Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The principles of basic honesty and integrity and of keeping one's word were drilled into me pretty early in life by my father. I recall vividly a pretty good paddling I received from my dad when I was probably no more than six or seven years old. What had happened was that I had broken my word; I had given my word to my brother with respect to who was going to go home after school and feed the dogs, take care of the pets, and things like that.
We had a bit of a system, as most households did. Both my parents were working at that time, and somebody had to be home at appointed hours to take care of basic household chores like feeding the pets and so on. We had a schedule established that we had all agreed to as a family. On one particular day it was my brother's turn to be home, but he couldn't because he had music practice. My brother is now a professional musician, by the way, so his early training actually paid off.
He approached me to see if I could take his place, and I agreed. My father was aware of this agreement. The appointed day came; I was supposed to go home, but there was a pickup football game after school, which I felt was far more important than keeping my word, and so I didn't go home on time and I paid the price. That was the first time I learned there would be consequences, perhaps sometimes painful, if one didn't honour one's word.
Of course, there's much more to it than just that. My dad, bless his heart, has been gone for a number of years, but after I had got over my petulance and my hurt that I was actually being punished for doing this, he took the time to explain to me. He took the time to explain to me why it meant something, why it would be important for every man--and woman, for that matter, but he phrased things in more of a gender-specific tone to me in those times--to keep his word and be honest. It was a sign of character, it was a sign of integrity, and more than anything else it was a sign that one could be trusted.
I've tried to adhere to that standard that my father set all of my life, particularly when I came into this place. I felt it would be absolutely paramount to observe those basic principles because I had been given the responsibility from my constituents to represent them in an above board and honest manner and with integrity. In 2004, in the first campaign I ran in, I had given many commitments to my constituents that if elected I would follow a certain code of conduct, in addition to attempting to honour all the commitments I made during the campaign.
I think I've been absolutely consistent in that fashion. I do not believe there's any commitment I've given either to one of my constituents or to any one of my colleagues in this place, both on the same side of the House and the opposite side of the House, that has caused me to look back and think that I broke my word. I don't think I've ever done that.
I want to give a couple of specific examples, because it speaks to the heart of this issue. I remember the very first time I encountered this type of situation. It was probably within six months of being elected here in the 2004 election. I was sitting on the ethics committee at that time, interestingly enough. I received a phone call from a colleague from the NDP. It was from the member for Winnipeg Centre, Mr. Martin, who was also a member of that committee. It was a minor issue, but he explained to me that he had an issue that he wanted my support on in that committee.
It seemed reasonable at the time. It was a phone conversation. He explained himself well. It was a cogent argument, if you want to call it that, and I gave him my commitment that I would support him in this fashion.
I found out later that this was not the official position that our party was going to be taking, yet I supported Mr. Martin's motion when it came to the floor in any event, against the wishes of my party. Why? I had given my word. I had given my word and I felt it was far more important to honour it than to take the position of my party.
I paid a bit of a price for that internally. Luckily it wasn't a major issue, but it was still in opposition to the directive given to me by our party. I did it because of the mere fact that I had given my word to a colleague.
I think we've all been in that situation. I mentioned in the last meeting that we're always cutting deals in committees. We're always looking for support from other members. Whether it's a legislative committee or a standing committee, there are times, given the makeup of this committee, when either opposition members or government members need to gain support. I've always found it to be a sign of the integrity of the vast majority of members--in fact, I haven't found one member who has broken his or her word yet--that when I've made an approach or someone has made an approach to me for support on a motion, if the answer is yes or no, that's the way it's going to be.
I think it's absolutely critical, as Mr. Hill said, to the functioning of this House. So the issue to me is not so much whether the adoption of these provisional Standing Orders into permanency is the point to be discussed. It's far beyond that. It's the fact that we had an agreement at the House leaders' meeting, which I attended as well. It was substantiated, it was supported, and it was agreed to unanimously on the following day in the House.
Now we're finding that Ms. Redman has determined that we need to deal with this expeditiously. Staff members were assigned the task of getting together and determining which of these provisional orders could be agreed upon by all parties to become permanent and which of them needed more time and discussion. Because that meeting of staff members has not yet taken place, Ms. Redman--if I interpret her remarks correctly--is saying that time is of the essence here, that November 21 is approaching rapidly, so let's just get this thing done now; let's approve them as a blanket set of orders and not examine them one by one. Well, that wasn't the agreement.
If Ms. Redman had approached me or Mr. Hill, or if, before introducing the motion, she had brought it forward at committee, giving the reasons for introducing the motion and asking for some discussion and support, it would have been a different story. All we heard, out of the blue at a meeting on October 5, was a motion that contravened an agreement we had in place with no consultation beforehand. It was literally laid upon our table without any discussion beforehand. That's just not the way we do business around here; at least, it's not the way I thought we did business around here.
There are always unanimous consent motions being delivered in the House. We know that. They could be on minor issues or on fairly major issues, but consistently those motions are dealt with by being walked around. We get agreement ahead of time, and then comes the standard “Mr. Speaker, I think you'll find there's unanimous consent for the following motion.” Then we introduce the motion. We do not do that unless we have discussions beforehand and an agreement beforehand.
In fact, today there was an example. Mr. Hill tried to rectify a situation that occurred in last night's vote by standing up and asking for unanimous consent in the House to recognize the fact that the NDP wished to have their vote recorded as being in support of a Liberal amendment to Bill C-24. Mr. Guimond, when asked for unanimous consent, declined. The rationale is that he was not consulted beforehand. Whether I agree or disagree with Mr. Guimond, that's the way we've always done business here. You consult with the opposition parties beforehand; if there is an agreement, you get unanimous consent and the agreement is honoured.
There was no pre-consultation on Ms. Redman's motion. I believe the only way members of this committee view this, and certainly the way I view it, is that they're going back on their word. That's very serious business to me.
I can assure Ms. Redman and all members opposite that there have been times when I have received, as we tend to from time to time, confidential notes or private notes from across the floor on issues. Sometimes they're just personal notes, sometimes they're notes asking for our support on something, or whatever. If I were to say yes, even though I could publicly go forward and change my opinion—and no one would know, because the note was in confidence—I would refuse to do that. I would absolutely refuse to do that.
There is a standard of conduct in this place that we need to observe and need to adhere to. Quite frankly, I would argue that the standard of conduct that we have amongst ourselves should be a lot higher than perhaps any among members of the general public.
Without trying to be overly dramatic, I find it absolutely distressing and troubling that this took place. It is not about whether all the provisional Standing Orders should be made permanent. In my view, that is not the issue here, Mr. Chair. The issue is that we had an agreement, and that agreement has been broken.
I again stress that had Ms. Redman, any member of this committee, or any member of the opposition come to me privately ahead of time and said they were going to introduce a motion asking for the permanent adoption of the Standing Orders because of these reasons, at least at that point in time I could have said that I agree or I disagree. I would at least have had the benefit of being consulted ahead of time. But to receive notice of this in the fashion we did is untenable to me. It just is not the way we should be operating in this place.
And I'm not trying to make this personal. I'm trying to keep this above that. But frankly, I feel in my heart that there are some motivating reasons for Ms. Redman to do this. I believe they emanate from the fact that we invoked Standing Order 56.1 a few weeks ago, when there was a debate on the softwood lumber bill, Bill C-24.
It appeared to us that the NDP at the time, within their procedural rights, started to introduce a number of amendments and subamendments, and kept putting on speakers to, in our opinion, at least, Mr. Chair, delay the debate. This was an important piece of legislation that we wanted to get through, yet it seemed they were using procedural tactics—again fully within their rights—to prolong the debate. So we introduced a procedural tactic of our own, which was within our rights. Because there were not 25 members in the House to stand up to oppose the motion that we had, the debate was effectively cut off within a number of hours and we got to vote on the bill.
Mr. Chair, I believe that was the genesis for the motion Ms. Redman brought forward; that in fact probably the opposition House leader, who also had some issues with some other events in this place, felt it was time for payback and this was a way to do it. I believe it was a little bit of payback. I don't believe it was done for the reason—and I'm being quite honest here—that Ms. Redman has identified, which is that she feels it would be necessary, in their opinion, to pass these provisional Standing Orders as a package and to do so now, rather than waiting for the staff to get together, discuss them individually, and deal with them on or before November 21. I believe there is another agenda at work here.
But that doesn't change the fact, Mr. Chair, that we had an agreement. An agreement, without consultation, is about to be broken if Ms. Redman has her way. In my view, Mr. Chair, that cannot and should not be tolerated by any member of this place.
By the very nature of politics, we are obviously in an adversarial situation every day that we come to work. That's to be expected. That's the way democracy works. That's the way this place works. That's the way politics works. But that doesn't change some very basic fundamentals of how we should conduct ourselves in this place.
I firmly believe, Mr. Chair, that we have to conduct ourselves at a standard far higher than we would expect perhaps of members who are not elected officials.
Mr. Chair, I think the original intent of the motion that was passed—to allow our staff members to consult and come back with a report so that we could deal with this issue before November 21—was taking shape. I know for a fact that our senior staff had received phone calls from NDP senior staff to make arrangements to try to get together and start the examination of the standing provisional orders. This was going to happen. It is not something we were trying to slow-walk. In fact, Ms. Redman is quite correct. When we were in opposition, we raised these provisional Standing Orders because we felt this was something we might want to live with. But an agreement is an agreement and it was moving forward.
This is inconceivable to me. And quite frankly, Mr. Chair, I still haven't gotten a good enough explanation from Ms. Redman of why they felt they needed to approach this issue in the fashion in which they have: by bringing a motion forward that basically contradicts an agreement we had, without prior consultation. That is the issue, in my view. Why was this done? She has still not answered that question. She's trying to justify exactly the adoption of the permanency “because, because, because”, but that doesn't answer the basic question. Why weren't we consulted ahead of time?
Why do you plan on breaking an agreement without at least trying to discuss the issue with members of the opposition? It is not the way we do business in this place.
For that very fundamental reason, Chair, I cannot support the motion Ms. Redman brought forward. But that is not to say it is a motion that I could not support under the circumstances.
Quite frankly, Mr. Chair, I think there was a reasonable expectation that after staff members got together to go over the provisional Standing Orders individually, there would be a reasonable chance that the staff members would go back to their respective House leaders and whips and report that they had come to an agreement, that no one had a problem with any of the orders, and that they should be adopted and made permanent. Perhaps that would have happened, but because of Ms. Redman's motion, we don't have an opportunity to function as we agreed to.
This very well could be, Mr. Chair, the start of a very slippery slope. It's not to say that things always go smoothly in this place. There will be times when we will disagree vehemently with one another. It usually happens daily, but once we get into a habit of breaking deals, breaking one's word, I don't think this place can function.
I see Ms. Redman shaking her head, but, quite frankly, there's no dispute in this. We had an agreement, and Ms. Redman is now bringing forward a motion that would effectively break the all-party agreement we had. That's just not the way to work here.
Obviously, beyond any reasonable expectations here, I was hoping that today Ms. Redman would come and say that perhaps she had acted a little prematurely and that she would withdraw the motion until such a time when she had a chance to consult with her colleagues to see if we might come to some agreement, and then she could re-enter the motion at a future time if there was agreement. But, no, she just said she wants to repeat her motion, which effectively is breaking her word and the word of her party, and that's something I absolutely can't accept.
Mr. Chair, if members of the opposition are getting some sense that I'm going to speak this out so that we don't deal with this motion today, they're right. I'm not the biggest believer in filibusters, but I feel very strongly about this and I will refuse to cede my time until this meeting runs out. I'll give you that right up front, and I will keep my word on that because it is just too important an issue for me.
If you guys want to sit back, cross your legs, and prepare to sit for the next hour and a half, that's fine.
Thank you very much. I know Monsieur Guimond enjoys listening to me anyway, so this will be fine.