House of Commons Hansard #4 of the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was pandemic.
The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota
I wish to inform the House that, in accordance with a representation made by the government pursuant to Standing Order 55(1), the Chair has caused to be published a special Order Paper giving notice of a government bill.
I now lay upon the table the relevant document.
The hon. member for La Prairie on a point of order.
Alain Therrien Bloc La Prairie, QC
Mr. Speaker, on September 24, the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes raised what I thought was a very relevant question of privilege. I have a few words to add to that question. I will start by recapping the facts, namely what the Prime Minister and his government did when various committees launched investigations into the WE Charity scandal.
The fiasco involving the Prime Minister, his government and WE Charity is the most serious scandal in history. It is so big that the Prime Minister's Office, cabinet, the former minister of finance, who resigned, and the Prime Minister himself went to inordinate lengths to conceal the facts from the opposition parties, Quebeckers and Canadians.
By proroguing Parliament as he did on August 18, the Prime Minister was attempting to divert attention from the investigations being conducted by no less than four parliamentary committees. The Prime Minister claimed that the pandemic warranted a new recovery plan and a new Speech from the Throne to address issues stemming from the pandemic.
In light of what the Prime Minister actually announced last week, there is every reason to believe that he is using the current public health crisis as a diversion, at the cost of human lives and economic hardship to Canadians.
This situation raises an important question of privilege because the government failed in its duty to comply with the Standing Committee on Finance's order. The government was required to produce documents and communications exchanged among ministers, senior departmental officials and WE Charity from March 2020 without redacting any of the information.
The motion adopted by the Standing Committee on Finance stated:
...any redactions necessary, including to protect the privacy of Canadian citizens and permanent residents whose names and personal information may be included in the documents, as well as public servants who have been providing assistance on this matter, be made by the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons.
Words are important. However, much of what is in the approximately 5,600 pages the government submitted before prorogation was blacked out and redacted, which is contrary to the committee's unanimous motion. The law clerk of the House himself said that the documents submitted by the government did not comply with the committee's motion.
By redacting the content of almost 1,000 pages of information, the government has failed to meet its obligation to be accountable for its actions. It has violated the committee's right to order the production of documents in the course of investigations related to its mandate, and, in this specific case, to an order of reference from the House of Commons.
I refer hon. members to section 18 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which extends parliamentary privilege to the right to conduct inquiries, to compel witnesses to testify, and to order the production of documents. This constitutional principle is extended to the various standing committees in Standing Orders 108(1) and 108(2).
My colleague from the Conservative Party also raised this issue. The power to order the production of documents is “a broad, absolute power that on the surface appears to be without restriction.” This quote is from chapter 20, page 984, of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, edited by Marc Bosc and André Gagnon.
A previous ruling made by Speaker Milliken on April 27, 2010, concerning the Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan, beginning on page 2039 of the Debates of the House of Commons, said that only the House has the power to decide whether information or information contained in the documents ordered to be produced must be protected.
In that same ruling, the Speaker explained that:
The right of Parliament to obtain every possible information on public questions is undoubted, and the circumstances must be exceptional, and the reasons very cogent....
Therefore, the government does not have the power to decide what information to redact in this case. If the government wants to hide information, it must prove to the House that the reasons for which it wants to redact this information take precedence over the public interest, which in this case is the administration of money belonging of Canadians.
In keeping with Speaker Milliken's analysis, the fundamental right of the House of Commons to hold the government to account for its actions is an indisputable privilege and in fact an obligation for the government.
He argued that the only limitation, which could only be self-imposed, would be that any inquiry must relate to its legislative competence for reasons of national security, national defence or international relations, but that is not at all the case here.
As indicated at pages 152 and 153 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, Bosc and Gagnon, custom dictates that questions of privilege arising from committee proceedings will be heard by the House only upon presentation of a report from the committee, except in the most extreme situations.
I believe that the current situation justifies direct intervention on your part, given the extreme gravity of the consequences.
Mr. Speaker, I think you would agree that, since the Prime Minister bizarrely dissolved the Standing Committee on Finance, it cannot look into this matter and report to the House.
In the middle of a pandemic, with numerous concerns threatening public health and impacting the financial security of many individuals and businesses, this House has a duty to work effectively for our citizens.
This question of privilege has to be dealt with quickly to prevent other political manoeuvring aimed at delaying the work of the committee to the detriment of the urgent needs of the public.
Partisan strategies to distract from the We Charity scandal involving public funds and the urgency of acting to restart the economy are extremely serious circumstances in the current context of the pandemic.
Mr. Speaker, I invite you to determine whether this is a question that affects parliamentary privilege and undermines the dignity of the House so that the House may debate it.
The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota
I thank the hon. member for his submission. We will come back later with a response.
The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby on another point of order.
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague and parliamentary leader of the Bloc Québécois for his submission. It has been four days now since the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes made his presentation, along with the leader of the Bloc Québécois, and myself on behalf of the NDP. All three of us said that this required a quick decision. The government has had four days to make its presentation and I presume it will do so now. If not, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to quickly—
The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota
Order. I am grateful for this advice. We are working very diligently on a response.
The hon. member for Banff—Airdrie, also on a point of order.
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Mr. Speaker, I thought you had notice, but if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion, that the membership of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be amended as follows: Ms. Vecchio for Mr. Richards; Mr. Lukiwski for Mr. Brassard; and, Mr. Doherty for Mr. Duncan, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.
The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota
Normally when there are requests for unanimous consent, the Chair asks in the affirmative whether members agree.
This being a hybrid sitting of the House, were the Chair to proceed in this fashion, if there were any dissenting voices, particularly for members participating via video conference, they may not be audible.
Therefore, for the sake of clarity, I will only ask for those who are opposed to the request to express their disagreement. In this way, the Chair will hear clearly if there are any dissenting voices, and I will accordingly be able to declare whether or not there is unanimous consent to proceed.
All those opposed to the hon. member moving this motion please say nay.
The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota
I believe we have a nay. We do not have unanimous consent.
We will continue.
Government Business No. 1Government Orders
September 28th, 2020 / 11:15 a.m.
Honoré-Mercier Québec
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
moved:
That the bill standing on the Order Paper, entitled An Act relating to certain measures in response to COVID-19, be disposed of as follows:
(a) the bill be ordered for consideration at second reading later this day;
(b) when the House begins debate on the motion for second reading of the bill, two members of each recognized party and a member of the Green Party may speak to the said motion for not more than 20 minutes, followed by 10 minutes for questions and comments, provided that members may be permitted to split their time with another member; and, at the conclusion of the time provided for the debate or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill shall be put without further debate or amendment, provided that, if a recorded division is requested, it shall not be deferred;
(c) if the bill is adopted at second reading, it shall be referred to a committee of the whole, deemed considered in committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage, and deemed read a third time and passed;
(d) until the said bill is disposed of at second reading or read a third time, whichever is later, the House shall not adjourn except pursuant to a motion proposed by a minister of the Crown; and
(e) no motion to adjourn the debate may be proposed except by a minister of the Crown.
Mr. Speaker, this a momentous time in our history, and we must all act accordingly.
We are gathered here today at a momentous time in our history. Indeed, the last six months have changed our country. More than 9,000 Canadians have died from COVID-19. Many thousands more have contracted the virus. Millions of Canadians have seen their jobs disappear in the economic crisis caused by the pandemic. So many people are still worried about how much longer their jobs will last, and we all know so many of these people.
As the days grow shorter and the autumn leaves begin to appear, we are at a crossroads. We can ignore the challenges that remain before us and blindly walk down a dark path with dangerous consequences, or we can walk together on a second path with our eyes wide open, and prepare our families and our country for the twists and turns that lie ahead.
Our government is committed to responsibly leading Canadians down that second path.
We must continue to be honest with Canadians, as we always have been.
The second wave poses serious risks. We must not take it lightly, on the contrary. Over the coming weeks and months, we must do everything we can to protect Canadians. That is what is most important to us. In fact, as elected members, it is our greatest responsibility; it is the greatest responsibility. Canadians know it, all my colleagues in the House know it and we know it: We are facing the gravest of threats. It continues to weigh on all of us, our families, our friends, our neighbours and our colleagues. We are all at risk, with no exceptions.
Canadians know how to do their part by staying home, washing their hands, wearing a mask and following public health guidance.
As a government and as parliamentarians, we also have a duty to do our part. First, we need to help the most vulnerable Canadians, especially those who are struggling to make ends meet. There are many of them. This crisis is affecting all Canadians. Many people have lost their jobs, and others worry they are next. Some people are starting to pull through, while others now need to stay home to care for a sick father, mother, son or daughter. Some need to stay home because they themselves are sick.
Canadians are worried, as are we all. They have valid questions. How are they going to pay the bills? How are they going to feed and clothe their families? How are they going to pay the mortgage or rent?
From the beginning of this crisis, our government has been working day and night to meet the needs of Canadians. We do not want to leave anyone behind. We want to be there for everyone. At times like these, we need to assure all Canadians that we will be there for them, that we will never let them down, that we will keep helping them, that we will get through this crisis together, and that, together, we will come out even stronger on the other side. The key word is “together”. We have to do this “together”.
This is a message that I hope all parliamentarians will reflect on as we discuss the motion before the House today. It is a simple message. It is time for action. It is a time of urgency. It is not a time for members to slow walk their way toward inaction. It is definitely not a time to play political games.
Canadians need our help now and this is exactly what the motion is meant to accomplish: quick action. Canadians need members of the House to recognize the urgency of the situation and to work together. They are watching us. Can we work together for the benefit of all Canadians?
I hope that all members from all parties will leave politics aside and work with us. We must move forward to provide millions of Canadians with the financial support they need and we must do it now.
The government presented a Speech from the Throne last week in which we clearly stated our plan for the coming weeks and months. We are going to show some leadership; guide the government through this crisis; guide the government and the country to economic recovery; and rebuild the foundations of our society to make it stronger, more just and more humane.
In its throne speech, the government promised to help each and every Canadian, and Canada is in a sound financial position to do so, compared to other countries. That is why we did not hesitate to use our financial resources to help Canadians, through programs such as the Canada emergency response benefit and the Canada emergency wage subsidy. We did not hesitate to use the tools at our disposal or to create new ones in order to help Canadians. Canadian workers and employers must have the support they need to weather this fierce storm.
Madam Speaker, if I may, I would like to quote a passage from the Speech from the Throne: “Canadians should not have to choose between health and their job, just like Canadians should not have to take on debt that their government can better shoulder.”
Every member of the government is working as a team to support Canadians. I commend the thousands of public servants and thank them from the bottom of my heart for their dedication and the extraordinary work they have done. They continue to work to make a positive difference in the lives of all Canadians. Members of cabinet, like all members of the Liberal caucus, have never lost sight of the fact that the most important thing to do is to help the people we serve.
Canadians elected us. We are here because they made that choice. They are the reason were are here in the House. They are the reason we are standing up and working together to develop policies that will make a difference for the men and women of this country, for the young and not-so-young, for our seniors and our businesses.
Among those who have worked the hardest is my colleague and friend, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion. For months now, right through recent days, I would say all the time that she has adopted an open and collaborative approach. She has listened to Canadians and has collaborated with her fellow parliamentarians. I would say her door is always open. She is always ready to discuss and accept ideas from all others. Sometimes good ideas or better ideas come from the other side. She is totally open to that.
She and her team have worked hard and have come forward with a proposal to create three new benefits.
First, there is the Canada recovery benefit. This would help Canadians who have stopped working because of COVID-19 but do not qualify for EI, and Canadians who are employed but have seen their income reduced.
Second, there is the Canada recovery sickness benefit. This would assist Canadians who are unable to work because they must stay at home.
Third, there is the Canada recovery caregiving benefit. This would support workers who need to take unpaid leave to care for family members as a result of COVID-19.
When my colleague announced those benefits in August, she said she would monitor the development of the pandemic closely, and that is what she is doing. She has been keeping a close eye on the situation since schools reopened. She is also monitoring the number of jobs created in the country. She is keeping tabs on what is happening in every province and in every region of the country. She made it very clear that she would be flexible with respect to details of the benefits and that she is open to collaboration. She always works collaboratively.
Everyone is aware of the urgency of the current situation. Canadian workers and their families are counting on us to provide the help they need to pay their bills and buy groceries. They need our help to get through this crisis. Objectively speaking, this motion puts forward a reasonable way for the government to fulfill its responsibilities and help Canadians. Crucially, in our opinion, the motion gives all parties an opportunity to speak to the motion. It enables the House to do what needs to be done to study the proposed legislation without delay.
I ask members to join us in support of the motion. This is not a time for delay. It is time for action, and Canadians are counting on us. We must not let them down.
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Madam Speaker, we will have an opportunity to get to the bottom of things a little later.
Does the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons think it is right, fair and balanced for parliamentarians to spend barely four hours examining a bill that will involve nearly $50 billion in spending?
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and commend him for his work.
This motion takes a number of things into account and strikes a balance between the urgent need to act, which is very real, and allowing all parties to speak to the issue. This motion makes both of those things possible.
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Madam Speaker, we begrudgingly support this motion.
The reality is that, as of midnight last night, there is no more support for people who are experiencing COVID-19-related financial difficulty. That situation is a direct result of government decisions. Because of the prorogation of this Parliament, the closure of this Parliament, today, people are distraught. It was irresponsible of the government.
Since midnight last night, Canadians who are suffering, who are trying to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads, find themselves with no supports at all because of the government's actions. The government prorogued Parliament. The Prime Minister basically shut it down and now, as people have absolutely no supports to turn to, we are forced, with the motion, to try to put back in place supports that were taken away by the government.
My question to my colleague, whom I respect a lot, is very simple. Why did the government not allow for the sitting in August that would have put this legislation in place, and why did the Liberals take millions of Canadians right to the precipice before acting?
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
Madam Speaker, I respect my colleague a lot, and I thank him for his support and the support of his party. It is the responsible thing to do. I think the motion strikes a balance between the urgency of the situation and the capacity for all parties to be able to debate the motion.
I would remind everyone of what we already know: We are living in a pandemic. The government has struck this balance.
Over the summer, we sat several times. We were here, and members could ask us questions for hours. That was crucial, and we were in favour of it. We have always tried to strike a balance between moving and acting quickly to meet the needs of all Canadians and ensuring that we act democratically by allowing our colleagues from different parties to ask questions. That is why we were so insistent on having a hybrid model, which our Conservative friends opposed for so long for who knows what reason.
Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Madam Speaker, I have a little trouble believing what I am hearing.
It seems that our friends in government are avoiding the question raised a few minutes ago. It is September 28, the clock is ticking, and we must act before September 30.
This summer, the House was prorogued. The main reason for the prorogation was to put a lid on the WE scandal. Today, we are hearing emotional speeches. Canadians need help, Quebeckers need help, and employers need support. Employers in particular needed the CERB to be incentivize work over the past few months.
I would ask the hon. government House leader to explain why the government waited until two days before the deadline. A real debate definitely takes time. Now we have to move quickly because Parliament was shut down to avoid a scandal.
How does the leader feel about that today? What does he have to say to Canadians?
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, even though it was a bit partisan.
The last thing we should be doing right now as parliamentarians is addressing these issues with such partisan rhetoric. That is one thing I would never do, as my colleague very well knows.
We are here to debate things that are fundamental to Canadians. This motion includes measures for people who do not currently have these supports, like people who are self-employed, whose income has been reduced or who have to stay at home.
For their sake, on behalf of those individuals, if we can set partisanship aside, will the Bloc Québécois support them?
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Madam Speaker, we have just had the worst results in Ontario since the beginning of the pandemic, with 700 cases reported on Monday morning. We are looking at closing our constituency office again.
In light of where we were in April, and the fact that we have never had this bad a result in Ontario, could the hon. member comment on how serious this is right now?
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
Madam Speaker, my colleague asked a very responsible question. He is absolutely right. We are right in the middle of a second wave. It is not a theory, and there is no “maybe” or “if”: We are there. We see the cases increasing pretty much everywhere across the country. In my own province, the numbers are extremely high. I see that in Ontario it is the same.
We have to act responsibly. We have to act as leaders, which we all are. We are all leaders. We are the government, and all members of Parliament were elected. We all share this responsibility. The responsibility is not only on the government's side. It is the responsibility of all members of Parliament.
Are we going to show up and support Canadians or decide instead to be political?
John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON
Madam Speaker, let us not be fooled by what is going on here. The government is putting itself in an angelic position by asking us to just get this done.
In fact, there was an opportunity to get it done. The member for New Westminster—Burnaby spoke about it a month ago. In fact, last Friday it was the Conservatives who proposed a motion to allow weekend sittings of the House, including this past weekend, so that we could work on this on behalf of Canadians. It is a $57 billion bill. There is no question that Canadians need help.
Would the government just stop playing these games? Its intent is to make the opposition look bad. The government needs to realize that Canadians not only expect us to work together, first and foremost, but also expect the opposition to be able to scrutinize what is, in effect, a $57 billion bill. Maybe we can make it better by sending it to committee. Maybe we can make it better by having more debates and interactions in the House.
Instead, the government is rushing this through, painting the opposition as the bad guys on this if we do not agree with it. The government had a chance a month ago, but the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament to save his political skin from the WE scandal.
Why will the government House leader not just admit that now and let Parliament do its job on this bill?
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
Madam Speaker, I want to be very clear. The Conservatives do not need me to make them look bad: They can do that on their own. I can assure members of that. The other thing—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
The hon. leader of the government is answering a question.
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
Madam Speaker, as I said before, it is time to act. We can debate and look at this and that, but the important thing is that so many Canadians are waiting for this. So many Canadians need our help. So many Canadians will benefit from what we are doing today.
If it is so important to the Conservatives, are they going to support this motion?
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Salaberry—Suroît, QC
Madam Speaker, the bill currently before us requires a number of very significant administrative changes.
Can the government House leader explain why Parliament was prorogued for five weeks? Does he not get the impression that time has been stolen from the democratic process, in other words, from the debate needed for this very important bill?
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.
When this pandemic hit, we moved quickly, always seeking to strike a balance between acting swiftly for the good of all Canadians and allowing members of Parliament to meet and debate with a hybrid system. My colleagues from the Bloc Québécois opposed that. I wonder why they did that, when we wanted to encourage everyone.