Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 13th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 27 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of January 25, 2021. Therefore, members are attending in person in the room, and remotely, using the Zoom application. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. So you are aware, the webcast will always show the person speaking rather than the entirety of the committee.

We don't have any members physically present in the room. Is that correct, Mr. Clerk?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Justin Vaive]

That's correct, Madam Chair. There are no members in the room.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I'd like to take this opportunity to remind all participants in this meeting that screenshots or taking photos of your screen are not permitted.

Given the ongoing pandemic situation, and consistent with public health recommendations, all those who are in the room in person, including staff, are to maintain a two metre physical distance and must wear a non-medical mask when circulating in the room. It is highly recommended that masks be worn at all times, including when seated. You must maintain proper hand hygiene by using the provided hand sanitizer at the front entrance of the room.

As chair, with the help of the clerk, I will be enforcing these measures during the duration of the meeting.

For all those participating virtually, members and witnesses may speak in the official language of their choice. Interpretation services are available for this meeting. You have the choice, at the bottom of your screen, of floor, English or French. With the latest Zoom version, you may now speak in the language of your choice without the need to switch to the corresponding language selection.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you are on the video conference, please click on the microphone icon to unmute your mike. If there are any substitutes who come into the room, they'll have their mike automatically controlled for them.

I remind members that all comments should be made through the chair. A speakers list will come in very handy today. I'll be following the toolbar, obviously, and the raised hand feature is there, so just continue to use that.

We are on committee business. There are several motions before the committee to consider. It's up to committee members as to how they want to proceed and move forward during today's meeting, and the discussion they wish to have about what they think this committee should be occupied with in the coming days.

The last meeting, just a reminder for those who weren't here, was adjourned on March 25. At that time, we were on Ms. Vecchio's motion.

Right now, we have notices of motion from Mr. Blaikie and Mr. Therrien. There are three motions Mr. Therrien has regarding translation and interpretation. They were submitted on February 23. Mr. Blaikie's motion was submitted on November 17.

We've circulated a new motion. Ms. Petitpas Taylor has one on political entities, which was submitted on March 23.

Mr. Turnbull also has a motion before the committee regarding the Ontario Superior Court decision. It was submitted on March 23.

Yesterday, Mr. Blaikie submitted a revised motion. I don't know if it's a revised motion. We'll let Mr. Blaikie speak to that a little later if he has an opportunity. There's a new motion on electoral reform or constituent assemblies, and it's a bit revised from the last motion.

There's another motion that has just been put on notice by Mr. Nater. It also has been circulated.

The few motions that have been brought to my attention, as of the last day or so, haven't been moved in committee yet, so I will move on to the hands we have up and the speakers list.

I wanted everyone to be aware of all the things that have come before the committee as of late, especially the ones in the last few days.

Ms. Vecchio, you are first on the speakers list.

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

Thank you very much.

Getting back to the business of March 25 regarding the request for the Prime Minister and additional members to come here, I wanted to bring that back to the floor as part of our discussion for today, so we could finish the work and get to a vote on it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you.

Ms. Vecchio has moved to have debate on the amendment to Ms. Vecchio's motion on that issue.

Would anyone like to speak to that issue?

Dr. Duncan.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Madam Chair, I would like a clarification.

Have we continued to debate based on...? Can you just clarify it please?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes, I can clarify it.

We are back on Ms. Vecchio's motion. We left off with Ms. Vecchio's motion on March 25. Before adjourning we were on an amendment to her motion. That would automatically put us back on that amendment.

She would like to see a vote or any further debate on that and then an eventual vote.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair, for clarifying that.

We are back on the amendment that was brought forward by Mr. Turnbull. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

That's correct.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you so much.

Madam Chair, I will be saying how much I appreciate the amendment that was brought forward by my friend and colleague, Mr. Turnbull. I have been clear that I think it would be really important to hear from the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth.

I will also make the same point that I have repeatedly made, namely, that there is nothing more important than the COVID-19 pandemic, and that is where our sole focus should be. Canada is in the third wave of COVID-19. We are in a race between the variants and the vaccines, and our health system in Ontario is literally on the verge of collapse. Ontario field hospitals are being readied, but it's not just beds that are needed. Critical care staff are needed. We are hearing that this is absolutely unprecedented. This is the—quote—“nightmare scenario” we were all afraid of, yet this committee remains focused on a political motion.

Our country reported over 9,200 COVID infections on Friday. That was the new single-day high since the start of the pandemic. We have had the highest number of COVID-19 cases, and yet there is a partisan motion.

Worldwide, more than 2,850,000 people have lost their lives, and all of us, we have lost them. Globally, new COVID-19 cases rose for a sixth consecutive week, with over four million cases reported in the last week. The number of new deaths also increased by 11% compared to the previous week, with over 71,000 new deaths reported.

Far too many health care workers have died in the pandemic and millions have been infected. The pandemic has taken a huge toll on their physical and mental health, with devastating effects on their families and communities. Anxiety, depression, insomnia and stress have all increased, and yet we have a partisan motion.

The pandemic is exposing, exploiting and exacerbating inequalities. COVID-19 pushed an estimated 120 million people into extreme poverty last year. Gender inequalities have increased with more women than men leaving the labour force. Rich countries are vaccinating their populations while the world's poor watch and wait.

Health inequalities are not just unfair; they make the world less safe and less sustainable. Yet there is a partisan motion.

Here in Canada, we have had over one million COVID-19 cases. COVID-19 has claimed the lives of more than 23,250 Canadians. That's another 1,250 Canadians since I updated this committee on March 6—in fact, when I was repeatedly interrupted at this committee.

Madam Chair, I cannot imagine what could be more important than talking about COVID-19, the race between the variants and the vaccines and what this committee could actually do to ensure preparedness for pandemics going forward. The numbers of deaths are not just numbers. They were our grandparents, mothers, fathers, loved ones, neighbours, colleagues, lifelong friends, mentors and heroes, and they matter to so many more people.

All of us should be asking about the number of outbreaks of COVID-19 in hospitals right now, the number of health care workers who have developed COVID-19 and the number of health care workers who have ended up in ICU. All of us should be asking about the number of outbreaks in essential workplaces, in marginalized communities and in congregate settings.

A century after the 1918 influenza, poverty, hunger, well-being, gender, racialization and economic status still play a role in who gets sick, who gets treated and who survives COVID-19.

Non-emergency surgeries are on hold in Ontario hospitals as COVID-19 takes hold despite a backlog of postponed surgeries from the past year approaching 250,000. Ontario has not ordered such an across-the-board postponement of non-emergency surgeries since the first wave of the pandemic hit the province in March 2020.

Dr. Kevin Smith, the CEO of the University Health Network, has written, “This is going to be the most extraordinary and demanding time most of us have had in our working lives. It comes to us after a very long year which has left us feeling battered and drained.”

They are battered and they are drained. In the words of one physician, “It's never-ending high stress and I'm actually afraid. I've never been afraid, but it's different with the variants. You have no idea what we see, the fear from the patient, the fear of families saying goodbye over Zoom, the fear of our families when we come home. It's unrelenting.” But here we are focused on a partisan motion.

Let me be clear. We are still fighting the pandemic. Canada's cases have increased 82% over the last 14 days. In Ontario more COVID-19 patients are in the ICU than at any other point during the pandemic. The expectation is that we are locked in for a 5% to 7% daily increase in hospital admissions for the next two weeks. The number of new variant cases more than doubled in the last week.

An article states, “Canada’s chief public health officer Dr. Theresa Tam said the rapidly spreading variants have now likely replaced the original virus, as more young people are getting sicker". This article is a few days old now, but it states that to date, “more than 26,000 cases linked to variants of concern have been reported” in Canada.

The variant initially reported in the United Kingdom accounts for more than 90%. For the variant first identified in Brazil, there have been more than 1,000 cases in Canada after doubling in the last week alone. The variant from South Africa is also picking up momentum, with cases in Ontario and Quebec. The article goes on to sate:

Hospital admissions are also on the rise as health-care staff try to keep up with overflowing ICUs. Experts say the number of COVID-19 patients in ICUs continue to test hospital capacities with patients battling the disease.

My friends, we've done really good work in the past. Together we have done really good work. We did important work that allowed remote voting so that MPs weren't travelling back and forth to their communities and potentially spreading the virus. We did really important work in saying what was needed should there be an election during the pandemic. Now we have to step up again. We have to step up and do the work that's incumbent upon us. We need to look at the House of Commons' response so that we can make recommendations for when the next pandemic comes along. We need to do that work.

I'll come back to the motion that's before us. The original motion prejudges the need for prorogation. Mr. Turnbull's amendment refocuses the study on prorogation with research, evidence and facts, and reinviting our Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth.

The Prime Minister prorogued in order to take the time needed to take stock of Canada's situation: How are Canadians doing? Where were we in the pandemic? How was the pandemic affecting jobs and livelihoods? How had wave one affected our seniors, and particularly those in long-term care? Where should we go as a country after looking at the science, evidence and facts and hearing directly from Canadians?

I remember last spring when our Conservative colleagues wanted in-person Parliament with MPs travelling back and forth to Ottawa, possibly spreading the infection. They wanted in-person voting in Ottawa rather than electronic or remote voting.

When dealing with a new disease, it's important to acknowledge that not everything is known. It's important to exercise precaution. With a new disease, new science and data, information will likely change. There will likely need to be adjustments and guidelines, policies and recommendations. If we look at what was known last January versus what is known today, there are a lot of differences: the role of aerosols, the role of indoor versus outdoor spaces and the role of masks. Scientific knowledge evolves over time, and decision-makers have to be open, flexible and willing to change course. Decision-makers must stay humble in the face of the new virus.

Colleagues, we're in the third wave. It is incumbent upon us to do our work so that in the future the House of Commons—Parliament—can be better prepared.

If the Deputy Prime Minister were here, we could ask about the evidence. We could ask about what consultations were taken during prorogation. It is for this reason that I am supporting my friend and colleague Mr. Turnbull and his amendment.

I'm here to represent the constituents of Etobicoke North. We are a caring, strong and resilient community. Many of our community members are essential workers.

I'm also here to debate the amendment at hand, which is to invite several ministers to appear in front of this committee. I support the amendment, as I said, but I would like to give further arguments as to why I think it's important to reinvite ministers.

Speaking for my constituents, I will first talk about COVID-19, as this is what is first and foremost—

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

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Go ahead, Ms. Vecchio.

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

We're referring back to the invitation, but I believe that Minister Chagger has already been invited, or has she been invited previously? If so, in the last three to four months, has she responded to those invitations?

We're debating something, but we know that there was already a motion, and an invitation has been sent, so perhaps we could find out from those ministers we've invited who in the last three months have answered and said they'll be coming. Or have they not answered the committee, and we're just continuing this filibuster, yet they haven't even answered the first request?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Turnbull's amendment calls for them to be reinvited.

Maybe the clerk can help us with the first invitations as to whether there has been a response. We haven't had the opportunity, I guess, to chat about that in the last two weeks, but I can tell you that as of March 25 there was no response.

Maybe, Justin, you could let me know if I'm correct that there might not be one up to date.

[The Clerk]

Madam Chair, you are correct. To date, there has not been a response to the committee's invitations to Minister Chagger, Minister Freeland or the Prime Minister. We are still waiting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay.

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

On the point of order, Madam Chair, we are right now debating reinviting people who have already not responded. They're saying they want to do this. I appreciate all of the words we've had here today, but we've already sent these invitations out, not just once, but they've been reinvited. Now we're talking about wanting to reinvite them again. This is wasting our time, because we already have done that and they haven't responded. We're just talking about reinviting them. Well, they haven't come. How many birthday parties are we going to invite them to until we stop inviting them?

I'm just wondering where we're going here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thanks, Ms. Vecchio.

We've invited them once. We haven't reinvited as of yet. I guess there's been no decision made on that. That's the issue we're currently on.

I will give it back to Ms. Duncan. Maybe there can be an eventual vote on this as to whether we should reinvite these ministers or not.

Dr. Duncan.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

Again, I'm going to say that I absolutely think we should be reinviting them.

In speaking for my constituents, I will talk about COVID-19. This is first and foremost what is affecting their lives. I will speak about the issues that matter most in our community.

I want people to understand that the years 2020 and 2021 are historic. It's been over 100 years since the 1918 influenza pandemic that sickened about 500 million people, which was about one-third of the world's population. The disease killed about 50 million worldwide. It was the deadliest pandemic of the 20th century.

COVID-19 is tragically historic. It is not finished. Rather, the pandemic continues to inflict unprecedented harm on people, societies and economies around the world. The pandemic has pushed the world towards one of the worst recessions in modern times and is having a devastating effect on the most vulnerable countries and peoples. The progress the world has made on eradicating poverty and hunger, increasing opportunities for all and reducing inequalities within and between countries is being eroded.

I will finish by saying that I can't be clearer. We are in the third wave. The focus for our constituents is protecting their health and safety and jobs and livelihoods. As variants continue to spread, we are in a race between the vaccines and the variants. We don't need politics right now. This committee has a very important job. We have all been living this. We've experienced this. I think it is on all of us to actually look at the House of Commons response to make sure that we do this important work like we've done the important work in the past, and that we make recommendations so that we are better prepared going forward.

Madam Chair, I look forward to speaking later, but I will turn it over to one of my colleagues.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Dr. Duncan.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux, it's nice to have you back. I know you had your hand up last time.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

You're right. I did have my hand up. I was hoping to at least get on the record the last time we met a couple of weeks ago. Fortunately for me, I'll be able to get on the record now.

It's such a pleasure, it really and truly is, to be back on PROC and to be afforded the opportunity to speak. It's been a number of years. I've always thought of PROC as one of those standing committees that is held in fairly high esteem, Madam Chair, as you and other members are no doubt aware. Often other committees will look at what's happening in PROC and things that take place in PROC will often disseminate to other committees.

For many years I served in PROC, in particular while I was in opposition. Since being in government, some members may have preferred that I not attend PROC because I was a parliamentary secretary and maybe too strongly linked to it. Nowadays, given what's taken place....

The deputy House leader had it right on. I don't think anyone could have said it any better. The way in which she often speaks I always find very inspiring. She speaks at a level that embodies what I think all politicians strive for. That's to have emotional passion and connection with real people, demonstrating so well how we need to care for people. In that, I think she is second to no other inside the House of Commons in her ability to empathize and sympathize with the public as a whole and as individuals. That's why I appreciate some of the words that she was starting to say concerning what the priority of this government really is.

I've been afforded many opportunities to address a wide variety of issues inside the House of Commons. I've never taken it for granted, nor have I ever taken for granted what takes place in this particular committee. This committee, I believe, needs to be able to demonstrate leadership—leadership that says that in a pandemic, we can get the job done, the job that's necessary; that we're able to get it done.

I must say I am somewhat disappointed. I'm disappointed because I believe in part there's a certain faction rooted within the Conservative House leadership team but which goes beyond it, which is starting to play as a very destructive force. I've made reference to the destructive force inside the House of Commons. The opposition is using partisan politics at a time when we want Canadians and others, including parliamentarians of all political stripes at all different levels, to work closer together.

I have had the opportunity to watch over what's been taking place in PROC. I've witnessed the official opposition leading the charge in ensuring that PROC is not doing some of the things it could and should be doing. The official opposition is more interested in doing what it can to cause filibustering, as some refer to it. I refer to it as more an opportunity for government members, in this particular situation, to try to focus members of the standing committee on what Canadians are so passionate about today.

There is so much more that the PROC committee could be doing. I want to get into some of that, but not until I get rid of a few frustrations that I have.

There is a good example from earlier today. I was going into the chamber anticipating that the member for Elmwood—Transcona would be moving a concurrence motion. I must say I was getting a little agitated. I was thinking about why they would want to move another concurrence motion, especially with respect to PROC, because the member for Elmwood—Transcona would be very much aware of Bill C-19. I'm sure that members of PROC are concerned about an election. After all, in a minority situation no one knows when the election is going to occur.

We continue to do whatever we can to stay focused on the pandemic, and minimizing the negative impacts of the pandemic. However, a part of that is that we need to be ready. As I say, the role that PROC plays is absolutely critical.

As I was going into the House this morning, I received a text. I'm not too sure exactly where it came from, but it implied that the NDP were going to be moving a motion for concurrence in an election report. I know the member for Elmwood—Transcona is listening. I suspect that was his intent this morning. I'm not trying to impute motive—I don't want to go against Beauchesne's here—but I would ask if that was the intent. The only reason it didn't happen is that the Conservatives moved another motion for concurrence. Right away, I'm starting to think, “Well, here we go again. The opposition is trying to frustrate the government.”

We are trying to deal with substantial pieces of legislation, and the opposition wants to play games. In one sense, I was expecting the member for Elmwood—Transcona to bring forward his concurrence motion, and then I was hearing that they were going to ask for leave to have the debate occur later in the day, after the House adjourned. I suspect at some point in time the member for Elmwood—Transcona will provide some clarification if that was the plan.

Here's why it's so important to this particular committee. When we talk about the agenda, when we talk about what it is that we should or could be talking about, staying focused on what the deputy House leader was talking about, and that is the pandemic, Bill C-19 is completely relevant and would be a wonderful thing for PROC to be dealing with.

I was hoping that I would get the opportunity in that concurrence debate to go into details about the PROC report. In fact, the first thing I did was call it up on my computer in anticipation that we were going to see a concurrence motion.

Now, that would not have been my first choice, because, as the government has said day in and day out, there is a legislative agenda that the government is trying to get through the House of Commons. At the same time, the government's focus is on the pandemic. I would have preferred, if we were going to be debating something this morning, that it wasn't going to be.... I believe that Bill C-22 is being debated right now, for the very first time. It's an important piece of legislation.

I would have preferred that as opposed to debating the concurrence report, we would be debating Bill C-19. Bill C-19 should have been a major discussion, a topic area for debate inside the House, weeks ago. It has been sitting there for a long time. We've actually attempted—

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

Point of order, Madam Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

We have called the legislation—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I'm sorry. Who raised the point of order?

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

It's Karen Vecchio.

I'm just wondering if there's any information when it comes to misleading, because he's talking about Bill C-19, and he's fully misleading everybody. It has been scheduled twice for an hour and once for two hours. He's totally misleading any Canadians who are watching right now.