especially those of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which considers matters of parliamentary procedure.

I'm very interested in the history and development of things, and I like putting things in context. I'm far from being an expert in the field, but it helps me when I look at matters in context.

However, I must say it's really unfortunate that we're here debating Ms. Vecchio's motion, which is under consideration, and Mr. Turnbull's amendment, which is designed to rectify matters.

My opposition friends' attempt to make the WE Charity issue the focal point of several other committees was unsuccessful. I would have preferred that they stop that little shell game. I would remind people that I'm a member of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics and that I've seen a few things.

It's unfortunate because, as parliamentarians, we should focus on issues that really count for Canadians. We're currently in the third wave of the COVID‑19 pandemic. A year ago, we hoped we could overcome the first wave and resume normal life, but that's not what happened. We're now in the third wave of the pandemic because some provinces unfortunately haven't managed to introduce adequate measures to ensure people's safety.

I say that with all due respect for the various levels of government because it's very difficult to put those measures in place. I was very pleased to see that all the levels of government in my riding of Châteauguay—Lacolle, in the Montérégie region, did a good job of cooperating. That was unfortunately not the case everywhere.

Canadians are rightly focusing on much more important issues, the millions of doses of vaccine in particular. The situation in Quebec is unfolding as it should, and we're very proud of the way vaccine distribution has been organized and of the booking system, which is very simple and accessible.

The government recently announced that we were able to vaccinate increasingly younger people, which is important, as young people are at risk as a result of the new variants. Large businesses are participating in this effort by offering vaccinations in their workplaces. Society stakeholders are showing the solidarity we expect of them and working together to combat COVID‑19.

We want to focus on an imminent economic recovery. It's coming. It will be one of the biggest in more than a generation. And that's truly the test of our generation, isn't it?

We often talk about how people lived through World War II and all the subsequent economic reconstruction and transformation in Europe. People from the generations of our grandparents and parents really did work to build a better world for us young people.

Our challenge today is to create a better world for our children and grandchildren. That's what we've done by developing the budget we introduced last week. It must be a good budget because the Conservative members, who form the official opposition and whose job it is to criticize the budget, found nothing to criticize in that budget, even though they voted against it.

They don't want Canadians to be aware of what's in the budget. On the contrary, we need everyone to talk about budget items, initiatives and investments in health, economic recovery, of course, and the environment, which is the next test we'll have to face.

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

Madam Chair, I have a point of order.

I really don't know how the budget is relevant to the amendment at hand that's related to last summer's prorogation. I would encourage Ms. Shanahan to get back on topic.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Mr. Nater.

Ms. Shanahan, can you explain how you think the invitations in the amendment make your remarks relevant or not relevant? If they're not, could you steer back?

Thank you.

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

I'm happy to oblige, Madam Chair.

The prorogation was important in that it let us make the pivot we needed. Our world wasn't what it had been when we came to power in 2019. There was no pandemic then, or even the slightest hint of one. We were dealing with other problems; we had other plans and we had been reelected on another platform.

However, prorogation became necessary when the pandemic hit and we were caught unawares by the crisis. It was really the only thing to do at the time, and we did it.

Let me be clear: the original motion, which calls for a study of the prorogation, is a bit of a shell game. What can I say about this set‑up to keep the WE Charity scandal alive? It's a set‑up; that's all I can see here.

Several other parliamentary committees examined more than 5,000 pages of documents in detail, heard hours and hours of testimony and found no evidence that anything inappropriate had taken place, nothing at all.

The real problem here is that the opposition parties can't stand the fact that they've wasted all this time, which they should have devoted to combating COVID‑19 and taking positive measures that might have helped both the federal government and the provinces organize the purchase and distribution of vaccines. On the contrary, they preferred to devote their time to the WE Charity issue.

We saw the frustration on their faces as they listened to officials testifying, one after another, that nothing had happened, which was subsequently confirmed by thousands of pages of documents. We saw the frustration on their faces after the Prime Minister appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance. His chief of staff and the ministers who appeared before the committee all said the same thing. They all said that the Canada student grant for full-time students was theoretically a good program.

That program was one of the dozens of programs that we introduced during this critical period, and we thought we had done a good thing. Unfortunately, we failed in its execution. The program didn't work. These are things that happen. Who has ever had a 100% success rate every time? I don't think it's ever happened, and certainly not in our profession.

We've seen this kind of thing before. That's why we have committees that conduct studies on government operations and the public accounts. This kind of work is always being done. We have to look at what we've done and determine how we can do things better. Sometimes that doesn't work. In some cases, we cancel everything, refund the money and the matter's closed. Then we move on to something else.

I heard the opposition members' comments on the subject. They definitely noted that more money was allocated for summer jobs in this year's budget. That measure was well received in Châteauguay—Lacolle, and it was a big success.

Officials and politicians worked countless hours to ensure that assistance programs for Canadians in difficulty were implemented. Some members previously mentioned this, but I repeat that programs such as the Canada emergency response benefit, the Canada emergency wage subsidy and the Canada emergency rent subsidy were very well received, especially here in Châteauguay—Lacolle. I think the same was true in ridings across the country.

As I said earlier, however, mistakes were made and the Prime Minister was the first to admit it. He apologized to the Canadian public. We were working at breakneck speed at the height of the pandemic's first wave, and that inevitably happened.

Members on the other side tried many times to fault the government. That's the reason we're here and why we're spending hours on these issues and committee hearings, particularly those of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, on which I sit. Opposition members see an opportunity to fault the government. They didn't succeed in doing so and apparently have nothing else to do but keep trying.

Late last fall, after hearing hours of testimony, supported by documents, and examining thousands of pages of documents, the opposition realized that it had overplayed its hand and rightly moved on to something else. I imagine all the members were contacted by their fellow citizens and urged to focus on the pandemic because that was, and still is, the only issue of any importance.

And yet the committee is once again considering a motion that clearly concerns the WE Charity issue but is disguised as a study of the prorogation in August 2020. What they're doing is so obvious it's almost funny. Mr. Turnbull's amendment is designed to make the scope of the main motion much more reasonable. It's an attempt to come up with something that satisfies everyone.

As some witnesses stated before this committee, under our constitutional conventions, the Prime Minister alone has authority to consult the Governor General on prorogation; that decision is no one else's. We also learned that the Prime Minister didn't need a reason to prorogue Parliament. Prorogation has been used throughout this country's history to reset the parliamentary agenda, as it were. The period between dissolution and a new throne speech has varied from a few hours to several weeks. It's a tool that prime ministers have used since our Parliament's inception. It's one tool among many, but it's nevertheless very important, particularly in a period of crisis.

I think it's interesting that the opposition used the time between the prorogation and the Speech from the Throne in September to claim that it was related to WE Charity. We were in the midst of a pandemic, and that was the concern of our government and of Canadians. We had to decide how we were going to organize our response to the pandemic. We obviously didn't know how long it would last. We knew it might go on for months, but no one knew exactly how long. And we're still in the midst of this crisis, aren't we?

Here are a few historical facts. In the fall of 2008, the former Conservative prime minister prorogued Parliament for several weeks before returning to the House. So I find it ironic that certain members who are sitting here and who were part of that government are now opposed to prorogation.

Prorogation as such is a political act based on political considerations, and there's nothing wrong or inappropriate about it. Politics is a set of activities and policies; it's the way we decide to organize the country's affairs. In times of great change, as is the case of the COVID‑19 health crisis, prorogation is definitely a political decision. We need to reset and turn the situation around.

Notwithstanding the opposition's claims to the contrary, there's nothing inappropriate in the Prime Minister's making that decision. The Prime Minister has the right to make that kind of decision.

Why is prorogation political, and why is it acceptable? Because a government's legislative agenda is political. Colleagues must distinguish between a political act and a purely partisan act.

Sometimes people here in the riding of Châteauguay—Lacolle tell me they don't like politics. It's not politics they don't like, because they're all involved in non-profit groups: they campaign for social housing or wetlands conservation, for example, and work to reduce poverty. We have good conversations. I tell them they're engaged in politics precisely because they're committed to various causes. Those are political acts. What they don't like is partisanship. I can understand that because they feel it makes no sense. They don't understand the disputes among elected members. That's why I always say that every party presents its policies and platforms during an election campaign, but elected members represent everyone once the campaign is over. They must avoid partisan actions. They must be there for everyone, and the same is true of the government. The government is the government of all Canadians, and it's elected based on its political agenda.

The Speech from the Throne is a political manifesto that lays out the government's roadmap. A responsible and transparent government provides a statement that clearly outlines for Canadians the basis on which it addresses the challenges facing it. Consequently, the decision to prorogue Parliament and reset that political agenda was entirely acceptable.

My friends, the present government delivered a Speech from the Throne in December 2019 that was based on the political promises it had made during the campaign leading up to the October 2019 election. However, no one could have foreseen the global pandemic that arrived in the space of only a few days in March 2020.

We all remember that week in March. We were in Ottawa and I had organized a small party at Darcy McGee's to celebrate St. Patrick's Day on the Monday of the week in question. There was a whole group of us, members from all the parties were present, and we had some good music. Some members are good singers and it was fun. I'm very pleased the party was a success. A few days later, Parliament shut down and the parties stopped. We love our political parties, but we enjoy our social parties even more.

All Canadians found themselves in the same situation at the same time. In the coming years and even decades, people will definitely study this historic event in an attempt to understand how we reacted to this unprecedented health crisis.

Of course, the agenda we put before Parliament in December 2019 became moot because there was nothing more we could do.

Madam Chair, will we have to go and vote in the House soon? You will let me know, won't you?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I didn't want to interrupt. I was thinking maybe you would end and I would make an announcement. The bells should be going off any minute now and there will be a vote in the House.

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

Madam Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes, Mr. Nader.

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

I'm thinking Mr. Kent and I were probably going to say the same thing, so I will let Mr. Kent, who is far more articulate than I am, make the comment.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

As just a brief observation, given that members all have the remote voting app, perhaps we could best use time by continuing Ms. Shanahan's remarks through the bells.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes. Maybe this committee would like to really surprise me by giving unanimous consent to continue through the bells. I would say I would be a little surprised.

Definitely when something productive is happening, committees would like to work through the bells to achieve their goals. It's up to you guys whether you want to work through the bells. I don't see the notice yet for bells, but if you already give me unanimous consent, we can do so.

Okay. It seems that nobody is saying otherwise, so we'll just go through the bells.

Ms. Shanahan, go ahead.

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

Pardon me, Madam Chair, but I can't keep speaking and vote simultaneously because I don't have the technical knowledge I'd need to take part in both Zoom meetings at the same time. Perhaps we can change our minds on that.

It's not really comfortable for me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I require unanimous consent to carry on, so if even one of the members is not comfortable doing so, we would just suspend for the bells and then resume after the vote is done.

I don't think we are hearing the bells, so I guess you can continue. It was expected by 11:52, but maybe things are running a few minutes behind.

Ms. Shanahan, you can carry on until the bells start ringing and then we can suspend.

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

Okay, very good.

All the plans, priorities and aspirations we might have had for the parliamentary session in early 2020 of course disappeared and were replaced by an urgent need to help Canadians get through the biggest international event since World War II.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I'll have to interrupt you. The bells are ringing, and we will resume after the vote is completed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I call the meeting back to order.

Ms. Shanahan, you have the floor from where you left off.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

I'll pick up where I left off.

How and why, indeed can and should, a prime minister decide to prorogue Parliament? All the plans, priorities and aspirations we had for the parliamentary session in early 2020 disappeared and were replaced by an urgent need to help Canadians get through the biggest international event since World War II. Consequently, it was entirely logical for the government to take stock of the situation once the first wave had abated in the summer of 2020 and to determine whether it could pursue the agenda it had established in December 2019.

No one around this virtual table can claim it was unnecessary to re‑centre the government's priorities once the first wave of COVID‑19 had subsided. We had to focus on economic recovery and continue vaccine planning. We were fortunate because the pharmaceutical companies informed us that the vaccines would be arriving. Incidentally, I commend all the scientists, physicians and researchers who worked around the clock to create vaccines.

We were completely absorbed in preparing for a potential second wave. Now we're preparing for the third wave, but, this time, several vaccines have been developed. Managing this new situation was essential. It was a situation in which prorogation was necessary and appropriately used.

We heard that it was a political decision. As I explained earlier, politics is what we do. That political decision was made by the Prime Minister. My colleagues may have had other ideas about what had to be done. It's entirely understandable that the reasoning is still subject to debate. However, this committee heard the government's reasoning from the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Pablo Rodriguez, who appeared before this committee and confirmed the government's position. It wasn't absolutely necessary for the Prime Minister or his chief of staff to appear. As we explained—I know this is a topic of debate within the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics—the Prime Minister, under the principle of ministerial solidarity, always has the right to delegate his responsibilities to his ministers.

Frankly, the only relevant witnesses on the list proposed in Ms. Vecchio's motion are the Prime Minister and his chief of staff. They're the ones who are responsible. As I previously mentioned, the Prime Minister always has the right to delegate his responsibilities. It's the Leader of the Government who appeared before the committee to explain the government's position and to answer questions.

Let's not mince words here. My opposition colleagues want these witnesses to say that prorogation was connected in one way or another to the WE Charity issue. They want these witnesses to appear so they can try to establish a connection with that affair. Frankly, the idea is simply absurd.

Why should we receive the witnesses named in Ms. Vecchio's motion if they're already guilty of something in the court of Conservative and opposition party opinion?

Which brings me to the two witnesses whose names appear on that list: Farah and Martin Perelmuter.

I don't understand, and it bothers me, that members are asking Canadians, ordinary citizens who in this instance have a business and are taking care of their employees, their families and customers during the pandemic, to appear and thus drag them into this affair for solely partisan purposes. Mr. and Mrs. Perelmuter previously appeared before us in the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, and the situation was appalling. I'll tell you what happened.

Those two individuals own a business called Speakers' Spotlight, which has been operating for 25 years. The business acts as an intermediary for groups and organizations wishing to secure the services of speakers. Speakers' Spotlight finds people who can give speeches, represents them and connects them with the organization. There is absolutely nothing nefarious or partisan about this kind of service, which incidentally is used by all kinds of companies, charities and civil organizations.

Why would we have those people come and testify as part of this study? It makes no sense, and that's why I support Mr. Turnbull's amendment.

I'm going to discuss the appearance of Mr. and Mrs. Perelmuter in greater detail. The way their appearance took place was truly disgusting. It's a disgrace for members of our Parliament to treat Canadians that way.

Despite the fact they had nothing to hide, they were treated as guilty parties and publicly portrayed in social media as though they were pawns in some game. They were attacked online and threatened in person by members of the public. We know that some individuals just look for opportunities to attack people. Some even called their office to threaten their employees.

That situation was the direct result of the behaviour of certain members. I'm really sorry to have to say it, since we're all colleagues here, but some Conservative Party members played that game.

The Perelmuters felt so threatened not only at work, but also at home, since their personal address was exposed, that they even had to call the police. These people have families. It was really…

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

Madam Speaker, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Ms. Vecchio.

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

I fully support where she's going and understand, but in the amendment that Mr. Turnbull has put forward, this isn't part of that. It is removing it, which I respect, but I'm almost wondering about relevance, because she's talking about WE. The Kielburgers are actually in this motion. They too are private citizens. I'm just listening and hoping that we can get back to Mr. Turnbull's amendment.

Thank you.