Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 13th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Sorry, Ken, you're not on mute. Are you also frozen?

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

He's frozen, but he's on mute. No, actually he wasn't frozen. He's all set.

If I can, Chair, that was one of the great things that I always loved about sports. When we came down King Street with the Memorial Cup, with 20,000 to 30,000 people all around, it didn't matter if you were a Conservative or NDP or Liberal or Green or whatever. We were united and we had a common thing to rally around. Obviously, that was a very good thing.

As MPs, we also have a common thing now to rally around and to stand together, shoulder to shoulder and that's our fight against this deadly pandemic. That's what Canadians want. They don't want us talking about prorogation, and let's invite this one and that one.

Again, I get frustrated because the Prime Minister has already been invited and has already testified. I don't believe, and I don't think anyone on this committee would believe, that there would actually be some new revelation out of another testimony. I don't think anybody really believes that.

That's why I feel we need to find a way forward here. We need to come together for the benefit of all Canadians.

I know our government is seized with trying to make sure that we get through this together. We invest and refocus and get ready for a resurgence, and we put Canadians first and we put people first.

That's why I advocate for my constituents every day in this riding, and I know I've talked about that before. I want to make sure that we get our share of federal funding, and make sure I work with proponents to make sure we get the right things in here for this beautiful port city, this industrial riding.

A lot of people don't know it, but right outside my window—and the snowstorm has stopped—if I look right across the harbour, I am looking at the third busiest port in Canada, per volume. Think about that. Per volume—not container—per volume they're the third busiest port in Canada. I want to work with that port. I want to work with proponents. I want to make sure our government delivers strategic infrastructure and programs.

That's why it was so important for us to prorogue. That's why it was so important for us to have another throne speech, to reload, to refocus, to say we need to invest in this across the country. We need to work with these industries across the country.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

This is really bad of me, but I can't help.... I've been trying to stop myself for the last minute.

What's the difference between “per container” or “per volume”? Don't containers make volume?

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

They do, but one of the things we import here is a lot of oil for the refineries, so actual sheer tonnage, if you will.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay, I've got that.

Continue. I don't want you to—

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

No problem.

I thought you were going to call a point of order, Chair, and tell me to get back on the subject. I was starting to get more paranoid when you jumped in there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I'm being bad myself. I got you off topic, but you had brought us there, and I couldn't help but ask the question.

Could you definitely stay on topic, though?

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

Yes, but I guess my point is that prorogation allowed us to step back and refocus on what we needed to do to make sure that we helped Canadians through this, whether through CERB or CEBA or rent support or infrastructure. We created the resilience infrastructure fund, which, instead of the typical 40-40-20, give or take, was more of an 80-20, with much more flexibility. These are the kinds of things we did.

We supported communities. There was the money that went to help the municipalities. There was the—I know we have a new name for it—gas tax doubling for communities. There were programs that we did that we knew needed to be there for Canadians, and that's why we did these things. We didn't do it to run and hide.

How do you accuse someone of running and hiding when the Prime Minister testifies, when I think we're very open and transparent about it, when committees continue to do work? I don't see it. I don't see it at all. I believe fully that MP Turnbull—and maybe he's listening in, I'm not sure, but I hope to see him back sooner rather than later.... That's what his amendment to the motion is for. It's to find a way forward. It's an opportunity for us to work together and do not what Canadians want us to do but need us to do.

That's why we were elected. I'm proud—I'm extremely proud and privileged—to be, number one, the member of Parliament for my wonderful riding, but also to be able to lead a community that is in crisis. I won't, obviously, look back in two or three years and think fondly of this time, but I will look back and say....

Leadership is easy in easy times. It's easy to be a leader when everything's great, but leadership really shows in tough times, in difficult times. That's when leadership shows, and that's the kind of leadership that each and every one of our ridings needs, regardless of the political party; that doesn't matter. We're in our constituencies to show leadership to our constituents, to be there for them, to offer support, to offer the programs. These are things that I'm going to look back on with a ton of pride, saying that with the programs we offered, we were there when people needed us.

I believe that MP Turnbull's amendment to MP Vecchio's motion is a way forward for us.

Madam Chair, I have a bit more that I would like to talk about. I recognize that there are three more hands up, and I'm sure everybody has their thoughts. I certainly want to say that I have a few other things I would like to talk about, just to provoke some more thought amongst the members and certainly amongst Canadians. In fairness to other colleagues, however, who have things that they want to say, I think I will wrap up.

I would like the opportunity to come back to continue with some of my thoughts, but Madam Chair, I'll yield the floor to you.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Mr. Long.

Ms. Shanahan.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'm going to take this opportunity to speak French; that will let the interpreters spell each other off.

I'm very happy to be here today. This is the first time I've replaced a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I'm aware of its mandate. As I understand it, it's concerned with management of the House, as well as all matters pertaining to Elections Canada, our standing orders and parliamentarians' recommendations for the proper conduct of elections. That's very important.

As my excellent colleagues Mr. Simms and Mr. Long just indicated, everything we do here relates to trust and government accountability to the Canadian people. I must admit I'm very much a history buff. It was interesting to listen to Mr. Simms's speech on the origin of our parliamentary system, Magna Carta. I see I'm in the presence of someone who knows the subject well.

Something also struck me when I was elected to represent the riding of Châteauguay—Lacolle in 2015. Members on both sides of the House had a clear understanding of what constitutes a responsible government and of the reason why it was important to remain accountable to the Canadian people. We had to prove they could trust us.

What is a government? What is politics? It's a set of activities and policies that we propose, discuss, debate and implement. In fact, it's everything that's related to the governance of this country.

I wanted to add something on the subject. I'm grateful that the members around this table conduct themselves in an informal manner. I mention that because Quebec makes a significant contribution to the formation of our responsible government, one that's especially important because it distinguishes us from England and the other Commonwealth countries.

It's precisely the recognition of fundamental rights and of a community too that differentiates us from another community that constitutes the majority.

It's the majority that actually rules in a pure democracy. However, all individuals, all the country's citizens must nevertheless be respected. In my riding, Châteauguay—Lacolle, I tend to say that life is good. We really are a representative region of people, families and seniors who have been here for a long time. Dairy and agricultural producers have been here for generations. We also have a manufacturing plant and people who are very much involved in the community. I can't say they are people who follow day-to-day politics.

Here's more or less what I said when I was elected. During an election campaign, you introduce yourself. People know that we work for one party or another and they know how we see things, our values, the policies we recommend and the measures we want to put in place. Once the campaign is over, however, we're there to represent everyone in our riding. I think that a responsible government is a government that is accountable to all citizens.

As I said, I'm very interested in the history of our Parliament. I'm also interested in the way conventions and traditions have been established.

It was long before Confederation in 1867. I especially want to discuss the special rapport, the work and partnership at the time, around 1840 or 1850, between two members, Robert Baldwin from Toronto and Louis-Hippolyte La Fontaine from Quebec. People interested in this can look up John Ralston Saul's well-written book that shows how those two men, who came from two completely different cultures and religions, managed to work together. In addition, being Catholic, at the time, meant being Catholic, and being Protestant meant being Protestant. Religion was more important than language. In certain circles, everyone was bilingual. That wasn't the problem. It was more the fact that religion was also a culture and an identity.

All that to say that those two men worked together to such an extent that when Louis-Hippolyte La Fontaine lost his election, Robert Baldwin found him a riding in Toronto.

Imagine that. I don't think that would be possible today.

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

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes, Ms. Vecchio.

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

I'm enjoying it, but we've given at least the first seven minutes. I'm just hoping we can get on to the actual motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I'll just remind Ms. Shanahan to stay on topic.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

It's true; many people are history buffs. These traditions and practices were ways of solving everyday problems that led to the conventions and traditions we have today.

Getting back to what we're doing here in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, I'm going to tell you another brief story.

The committee also deals with members. I introduced my Bill C‑377, An Act to change the name of the electoral district of Châteauguay—Lacolle, during the 42nd ^x Parliament. I didn't do it on a whim. There was actually an error in the name of my riding.

It was a very delicate matter for the people at home. Châteauguay is Châteauguay. The municipality of Lacolle isn't even part of my riding. The municipality that's part of my riding is Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle. There's a big difference between the two.

I'm going back over this because, at the time, a commission was responsible for constituencies, for making new subdivisions and considering suggestions for new names. The members for Châteauguay and the adjacent riding at the time hadn't done their job. They hadn't verified the matter and it was too late by the time of the 2015 election. Elections Canada told us it was too late, but we nevertheless immediately solved the problem.

That caused a number of misunderstandings among citizens. As I said, the citizens in my riding have better things to do than to follow politics and electoral boundaries. The people of Lacolle thought they were part of my riding, whereas they were part of the riding of Saint-Jean, I believe, but I may be mistaken. It definitely wasn't pleasant for the people of Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle.

I therefore introduced a bill to that effect and was criticized at the time by certain members of the Bloc québécois and the NDP, who felt it wasn't important. I'm not the one who decides what's important for the citizens of my riding. I listened to them. It was important for them. I was also pleased to be able…

I see Ms. Normandin has raised her hand. I'm prepared to allow her a few minutes. She may want to correct me on the matter of the riding of Saint-Jean.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Please allow me to speak, Madam Chair.

I'll be brief.

Dear neighbour, Lacolle is indeed part of my constituency.

I have a point of order regarding the relevance of my colleague's remarks. It's all very interesting and we can talk about it more when we recharge our Bolts at a charging station on the road to our respective ridings. For the moment, however, I'd like to hear you discuss Mr. Turnbull's amendment.

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

All right.

May I continue, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Although this is an issue that is relevant to PROC because redistribution, renaming and all that stuff does come to this committee, could we refocus the comments towards prorogation and the current amendment we are on?

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

Thank you.

I'm glad to hear this is an issue that's addressed in this committee. I'll pay attention next time because my bill failed during consideration in the Senate. When Parliament is prorogued, the parliamentary session ends and all bills die even if they've passed through all previous stages.

In discussing the Prime Minister's decision to prorogue Parliament, you have to understand that it was based on the principle of ministerial responsibility. As my colleagues Mr. Simms and Mr. Long said so well, the government was dealing with a new situation and all circumstances had changed.

When we came back after the election in 2019, we all wanted to get going and implement our campaign platforms, our ideas and the projects we had started during the first parliamentary session. However, although we would have liked to continue our work, we were faced with a major crisis.

As all my colleagues know, we were in total lockdown in March of last year. We couldn't hold in‑person meetings because we didn't know how contagious the virus was or what the contamination factors were. It became very clear over the ensuing days and weeks that we were in the midst of a crisis.

We weren't yet using the Zoom platform at the time. We communicated via FaceTime, Skype and email. Constituents called my office for help. The health crisis was one thing, but the financial crisis was another. That much was obvious.

Since we didn't have tests yet, people had to stay at home as soon as they experienced minor cold symptoms or symptoms similar to those of COVID‑19. Staying at home when you don't have sick leave can be a serious problem. So people called our offices on that subject. We all received those calls.

We discussed that amongst ourselves, and members from all political parties called the experts, senior officials and our team every day for information and to report what they had seen on the ground. As my colleagues said, we were at war with an invisible enemy.

I'm very proud of my experience. I've worked in banking and financial planning, but I was also a social worker.

So I was very sensitive to the fact that people were making essential decisions about both their health and their financial situations.

The accessibility of a website can cause stress and it's already stressful in normal circumstances. We were particularly struck by the case of a single father who had a job at a restaurant but couldn't go to work because he had a child to take care of. He looked for another job and dealt with the employment insurance system, which obviously isn't designed to address that kind of emergency.

With all due respect for the people who work in it, the employment insurance system was created as a measure of last not first resort. That's why there are so many obstacles, criteria, questions and evidence that must be provided before claimants can receive employment insurance benefits.

I'm very proud that we all came together around one incredible idea. Six weeks earlier, the idea that we could do what we did with the CRA would have been unthinkable. I'm sure I wasn't the only one to suggest it.

Given my work experience, I have a lot of respect for what the CRA did and for the fact that it was able to use its IT system to put money in the pockets…

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

I have a point of order, Madam Chair, regarding relevance.

I believe we are going far outside the scope of this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

This time, I didn't find it to be so, so much.

Ms. Shanahan, I thought you were relating it to the reason for proroguing, but I guess Ms. Vecchio doesn't see the direct link. Could you re-emphasize the link?

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

That's an excellent comment.

I used to work with a lot of people. It was very moving for us as members. In fact, if you look at it from the government's point of view, it was obviously doing its best, but you can't change government agencies or programming systems, including the old age security system. I'm not even talking about businesses. The initial calls actually came from individuals. Entrepreneurs were something else. We had to completely rethink the machinery of government. Parliamentarians haven't even been able to meet safely until now.

We proceeded on a temporary basis; we held meetings and there were rounds of questions. I know that ministers' offices were prepared to answer all calls. Some of my colleagues from the opposition parties told me they had access to the ministers' offices and had answered their questions. They really wanted to help citizens who had problems.

We have to identify problems and key factors. I'm definitely not someone who follows all the COVID‑19 testing developments. Medical issues really aren't my field. In any case, we didn't even understand what the virus was.

If we wanted to be a responsible government, we had to stop working and take a break in order to reset the government, which is a political tool… Politics isn't bad. Politics is the set of activities, vision, policies and programming that a government has to put forward to ensure the proper governance of the country. Our Prime Minister had to prorogue at that time.

As my colleagues said, we can discuss or ask questions about the reasons for the prorogation. Frankly, I have to say that Parliament should have been prorogued earlier. We were in the middle of a crisis.

I have my own way of doing things. As soon as we got more information and control over COVID‑19, I wanted to know what we were going to do for people who needed help.

We all know we're living with this virus from day to day. There are always surprises.

We were doing our best, controlling what we could control. That's why we needed a new plan, to know how we would manage the pandemic and the financial crisis. We had to prepare to recover from the pandemic—which, we hope, will happen soon—based on an economic recovery plan.

Prorogation was entirely appropriate in my opinion. It was the right decision to make at the time.

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

On a point of order, Madam Chair, and I'm sorry for interrupting my friend and colleague.

Could you ask the committee members if we're planning to continue on? Do we have any idea if we're planning to suspend? I'm trying to plan the activities for the day. That's my only issue.

Could you ask the committee members what their thoughts are on that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I could directly ask, but you have indirectly asked.

Would the committee wish to adjourn or suspend for the day? We're in the middle of question period. I guess there are other committees, but we'll be carrying on this afternoon, though I have another committee which is a very important one today.

How does the committee feel about that?

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

Madam Chair, we're happy to suspend, as long as we get back to this issue at our next scheduled time. We recognize that if we do not end by 2:30, there will be an impact on other committees.

I'm looking at Mr. Nater. I know he can speak, too, but on behalf of my party, we are okay with suspending and coming back.