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?