Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 13th, 2021

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

A point of order, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Nater.

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

My understanding is that when a member moves a dilatory motion, the floor goes to the next speaker. I could be mistaken, so perhaps the clerk could clarify. I have been mistaken a few times in my life. For example, I cheer for the Leafs. That's usually a big mistake.

I just need clarity on that. Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

That's a point of order right there, Mr. Nater. Come on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

A lot of people can commiserate with you and relate to you on that one, Mr. Nater. I could also be wrong, so let me double-check on that.

My apologies, Mr. Nater, you are correct. I guess there are only a few times that you have been incorrect.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Mr. Lauzon, the floor now goes to you.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Thank you.

It's been a long time since I've spoken at this committee. Thanks, everyone, for all your kind words over the last few days and weeks. I'm so happy to be back at 110%. I'm in good condition and ready to debate.

I appreciate all the comments made by my colleagues who spoke before me, and the amazing job done by Ginette today. It was directly related to the situation that we are living right now. It's all about COVID-19. It's about the Speech from the Throne. It's about the Prime Minister's decisions. Today the debate relates to the amendment proposed by Ryan to the initial motion brought forward by Madam Vecchio.

It's all related, and today I would like to talk to you about a different thing. First of all, I want to indicate why we are here and why, today, we have to debate, again, this motion and amendment. After that, I would like to talk about what we could do at this meeting. It would be very valuable for us to go forward with different issues. At the end, if I have time, I would like to conclude with a wrap-up of the analysis I made since I started on this committee and why we should not invite the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister.

It's been difficult for me to step back and look at this committee without coming in and providing you with my comments.

I will now switch to French, because it is easier for me to speak for a long time in French, so you will have to switch to translation.

Having had to leave this meeting for some time, I had high expectations when I returned.

To be honest, given the situation I was in, I didn't contact my colleagues. I focused on my health and set everything else aside. It was an effort for me to come back. I've never experienced that in my career or in my life. I was in convalescence for the first time. I would never have thought someone of my stature could get sick. Let me tell you right off the bat: no one's invincible. Take care of your health. It's very important to do your work, but do it in good health.

I can tell you today that my greatest disappointment when I came back to the committee was that we were still discussing Mr. Turnbull's amendment. I have nothing against Mr. Turnbull, but a consensus should have been reached on this amendment. The committee could have moved on to something else and gotten things done. I had high hopes in that area.

When I became a member of the committee, the first thing I did was analyze everything that could be done in the course of our proceedings and to go through the reports and questions. As you know, I come from the private sector. Life in the private sector goes at 200 miles an hour. We work proactively. You have to be innovative and forge ahead.

You have to make quick decisions. You have to be part of the action.

Then you find yourself on a committee where you intend to do big things and you're faced with a situation like this one. I have to say I'm really disappointed to be debating this issue, one that's been discussed in many meetings of many committees and as a result of which the WE Charity scandal is still the main issue.

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

On a point of order, Madam Chair, I just wanted to inform you that Mr. Kent has dropped off the call. I believe that we may have people coming back and forth. We are having some technological glitches here. I just wanted to inform you of that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Seeing what happened a little while ago, maybe we should wait for Mr. Kent to get back on.

Would that make you more comfortable, Ms. Vecchio?

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

I see that Mr. Williamson has joined, so perhaps Mr. Williamson has joined in place of Mr. Kent. I just want to know, because I'm seeing all of the different members going through these kinds of connection problems today.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Yes, I'm subbing in.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

You're subbing in for Mr. Kent?

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay, so you have one. Mr. Nater just has his camera off. That's it. Yes, he's there.

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

Mr. Kent is just coming back on, if you see that too.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Mr. Nater doesn't want to see me.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

My apologies, Chair. I have a Rogers tech virtually at the door and we'll try to correct this, but that's it for now. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Mr. Kent, do you want me to repeat the introduction?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

No, I think I'm clear on that, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes, no surprise there.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

I was about halfway into my introduction.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

We'll resume, Mr. Lauzon, and it really is such a pleasure to have you back. Thank you for the reminder about not being invincible. You're so right about that. Thank you.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Thanks, everyone, for your kind words also.

As I was telling you, to get up to speed, I had to reread all the reports and all the questions you had put to the witnesses during the committee's meetings. The questions were already about WE Charity at the time.

I'm well acquainted with political games because I've been involved in politics to varying degrees for some 30 years. Today, however, as I told you, the watchword is a simple one, and I'm prepared to debate the issue as long as necessary. Whether we like it or not, a government in power, even a minority government, is one that has chosen to make decisions. Whether we like it or not, the people chose the Liberals. I understand that the other parties are playing political games, but since we're in the midst of the COVID‑19 pandemic, I think that, as parliamentarians, we should set aside partisanship and simply work on the extremely important issues we need to address.

When I came back, I took stock of the situation and asked the chair how many motions had been introduced. I had lost count and thought there had been six or seven, including that of Mr. Therrien, who wants to withdraw one. However, 10 motions have been introduced and we're still discussing Mr. Turnbull's amendment. At first, unlike Ms. Petitpas Taylor and Mr. Turnbull, I wasn't in favour of that motion of Ms. Vecchio's. We should simply have dropped it and moved on. However, every good member can give some ground, and after analyzing the matter and speaking with my colleagues, I decided to accept Mr. Turnbull's amendment.

We put many questions to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Mr. Rodriguez, and we're still saying that we want to hear from the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and that this question can be debated again today. That's unfortunate because, as parliamentarians, we should especially focus on the pandemic. Ms. Petitpas Taylor described the situation earlier as she explained the reasons why the pandemic is directly related to what we're doing.

It's late. The pandemic began 15 months ago and case numbers are still rising in my riding. We're in the red zone and many restaurants and businesses there have shut down as a result of COVID‑19 because the hospitals are still full. The statistics on our seniors are improving, but we know the variants attack younger people. This week in my riding, all teaching staff will receive their first doses of vaccine. However, as Ms. Petitpas Taylor explained, you must not let your guard down even if you get a dose of vaccine because your entire system is vulnerable. We must make our decisions and move forward based on that fact.

Under the amendment that Mr. Turnbull introduced following discussions with the chair of this committee and that of the Standing Committee on Finance, this motion may address the COVID‑19 pandemic. It would be entirely appropriate for us to take a break, analyze the situation and take another look at Mr. Turnbull's amendment. However, I understand the political games being played around this issue.

I want to discuss the fact that we're still in the midst of the pandemic. People tend to forget that because the temperature is rising. The nice weather makes people want to get together. In reality, Canadians rightly focus on much more important issues than those we're discussing right now.

I want to make a direct connection with the calls I make to people in my riding. Personally, I'm a fan of phone calls and telephones. I call the people in my constituency, and a team of volunteers is there to help me. Calling my fellow citizens helps me take the public's pulse.

I've made thousands of calls since last August. No one has spoken to me about the importance of proroguing Parliament for six weeks last August or told me that the Prime Minister should appear before the committee to talk about the prorogation. The opposition parties have formed their own idea of the reasons for the prorogation. Having made thousands of calls, all I can say is that no citizen is concerned about the situation we're in today. There's no better way to survey public opinion of the situation.

Canadians want to hear us discuss much more important matters, such as the measures we put in place to combat the pandemic. Canadians are focused on the millions of doses of vaccine and want to know when they'll get their second dose.

In Quebec, people want to book through a website. People call us to ask when their age group will be allowed to be vaccinated. That's what people talk to us about; they don't talk to us about the prorogation, amendments or the WE Charity issue. Canadians are focusing on the doses of vaccine that were administered this week. They want to know how many cases there are in the hospitals, how many deaths and what we're going to do to support industries. We're all affected by that.

There are businesses associated with the tourism industry, for example, in every one of our ridings. The riding I represent is quite rural and thus depends on tourism. The tourism season's nearly here. There are a lot of festivals in my riding. Festivals are an industry in themselves. Culture, music, entertainment and the outdoors are part of the culture of Argenteuil—La Petite Nation, but everything's on hold right now.

One of the concerns is whether day camps will open this summer. That's the question on people's minds. Can we send our kids to day camp this summer? Will summer jobs be available at the day camps? No one was wondering whether Ryan Turnbull's amendment was relevant to the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. That's not the case.

Everything I'm saying is part of my introduction. I want to share a number of things with my colleagues. For the people in my riding, it's important that we discuss real business, things that affect Canadians. People today want us to discuss the economic recovery.

They want to talk about what the government can do to stimulate the local economy and the economies of every one of our ridings and provinces.

It's important to join forces to work toward economic recovery so we can have a strong Canada and create jobs. We have to work directly with people to help them get back on their feet after this crisis.

We aren't out of the crisis yet. It's dragged on for 15 months, and, as I speak to you, there's no indication that we'll be able to gather for the Christmas holidays or that life will be as it was. Things will change. Business models will be altered.

Governments must support people. As members of Parliament, we must devote all our energy to finding solutions to revive the new economy. These are words we aren't used to hearing because we only use them after pandemics, wars and disasters.

As Canadians, we must bounce back from this pandemic and move on to something else. We must get over it by accepting Mr. Turnbull's amendment. It's directly related to the prorogation and the Speech from the Throne.

Let's be clear. Ms. Vecchio, you have all my respect, but this motion is a democratic shell game, an attempt to keep the WE Charity scandal alive. Even after detailed examination by other committees of the documents and testimony on the subject, this is the latest attempt to corner the Prime Minister, who at the time was in a vulnerable position, one that's even being taken out of context today.

There's absolutely no evidence or proof that anything inappropriate occurred. I understand that angers the opposition parties. I know it's hard for the opposition parties to grasp that they've found nothing. I understand that they were trying to find something. There has been little or no publicity about this, and they'd like to test the waters in an attempt to revive the scandal. But it's not working. That's a shock to the opposition parties, and I understand that. However, this game has to stop at some point.

Instead of focusing on problems that actually affect Canadians, since the list of issues the committee could address includes some important matters, Mr. Blaikie said earlier that the new motion should appear on the initial list. My answer would be no, because politics evolves.

For example, who would have thought that the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance would have had an important item on the agenda, one that would have an influence on Elections Canada if an election were to be called? We don't have a crystal ball. We're engaged in politics and we evolve from day to day.

The purpose of the motion that Mr. Turnbull introduced today is to do our government a favour. However, we aren't doing our government or the public any favours today by allowing the Standing Committee on Finance to make a decision that could have been debated here in our committee. That decision might have been relevant in a completely different way before it was sent back to the Standing Committee on Finance.

Today we have before us a motion and an amendment the result of which is that all these issues prevent us from moving forward. As regards the prorogation and Mr. Turnbull's amendment, I'll come back later with a list of issues that should be dropped, decided or voted on so we can move on to matters we care about.

The actual situation is that the opposition members are finding it hard to accept that all the time and energy they've spent since last fall have led virtually nowhere. I can understand that's hard for the opposition. We can sense it here in the committee, but that's not the case among the population, where this isn't the reality. The fact that we're debating an amendment requiring that the Prime Minister testify before the committee on matters that have been addressed in many committees and have led nowhere hasn't drawn a lot of attention from citizens in our ridings.

We can definitely sense the frustration now that all the witnesses have said the same thing in every committee. We would only be repeating ourselves, and that would ultimately be just an opportunity to add to the record a question that could be used to demonstrate an attempt to hurt the government. That's pure politicking in the context of COVID‑19. Things might be different if the context weren't extraordinary. However, an election is coming and we have to make extremely important procedural decisions. Consider not only Bill C‑19, but also all the rules we have to put in place for the House of Commons and Elections Canada. We must consider that as soon as possible, and that's what we need to discuss.

I understand that it would have been extremely important to debate the motion that Mr. Turnbull introduced today over two or three meetings perhaps. That would have been a small step toward a discussion of Elections Canada, but I'm convinced that we would have come up with more questions than answers after two or three days of deliberating. Addressing that issue would pave the way to a consideration of how to conduct the next election safely and in accordance with the rules prescribed by the government respecting Elections Canada so that Canadians can vote with complete confidence and show that they have a right to promote democracy safely and in their own way.

Officials and politicians have worked hard for 15 months. That's my analysis. Countless hours of work were devoted to the issue to ensure that programs were available to assist Canadians who were in difficulty and still are today. Nothing is perfect. We've made our comments in the course of many meetings and have listened to every pandemic-related question in the House.

We obviously made some adjustments as we went along. Our primary aim was to help as many Canadians as possible. Since nothing is perfect, mistakes were made, and the Prime Minister was the first to admit it.

It's important to debate the amendment so we can then debate some real issues. I was particularly struck by one of the errors that was made. One morning, I was bombarded by emails stating that a traveller voluntarily returning from the south would be entitled to compensation of $1,000 upon returning. All the parties dropped the ball, not just the Liberals. That was debated in the House. I remember the motion, which contained three elements. One of them was that. We didn't realize that non-essential travellers would be entitled to that amount.

Officials were behind that measure, but I don't blame them. We're trying to reinvent the system. By discussing this motion and voting for the amendment moved by Mr. Turnbull, we would be able to get back to our business and get things done. We have to work together. For example, we have to find a way to conduct the next election safely.

Personally, as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Seniors, I will obviously defend seniors. In the next election, some seniors from my riding will have to travel 200 kilometers to vote. Some Canadian seniors live in remote regions. They aren't allowed to be driven by car; some don't have a driver's licence. We're currently in the red zone, but people don't always practise social distancing. Even if people wear their masks in their cars, they aren't two metres apart.

I have many questions I'd like to ask. I'd like to work with the committee to establish the best standards for Elections Canada.

It's fine to say we're going to move the polling stations closer and set them up in a school or community centre; those institutions aren't accessible in rural communities. Sending out a worker to build a makeshift access ramp doesn't make the school or community centre accessible. That's false. When you're on the ground, you see that the actual situation is different. Even if you install an outdoor ramp, there are still steps inside the building. You haven't solved the problem.

We have to come up with solutions that can help people. To do that, we have to be innovative and a committee has to examine the matter. It bothers me, but we've been debating the motion and Mr. Turnbull's amendment for 40 hours now. Why? Because, as you said, there's no way out, no other way apart from having the Prime Minister here in the committee. For that reason, we're going to be debating for a long time instead of making progress. We can't get things done that we don't want to get done.

I want to talk about the officials again.

I don't want to improvise because I might repeat myself. I tip my hat to the officials who worked during the prorogation and prepared the Speech from the Throne together with the Prime Minister's Office.

They've also been proactive throughout the pandemic. They've innovated and worked on the programs they designed using systems that were unsuited to such extraordinary measures. Simply changing the tax system and extending the deadline by one month are extremely complicated undertakings in the machinery of government. Imagine all the decisions that were made concerning all the programs that were introduced.

Earlier I mentioned the mistakes that had been made. They were collective mistakes that we made together in our attempts to respond to the COVID‑19 crisis. Sometimes you try to move a little too quickly and make mistakes. However, I want to emphasize that I'm absolutely not criticizing our officials. I am so grateful to the officials who have done a remarkable job during this health crisis.

They have proven that we politicians would be nothing without our officials. At any event, career public servants who have been working for 30 or 35 years have seen a lot of politicians. For them, we're just passing through. As we do so, we try to meet the needs of Canadians as best we can while asking our officials to do the impossible, to adapt to the situation. Ultimately, we try, year after year, to improve the system based on the prevailing situation.

Today we have an excellent opportunity to improve the electoral system, for example. Mr. Turnbull's amendment concludes the motion by inviting an incredible person who has been here from the start. Ms. Petitpas Taylor accurately described Ms. Freeland, who is absolutely capable of answering all our questions, all the more so since she is the Minister of Finance.

I'm prepared to give Mr. Turnbull and Ms. Petitpas Taylor my support. Initially I didn't quite agree that the Deputy Prime Minister should appear before the committee given all that was said in the other committees. However, now I agree that we should have the Deputy Prime Minister so we can ask her the real questions, the hard questions. The Deputy Prime Minister is prepared to answer them and to testify before the committee.

Has she accepted the invitation? First and foremost, the members of the committee must adopt Mr. Turnbull's amendment for the Deputy Prime Minister to agree to appear before the committee. Since we're debating that amendment, she has no interest in replying to our invitation today. I can't speak on her behalf, but I propose that we first adopt a resolution, a motion. Let's vote in favour of Mr. Turnbull's amendment. Then we'll get an answer to our invitation from the Deputy Prime Minister. Then we'll be able to go ahead, address the tens of pending motions, analyze them one after another, debate them and move ahead on the issues I consider important.

I remember the first wave of the pandemic. We were very concerned at the time. We were already working at a frantic pace in many committees, the House and our ridings.

When the pandemic hit us, we wondered whether what we were experiencing was real and whether it would continue for a month or two. We could see what was happening in other countries. We could see the number of deaths.

The question on people's minds in other countries wasn't how many people would be saved but rather which of them would be saved. We wondered whether we would get to that same point in our country. Those questions were already on our minds.

Fifteen months later, we're still at the mercy of the pandemic and have just spent 40 hours advancing our files because we still don't want to invite the Deputy Prime Minister—the highest ranking government after the Prime Minister—who is also the Minister of Finance. I'm astonished.

Late last fall, following testimony from countless witnesses, the examination of thousands of pages of documents and the questions you asked during all the testimony before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, I also went to see what was going on in the other committees. The questions were more or less the same, the witnesses the same and the accusations against WE Charity as well. The immediate question was whether the WE Charity scandal could once again be made the key issue. That's the way it was at the time.

However, that's no longer the case. Fifteen months later, it's something completely different. What's important today is to look ahead. We know that an election will be called. We know that an extremely important economic recovery is taking place in our ridings and that we're very much affected by it. We know that the green shift has to occur and that we'll be experiencing many significant changes in our society in the next few years.

Just imagine how lucky we are. Every single one of us is one of the 336 Canadian decision-makers who are able to take concrete action. How do we go about improving the situation?

I may not have the political experience that many of you have, but I can give you one piece of advice. The best advice I can give you to help get things done is to work, as my father always told me, and, in order to start working, we must adopt this amendment.

You can look me in the eye right now if you want to, but we'll never let the Prime Minister come to this meeting.

It's inconceivable. I can never let it happen. Have the Deputy Prime Minister appear if you wish; that's already a lot. I'm telling you that we will debate this as long as necessary. The best way to move forward is to work together.

I talked about the difference between what we're experiencing today and what we experienced during the first wave of the pandemic. The scenario is completely different today in both my riding and yours. Now we're facing an economy that has to recover.

We're experiencing all kinds of things: rising lumber prices, exponentially increasing house prices and extremely low interest rates, in particular. We're also seeing people take on more debt and families in difficulty managing to emerge from poverty thanks to government programs.

However, we could be facing a global economic crisis as a result of the pandemic.

We're immune to nothing. We have to prepare, we have to work hard, and we have to keep Canada strong so we can actually get through this crisis together.

After examining the testimony of thousands of witnesses before other committees and ours, the opposition has clearly understood that it overplayed its hand because questions went unanswered. The questions that were asked in this committee and others concerned a scandal that drew no response. The other committees quickly moved on to something else.

That's where we stand today. It isn't out of our own free will that we're discussing Mr. Turnbull's amendment, which clearly involves WE Charity. That has nothing to do with the prorogation.

During the discussions and testimony, we clearly showed that, even though they said that the purpose of the prorogation was to conceal the WE Charity scandal, the witnesses ultimately admitted that prorogation nevertheless had its place. The purpose of the prorogation was to reset the government's agenda and put it on a sound footing. We didn't know at the time that we would be spending 15 months in a pandemic, that we would still be vaccinating, that people would only have received one dose of vaccine and that we would be in the midst of a third wave.

I don't understand how the witnesses could have said at the time, even before the pandemic, that the prorogation didn't follow from the pandemic. If the pandemic wasn't sufficient reason to prorogue Parliament, what was the purpose of the prorogation?

It's so obvious. I want to choose my words here because everything is being recorded, but it was almost amusing. It was truly strange to hear questions directly related to WE Charity without being able to debate them, without being able to express opinions. The questions were plainly related to WE Charity.

As we heard from various witnesses during the committee meetings, under our constitutional conventions, the Prime Minister alone had authority to advise the Governor General on prorogation.

So that's the way it is. The Prime Minister may, as he wishes, request prorogation in an extreme situation. He's virtually the only prime minister who has ever decided to do so in such a way as to be able to prepare a report after the fact explaining why he did so. That could simply have put an end to the discussion and closed the loop. It would have meant that the Prime Minister was explaining to the public, to Canadians, why Parliament had been prorogued.

Now, I understand that the Prime Minister gave his testimony and also prepared his report. I understand that Pablo Rodriguez came and spoke on behalf of the government. However, that's never enough.

It's a form of political gamesmanship I really understand.

Prorogation was a new phenomenon I was unfamiliar with. There were some in the Harper era, but I wasn't there at the time. What I've learned is that the Prime Minister doesn't even need a reason to prorogue Parliament and doesn't have to appear before the committee to justify it. Constitutional conventions do not require the Prime Minister to justify a prorogation. And yet the Prime Minister did so out of concern for transparency.

Today, it's being suggested that he be invited to have him justify the prorogation. But that's not the main reason for the invitation. It's really to unearth scandals that other committees failed to find. It's the umpteenth attempt to test the system. It's an attempt to break the political system to find some bug that doesn't exist.

My understanding is that, historically, prorogation has been used in Canada to wipe the slate clean. As was explained, the purpose of prorogation is to end Parliament's work so that it can then start over from scratch. The period between dissolution and the new throne speech has varied over time. The August 2020 prorogation lasted six weeks but only prevented the House from sitting for two days.

It was important for public servants and politicians to work together to try to restart the economy and find ways to address the shortcomings. Today again, I learned about the closing of a restaurant in my riding. I am extremely disappointed that La Barque, a small village restaurant, is closing down because we've been unable to deal with the pandemic. Do we really need to know that a small restaurant in the village is shutting down? We need to find ways to work together. We need to find a way to adopt this amendment so that we, as MPs, can say that we can make a difference for Canadians. That's the main reason why we were elected.

I mentioned the period between the dissolution of Parliament and the throne speech. I find it interesting to see the opposition argue on the basis of this period that the prorogation was related to the WE Charity. The same questions were asked at the Standing Committee on Finance. I read over the evidence. Some witnesses said that we had acted too late, and that we should have cleared the snow before it had even fallen. We should have prorogued as soon as we knew that the coronavirus was spreading in other countries. Some people told us that we waited too long. According to the opposition, we always wait too long.

We have been working with our experts and with the Public Health Agency of Canada. The COVID‑19 pandemic didn't come with an instruction manual.

I'm going to talk about how we might be able to work more effectively, and about how important it is for us to consider the post COVID‑19 period so that we can be prepared to deal with any future disasters. As members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, it's important for us, in principle, to take the 10 motions on notice, along with various pending matters and some good ideas you may have had even before I got here, and to work on what I believe is the most important motion, which is how we can do better in any catastrophe, without having to mention the expression "COVID‑19". We need to address this because it's important for Canadians. How can we as members of this committee make ourselves useful?

We could then say that we had made a difference, because we worked on a model, a guide. Canadians are relying on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to show them what it plans to do after studying ways of dealing more effectively with a pandemic.

It means looking at what we got right and what was unsuccessful. Feel free to look at what we got wrong, which means asking real questions of the proper witnesses—those who were affected by the pandemic.

One such witness is a ferryboat operator in my riding. He was never able to benefit from any of the programs for one reason and one reason only. The calculation for compensation was based on revenues for the year preceding the pandemic. Unfortunately, there were floods that year. This meant much lower revenue than usual in July and August. The following year, in July and August, he was not eligible for the programs because his revenue had dropped dramatically the previous year. He was therefore never entitled to any compensation. Can't we do better than that?

I had to explain to this citizen in my riding that he had fallen through one of the cracks in the system.

I don't receive benefits because I'm a Liberal MP. Canadians are Canadians, no matter where they come from. The day after an election, we turn the page and serve all Canadians equally. I am a Liberal because of my convictions. The day after an election, I can turn the page and serve everyone, whether from Petite-Nation or Calgary. A Canadian is a Canadian.

Now, how can we improve the system? The best solution would be to move on to something else.

I understand political gamesmanship, but I'm not going to take the rap for it. As an MP and a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs—duties I take pride in—I would not say that I'm to blame if we fail today move forward and still find ourselves here after 40 hours of debate.

It would be unreasonable for me to say to a government that was elected by the people that I agreed with the idea of the Prime Minister coming here to testify before this committee after several attempts by other committees to do just that.

I digressed to address the economy, on which I would like to see some action. These procedures are very important to me.

What I just said made me think of something I'm going to tell you about. This proves that my speech was not written ahead of time. I'm going to describe what I experienced in order to explain why we should adopt Mr. Turnbull's amendment.

Some municipalities in my riding experienced some flooding. As the Canadian government, we sent the armed forces to help out. We helicoptered people from their houses. They left behind their vulnerable animals, including horses, cows, dogs and cats. We were able to save the people, but not the animals.

These decisions were extremely difficult for us, as MPs. We worked with the armed forces to save Canadians. How can we do better?

The first thing these small municipalities did, even though they didn't add much staff, was to work with the RCMs to establish procedures. In 2017, we worked together to decide on the best ways of taking action if we were to have other floods. We wanted to be proactive. We wanted to look at the chronology of events to determine whether it would have been possible to get the farm animals out or to take specific steps to care for them. For some of the farms, it was not even possible to feed the animals because they couldn't be reached. Dairy farms had to dump milk into the river because the trucks couldn't come to pick it up. We therefore had to look at what had happened to see if we would be able to do things better and make better decisions if the situation were ever to recur.

And these small municipalities were in fact able, with the RCMs, to put together documents specifying procedures to follow in the event of a disaster. I worked with the small municipalities to find basic solutions, like sandbags and ways of dealing with the animals. This shows just how important it is…

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

On a point of order, Madam Chair, I'm not sure what the relevance is of all the animals—to Old MacDonald Had a Farm maybe, but not to the prorogation motion that we're talking about.

Perhaps you could remind the member to make it relevant.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay, Ms. Gladu.

I remind the member to relate the comments he's making back to Mr. Turnbull's amendment.