Evidence of meeting #27 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.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
Yes, I can, all the way from my little corner here in Grand Falls—Windsor, Newfoundland.
It's funny you mentioned that because if you look at all that has been done and the changes that we've made, I think we can make more, when it comes to the rules of the House of Commons. I do. Now I may go too far with it, but I think we've made some changes. That's another thing that's going to happen. That's another reason why we say the ground has shifted beneath our feet.
The last time I voted in the House of Commons—this is probably too much information— I was running on a treadmill in Sandy Point, Newfoundland and Labrador. I used this to vote. Yep. I voted. It's my right to vote. It's my responsibility to vote on behalf of my constituents. It was transparent. It was posted up there, and I realized that, my goodness, life has changed for us dramatically.
As I mentioned earlier, we used to vote like it was the 19th century, stand up, sit down, stand up, sit down. It's fine if you like that, but it creates some long times in the House of Commons. You take people who are young parents, it's not easy when you have to be seconded into one little place and you have to stay there for hours doing the voting when you can now do this. Now that we've caught up with technology, that's great. If someone had said I could vote in the House of Commons on my phone after the last election, it was not even close to being possible. In the House of Commons, we don't even have a clock to tell you how long you have left to speak. We're probably the only place that does that.
Anyway, I'll even help the opposition by saying I've gone off topic, and I'll bring myself back. Sorry.
Ms. Vecchio, I apologize. I know it's your motion. Let me just get back to where I was.
Let's go back to prorogation again because I think that's the fundamental part about this. Members are released from their parliamentary duties after prorogation until the new session starts. The committees resume activities and are reconvened. We have to go through the process of committee work again, which makes sense. The government has a different direction or their policies are taking a different direction, then you have to dissolve the committees and put them back because the whole point of committee is to analyze legislation. So that needs to be reconfigured. That I get.
I'm glad private members' bills are okay because if you think about it, a private member's bill is something that you hold deep within your heart as a true piece of legislation that should be passed. Truly, it should be a law of this country or a motion to say that we should do good by this country. I don't think that changes much. Let's say you want to extend sick benefits from 15 to 26 weeks. I had a private member's bill which did that many years ago. Fortunately, it's done now. But at the time, that doesn't change. If 15 weeks doesn't cut it, we need more in the EI system to allow for people who are off work because they are sick through no fault of their own.
You're probably thinking now—and I'm just presupposing here—if this is prorogation in Canada, how does prorogation work for the people who invented it, the U.K.? Ken McDonald, I'm glad you asked because I know you're asking me. I could see your face in anticipation.
As for prorogation in the United Kingdom, constitutional law usually used to mark the end of a parliamentary session much like our own. It's part of the royal prerogative. It's the name given to the period between the end of the session of the U.K. parliament and the state opening of parliament that begins the next session. That's basically the same as ours. Nothing changes there. That's all part and parcel of where we got it from.
But it's very different in the origins of prorogation. The Queen formally prorogues Parliament on the advice of the Privy Council, the Privy Council, of course, being the cabinet. Prorogation usually takes the form of an announcement on behalf of the Queen. She did it recently. She prorogued parliament in her nineties. God love her. As with the state opening, it made both Houses...of course they have the House of Lords and House of Commons. MPs attend the House of Lords chamber to listen to the speech.
All of that is much the same. What happens to bills still in progress during prorogation? Prorogation brings to an end nearly all parliamentary business. I suspect—I don't know, but perhaps Mr. Nater could tell me the difference here as he's more of a scholar about this stuff than I am—they go further when it comes to prorogation and the determination of government business of the day, like the bills and so on and so forth. At least that's my impression. It's a serious thing, taken way back when.
Recently in the U.K., they went to the Supreme Court over the prorogation that was put on by Mr. Johnson at the time. It became very contentious, to say the least, because they were all bordering on the idea of minority parliaments. They twisted themselves into pretzels over how they were going to do this. That's when the Supreme Court got involved.
A session of parliament runs from the state opening of parliament. In the past, this has usually been November through the following November. They used to take longer periods of time to do this, up until recent memory. This is how they did things in the U.K.
At the origins of what was prorogation in the U.K., early prorogation ceremonies had four key elements. First the speaker made a speech mainly concerned with a subsidy bill. Now this is how they describe a subsidy bill. This is for sheer entertainment purposes. It's really kind of funny. They call it a bill “for the better support of Her Majesty's household”. I found that rather amusing.
Then there was the Lord Chancellor or the Lord Keeper, another official of the royal household. The person who was involved had a title and the person was the Lord Keeper. I'm not sure if it exists, but if you asked the average British person what a “lord keeper” is, you'd probably see the best goaltender in soccer in all of the U.K. Otherwise, the Lord Keeper actually has a title and is part of Her Majesty's household that deals with this sort of thing.
The Lord Chancellor either prorogued or dissolved parliament, according to the sovereign's instructions. The sovereign was customarily present on these occasions and, from the 17th century onward, usually made the speech before prorogation or dissolution. Well, how about that?
There were two elements of it, which we used to do as well, if memory serves, where you had a speech at the ending and then you had a speech at the beginning. Of course, the speech at the ending was probably more towards justification. I would assume that now with modern communications it's quite evident why or at least you have to explain why you are doing this prorogation. What's more important, though, is when the House begins and you have the Speech from the Throne.
That's not the only reason you prorogue, but that's the most important part. You have to lay out for the country exactly what you're trying to do and where you want to go. Where you want to go really reverse engineers an answer as to where you've been and why you've done what you've done.
Personally, I've never witnessed a speech at prorogation within the context of, say, a Speech from the Throne, but I wouldn't feel it's really necessary. I say that for any party that's in government. I think that's probably a bit much. In saying that, it is quite something.
At this stage you're probably wondering one of two things: one, when will he be quiet, and two, what do they do in Australia?
Let's go down under, shall we? What do they do? They, of course, have the same system as we do. That being said, let's get to it.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
Excuse me, is this a protocol thing? How does that work?
1:55 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
It is indeed. I know we've had other members who aren't as open to the Simms protocol, but—
1:55 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
—given that you are, after all, the notorious Mr. Simms, I thought you might be more willing to entertain an intervention than others, so I just thought I'd put the question.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
Mr. Blaikie, not only would I entertain it, I would be honoured to do so.
Thank you.
1:55 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
There's one thing I've been trying to sort out, not just throughout your intervention but the intervention of others. I'll speak for myself on it; I won't speak for other members of the committee here. I think it's pretty clear that the Prime Minister was acting within his constitutional right to prorogue Parliament. I don't think that's where the dispute is. There's a question as to motive, obviously. That's been investigated at other committees beyond this one. I'm concerned about some of the goings-on of the WE Charity scandal. I'm concerned about the way in which prorogation interfered with parliamentary proceedings on the matter. I think that's serious. That's why I've been supportive of the motion that the amendment we're currently discussing seeks to modify.
Beyond that, I think there are some other questions. For instance, there's the timing of the prorogation, both when it began and the length of time. We know that opposition parties.... Again, I'll speak for the NDP. The NDP was calling for Parliament to return earlier in September, something that was made impossible by the prorogation. We were concerned about the pending expiration of the CERB. We wanted to make sure that we got the legislation right and that there was an opportunity for parliamentary discourse on that. A shorter prorogation closer to the Speech from the Throne would have created some space for Parliament to meet, including the final summer meeting of Parliament that was scheduled and would have taken place shortly after the day the Prime Minister decided to prorogue. There are questions about the timing and the effect that had on the discussion about what happened at the end of CERB as we knew it then.
What we've constantly heard in all of this is that, at the end of the day, it's the Prime Minister who makes that decision. He's the one with the right to make that decision, and that's just the way it is. That's why I think it would really make sense in the context of this study—a historic study in the sense that there hasn't been a like study of prorogation before. There hasn't been a like study of prorogation before because we've never required the government to give any reasons under the Standing Orders. That was something the Prime Minister himself committed to, in 2015, as his proposal for how to correct the abuses of prorogation that occurred under the Harper government.
We have a dual reason, as far as I'm concerned, for hearing from the Prime Minister beyond pressing for more answers on the WE Charity scandal, which is in itself, in my view, a very legitimate reason to have him here. It's also a question around his decision on the timing and the length of prorogation. It's about setting a good precedent for his own remedy to the abuses of prorogation under the Harper government, which was to have the government submit a response, to have it go to PROC, presumably for study. We keep hearing that all roads lead back to the Prime Minister on prorogation, so it's important for us to hear on the substance of this particular prorogation but also in general to set the precedent that the procedure and House affairs committee would, as a matter of routine, hear from prime ministers when prorogation happens.
I find it hard to believe that anybody who felt that Harper had abused prorogation, as I do, and I think, from your comments earlier, you do also, Mr. Simms....
Had the procedure and House affairs committee studied that, it would have been important to have the Prime Minister there. In fact, that Prime Minister ought to have appeared before PROC in order to try to provide some justification for what he did. We have the issue of the precedent on how this mechanism should happen, that the Prime Minister himself devised, in order to prevent political abuse of prorogation. Then we have some matters beyond the WE Charity scandal of the timing and duration of prorogation. We've heard that the person who can really answer this is the Prime Minister.
I've said to this committee before, very clearly, that if the Prime Minister would publicly commit to coming to PROC for an hour, we could dispense with this motion, because I'd be satisfied, at least, that we'd then set a good precedent. Even if I don't like the answers that the Prime Minister would provide, we'd at least get the precedent part right and we would have an opportunity to further explore these questions around the timing and length of prorogation.
It seems to me that obliquely, I feel, Liberals have said that I'm engaged in some sort of extreme partisanship on the matter. I don't think that comes off as a really extremely partisan thing. I think there's some appropriate concern for establishing a new parliamentary tradition and getting it right from the get-go. I think there are legitimate questions around the timing and length of prorogation that are fair to ask. We've heard that we've yet to ask it of the decision-maker himself. Wouldn't it be appropriate to conclude this study by hearing from the decision-maker and then getting on with filing the report and moving on to other business?
Thanks for the opportunity to intervene. I really do appreciate it.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
Thank you.
Listen, thank you for taking the time. I appreciate it.
There's quite a bit to unpack, but I will say this. One thing I will unpack in the beginning is where we find common ground.
First of all, let me just say this, as probably a large disclaimer to put out there. I was not in on the conversations to prorogue, how to communicate to prorogue or why you would want to do that, so I'll speak from my own logic and from my own little corner of the world here in central Newfoundland, as I feel I should.
First of all, I will give kudos to the Prime Minister for showing up in front of committee prior to this.
My apologies in advance to my Conservative friends. Listen, I had great respect for Prime Minister Harper, but as I have said before, and I will say again, Prime Minister Harper going to a committee.... He wouldn't go near a committee if he had to walk through it to get home, but we do have a current Prime Minister who did show up to that committee. I gave him kudos for doing that. We found out a lot from that, I think.
Let me go back to the proroguing issue. If there's one thing that I can probably reverse course on in what I'm thinking, given the conversation we're just having here, it's the old tradition of formally speaking on the proroguing itself and then bookending it with the beginning of the next session when you do your speech, so that basically you have a clear communication as to why you're proroguing.
Should the rules change around proroguing? I don't disagree with you at all, quite frankly. I think it is a tool to be used, but it's also a tool to be communicated, by which.... This is a serious thing, and if you do it, you have to justify it. On the element of bringing it forward for PROC—I should not talk in Commons speak—for the procedure and House affairs committee, I mean, to be involved in that decision, you know something...? That's not a bad idea. Again, I speak on behalf of my own self. I think that is something we should consider, because if you do this, the justification is there, and the transparency should be there for someone who wants to do something like this.
Mr. Blaikie, let me also talk about the timing of this. Again, this is from my own perspective. Let's pretend I'm prime minister. Don't be worried, anybody, as that's not likely to happen, but if I were, some of the elements.... I forget some of the timing you illustrated. I don't condemn the logic that you come from on this one when it talks about the fall, when it started and when it should go ahead. A lot of that is well founded. For me, there would be a decision on this and that, and on this day and that day, but one thing is that the proroguing of the House around the time we did, just before the House was scheduled to begin, I think was a good time to do that.
I say that for this reason. The functions of pandemic policy—the CERB, the wage subsidy, the rental alleviation, all the other elements that were involved in these new programs that were created because of COVID-19—I think had to play out further from the spring and into the summer. In other words, we as policy-makers had to get a better grounding in what we were dealing with, in what was working and what was not, before we decided to prorogue and have a Speech from the Throne that illustrates how we're going to go ahead in the future. To me, that's why you do it in the fall instead of the spring. It's hard to gauge where the forest lies when you're still going between trees.
That's basically what we were doing, especially on things like the CERB and others, and how the CERB, which was created outside of EI at that point.... I think we were going through a lot of that stuff before we found solid ground, enough of it to say, “We need to prorogue the House and do the reset and now is that time.” Anything later than the fall probably would have stretched out too far, I think, only because the session would have started the same way it had ended before, which was that there was a lot to do, but what do we do about the pandemic?
I take your point seriously. I think the timing of proroguing was logically...I won't say it was spot-on, as we say in Newfoundland, but it was within that window, I think, that served Canadians well.
Another point when you talk about the justification aspect of proroguing the House and doing this great reset, is if you have a private member's bill. I'd love to see it. That's something we could consider. But, again, I'm just speaking on behalf of myself, because I really love talking about procedure in our House of Commons. Not only is it something we use today to make the country better, but it's something we give our children to govern themselves. Conversations like this need to happen especially in this committee, which is an overarching and loving way to say I miss you guys, because I was on this committee in the last session.
Anyway, Mr. Blaikie, thank you for that. I greatly appreciate it.
Getting back to all things down under, I was going to talk about Australia. I need a show of hands of who wants to hear about Australia.
In Australia it's much the same. They talk about the same arguments in the past, some of which they used in a nefarious way, and in ways they're not supposed to used. You basically take a fundamental concept of resetting policy and being transparent to the people to allow them to see where you are going, but others say that you're being strategic for your own selfish purposes.
In Australia, a new parliament begins with the opening by the governor general on the first day the two houses meet after a general election. To prorogue parliament means to bring an end to a session of parliament without dissolving the House of Representatives or both Houses. Australia has a House of Representatives and a Senate.
The Australian upper chamber is an elected one, which is very interesting. I don't know if anybody knew that. It is done on a proportional representation basis. You're actually seeing people involved in this process whose upper chamber is also elected. How that affects the idea of prorogation, I don't know. I do know that when there is a conflict between the two houses there is a dispute mechanism. That is very interesting. It's something we may want to think about in the future now that we have a largely independent Senate. It's not elected, but it's a largely independent Senate. That is one of the great things that the Prime Minister did in the past five years or so.
Prorogation has the effect of terminating all business pending before the Australian Houses of Parliament. It does not meet again until the date specified in the prorogation proclamation. From that, I gather they do a lot more than we do. It may be, in essence, the true guillotine we spoke about earlier where they just cut things off and it's a complete and utter reset without actually calling for an election. However, some of the experts can dispute what I just said.
Do the Australians say how long the prorogation of parliament lasts? There is little direction for how long parliament should be prorogued. However, House of Representatives Practice states that the recess involved need only be very short, for example, over a weekend. How about that for being prescriptive? That's right. That's quite a weekend, isn't it? You end on Friday and start up again on Monday. Talk about a ruined weekend for a lot of people. That just ruins your weekend altogether.
The Australians do it much like we do. The Senate is not able to revive bills through the upper chamber that originated in the House without a request from the House, so maybe that's.... That's fairly recent for us, perhaps in the last 30 or 40 years about bringing bills back after a prorogation. It seems that in Australia, that has happened for quite some time, which is right. I agree with that, by the way. That's essential. I gave the example of private members' bills earlier where they are not touched. It's not even a question of bringing them back. They are there. To me, that is quite respectful for every individual member of Parliament.
There is no limitation on the Australian Senate introducing new bills and debating them, which is what we do. Their Senate may also add any other business it wishes to address, such as motions, orders and committee business, following prorogation.
That being said, what happens to committees? Practice differs between the committees of the House of Representatives and committees of the Senate and the joint committees. That is something that is different.
Committees of the Australian House of Representatives, which is their version of the House of Commons, generally continue to exist following prorogation, but do not meet during that time. Their committees for the most part stay intact. Committees of the House and joint committees appointed by—
Sorry, I'm reading really fast. My apologies to the interpreters. I tend to do that from time to time. That's a lesson for all of us. When you're reading from something, you should probably make a mental note to slow down. This is just a note to self for me.
House of Representatives Practice states:
Committees of the House and joint committees appointed by standing order or by resolution for the life of the Parliament continue in existence but may not meet and transact business following prorogation.
They may not meet, but they still exist. It's still there. That's a key difference.
Senate committees may continue to operate and meet following a prorogation. This is due to the Senate’s status as a continuing House, and due to resolutions or Standing Orders that allow for their continuation.
That's Australia.
To summarize, it's much like our own system. It seems they keep more things intact, except for some of the bills. I think they take a lot of the bills out, but it's certainly something in the spirit of things. In the spirit of it, it's much like the U.K., which is much like ours.
All this to say, prorogation is a pillar of our democracy that not only has survived through time but has survived to place. It's one of those fundamental things of the U.K. parliamentary system that has been transferred to other jurisdictions and has remained relatively the same. Some of the traditions that were brought to us change. In the U.K., they have standing committees for legislation, but they also have standing committees, which they call select committees, that are on a more permanent basis. These are committees that do reports, and whenever a major bill is passed, they set up a new committee around that one.
Our standing committees do both. We function in parallel. We do reports. We do, as it were, the issue of the day. We have hearings on that, but we also, of course, of prime importance, study legislation.
Let's go to New Zealand.
I'm kidding. I won't get into what happens in New Zealand. That's no offence to anybody from New Zealand. Their system is very similar to ours. They have a different voting system where they do something along the lines of a mixed member proportional system.
I'm glad you brought up New Zealand for this reason alone: I don't know if they still do, but they had designated seats for the Maori, for the indigenous people, which is a very interesting concept. The last time time that has been floated here was during the Charlottetown accord way back when, when the idea was introducing the concept of indigenous representatives for the Senate, I think. That's very interesting, but I know New Zealand has gone further with it with their indigenous representatives. That's all I have to say about them right now.
I see that my time is winding down. First of all, I thank everybody for their patience. Ms. Vecchio is just brimming with glee that I'm going to be quiet for a while.
I'm just kidding. She's not saying that at all. That's just me having fun.
Thank you for putting up with me, and I thank Mr. Blaikie as well for bringing this up. He made some very good points.
Chair, the floor goes back to you. Thanks for the time.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Thank you, Mr. Simms. It's always very educational every time you speak. I feel as though we all learn a bit of something about history and democracy. Thank you for your comments.
Mr. Long, you are next.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
From Saint John, good afternoon to everybody on PROC.
Scott Simms is clearly a very hard act to follow. You can't see this, but I have a bowl of popcorn. I finished the bag listening to him. That was as good as anything I've seen. For something like this to hold my interest, with no pictures, infographics or anything like that, is amazing. I have a bit of ADHD, and I don't hide it. Sometimes I need something to capture my attention for me to really focus, and let me tell you that Scott Simms captured my attention with that wonderful presentation.
Scott, you have my respect, my friend.
I remember the first time I met Scott. It was shortly after being elected in 2015. There was a cross-party meeting of MPs who had NAS airports in their ridings. There was an issue with funding for NAS airports, so we all went to Scott's office for a meeting. I may be a little off on this, Scott, but I was told to go over to to East Block. He's nodding his head. I didn't know if I was going to the Soviet Union or where I was going. With East Block, West Block, Centre Block, the whole thing was new to me.
I got to know Scott, obviously, and I try to emulate as best I can his style of politics. He's a straight shooter who speaks from the heart. Canada is very well served with MPs like Scott, and like the other MPs on this committee, who really want what's best for Canadians and what's best for all of us so that we can move on.
Today I have a lot to say. I have a lot of thoughts.
To mirror the Scott Simms 2004 MP.... As soon as he said 2004, I was counting on my fingers and toes. I was like, “Oh my. That's 21 years.” Is that correct, Scott? Maybe I'll get a head nod there. That's 21 years as a member of Parliament, give or take. it's amazing. I've been here for five and a half years and it feels like 50, so I don't know how 21 years feels. I'm sure I'll never quite make it that far.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
Right. I'm a little off on my math there. I must be thinking of a few other things.
Scott comes at this from a certain perspective of an MP who has been around, seen it all, seen the good, seen the bad, and, really, in a non-partisan way, I will say. Scott certainly calls it like he sees it.
My perspective is different. I came to the Parliament to be an MP more recently, obviously, in 2015. I joked the last time I talked in PROC that I consider myself a seasoned veteran—but not really. I don't kid myself. I have so much to learn. I do the best I can. I want to be a good representative for my riding. I want to convey the hopes, the dreams, the concerns of my constituents in Ottawa. I want to represent this riding the very best way I can. I certainly would never say Scott hasn't been out in the real world, because he certainly has. I come at it much more recently, and from a different viewpoint.
I look at this as somebody who always is saying, “What do Canadians really think about what we're doing? What do Canadians really think about the motion, and to be perfectly honest, MP Turnbull's amendment to the motion?” I know there's give and take and there's compromise and there's back and forth.
Obviously, the Conservative Party has a certain outcome they want to see from this, which is fair, and we have a certain outcome we want to see from this. Typically when you have a motion and then an amendment, there needs to be some compromise. There needs to be a way to meet in the middle. I know my Conservative friends won't agree with this, but there's also a time when I think all parties need to step back and say, “Okay, we've made our point.” We could say, “Look, we've made our point. We've defended it.”
This is where I'm coming from, Madam Chair. A business person who lives in the real world—I shouldn't say the real world, because certainly this is the real world too—has to do things like balance budgets and make payroll and deal with agents and sign and trade players, all those things. There has to be a point where, as parliamentarians, we need to realize the country, our constituents, want us to move on. They want us to move past this.
As MP Simms has said, I think it's significant that the Prime Minister has testified. I think it's extremely significant, unprecedented, and wanting him to come back.... I hope MP Vecchio will indulge me here, but the original motion—and don't worry, Karen, I won't read it out; I promise—cast such a wide net, such a wide net, that it was blatantly obvious to me that the Conservative Party just didn't get the answers they wanted to get.
It's not that there weren't answers. It's not that there wasn't testimony from the Kielburgers, the Perelmuters, the Prime Minister or Minister Rodriguez. It wasn't that questions weren't being asked. It was that the answers weren't what the other parties wanted.
I'll very quickly give you some context. My riding, Saint John—Rothesay, is a great riding. I'm very proud of my city, as I'm sure anybody that ever hears me speak knows. I think it's on one of the Parliament sites, on ParlVU or whatever. You get that word chart or graph about words you speak most often. Mine was Saint John—Rothesay. I don't apologize for that. I'm proud of that. Every time I speak I talk about my riding.
I really wasn't a political person. I briefly served in the student union at UNB. I first became politically aware and cared about the riding when Elsie Wayne was the member of Parliament for Saint John—Rothesay. Elsie Wayne was larger than life. We couldn't have been further apart in our beliefs from an ideology standpoint and what we wanted to champion. Elsie Wayne was very well known and a long-standing MP of this riding. I think she was there for 11 or 12 years.
For one term the riding switched back to Paul Zed, who was a Liberal MP. Then from Paul Zed it swung back to the Conservatives, and MP Rodney Weston. Then, obviously, it went to me. If you go back through the long history of this riding, I'm actually the first member of Parliament to win the riding back-to-back as a Liberal. I'm really proud of that.
The riding itself is a mix between great business success and a lot of challenges with child poverty and social issues. The meat and bones of this riding are union, middle-class, hard-working Canadians, who are represented here and in many ridings across the country.
People in this riding are extremely concerned with respect to the pandemic we're in, number one. The variants are number two. International travel, vaccines.... I walked by the television on my way in about an hour ago and I saw a flash which said that India today—I may be a little off my numbers and I apologize for this—had 315,000 cases of COVID diagnosed in one day. In one day, India had 315,000 cases.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
Madam Chair, you're absolutely right. It scares the you-know-what out of me. I walked in, got my coffee, looked at that and shook my head, scared.
Then we have Premier Ford doing a press conference, I guess a virtual whatever-you-call-it. He's obviously isolating right now. He was talking about his challenges and what's going on in Ontario. Again, it's horrifying to see what's happening in Ontario. You go from that and see the numbers in Quebec and then Alberta, and then we obviously have concerns here, too, now in Atlantic Canada. Our numbers are low. Thank God our numbers are low.
The variants are here; they're growing. The reason I'm bringing all this up is that we are in a—I don't want to say once-in-a-lifetime but—once-in-a-generation crisis. That's where we are right now, all of us. I know that everybody at PROC today is inundated with calls from constituents, from people who are scared, people who are concerned about what the future holds for them. That is what we should be seized with as parliamentarians. We have work to do, important work as government, and there's important work to be done as opposition. All of us, every one of us, needs to be pulling in the same direction.
Of course, as government we need to be challenged and we need to sometimes maybe readjust and think about some of our policies or what have you with unintended consequences and so on and so forth, but they're the kinds of things that we can be doing together. They're the kinds of things that this committee can be doing together, making sure that, even though we have disagreements, we will do the right things for Canadians.
For us to be literally stuck.... Let's just call a spade a spade. That's where we are right now. We're stuck. We're not moving forward. I've talked about the movies I've seen—Inception or Friday the 13th or the one I would mention today would be Groundhog Day. This is just the same thing again and again and again.
I won't pretend to be anywhere in the same ballpark as MP Simms and what he brings to the table with respect to his thoughts, but I do have a lot of thoughts. There's a lot I want to say. This is just a bit of a preamble before I get going, but I have a lot to say, and I can say it again, and I can say it again if I have to, because we need to find a way forward.
I think MP Turnbull's amendment to MP Vecchio's motion is extremely valid. MP Vecchio's motion—I won't read it—is an invitation to the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and the Minister of Diversity.... Okay, that's in the amendment. Renew the invitation to Bill Morneau is in the amendment to the motion.
The issue that got all of us, if I can be so blunt, is the wide scope of the initial motion: Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, former minister Morneau, Katie Telford, Marc Kielburger, Craig Kielburger, Farah and Martin Perelmuter from Speakers' Spotlight, documents, PMO, PCO, production of records, communications, WE Charity.... It casts a net so wide, it's almost like putting something out there. With the greatest respect, and I have a ton of respect for Ms. Vecchio, it's almost like throwing that motion out: “There's no way they're going to accept that motion, but let's get it out there, so we can make them say they won't accept it. Let's make them propose an amendment,” and we did. We proposed an amendment, a good and fair amendment.
It states to renew invitations issued to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Chrystia Freeland. I'm so proud of her leadership. I'm so proud of the ceilings she's shattering, the barriers she's breaking down. She is the first female Minister of Finance to deliver a budget. I look at Minister Freeland and I'm inspired by her leadership, but it's not just her leadership. It's her style, delivery and authenticity. That's what we need as a minister of finance, somebody with that vision and leadership. Obviously, she delivered a wonderful budget 2021, which was delivered a couple of days ago. It was just an unbelievable budget.
There are those points in a country's history where you can drive that stake in the ground and say that this is a turning a point. This is a turning point not for our party, but it's a turning point for the country. It's a shift for us to finally come forth with a solid commitment to child care. I'm so very proud to be part of this government, and all of us will look back at a later date and say, “I was there when we moved forward with day care.”
Look at the plan and look at how ambitious it is. I don't know if Mr. Blaikie is still on the screen here. He might have needed to take a break. I don't see him. Correct me if I'm wrong and hopefully, I get this right, but the leader of the NDP called the plan bull.
He called the plan bull: to reduce day care costs by 50% in 2022. Within the next several years, the goal is to provide day care for $10 a day. That could save, give or take, the average family in my riding about $500 a month. It's transformational, absolutely transformational.
We are raising the OAS for those over 74 years of age, 75 and up, by 10%, because they are the most vulnerable seniors. They have increased costs. We ran on that. That was in our platform. That's not a surprise to anybody. We ran on that, so for us to fulfill that and for us to replenish the trade corridors fund, to replenish the housing money and to come up with new green initiatives and a massive investment in green technology and infrastructure....
One thing that flew under the radar, I believe, was the support for students and student loans and to continue with doubling the student grants. The other one that flew underneath the radar was the repayment of student loans, and the threshold of $25,000 is now up to $40,000. That's huge. It's unbelievably huge. Instead of 20% of gross income now, it's 10%. That's huge. It can shave off your payment per month from about $400 to $90. It's an incredibly important piece of legislation for students—unbelievable.
Look, I won't go on about everything in the budget, because obviously that's not on topic. Thank you for not calling me out on that. I thought it was important to talk about that. Then I'll dig back up a bit with respect to Minister Chrystia Freeland, who delivered that budget that will change Canadians' lives. Then I'll talk about the amendment to the motion that calls for renewed invitations to be issued to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth, Minister Chagger, to appear separately before the committee.
Even MP Turnbull was suggesting that. Again, just very quickly, it says:
by replacing paragraph (b) with the following, “(b) renew the invitations issued to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth, each to appear separately before the committee for at least 90 minutes;”
Also, very quickly, it says:
by replacing paragraph (c) with the following: “(b) renew the invitations issued to the Honourable Bill Morneau, Craig Kielburger and Marc Kielburger, each to appear separately before the committee....
It's a good amendment.
It's a good amendment, and I appeal to members to consider the amendment. I'm not so bold to just ask for a show of hands, but accepting that amendment moves us forward. As I've said earlier, the Prime Minister has testified. The Prime Minister has appeared before a committee—just keeping it real, like MP Simms does.
Do we really expect, honestly, that we're going to hear anything different from what has already been said? Does anyone really believe that? I don't. He has already testified. He has already talked about it.
I know there are times when I get accused—I get accused of it all the time—of getting up there in that Ottawa bubble and thinking everybody cares about everything. It's like they're right. Some of my friends joke with me about that. They say, “You're in the Ottawa bubble; you don't really know what's going on, blah, blah, blah.” In this case, it's like we need to step back.
I won't do it now, but we need to reread MP Turnbull's amendment. I get the art of, call it what it is, negotiation. There needs to be win-win. There needs to be give and take. Both parties need to feel that they didn't get everything they wanted but they got enough.
Look, who am I? I'm a guy who loves his riding, who loves his country and who wants to represent his constituents. That's who I am. What you see is what you get. I know the art of negotiation from my time with the Saint John Sea Dogs. We had to negotiate contracts with players, with billets, with our landlord Harbour Station and the City of Saint John. There were times when we thought it wasn't really everything we wanted; we wanted a little more. However, there were also times when I would step back with my organization and say, “Look, it's enough,” because then we can turn the page and move forward and actually start to do things that matter, that mean something to Canadians.
I know that with this, I don't want to say “mass...”, but prorogation, the WE Charity thing is kind of in there. I know what we need to do to move forward as a group, and I know we need to be united facing what I think, or not think but know, is one of the greatest challenges this country has faced since World War II. It's probably the greatest challenge. It's one of the greatest challenges this country has ever faced and we need to face it together.
We need to show Canadians that we can work across the aisle, work in a bipartisan way to represent Canadians. I know, because I dealt with it this morning, how—“needy” is not the right word—but how much in need Canadians are of our support, how much in need businesses and industries are of our support and how appreciative Canadians are of the initiatives and programs we're moving forward.
Out of the budget I could pick the wage subsidy. We're extending the wage subsidy through to—and I may be off a day here—September 25. Then there's the rent support. We're extending it. What a lifeline that is, allowing businesses in our ridings to survive. We have also extended the EI sickness benefits. We're offering other programs too, like the recovery benefit and the caregiver benefit. These programs are needed.
Minister Freeland said it best. We're going to be there as a government to get us through COVID. I believe she said “punch” through, but there's a reason I hesitate with the word “punch”. I do a bit of boxing, believe it or not, at my age. I've actually had the opportunity to spar with the Prime Minister a few times. I don't know if that's a—
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
I do, I do. I can actually show you a picture of me after one of my.... I'm zero for two. Believe this or not, I'm an actual, what would you call it, registered boxer in the Canadian boxing, blah, blah, blah, because I was intent, when I actually boxed—this will be real quick—that I didn't just want to do a charity event, but I actually wanted to do a competitive box. It's called masters boxing for older people like me. Boy oh boy, I'll show you the picture sometime. I was beaten up. My nose was not crooked, but swollen up, and my eye was kind of closed. Anyway, I lost, but it was a great experience.
Back to the help, we're going to punch through COVID. We're going to focus on support and recovery, and we're going to be ready to roll and help this economy recover. We're going to come back stronger and more united than we've ever been. I'm absolutely convinced of that. We will get up and we will move forward. Sure, we're going to invest in more local production and make sure that, God forbid, if this happens again, we're going to be more ready and more prepared.
Oh my Lord, I know you can't see outside my window, but it's actually snowing right now. What is going on out there?
There are those who will say, “You should have done this. You could have done this.” Look, we're going to do what we need to do to be more prepared in the future and to be more resilient as a country. I think that's one of my greatest frustrations.
Obviously, I think I wear my heart on my sleeve with respect to my riding. I care so much about my riding and its people because I feel that my constituents, all constituents across the country, clearly deserve members of Parliament who have their best interests in mind. That's key for me—their best interests, not my best interests. I want to make sure they're represented and that I can advocate for them, and I can take their voices and come back to them with meaningful programs, like the rapid housing initiative and the federal co-investment fund, where we can actually make investments in affordable housing in this riding and all of our ridings.
One of the greatest frustrations for me, to be honest with you, was with respect to housing. I was a rookie MP, and I remember my first month I was meeting with this group. I was going to do this with housing and do this with housing, and then all of a sudden somebody took me aside and said, “Wayne, you understand that housing is a provincial jurisdiction, right? We can do housing bilaterals until we're blue in the face, but the province needs to pull that money through.” That's the beauty of the rapid housing initiative and the federal co-investment fund. They're direct federal programs where we can deal with proponents, and the programs are stackable. They're wonderful programs and wonderful initiatives.
I'll get back to MP Vecchio's motion, and MP Turnbull's amendment.
I miss Ryan. I hope we see him back here soon. He's a great MP. Like I said before, and I'll say it again right now, we could all use more people like Ryan—and like Ryans in other parties. I certainly apologize. I know there are great MPs like that. What I love about it, and I'll be honest, I caught myself at the very start of this session....
Ryan and I sit together on HUMA. He's a wonderful addition to our group. I have been fortunate. MP Vecchio and I were on HUMA together also. We did great work together, especially on the poverty reduction strategy. We did temporary foreign workers....
One thing about HUMA is that it crosses three or four different departments and makes up a third of the budget, I think. The responsibility of HUMA is massive. I love being on HUMA. I feel that it's one of those committees where you can really.... I know all of us on our committees, of course, can make a difference, but especially here with the challenges we have in this riding with respect to poverty, child poverty, teenage pregnancy and so many other issues that just absolutely break my heart like housing, I can have a direct impact.
I remember Ryan and I were sitting together. Ryan was saying, “I'm going to propose this” and “I'm going to do this”. I said to him, “Oh no, don't. That's not going to work. Don't bother.” He asked, “Why?” I said, “That's just not how it....” I caught myself. I said, “Whoa.” I'm only six years.... It's not like I've been around for 60 like Scott has. I caught myself, and then I stopped.
That's what is refreshing about an MP like Ryan. He's not afraid to propose something, try something or put something forward. Just because it hadn't worked before, or just because that's not the way it should be doesn't mean you shouldn't move forward and try. That's why I'm so passionate about that.
I don't know if everybody's copy is highlighted like mine is, but this is Ryan's amendment to the motion. He brought the amendment forward because he wants to find a way out here. We all do. Come on. Let's call a spade a spade. I looked at the amendment. I thought it was fair. Obviously, again, here we are.
I know this has been discussed before, the prorogation and why it was done. Well, he did it to.... When I say “he”, with the greatest respect, I mean the Prime Minister did it to avoid this. I know MP Simms said the timing or this or that..... Look, if any of us had the option of going back and tweaking something differently, redoing something differently or proposing something differently, sure, but it's all in hindsight. It's all looking back.
I think that the motion, the resistance and the prorogation was to avoid.... I would say that the Conservative Party, at times, has a short memory. Obviously, and it's been talked about, but I think it's relevant to compare what happened with the Harper government prorogation—I'm much better at saying prorogation now; I've worked on it—and how prorogation worked with Prime Minister Trudeau.
You've dealt with one of the worst crises in the country's history. The game changed. The floor changed beneath our feet. The rug was pulled out from under all of us. We needed to do a reboot, a reload, a refocus, a new throne speech, because we were dealt something no other government has had to deal with: a health crisis of worldwide proportion.
I laugh when I go back now and think about us. I made a statement once in the House about then prime minister Stephen Harper and the deficits he ran. I remember getting back, saying no, that doesn't count because we were in a crisis. I remember that's what I got back. We were in a major financial crisis. We had to invest and we had to do this and that, but yet now, what we're in is a thousand times more serious and worse and financially damaging than that. Now it's, “You shouldn't have prorogued. You didn't need to reset. You've invested too much in these programs. You need to cut programs back.” I say no.
We need to have respectful disagreements. I think we've shown as government that we will listen to the opposition. We will take suggestions and work with, whether it's the Conservative Party, the NDP, the Bloc or the Green Party, and we will come up with programs and policies that will support and be there for Canadians. Sure, we're going to make mistakes. Yes, we had to change course and pivot very quickly. But as I've said before, it's as if we're trying to put gas in the airplane while it's taking off. We don't have a playbook to go by here. We are doing whatever it takes to protect Canadians and to make sure we get through this.
Did we need to prorogue? Yes. We needed a new throne speech. We needed to reset and reboot, no question. The fact that the committee wants to study and analyze the reasons for prorogation, I get it. I understand. I know MP Simms tackled the same thing. I get it. I understand that. But then it's like this, as I've said before, and then the amendment. Let's move forward. Let's call some witnesses. Let's get it out there.
MP Blaikie certainly said there are questions he wants to ask the Prime Minister. Okay. This may be wrong to say, but there's the House of Commons. There's question period. There are all kinds of ways publicly to ask questions of the Prime Minister.
Again, it just takes me back to wondering what this is really about. What really is the end game here for this?
I wouldn't even be talking with as much passion as I can muster if not for the amendment. I would have been the first to say to my own party that we need to not just say no, that we need to offer something that is good, has credible people invited, is fair and will make us go forward.
Hopefully, I'm not talking too loud. Chair, is it fair to check with the interpreters? Is my voice coming through okay? Am I talking too loud?
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
The mike is not popping. I would think louder would probably be beneficial, but I can check with the clerk if everything is okay.
