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.
The Clerk
Yes.
I have a thumbs-up from the interpreters, Mr. Long, so your sound is fine. They can hear you fine.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
Obviously I'm in my constituency office, the 800 square feet that I have in Market Square. It's a beautiful little office, and I'll be honest with myself. My constituents aren't seized with this. If I gave the first 50 people who walked by my office in the mall a piece of paper and asked them to list for me the top 20 priorities or concerns they have, I can guarantee—well, maybe not guarantee, but with 99% assurance, I know that prorogation wouldn't be on the sheets. There's no way. Come on. I obviously respect members so much, but come on. This isn't what constituents are seized with. Again, if we're truly here to represent our constituents, why are we so seized with this if our constituents aren't?
Look, I can't speak for every riding across the country, obviously. I can't speak for everybody. Maybe there are some ridings where constituency offices are absolutely inundated with calls, emails and Facebook messages about PROC and about a study on prorogation. However, unless I'm missing something, I don't see it.
Before I really start to dig in here with this—and I guess I don't really want to call it my speech—I'll think out loud. Is there a better way? Is there a way we can move forward? It's not like we're trying to make this go away. We're not making it go away. It's right here. Let's study it. It's not like we're trying to sweep it underneath and just put it at the bottom of the pile. No.
Let's get going with MP Turnbull's amendment to the motion. Let's call on these people. The last time I checked, Minister Freeland was pretty popular and a pretty big name out there. However, we're stuck, and that's what frustrates me as an MP of five and a half years. I know that my constituents want me to be focused on other things.
As other speakers have said before me, I would take the criticism that we are trying to totally avoid this. However, the Prime Minister has testified and Minister Rodriguez has testified.
MP Turnbull's amendment to the motion basically calls for the study to move forward. It isn't hiding or burying anything. It's just coming up with a way for opposition members to have a say, which is, let me be clear, absolutely their right. It makes us better. Trust me. I'm not afraid at times to speak my mind too.
It makes us a better government when we can feel a little uncomfortable. We can be pushed and challenged. That's what good government is about. Mr. Turnbull's amendment to the motion is a path forward. I'm convinced of that, but obviously, many people on this committee aren't convinced of that.
I remember when former prime minister Harper prorogued Parliament in 2008. At that time, I was with the Sea Dogs. I really wasn't a political animal. I still don't really consider myself, to be perfectly blunt, a political animal. I remember doing a double take, and I remember Canadians being outraged.
I was travelling with the team. We were pretty good in 2008. We won the Memorial Cup in 2011, as you are all sick of hearing me say. We were the quickest team to ever win a Memorial Cup from an expansion. The Saint John Sea Dogs were a piece of paper in 2004, and then we won a Memorial Cup in 2011. That's pretty good stuff. We had the best back-to-back-to-back record in CHL history, next to the Windsor Spitfires.
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
On a point of order, Madam Chair, the member knows that I love watching hockey, and I love the OHL, because I'm from Ontario, but we're not in that committee on hockey today. We're in PROC.
If he could just pull it back to PROC, that would be great.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
I appreciate that, and I know Ms. Vecchio is a London Knights fan. The London Knights are a great organization. The Hunter brothers and their record of winning Memorial Cups and championships are second to none. The Windsor Spitfires had a great year and a great run. You know what? The Saint John Sea Dogs broke records. There was one year where our record was 77 and 11. Think about that.
We have players in the NHL. The reason I bring it up—
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
That's fair.
Very quickly, the reason I brought that up was that I was on the road with the Dogs— I'm going to climb back up now—when former prime minister Harper prorogued. I remember sitting down with some people in our organization wondering what this was. What's this prorogue thing? What does it mean? I didn't know what it meant. I'd been to Parliament Hill two times in my life and really don't remember. I was very young at that point.
Let's call a spade a spade. Prorogations are widely used. As the government already said when we reported it, prorogation was for the purpose of responding to the ongoing COVID pandemic. As a government, we needed to plan. We needed to focus and really get ready for what I would call the second wave. We didn't know what we were facing when we needed to prorogue. None of us did. Come on. None of us knew. Think back now a year and four months ago to January or February 2020. We didn't know what was going to hit us. We saw news reports about Wuhan and what was going on in China.
What we were faced with was unprecedented. When we were all sent home, we didn't know what we were going to have to face—the fears, the challenges, the deaths and the devastation. It wasn't just economic devastation. My lord, there was the personal devastation. We didn't know.
When we prorogued.... I think it's extremely important to point out the differences, because MP Vecchio's motion—and I'm not going to read it; I promise—is in respect to the committee's study of the government's reasons for proroguing. The motion is about studying the government's reasons for proroguing. That's what is says.
Let's all take a step back and think about that. We need to study the government's reasons for prorogation. What were the reasons for prorogation? We were facing the crisis of our lifetimes. We needed to prepare for the second wave— to plan and pivot.
It's not just to study the reasons for prorogation, but also (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) and (h). Let's invite the Kielburgers and the Perelmuters. Let's seize documents. Let's get this and let's call the Prime Minister.
Whether you agree or not, the reasons for prorogation were that we were faced with a crisis. I find it extremely interesting that, of course, the WE Charity makes its way in here. That's when even a guy like me.... I'm not, self-admittedly, the most partisan person in the world, but as soon as I read it...at that point, I really wasn't even involved with PROC. I was doing my thing on HUMA and life was good.
Then I read the motion, and come on. The first sentence refers to studying the reasons for prorogation, but then it's about this and that and WE. Then I said, “Well, hold on here. The Prime Minister has already testified, so why do you want him again?” We all know why. It's to get a clip or to get something in the news that night or try for a gotcha question.
The reasons we prorogued were that we needed to pivot, and pivot we have, and stand up for Canadians, and we have. The fact that we were asked in this motion to accept the study on the reasons for prorogation.... It is important to put into context how former prime minister Harper prorogued and the reasons versus what we did and how we prorogued.
For context, the people who are watching today will understand what we're debating, and obviously we're debating the amendment. I know people kind of get dug deep in this, but right now we are talking about MP Turnbull's amendment to MP Vecchio's motion.
Let's compare. I want to call that out. Let's compare that. We have prime minister Stephen Harper, who prorogued. There was an article. I'm not sure it's been quoted, but I know there was a New York Times article, and I won't read the whole article. I have them all here on my screen. I could read you enough articles, Madam Chair, on prorogation, the pros and cons and who did what and where that you wouldn't need a watch; you'd need a calendar to keep track of time for me. I have so much that I want to say about this and so many points I want to bring forward with respect to the motion and the amendment to the motion and so on and so forth.
Here's the article:
Canada’s parliamentary opposition reacted with outrage on Thursday after Prime Minister Stephen Harper shut down the legislature until Jan. 26, seeking to forestall a no-confidence vote that he was sure to lose and, possibly, provoking a constitutional crisis.
He was going to lose that. For context, this is a New York Times article:
The opposition fiercely criticized the decision to suspend Parliament, accusing Mr. Harper of undermining the nation’s democracy. “We have to say to Canadians, ‘Is this the kind of government you want?’ ” said Bob Rae, a member of the opposition Liberal Party. “Do we want a party in place that is so undemocratic that it will not meet...?”
That sentiment was echoed by constitutional scholars, who lamented that the governor general might have created a mechanism that future prime ministers could use to bypass the legislature....
I have another one from the CBC about Canadians outraged by Harper's use of prorogation:
Thousands of people attended rallies in towns and cities across Canada on Saturday to speak out against Prime Minister Stephen Harper's decision....
There were thousands of protestors, and so on and so forth.
Let's compare that to the articles on what happened with us when we prorogued. The Hill Times article has the headline “Trudeau government says prorogation bought time to ‘build a robust’ response to pandemic, in new report”. In it it says:
“We knew our plan would need to get us not just through the weeks and months ahead, but even further down the road,” the report said. “This gave us the time we needed to do exactly that: to build a robust, responsive, and comprehensive approach to the challenges....”
The prorogation that happened with us versus the prorogation that happened in the Harper era are like apples and oranges; they're not even the same thing. We were faced with the challenge of a lifetime. We needed to pause, to reflect, to rebuild, to reboot and to move forward in the name of all Canadians.
Again, I understand fully why the Conservative Party moved forward with the motion about prorogation. I get it. They want to study it. Study it? They wrote the textbook here in this motion. It's like, “Let's invite everybody and the kitchen sink to testify, and let's ramp this up and let's make it a big public affair.” I've been in the backrooms of strategy, whether it's hockey, the salmon business or what have you. I absolutely totally get it when you have the court of public opinion behind you. It's politics. I get it.
They're like this: “You know what? We've got momentum. We've got people. Our phones are ringing off the hook. Let's go. Let's get this going. It's going to be good for us.” Well, news flash—a Wayne Long news flash—nobody cares. They want us to work together. They want us to find a way forward. MP Turnbull's amendment to the motion takes us forward.
I did an AMA last night. I do these AMAs; they're called “ask me anythings”. I do them pretty much every two weeks. I get great views. I get anywhere from 4,000 to 6,000 people watching them and, give or take, 200 or 300 questions in an hour. It's crazy. I always throw it out there and say, “Hey, it's Wayne. What's up?” I do a little ramble about what's going on in the riding. I do them live. Ask me anything, AMA, and talk about what you want, your concerns, your....
Since I've been subbing in here, I've done, I don't know, two or three of them. In the easily 3,000 questions, I would say, do you know how many questions I've had on prorogation? Do you know how many comments I've had about prorogation and PROC and amendments and subamendments? Do you know how many I've had out of the thousands? It's less than one. Okay? It's less than one. That's why I absolutely know that the right thing for us to do is to find a way forward, and MP Turnbull's amendment to the motion—we've held it up too many times—is a way forward.
Madam Chair, do you mind if I just take a drink of water? Is that okay?
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
No. Go ahead.
I wanted to also ask if it was okay to suspend for 15 minutes for a quick health break.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
1:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
I call this meeting back to order.
We'll start from where we left off.
Mr. Long, you have the floor.
1:40 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
Thank you, Chair, and thank you for the 15-minute break. It was much appreciated.
I got reloaded here. I have a bowl of Bits and Bites and a fresh glass of water. I'm reloaded and refreshed.
I have a blizzard going on outside my window right now. There was a snowstorm here about 30 minutes ago—literally a blizzard. I don't know what's going on here.
I want to try to bring us back to where I was with respect to my thoughts.
Unlike MP Simms, who comes at it from the vantage point of having a more historic experience in Parliament, I'm coming at it with more of a recently elected background. It's the same frustration, but a little bit different at times.
With the massive experience that MP Scott Simms has, I couldn't carry his school books. He speaks with such candour and passion. He knows his stuff. That's why when he speaks—like I said earlier, there's a little ADHD flowing through my blood here—sometimes it's hard for me to pay attention. Anyway, Scott's speech was really, really good.
I'm trying to articulate a bit of a different vantage point with respect to MP Vecchio's motion and MP Turnbull's amendment to the motion, and trying to find a way forward here.
I've talked about comparing the different prorogations. Between former prime minister Harper and obviously what happened here with our government and Prime Minister Trudeau, they couldn't be more different. That's where I'm coming from.
I'm coming from two vantage points really. They're like night and day. It's like night and day what happened with former prime minister Harper and what we did, because we had to pivot. We were faced—we are faced—with one of the greatest health challenges of our time.
What we had to do was necessary. I know we talked about that, and I've talked about that, obviously for an hour and 30 minutes. I'm kind of done with the comparison of the two events. We all know that story.
We also all know, if we're being honest with ourselves, what priority this has with our constituents. As I said earlier, if I took a piece of paper outside and asked my constituents to list the top 30 or 50 things, prorogation and this study wouldn't make it. Canadians are seized with what's happening on a daily basis in their lives. We cannot turn on the television and not see another tragedy, another life that's been taken, another life that's been ruined. We see it every day, and it's not over.
We need to be vigilant. All of us in all parties need to stand together and do the right things for Canadians, because with variants now coming, we don't really know what the future holds. We need to be together.
That's why I think MP Turnbull's amendment to the motion is so critically important for us to consider. I would love to see a show of hands. We could vote on this now. Then we could move forward and do the business that Canadians want us to do.
1:40 p.m.
Conservative
1:40 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Yes, in response to Mr. Long's request, I'm ready to vote on this. Let's go ahead and vote. I appreciate the suggestion.
1:40 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
I'm not ready to vote yet. I have a few more thoughts about this that I want to share.
I think MP Nater would agree with me that his office isn't inundated with calls about this. His phone isn't ringing off the hook about this, not at all. We owe it to our constituents to move forward. We owe it to Canadians to come up with a way forward. I know that a lot of us, basically all of us, had other careers before this one—if you want to call this a career—except for MP Simms, who has been an MP for about 50 years now. He must have started as an MP when he was very young.
This is where somebody like me gets frustrated. I know that if this were the business world and we were around the boardroom table, we would have to make decisions and we would do what was best. As president of the Saint John Sea Dogs, I made decisions and implemented them based on what was best for our season ticket holders, the fans of the Sea Dogs, my community. One of the greatest things about sports—
1:40 p.m.
An hon. member
[Inaudible—Editor]