Evidence of meeting #25 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was prorogation.
A recording is available from Parliament.
2 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm a bit of a pinch-hitter here. Why can't we just do this? The committee's going to come back on Thursday on this motion.
I now move that the committee be adjourned.
2:05 p.m.
The Clerk
Madam Chair, the question is on whether the committee should be adjourned.
(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good afternoon to everybody on PROC.
I'm happy to be here and happy to pinch-hit. This is probably my third time stepping in. I think I'll also be back on Thursday.
I just want to compliment everybody on this committee for the great work they're all doing on behalf of Canadians. Obviously we're a little bit sideways right now, in my opinion, but the work that PROC does, and certainly the work all of us do on behalf of all Canadians, is instrumental and vital to an effective Parliament,
Certainly, we're in difficult times. I think we've all been stretched to the max. I remember coming back from Ottawa on March 13. It seems like yesterday, and it's hard to believe it's been a year. It's been almost a year since we've come back. We came back on March 13 not knowing quite what to expect, not knowing how long this road would be. I look back also with a sense of pride. Certainly on behalf of the constituents of Saint John—Rothesay, as their member of Parliament, my team and I—my team of Jeanette Arsenault, Jody Wheaton and Kevin Collins—stood up and answered the bell for Canadians.
One thing that's abundantly clear is that Canadians want a government that has their backs, that is responsive to their needs and stands up for them. It's abundantly clear to me that's what Canadians want from their parliamentarians, their members of Parliament, right now. They want us to get to work on behalf of Canadians.
I want to speak on this motion before us, which proposes bringing forward yet more witnesses for this study on the government's reasons for proroguing Parliament in August 2020. As my friend and colleague MP Turnbull said, there have been plenty of witnesses who have come before the committee and lots of questions were asked by all parliamentarians of these witnesses, and sometimes it's abundantly clear that some parliamentarians are looking for an outcome. They know what outcome they want, and they're trying to continue to ask for more witnesses so they can do that. They want this to be extended to try to find the answer they want. It's not the answer that's obviously abundantly clear.
In my riding of Saint John—Rothesay, I haven't had a call, not one call, in my constituency office about this. Like my friend and colleague to the north of me by about an hour and 15 minutes, MP Petitpas Taylor, I also do AMAs regularly. “AMA”, for those who don't know is, “ask me anything”. We had almost 7,000 views of our AMA last week. We put it out there. Ask me anything. Let's talk about issues that are important to you. We probably had 300 questions. Was there anything about prorogation? No.
Sometimes they call this something that's important to the “bubble” or to the “Ottawa circle”. It's not important to my constituents. My constituents are concerned about getting back to work, making sure that, if their work has been delayed or cancelled or they've been laid off, that our government has the proper support for them, whether it's the CERB, the CRB or expanded EI, or whether they're a business and they've applied to the wage subsidy, the rent support or CEBA, the business loan, a $40,000 loan of which only $30,000 is repayable. There is no interest on that loan as long as you pay it back by December 2022. Then we added another $20,000 on top of that.
Canadians want to know that we're there for them. Canadians want to make sure that Parliament is working well right now. I believe that the committee has done what it's required to do and has fulfilled its obligation in regard to the study.
To be honest, I am of the belief that the opposition has moved this motion not to actually gather vital information that could decide the outcome of any report by this committee, but to yet again follow the lead of some other committees to score political points.
The opposition members, and the Conservatives in particular, have made no secret of the fact that they already knew enough about the prorogation, as they have made hundreds of statements to that effect to the media, and their followers, within hours of the prorogation's taking effect. The Conservatives have been quick to call this a cover-up, but the Conservatives cannot be too loud here.
Let's take a few moments to see what the recent history of prorogation has been. I still consider myself somewhat new to politics. I started in 2015 with a dream of representing my community. Before that, I was part owner and president of Saint John Sea Dogs. Some of you are probably tired. Mr. Blaikie heard a lot about the Saint John Sea Dogs at previous committees. In our first session, we sat on the ethics committee, and I'm proud of that.
I'm also proud of the past, and I was proud to bring a Memorial Cup to this wonderful city. We were the quickest expansion team to actually win a Memorial Cup. We started as an expansion team in 2005 and won in 2011.
Back to the motion, I want to take a few moments to see what the recent history has been.
In April through October of 2010, PROC was seized with the issue of prorogation during the time of Prime Minister Harper. Harper used prorogation on a regular basis, sometimes for many months. The most egregious use of prorogation was to save his political hide to prevent the opposition from moving a motion of non-confidence in 2008. I would recommend to all members of the committee that they read the evidence from those meetings, as well as the report that emanated from its study.
In 2010, I was knee-deep in hockey, and travelling the country with my Saint John Sea Dogs hockey team, but I do remember it. I do remember how at that point Prime Minister Harper prorogued with a minority government. He prorogued to avoid a defeat. I remember that. I remember the talk around the country how he used that.
For the education of some members who either were not in the House at the time or unaware of what happened, I would like to give a very brief explanation of what did happen.
In 2008–09, during the 40th Canadian Parliament, the Conservative government of the day created legitimate outrage on a national scale because of its prorogation of the House. It was triggered by the express intention of the opposition parties, who together held a majority of seats in the House of Commons, to defeat the Conservative minority government on a motion of non-confidence six weeks after the federal election of October 14, 2008.
The intention to vote non-confidence arose from the government's fiscal update [Technical difficulty--Editor].
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Was that from the interpreter?
We might need to suspend, as we've lost interpretation.
2:15 p.m.
The Clerk
Yes, Madam Chair. We'll check to see how we've lost interpretation.
2:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Welcome back.
I believe we were with Mr. Long, if he's ready to continue.
2:30 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Welcome back, everybody. I'm sure you were all waiting with bated breath for me to start this up again. I'm happy to oblige, for sure.
Let me see. Where was I? Is anybody able to tell me where I stopped?
I'm just joking.
2:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
I remember the team that you wanted to work with. That's about it. That was the highlight.
2:30 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Just skip to the good parts, Wayne. I keep waiting for the good part. I haven't heard it yet.
2:30 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
Daniel, I have a checklist here. Saint John—check. Memorial Cup—check.
At least we can laugh.
2:30 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
I appreciate that you're not wasting paper by devising new checklists all the time.
2:30 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
Indeed, my friend.
When the chair was good enough to give us a 10-minute recess, I was talking about me not even being involved in politics.
I remember then prime minister Harper proroguing in 2008. I recall what an uproar it was. He prorogued six weeks after a federal election.
The intention to vote non-confidence arose from the government's fiscal update tabled on November 27, 2008. It included several contentious provisions that the opposition parties rejected. The Liberal party and the New Democratic Party reached an accord to form a minority coalition government. The Bloc Québécois agreed to provide support on confidence votes, thereby enabling the coalition to have a working majority in the Commons. I do recall that, absolutely.
On December 4, 2008, then Governor General Michaëlle Jean granted Prime Minister Stephen Harper a prorogation.
Before any member thinks that this is not relevant to the motion before us in regard to calling witnesses, I can assure you that if you listen a little longer, you will see.
The background to this is that on November 28, 2008, Stephen Harper referred to the accord between the Liberals and NDP as undemocratic backroom dealing, stating that the opposition parties were overturning the results of an election a few weeks earlier in order to form a coalition nobody voted for. The Liberals indicated that they intended to present their motion of non-confidence on December 8.
The government then cancelled opposition day, originally to be held on December 1—
2:35 p.m.
Conservative
2:35 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
I'm just curious whether or not Mr. Long will be reading the entire Wikipedia article that he seems to be citing word for word from the 2008-09 Canadian Parliamentary dispute?
If he is just planning to recite Wikipedia then perhaps he could table it and let us get on with voting on the resolution.
2:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Perhaps he would like to table it. He can probably explain.
I would like to interject at this point. Of course, you have to relate it back to the motion at hand.
There has been a lot of latitude given by many chairs. I served quite a lot of time under the leadership of the previous chair of this committee. I recall Mr. Nater also reciting from many textbooks during those times. As long as he related it back to the motion, I saw that Mr. Bagnell had allowed for such references to be made.
I wasn't there at the time Mr. Lukiwski was chair. I've heard he was a very fair chair and allowed for some latitude as well.
I will allow it as long as there's a point of reference to the motion and a connection made.
2:35 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I certainly intend to continue with my speech. I will add some colour here and there to make sure that we bring it back to the motion and at least, certainly, include the relevance of what I'm saying.
Again, as a proud two-time member of Parliament now, I feel like a veteran. I guess I'm in my sixth year, believe it or not. I have a job to do. I have a job to represent my constituents here in this riding and in Ottawa. I have to do the work that my constituents elected me to do: to represent them on behalf of all Canadians and continue to be a part of making Parliament work. Part of making Parliament work is good dialogue, good exchanges and, certainly, differences of opinion and ideology. However, in the end, I think everybody on this committee—certainly all of my colleagues—wants to see us move forward with things that are important to Canadians, things that Canadians care about. I know that the constituents in my riding want me to represent them in a way that they're proud of and to do things that help them, whether that's, like I said earlier, programs from our government to help them through COVID or infrastructure investment.
Anyway, let's get back to my motion, Madam Chair.
I forget where I was in the country—I think, actually, I was in Val-d'Or or Rouyn-Noranda—but I remember Prime Minister Harper's cancelling opposition day and what an uproar that was. He cancelled that day on December 1, and that meant that the earliest a coalition non-confidence motion could occur would be the following week, December 8.
The Conservatives hold the record in modern times for the prorogation of Parliament. Let's take a quick walk back in history to see.
During the 41st Parliament, the Harper government, in October 2013, shut down Parliament for 33 days to avoid questions on the Senate expense scandal and the resulting PMO cover-up. In the 40th Parliament, the Harper government shut down Parliament for 63 days to avoid the Afghan detainee issue. In 2008, as I mentioned earlier, the Harper Conservatives shut down Parliament to avoid a confidence vote that would have toppled the government. This shutdown last 53 days. Again, let's think about that; they prorogued to avoid a confidence vote. In 2007, the Harper government shut down Parliament to declare mission accomplished on five priorities from the election, and it took 32 days before bringing in a new Speech from the Throne.
After all that was done, how many times do you think Stephen Harper was before a committee to explain his reasons for prorogation? How many times? Was it two times? Was it three times? Did he go every time, like this committee seems to want? No. The answer is zero; he didn't appear.
On August 19, Pierre Poilievre—who was, prior to his demotion, the Conservative finance critic—alongside Michael Barrett, publicly stated that the prorogation was a cover-up to shut down the study with regard to WE Charity. Poilievre falsely claimed that documents provided by the government were redacted to assist in this supposed cover-up. This, of course, ignored the fact that the government House leader's office distributed the documents to all parties, and it turned out that they were only redacted in line with privacy legislation. Again, Madam Chair, the Conservatives are never ones to let facts get in the way of their arguments, and this is the case here.
Prorogation, of course, did not and cannot stop a committee from resuming a study that was under way prior to prorogation or, for that matter, starting a new study on any topic within the mandate of the committee, and that is evidenced by the fact that numerous committees did hear from and still are hearing from witnesses on the WE matter. The focus is, of course, much less due to the fact that after hearing from all the witnesses and seeing all the documents, no—zero—proof exists that there was any political interference by political actors in regard to choosing WE Charity to administer the agreement.
I know this fact is disturbing to the opposition, who seem to love using parliamentary time and resources on chasing their tails in attempts to smear this government and score cheap political points, but, Madam Chair, the facts of this are clear. The prorogation was put in place to allow for a bit of resetting of priorities in light of the resignation of the Minister of Finance and likely more importantly to address issues in regard to the pandemic, which members on this side believe are among the most if not the most important issues facing Parliament, the government, and the vast majority of the Canadian public. I think all of us, Madam Chair, would hold that to be true. Look at the people who come into our constituency offices. Look at the calls we take.
Madam Chair, I believe this committee should get down to getting the report written and move on to studying something that is actually relevant to everyday Canadians, something that everyday Canadians, our constituents, care about.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
Ginette Petitpas Taylor Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Hello, Madam Chair.
First of all, thank you so much, and thank you to my friend and colleague Wayne Long, for his speech. I know we have an awful lot in common, being in the same province. I always appreciate hearing about the Sea Dogs and whatever else he has to share with us.
I would like to bring forward a motion to suspend the meeting until this Thursday, and I would like to proceed immediately to a vote on that.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Okay.
It's a superseding motion, so I have been advised that we can move to a vote on that motion at this point.
I just want to clarify that the timing would be this Thursday at our regular 11 a.m. time slot.
Go ahead, Mr. Clerk.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
Thank you, Mr. Clerk.
Thank you to all of you and your staff and to the interpreters, especially. It's not easy going for that long. Thank you for accommodating the member's request to debate this issue. We really do appreciate it.
We will see you all back on Thursday at 11 a.m.
Thank you.
11 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Good morning, everyone. I call this meeting back to order.
The committee is resuming meeting number 25 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, as you are all aware, from Tuesday's session. This meeting was suspended on February 23. This is the 25th meeting, as I said, and it's February 25 at 11 a.m.
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 that you are aware, the webcast will always show the person speaking rather than the entirety of the committee.
I'd like to take this opportunity to remind all participants of this meeting that screenshots and taking photos of your screen are not permitted.
Given the ongoing pandemic situation, and consistent with health recommendations, all those attending the meeting in person.... I didn't have a chance to check because I logged on late, but I don't think we have anyone attending currently in person, though we never know when we have substitutes, which did happen last time.
Those in the room and those who are getting substitutes into the meeting, I just want to remind everyone that, if they are in the room, they have to maintain a two-metre physical distance and wear a non-medical mask when circulating in the room. It's also highly recommended that they wear a mask at all times, even when they are seated. Also, they must maintain proper hand hygiene by using the provided hand sanitizer at the room entrance.
As the chair, I'll be enforcing these measures for the duration of the meeting, and I thank members in advance for your co-operation.
For those participating virtually, which right now is everyone, I'd like to outline a few rules to follow. 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 audio. With the latest Zoom version you may now speak in the language of your choice without the need to select the corresponding language channel.
You will also notice that the platform's “raise hand” feature is now in a more easily accessed location on the main toolbar, should you wish to speak or to alert the chair.
For members participating in person, proceed as you usually would when the whole committee is meeting in person in the committee room. Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you are on the video conference, please click on your microphone icon to unmute yourself. For those in the room, your microphone will be controlled by the proceedings and verification officer.
As a reminder, all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair, and when you are not speaking, your mike should be on mute.
With regard to a speaking list, the committee clerk and I will do our best to maintain a consolidated order of speaking for all members, whether they are participating virtually or in person.
There is another interesting thing I just want to mention before we resume our business. If we are to settle the first item of our business today, which is Ms. Vecchio's motion, there are three motions by Mr. Therrien that have been put on notice, and there is a second motion by Mr. Blaikie that was put on notice on Tuesday. This is in addition to the study motion that he put forward, so you may want to take a look at those.
When we left off last time, we had a speaking list and on that speaking list was Madam Petitpas Taylor. I'm just checking. Is someone subbing in for Ms. Petitpas Taylor today?