Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 13th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Mr. Blaikie.

It was nice to see your little one there for a little bit, making a special guest appearance. I think it always lightens everyone's day and mood to see the little ones.

Next we have Mr. Long.

Maybe we can come back to Mr. Long afterwards if he's not there. Is there a technical issue?

Okay, it is more of a technical issue.

We can hear you, Mr. Long, but we can't see you.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

There we go. It's all good.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's great to be back. I apologize for the technical glitch. I'm not quite sure what happened there. Maybe somebody was telling me that they didn't really want to hear what I was going to say, but it's great to be back to talk to all of you, my colleagues, my friends.

It's great to see Randeep, here.

It was a great speech, MP Sarai.

Will gave another great speech.

Obviously, Mr. Blaikie, when you came on, I had my fingers crossed that you were going to give us something that was new and something that we could actually ponder, but it wasn't to be.

I have lots to say, again, but I just want to ask MP Vecchio straight up, not to put her on the spot at all, are you moving off calling the Prime Minister to this committee at all?

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

Thank you very much for asking that, Mr. Long.

As we have heard from all of the opposition parties, including Mr. Blaikie just moments ago, I think the one person we are looking for is the Prime Minister.

To me, the biggest sticking point we have is that we're hearing from the government that the Prime Minister will not come because he already testified at committee last summer. That was before prorogation. We're asking why he prorogued on August 18. He never answered any questions about prorogation because he went to committee prior to prorogation. That's one of the things.

I've heard Mr. Blaikie speak about this many times. The Prime Minister is who everybody is looking for on the opposition side. I'm sorry, I don't mean to speak for the Bloc or anyone else, but I think that is the holding point. Until they can come to something—everybody on the government is saying that the Prime Minister will not come because he has done this before; that is incorrect—we're just going to continue to filibuster.

Obviously, I don't know what the final solution is. I just know that the majority of the committee would like to hear from the Prime Minister. The reason this continues is that if we go to a vote, the majority of this committee would vote to have the Prime Minister here. I know that is the bottom line.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

I just want it to be crystal clear because we're all here, we're all friends and we're all trying to find a way forward. I just thought that maybe you'll move off, or maybe.... I just wanted to see where you were and where everybody was.

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

Perhaps there's some protocol. Maybe, Mr. Long, you can explain to me why the Prime Minister.... Everybody is talking about this. If we're saying no to the Prime Minister, why are you guys fighting so hard and saying he's been here before? He hasn't been here before.

I'm just asking. He hasn't talked about prorogation to any committees. That is what we're fighting for.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

I respect that. I obviously don't agree with it.

I think the issue for me on this, MP Vecchio.... I think we've all talked about this and compared then prime minister Harper to this prorogation. MP Simms certainly talked about the prorogation in different Parliaments around the world if you will. We can certainly [Technical difficulty—Editor] for former prime minister Harper proroguing to avoid an election and defeat of his government and so on and so forth.

We can cite all of those examples. We would say that the Prime Minister—and I'm certainly going to get into that when I start my actual speech—prorogued for a completely different set of circumstances and reasons than previously. I know you would say that doesn't really matter because we are here and now.

I'm just trying to keep it real here before I start my speech. Is MP Blaikie on? I'm not sure he is. Do you really feel you're going to hear something different? I'm going to get into what he said here in a second in my speech, but we're all kind of in that Ottawa bubble. We all think we're going to get a different outcome. I'm just trying to find a way forward.

Obviously, Minister Freeland was, I believe, chair of the COVID committee and so on and so forth. Maybe this is the appropriate time to actually start my speech. That's what I wonder. I just wonder if you honestly, or if my Conservative colleagues would—

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

All opposition colleagues.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

All colleagues would think they're going to get a different outcome.

I'll start by reading what the Prime Minister said:

We are proroguing Parliament to bring it back on exactly the same week it was supposed to come back anyway and force a confidence vote. We are taking a moment to recognize that the throne speech we delivered eight months ago had no mention of COVID-19; had no conception of the reality we find ourselves in right now. We need to reset the approach of this government for a recovery to build back better. And those are big important decisions, and we need to present that to Parliament and gain the confidence of Parliament to move forward on this ambitious plan. The prorogation we are doing right now is about gaining or testing the confidence of the House....

I think all of us didn't expect, and how could any of us expect, what we have faced since March 2020. The curveball we were thrown as parliamentarians, as MPs, as a government, and as an opposition, was unprecedented, obviously. We talk about a generation, a once-in-a-hundred-years event that hit all of us. The fact that we felt, the Prime Minister felt, that we needed to step back, regroup, strategize, and come up with new plans and priorities....

I know we say we needed to do that, and obviously, we did need to do that. Canadians agreed that this is what was needed to be done. I respect very much that the other parties don't agree with that. They don't think that was needed to be done.

I will now come to the motion, and I won't read it. The motion wants to study the government's reasons for prorogation. I spent some time last night actually pulling that back out again. It's getting a little wrinkly, and I should make a new copy.

All Canadians, parliamentarians, government officials and departments were getting kicked in the gut and had our feet taken out from under us by this, hopefully, once-in-a-generation pandemic. No one knew what they were dealing with. The fact is we had to do what we did.

The motion wants to study the government's reasons for prorogation. The Prime Minister clearly gave his reasons. You may not agree with the reasons, and that's fair. The opposition has a role to play in our government. The government doesn't work without a great opposition. The motion was to study the government's reasons, and we went through paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) and (h).

I apologize for saying this again, but it wasn't just the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister who knew. It was Bill Morneau, Katie Telford, the Kielburgers, the Perelmuters, with memoranda, emails, text messages and documents.

You can take a few steps back and ask Canadians, in particular, why did we prorogue? I always talk about how I do a little survey just to gauge if I'm way off or if my line of thinking is right, because sometimes you get so close.... You know the old saying about how you get so close you can't see the forest for the trees. Prorogation—and I pulled this up—“in politics is the action of proroguing, or ending, an assembly, especially a parliament, or the discontinuance of meetings for a given period of time, without a dissolution of parliament.”

I asked people, first off, if they knew what prorogation was. It's taken me about a month and a half now to actually say “prorogation” correctly. I still kind of stumble a little bit. I asked people today, and last night, if they knew what prorogation was. I had two out of maybe 20 who even knew what it was, but then I explained to the other 18 what it was for. To be fair, this wasn't to avoid our government falling or anything like that. I asked if they felt it was necessary for us to reset, given the curveball that we were thrown with respect to COVID-19. It was certainly not an accurate poll, but basically 100% of them agreed that, yes, we did need to reset.

What troubles me with respect to the motion and then MP Turnbull's amendment—I want to make sure I stay on topic here with respect to the amendment—is I felt that.... I know that when you make motions you will make sure you cast as wide a net as possible. I wasn't there, but we would have done that, too, when we were in opposition. I get that, but there was a lot in there. I think that maybe at some point there may be a “Yeah, okay, we did throw everything but the kitchen sink in there. We wanted to make sure we had all that covered, everything” as I read from (a) to (h), but then MP Turnbull's amendment to the motion was what I deemed a compromise.

Yes, straight up, the Prime Minister is not on it, but I'm still having a really hard time understanding what anybody on this committee won't get from Minister Freeland, who chaired the committee. I fail to understand what you're not going to get from Minister Freeland that you would get from the Prime Minister. I don't understand that. You may say, “Well, we will probably get the same thing, but it's not the Prime Minister; it's Minister Freeland. We want that time with the Prime Minister sitting before this committee instead of Minister Freeland.”

I have been accused of sometimes not being as buttoned down as a lot of other MPs with respect to procedures, policies, motions and things like that. That's not my strength. My strength is just a passion for representing my riding and for connecting with people here.

I always use the words, “I want to keep it real.” I want all of us on this committee, as I've said before, to prorogue themselves for a bit and step back and say that we want the clip or the photo of the Prime Minister testifying before this committee, knowing.... Of course, I respect everybody on the committee very much, but we all know—all of us—that we won't get anything different from the Prime Minister than what he has already said. We all know that—every one of us. As I look around at some of these boxes, every one of us knows that.

We may have the ability to say, after it happens, “Oh look. He didn't give us what we wanted, and the Prime Minister said exactly what he said prior.” Well, yes, that's fair, because he has already said it. He is not going to say—and I'm probably stepping over my speech here a bit, but I am obviously not speaking for the Prime Minister—anything that is different from what he has already said, because those are the reasons why he prorogued.

To me, I feel it's important for the committee to re-evaluate what's important here. MP Blaikie has every right, of course, to call the Prime Minister. I know that MP Blaikie is an honourable man and extremely intelligent, and he knows the ways of these committees. I have a lot of respect for MP Blaikie. I sat on a committee with him and I was wowed by his knowledge, insight, thoughtful comments and questions. I know that MP Blaikie also knows—I know he knows—there's not going to be anything different with the Prime Minister being called before this committee—no way. Come on. He knows that. I know he does.

We're trying to find a way forward. To be perfectly frank, I haven't really started my real speech. This is kind of a preamble, if you will. I don't have a book. What do they call that? A prologue.... I don't really read books. I have trouble reading books, to be honest, unless there are pictures in them. It's my ADHD. I can actually read a chapter of a book and be done with the chapter of the book and say, “What did I just read?” I learn visually and through talking things out and watching things. I have a lot of trouble reading.

Look, I believe there is a way forward here. I believe that MP Turnbull's amendment.... As a lot of you know, I love to talk, but it's hard to talk about the same things. I certainly don't want to tell MP Turnbull what a great MP he is, because I already told him that at the last meeting or the prior meeting, but he is a great MP. I know that he is extremely passionate about what he does and what he brings. I know that this amendment.... I apologize for the scribbles. You can see at every meeting I do a few extra doodles, except when MP Turnbull speaks, because I listen to every word he says. It's so thought provoking.

I believe his amendment is something that, for the Conservative Party, the NDP and the Bloc with MP Normandin, is a fair compromise. MP Turnbull's amendment moves us forward. Maybe when we move on to the next study or what have you, my days at PROC will quickly come to an end, but I want to see PROC be what PROC should be and doing great work.

As I said to you before, I've subbed in many committees. Obviously, I've spent a ton of time in HUMA. When we're first elected, we get our little checklist of what committees we'd like to be on. I remember looking at the list and asking what all those things stood for? What does HUMA stand for and what does PROC stand for? Of course, everything has a shortened name. I checked off HUMA and I was on ethics. Actually, MP Calkins is there somewhere.

Blaine, I don't know what you're holding. Is that an Arctic char? What's in that picture? Maybe he's not there, but anyway, his picture is there.

MP Calkins chaired ethics. I was on the ethics committee. I think back, and there was me, Nate Erskine-Smith and Joël Lightbound. Maybe sitting beside Nate rubbed off on me a bit.

What I'm getting to with respect to ethics is that we got a lot of great work done. We did. We did a lot of great work. Our chair, MP Calkins, did a great job as chair. We collaborated, we compromised and we got some good stuff done.

Certainly my committee in HUMA, chaired by Brian May, who I got to know very well, got some good stuff done. He was a great chair. Now in HUMA, chaired by Sean Casey, again there's lots of collaboration, lots of working together, and we got some good stuff done.

If you want the pecking order of senior committees and committees that people are on, PROC is right up at the top. The work that PROC does is fundamental to the workings of Parliament, but not right now, no. We're stuck. We're in a stalemate. We're not moving, not moving forward.

Canadians aren't engaged with this. They're not concerned about this. It's not that they don't care. Look, it's not that they don't care about the workings of Parliament and committees and all that stuff, but they're not seized with this at all.

We all reference at times “for those Canadians who are watching,” and “those Canadians who are tuned in to this right now”. I always wonder how many people are actually tuned in to this and this is a big part of their daily lives.

It hearkens me back to a previous life. It was always an enigma to me. I was involved with a major junior hockey team—I think you all know that—and we had radio broadcasts. Anyway, it was a negotiation. The broadcaster was putting the price up to carry the games. We dug in. We really dug in to how many people were listening to our games on the road and at home, and to how much it would cost for an ad, and all those things. We dug in, and we were actually shocked as to how few people listened to us on the radio. I won't give you the number, but we were like, that's it?

Where I'm going with that, Madam Chair—and thanks for giving me a little latitude on that—is here we are in PROC. I know we are addressing Canadians and we're talking to Canadians, but how many people do we really think are tuned in to this and listening with bated breath to every word that Wayne Long is going to say, or MP Duncan, MP Turnbull, MP Normandin, MP Kent, MP Calkins and MP Amos, what have you? Do you think they're all tuned in with their little notepads, taking notes and saying, “Look at these guys go. Look at them go on this. Look at them going back and forth. They're filibustering, and they're doing this and that”? No, they're not. I can tell you straight up that they're not. That's a cold reality for everybody. They are not. They're not seized with this. Let me say it again, Canadians aren't seized with this.

Sure, as MP Blaikie has said, we have a right to study. In terms of MP Vecchio's motion, of course, we have a right to study—how is it actually worded again— “the government's reasons for the prorogation of Parliament in August 2020”. Okay, that's fair. We have a right to study it. So let's dig in and study why they prorogued, when the Prime Minister has already said why he has prorogued. Government House leader Pablo Rodriguez, I believe—I'm not even looking at my notes—has testified and given reasons for prorogation. Officials have said why.

What Canadians are seized with is the uncertainty that this pandemic has brought into their daily lives. I had no idea when I signed up to be a member of Parliament in 2015...and then, obviously, I was lucky enough and fortunate enough to serve for four great years, where we did wonderful things as a government and as a Parliament. I was fortunate enough to run again in 2019 and win my seat, the only red dot in the southern part of New Brunswick. I wear that as a sense of pride. We have some work to do, obviously, but when you draw that line across the province, it's all blue, except for little old me down here in this little red dot. Again, I wear that with a sense of pride.

What I'm getting at is that none of us knew that we all would be faced with something that was to change our lives forever. It's not to say that we're all never going to be good again, or we're not going to heal, and we're not going to move forward and recover, but we will never be the same. I don't say that like it's devastatingly bad—I don't mean it like that—but we have all changed in a certain way our thoughts, our outlook on things and our outlook on the future.

Look, I love going to school classes to talk to students—love it, can't get enough of it—from, honestly, kindergarten right up to grade 12. I used to go in before this pandemic, and we would talk about Parliament, governments, world order and so on and so forth. I always used to say—and always still say—to the students, “Look, one bit of advice is, don't ever think that history is done changing.” Yes, from the Second World War until now, we've had flare-ups, but relatively stable world order. Don't think that just because from the late 1940s until now that it is always going to be the same and that things will never change.

Change will happen. Change will come when we least expect it. Boy oh boy, when we ran in 2019, all of us with our beliefs and our passions and our ideologies, what have you, none of us were prepared for what came at us in 2020, none of us. Give or take when we saw cases of COVID-19, the coronavirus, start in—I apologize, I'm going to be off here—probably November or December, and then we came back, and we were back up in Ottawa at the end of January, fresh off our elections, and we didn't know what was hitting us. We didn't know what was coming. Then some cases came to North America and Canada. Then it got closer and closer to home. Then we got more and more concerned. I can remember talking to my wife, Denise. Denise was here in Saint John and I was in Ottawa, and she asked what was happening, and more importantly, what was going to happen.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Chair, I enjoy listening to my colleague.

It's worth reminding ourselves from time to time where the crisis began, but we didn't talk about that much today. Beyond the background to the crisis and the fact that history is happening before our eyes, the sticking point in the discussion really seems to be the Prime Minister's presence here to explain the reasons for the prorogation. There is also Mr. Turnbull's amendment, which is currently under discussion.

Could my colleague Mr. Long stick to one thing or the other, but ideally to the presence of the Prime Minister? In view of the discussion, that would appear to be the heart of the matter.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Madam Normandin is raising a point of relevance, so this is just a reminder to the member.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Yes, Madam Chair, I'll get back to MP Turnbull's amendment.

The point I'm making, and I'll just close this up on this point, is that what was said to me moved me: “What's happening? What's going to happen? When are you coming home?” Obviously that Friday night I came home and the rest is history with respect to what happened after we got home, and the numbers and so on and so forth.

My point is that with MP Vecchio's motion to study the reasons for prorogation, how can you reasonably wonder why we prorogued, when we literally had to, using an old football analogy with the Buffalo Bills, “circle the wagons”, as they used to say, and regroup, and make sure that we came out with a new throne speech with the proper policies and plans to support Canadians.

Again, I go back to MP Turnbull's amendment to MP Vecchio's motion. I read it, and I had a few other people read this too. Look, if you're really not vested as a Liberal or Conservative or Bloc or NDP or Green or an independent, and you read the motion, anybody objectively reading this motion would say, “Oh boy, there's something going on here. There's some smoke here, and where there's smoke, there's fire. We've got something here, and we're going to get to the bottom of why they prorogued...production of records, communications with WE and memoranda and emails.” I believe that people who are objective, in not doing it for partisan political reasons....

Again, let me jump in quickly here. I know this happens on both sides of that fence. I don't know; I should take that back.

When we were in opposition, Her Majesty's loyal opposition was there to keep the government's feet to the fire, to challenge and to make sure.... We all know why we prorogued. Canadians, to put it bluntly, I don't want to say they don't really care, but they're not concerned about prorogation. They're not. We prorogued because we needed to reset. It's not like we were trying to run away from it and sweep it under the rug per se.

MP Turnbull has come back with an amendment saying that, okay, these are fair points, and you want this and this. Okay. So we're going to propose this. I respect very much that we, obviously, have taken out the Prime Minister, but we still have in that amendment the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Diversity, Inclusion and Youth. We're still saying, look, these are senior people. These are senior people in our government who chaired the COVID committee. I don't think anybody here, or really anybody in Canada, would argue that Minister Freeland is a prominent and involved minister in our government. Again, I don't want to be too far over my skis here, but I would have a hard time thinking that she wouldn't have the answers to the questions that the opposition parties want to ask.

But then I will go back to this, and I believe this. At times it feels as though it's not just about getting answers. It's getting answers from the Prime Minister when he has already given the reasons that he, we, the government or what have you prorogued.

I think MP Turnbull's amendment to the motion is well thought out. I will be honest with you that when I first read it, I thought “What?”. I didn't actually call or message MP Turnbull. I thought, “Are you sure you meant to keep the Deputy Prime Minister in there? Are you sure?” But, yes, he did. Geez, look, I thought it was a mistake when I first saw it to be perfectly honest. I thought it was a mistake. I thought, “Oh, no, they don't mean to have Minister Freeland in there. Oh, yes. Yes, there she is.”

I know all of us know that there won't be a different answer. There won't be a different sentence than what has already been said.

Then we go back to, okay, why is inviting the Prime Minister such a stumbling block?

I go back to how it's because of the optics and the perception of calling the Prime Minister when he's already said the reasons why.... I know that Canadians are seized with getting through this pandemic. We have such great news with respect to vaccines and the number of vaccines that are coming into this country. I very happily got my AstraZeneca vaccine three weeks back. My wife Denise did too. I suffer from some very mild asthma and things like that, but I faithfully get my flu shot every year.

As for the euphoria, the excitement, the gratitude and the thankfulness I had at getting my AstraZeneca vaccine, I can't describe it. I'm not going to say that I was emotional to the point where I went outside and cried, but I will say that I was like, “You know, thank God the vaccine was available, thank God that science is winning over and we have the capability to produce something that can literally save millions of lives, and also thank God that we have a government.”

Look, of course I'm a Liberal member of Parliament, and I'm proud of my party, our policies and our leader and so on, but it made me thankful just for Canada and the fact that we have those systems in place and we have a government, a strong government that can look after us in times of crisis and need. We hadn't been through this. I'm very thankful. Obviously, all of us are politicians and in the political world, but my view of government, political people and politicians has changed. I have a newfound...and this may sound crazy....

We have MP Kent there with his binoculars. I don't know if there's a good view out there or what's going on.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

I'm looking for the end of the filibuster.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Hopefully those binoculars are strong and you can see for a long way, but all joking aside, this has given me a profound respect and thankfulness for our system, our politicians. Yes, there have been mistakes made. Yes, I know that if various politicians could do different things, they would, whether provincially or federally. Yes, there's been some partisanship, and there's been this and that. I get it all.

Do you know what, though? Everybody is trying, to the very best extent they can, to deal with an unprecedented once-in-a-generation pandemic. When there's a study proposed to study the reasons for prorogation, and the study is very detailed—my, oh my, the only thing missing is a couple of backbenchers like me testifying on this thing too; I mean, everybody was included in this thing.... I think MP Turnbull's amendment to the motion is a way out. I believe that. It's a way out.

I ask again, and people can jump in, is there anybody on that screen? As I said, sometimes, like Chewbacca, I show my age on this, but I think about The Brady Bunch, and the only thing missing is that I need Brenda to turn this way, and Karen to turn that way, and then you're looking at each other, and we need the music going, and I need..... What was the maid's name, again? Can anyone help me with that?

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

Alice.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Right. My, oh my, I never missed an episode of The Brady Bunch. MP Blaikie probably doesn't even know what The Brady Bunch is. There's the discrepancy in age, right there, between me and MP Blaikie. He probably doesn't even know what it is. He may get it on the old.... What's the channel? I mean the flashback channel, whatever it is. I think it actually was in colour, not black and white.

What I'm getting at is this. I believe that it's incumbent on every member of Parliament who is on this committee to step back, do their own proroguing for a couple of minutes, and say, MP Turnbull's motion is good enough to move us forward.

Perhaps MP Normandin may think that. She's pondering. She's not saying no. Maybe she is saying no. Darn.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Chair, on a point of order, perhaps this would be a good chance to see where everyone is on this, yes or no. I know Mr. Long is wondering where everyone stands, so perhaps we could do a roll call vote and see for sure where everyone stands on it and solve this once and for all.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Long, it's up to you.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

No. I appreciate very much MP Nater's intervention, and I apologize if you've been on screen the whole time. I didn't know you were there, with a black screen. I know some of your colleagues.... I was trying to talk to MP Calkins about what kind of fish he had in that picture, but I'm still not getting an answer. I think it's a char, to be honest, an Arctic char.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Relevance?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I think you're right on that one, Mr. Nater.

Mr. Long.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

With respect to MP Turnbull's amendment to the motion, MP Normandin or MP Blaikie, I would say that you should really consider this as a good way forward, that we can move forward, that we can do good things on PROC again. We—I shouldn't say “we” as I'm just making a guest appearance here—you can get back to doing things that Canadians care about.

I know each and every one of us wants to leave work at the end of the day.... I know we can't leave our work. I know that's not what we signed up for, of course, but I know I want to leave and say, “Look at the work we did. Look at the impact we had, and look at what we delivered for Canadians.”

I can't be more proud to talk about things that we as a government, or MPs, or our party have done for Canadians. A case in point, with respect to MP Turnbull's amendment to the motion, look at what was delivered in budget 2021. Look at the transformational stuff we delivered in budget 2021. Who would think?

I'm so privileged and honoured to be a member of Parliament, be part of a government that is moving forward to $10-a-day day care, that is investing in green infrastructure, that's replenishing trade corridor funding and funding for housing. There is not a MP on this screen who doesn't need affordable housing in their riding. We came forth with the rapid housing initiative, direct federal funding. All of us are always asked those questions: “Can you do this funding project? Can you do this housing project?” Sometimes we have to go back and say, “We really would like to, but the provinces control housing.”

With respect to MP Turnbull's amendment, what I'm getting at is this. The reason the amendment was proposed, obviously, was to find a way forward. Now, this is where I'm going to get myself in trouble with respect to procedure. Don't worry, everybody. I'll apologize in advance if I totally muff this and get this wrong.

He didn't have to propose the amendment. He could have just been talking about MP Vecchio's motion for ever and ever, and debating that and going back and forth, but no. It didn't happen. The Liberal MPs of PROC got together. I wasn't there because I'm not a permanent member, although I hope we will be invited to the next barbecue or Christmas party in the future. They got together and said, “Let's go back with something palatable, something reasonable.” They didn't have to.

To be perfectly honest, and I know I've talked about it before when I first read it, I was thinking he must have made a mistake; he has the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance in here, and the Minister of Diversity, Inclusion and Youth.

Think about this just for a second. Let's ponder this. That amendment could have come back and MP Turnbull could have proposed this without them in there. This could have been proposed, or tabled, or however it is, by MP Turnbull who could have come back to PROC and said that he would like to propose an amendment to MP Vecchio's motion. He could have taken out the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth.

He could have taken them right out and just proposed everything else. The opposition then—I'll be honest—would have had the ability, might have had the right, to say, “Hold on. Whoa. You took everything out. You whitewashed this. This is not fair, no, not at all.” The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth were included still, and that's where I took this as—not a third party observer obviously—someone not totally on the front line of the PROC committee, and looked at it and thought that's a very fair amendment to the motion. I would have called and talked to MP Turnbull who proposed this amendment. I would have said, “Ryan, come on. Come on. You're making an amendment to a motion. Come on. There's no meat in this. There's no meat on the bone. There are no teeth to this.” But there are teeth to this. There very much are teeth to this.

Madam Chair, would I be allowed to propose a five- or 10-minute break?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes, of course.

Does everyone need a bio break for 10 minutes?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

I would very much appreciate that.