Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 6th, 2010

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

As am I. I'll have to carve this in my gravestone or something.

You made a really interesting point about political culture being at the nub of the problem here. I think you're right. I think we have a political culture that assumes majority governments; it's used to majority governments; it expects certain kinds of actions and defines decisive leadership on the basis of what a majority government would produce.

I have a couple of recent examples. I get letters every so often from constituents who say: “You guys have been the government now for several years. Why haven't you passed your legislation getting rid of the long-gun registry? You say you support that; I'm beginning to doubt your sincerity.” I have to write back and say, “I am supportive, and so is the government, but the majority of Parliament isn't, and that's the way the system works.”

I had something similar occur recently, when someone who was quite conversant in the political system wrote to me and said: “What's up? Why did you let that piece of legislation go through the House of Commons about making Supreme Court justices bilingual?” I had to point out that the majority in the present House of Commons wanted it and that all the Conservatives there voted against it; that it's not actually something we're supporting, but that this is what happens when you have a minority government.

This is not really something that we as politicians can make happen. It's a broader question.

What would lead us around, or is there anything that will lead us around, to having a change in our political culture and in the expectations we have of our politicians, be they opposition or government MPs?

[Daniel Weinstock]

I think that one of the answers is probably time. I think you're perfectly right. We've had minority governments in this country now for a period of six years, which is a blip, the blink of an eye, and I think it's perfectly natural for people who have been literally raised politically in a culture of majority governments to ask, when they achieve power: “What is there at my disposal here that can permit me to act as if I had a majority?” The power to prorogue is among the various things that you can....

But I think the genius of the Canadian people, if you'll allow that expression, is such that what they seem to want in this period in our political history, and we may come out of it, is more consensual government; government that makes comprises, a government that is forced, as it were, to listen to the other side.

I was attending a lecture back at my university. Probably everybody here will be unhappy to hear this. A number cruncher from the political science department was trying to evaluate the probability of either the Liberals or the Conservatives achieving majority status, given a certain number of assumptions, which are pretty robust, about that. It's a very low probability.

People who were elected for the first time three or four years ago are a new generation of politicians; it's not as if we have to wait 30 years. There's a generation of politicians coming up that I think is going to be coming with a different set of assumptions from the ones the actors who are presently at the top of the game have been coming in with. To a certain degree, this sort of thing—just a change in the circumstances in which people work and the fact that they won't be reaching back for the assumptions that were perfectly reasonable to hold through to the beginning of this millennium—will probably have more of an impact than any set of rules that we are able to come up with. Again, any set of rules can be gamed, no matter how cleverly they are designed, if people have as their primary intention to use them to their partisan benefit and turn a minority into a majority-like situation.

In answer to your question—and I know it's not probably satisfactory for a committee like this, which likely does want to come up with a sort of silver bullet answer to the question—I think time is probably something that will work in our favour in this respect, if indeed we are at the beginning of a medium- to long-term period in which minority government will be the norm rather than the exception. But I don't think this is a bad thing, because the changes that accrue over time because of changes in circumstances and changes in the culture of this House will probably be more robust. They will probably be bred in the bone deeper than if we try to do it through rules.

My students know that I rarely give a talk without making a hockey analogy. May I?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Please do.

[Daniel Weinstock]

I have a ten-year-old son who plays hockey. He was raised in the post-lockout era of rule changes. When he sees a mild hook, of the kind that would have passed under the radar ten years ago, and a penalty isn't called, he is outraged to the point of turning blue in the face. When he gets out on the ice, the idea that he can use the stick as a way of stopping another player is something that doesn't even occur to him.

I hope the analogy is clear.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I like it.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

For now.

[Daniel Weinstock]

For now, but that's generational. It is being raised in a new set of circumstances, which makes the previously unimaginable imaginable, and conversely.

I think time works fast in this respect. Some politicians have been around this House for decades, and others change more quickly. As people come in who have been raised with a set of assumptions that have to do with minority government--the need to form coalitions, the need to reach across the aisle, the need to realize, as you said, that one's agenda is just one's agenda and in a minority situation you may have to compromise on a lot of things--I think that will have more of an impact than any set of rules we can come up with.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you very much.

Madame Gagnon.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Good afternoon, Mr. Weinstock. Your insight is very interesting, and I would like to understand what you did with your peers. So you wrote a letter to 300 people, that is what you said, is it not?

[Daniel Weinstock]

It did not happen exactly like that, but I did write a letter...

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Could you tell me what your colleagues' feedback was; did you have an exchange or something? It is interesting for us since the more people address the issue we are debating, the better our decision-making process will be.

[Daniel Weinstock]

The reaction I got was amazing on every level. At first, writing that letter was really an exercise to clarify my own thoughts. I must admit, I was shocked and outraged when a second prorogation was announced in the space of one year. I wanted to explain my reaction to myself—I am a philosopher, after all—to find out whether it was just an unjustified outburst or, on the contrary, whether there was something I could put into words, which would justify why I felt that something fundamental and not just transient had happened. I sent the letter to two or three people. It was during the holidays, a time when people do not necessarily read their e-mails right away, but there was a snowball effect that really took me by surprise. Without wanting to organize any sort of campaign myself, I gathered almost 300 signatures from professors. But beyond that, when the letter was published, I was really pleasantly surprised by the e-mail responses and the invitations I received to speak publicly not only in university settings but also in community settings.

It is certain that we did not expect the topic of prorogation to trump reasonable accommodation or more sexier topics and to mobilize the people. To my surprise, there was a real interest, a real willingness to understand the rules—that should please our chair, here. I heard people asking me repeatedly, for example, why those things were not taught in school and how could kids get out of school without understanding the basics of how our parliamentary institutions work. We should teach that to our children so that they will be more vigilant than we were.

So, up to five months after the publication of the letter, and especially in January and February, the reaction was very strong, both from the media and the so-called chattering classes, but also from the general public. I was very encouraged to see that the people were listening and they were ready to tackle really technical questions. I think they perceived danger. Sometimes, we can disagree with one government or another on policies it might bring forward, but we will not put up a fight because of that. In this case, we perceived, perhaps initially not very well expressed, that this went beyond a disagreement on policies. It was something that had to do with the fundamental way in which our institutions operate, and the reaction was very encouraging.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

What you are saying is interesting. When prorogation was announced, the people in my riding said we were going to be on holidays and at the end of the day, politicians do not do any work. There is a very negative perception of the role of politicians, especially those in the opposition. The government often tells us that, in any case, we are there to get our pay and twiddle our thumbs.

There really is another perspective on the consequences of this prorogation now. I feel we have understood what was at stake. You are saying that we should perhaps think of a new system of ethics for minority governments. Personally, I have been here for 17 years and I can tell you that, since this government came to power, the perception of the parliamentary system and parliamentarians has changed. I earn my salary just like any member of the party in power, the NDP or the Liberal Party. I feel the role of parliamentarians is important, regardless of their party, because it is a voice that would not be heard otherwise. I appreciate all initiatives, whether Mr White's or yours.

[Daniel Weinstock]

They say that every crisis is an opportunity. That is a truism, a cliché, but there is some truth in it. The public has a negative perception of politicians. Personally, I have always tried to fight against it, especially since profs are not far behind. It is often said they take four months of vacation, meaning they stop teaching at the end of April and start again in September...

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Do you teach at CEGEP?

[Daniel Weinstock]

No, at university.

The fact that we do a host of other things when we are not in class does not necessarily show up on people's radars. We do administrative work and we make sure we follow up with students. It is the same with parliamentarians and their work. I think we need a public relations exercise for that.

I lived in England for four years when I was a student. So I have personal reasons for following the British elections, other than the fact that I am a political junkie. The current election is 100 times more interesting than those I saw when I was there. A majority government is essentially a government that comes to power and runs the country for four years. Conversely, a minority government allows the people to get more involved on human, strategic and political levels.

In England, right from the beginning of the campaign, news ratings have been phenomenal. People are fascinated. There is talk of 75 constituencies in completely out-of-the-way places in England on which the whole thing could turn. Everyone is an expert. Taxi drivers are wondering what is going to happen in such and such a riding.

The situation we are currently experiencing can be perceived as problematic—perhaps not by the Bloc Québécois—because the traditional parties want to be in power as a majority, I would imagine. I think we should exploit this opportunity to allow Parliament and Canadians to reconnect. That leaves more room for coalition and agreement between the parties. We saw it last year when there was an attempt at a coalition. In addition, that sparks a new interest in the public, simply because the whole situation is more fluid.

In my opinion, we should not let this opportunity slip away.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

What should we change in the political culture?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Excuse me, but I think you're past your time by almost a minute.

I'll just take it out of Mr. Christopherson's time.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes, pick on the NDP again.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Christopherson, you're up.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Professor, for your interesting presentation.

I have a similar question that I asked Mr. White before you.

Short of a constitutional amendment, it looks as if we're not going to be able to put a firm blockage in in terms of thou shalt and thou shalt not. However, we have options around Standing Orders and around potential legislation. But at the end of the day, what's really going to work will be a sense among the Canadian people about what they believe is acceptable and unacceptable.

I take your point about the lack of civics lessons on the part of people coming out of our schools. Never mind prorogation, they don't even know the difference between minority and majority, and they want to talk about our president and everything else. It's incredibly frustrating. But given all that, do you think the political disincentives--because we can build in procedural disincentives--will be strong enough to achieve this? Or are we kidding ourselves, in that while this is paramount today, in five years this could all seem like ancient history? And if we flipped into a majority government and didn't have prorogation as a major issue, would we lose that? In other words, if we don't get it right in the rules, people will be saying it isn't right, that we're breaking the Standing Orders.

What I'm likening it to is the law the government passed about elections and then turned around and certainly violated the spirit of its own law, and for the most part the Canadian people weren't bothered.

[Daniel Weinstock]

For reasons that go back to the discussion I was having with Ms. Jennings, in the context of a tense and very partisan political climate right now you want to be careful about putting in mechanisms that are like “gotcha” mechanisms, mechanisms that have the potential to be one-shot sorts of....

I'm not actually sure Canadians necessarily even want that. One of the things about the system of government we have—and I think Canadians have appreciated this, in looking at the debate south of the border over first health care and now financial reform—is that we really want an executive that can actually do stuff sometimes. It's one thing to be cavalier in the use of one's mandate; it's another thing to be impotent in the ability that one can.... You know, “Elect me because I'll do this”, and then it turns out they can't do it, because there are so many sticking points.

We really do have to count on something that is much more a probabilistic kind of thing than a “gotcha” kind of mechanism, which is raising the disincentives absolutely.

You're right about the election thing. But on the other hand, I imagine that this government would think long and hard now. It did take a hit, although a temporary hit, at the polls. Although one would have thought concerning prorogation or technical rules of parliamentary procedure that Canadians wouldn't be interested in it, especially at Christmas, and although it was.... Well, I don't know; I'm not a pollster, so I don't know exactly what legs it has. I would imagine, given the fact that this lived—the media cycle around this thing was a good few weeks, or even a couple of months—that they would think long and hard before doing this again. After the letter, after Chris's Facebook initiative, there were things the government said that felt to me like trial balloons. At one point, the Prime Minister in one of his interviews tried to routinize it, and said, “You know, I might do this every year. It's no big deal, right?” I don't think that went over. You didn't hear that again in subsequent interviews.

It is a lot to expect that the Canadian population be vigilant 24/7, especially when the playoffs are on, but I think we may have also underestimated them. I think here the role of the opposition.... It's also partly our role, the role of the people who try to keep public attention on public affairs at a certain level; it's a sort of joint role that we all have, the opposition parties, academics, pundits, to make sure that public opinion, even if it does go dormant sometimes, is clearly, on fundamental issues like this, awakened, or that it is “awakenable”. We just have to keep attention on it.

Again, I think it is now the perception of this government—but I'm sure the message has been read by the Liberals as well—that this is something one does for partisan advantage at one's peril, because the population doesn't seem to like this and seems to have principled, moral grounds for not liking it.

One of the most heartening things was getting emails from Conservatives, from people who said, “I'm a Conservative and I don't like this at all.” When it comes not to this policy or that policy or how you feel about the government's view about bilingualism in the court—this is something that has to do with the protection of our institutions, the institutions that we Conservatives, New Democrats, Liberals, Blocquistes, all share—I think it is an issue on which public opinion can be among the sorts of disincentive that we reach for.

This is democracy. If we just assume, about public opinion, “Well, look at what happened with the election thing; we can't count on the public to keep the feet of the politicans to the coals”, it's a depressing message.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Great, perfect; we're moving along very well. I think we have time for at least a two-minute round.

From the official opposition, we'll hear Monsieur Proulx.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Weinstock, thank you for being with us this morning.

You are from the Université de Montréal, so you probably have a better understanding of Quebec than the previous witness, who admitted it was not his strength at all. In your opinion, what could the impact be of the French translation of a Facebook website, like the one our friend created? To what extent do you think that could influence the initiative, not just now but in the long run? There is a ripple effect: one person participates and if it works for that person, it will work for another. It is often like that with social networking sites, if we can call them that. But in the medium and long terms, what impact do you think that can have on the public, on people who are more or less disillusioned by politics and who, all of a sudden, become members of a protest group on the Web? Do you think there would be a more lasting effect beyond the heat of the moment?