Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 6th, 2010

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

I know you are, Marcel, but many respectable people are too. You shouldn't try to discredit it here like that.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

That's the start of the intimidation that comes down.

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

You've read through it. Obviously, with that many people, many are posting comments. It would be hard to keep up with all the comments, but I'm assuming you have a pretty good sense of the flavour of that commentary you've received. You described the distinction you made between the 2008 and 2009 situations. Would you say that your own sense as to the distinction between those two situations is roughly comparable to what the average person who was joining up was, or was there a variety of different perspectives?

[Christopher White]

I think there were many people who were just as upset in 2008 as in 2009 but didn't have it as an outlet. I think there were quite a few people like that as well. We had some people who had come on and for whatever reason they had told me that.... I have gotten a lot of e-mail and correspondence over the last several months. It started dipping down in March a bit, but for a lot of people, the 2009 prorogation was the first time they started getting involved.

One gentleman said that he's been able to vote since 1984 and the first time he had walked into his MP's constituency office was over this issue. But I do think the general sentiment is.... The prorogation is emblematic of greater problems and a greater democratic deficit that people have been feeling. This goes back not simply with the current government, but previous governments. I think it's been building and building over the years.

As for the timing, a lot of it was just plain luck, I think. There wasn't a lot of news going on. The fact that it got news coverage got more people interested.

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

That thought occurred to me as well. I don't know if it matters once you get a bit of momentum, but there's that critical moment at the very beginning of something when it's easy to get squashed by a story about--

[Christopher White]

Balloon boy.

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

Yes. A philandering golf star or something like that. Balloon boy, yes. You were obviously listening to the same CBC broadcast I was on the way over here.

One of the things about social media is the fact that they allow people who are geographically spread out to link together in a way that just isn't possible when you have to overcome the normal geographic barriers. It also makes it hard to tell where people come from, but you must have some indication just from what people said. In your opinion, was this more or less evenly spread across the country, across demographic groups? I'm thinking of all those different things that often divide us. What's your sense?

[Christopher White]

It was quite interesting. There were a couple of surveys done. One graduate student in Lethbridge is currently doing her master's thesis on the Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament Facebook group. She circulated a survey. There was another one. I can't remember the organization that had done it, but I think they had around 350 participants. It was self-selecting, of course, but they found that about 40% of the respondents were over the age of 35, which is quite interesting, because there is this perspective that Facebook is just for teenagers and that sort of thing.

We had chapters in every province and territory, with the exception of Nunavut. In Alberta, we had chapters in Grand Prairie for the Peace River region, Edmonton, Calgary, and Lethbridge. I had people e-mailing in who weren't close to any major centres. So I think it represented a very diverse, very dynamic cross-section that really did represent the sentiments that Canadians were feeling at the time. For instance, we had people who were apolitical and got involved with this. We had people who voted for a variety of different political parties. We had people who have been and remain staunch Conservatives, but they were upset by this as well. So it's quite interesting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Reid.

Madame Gagnon, welcome to our committee today.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. White, your approach is interesting. Actually, the House was prorogued during the Christmas holidays. That caused people to be more cynical towards politicians. The government used prorogation in an abusive way to avoid accountability on some issues, and everyone was hurt. I remember people telling us that we were going to be on holidays and that it did not matter whether we were sitting or not because parliamentarians do not do a heck of a lot. I am not sure if you received e-mails like that.

So the power the prime minister has to prorogue Parliament is a huge responsibility. We cannot use it to avoid facing the opposition and being accountable to the people. Do you think your efforts will help to increase the understanding of the role of parliamentarians and of the parliamentary system? In fact, the opposition has a say in accountability. Often, the government makes the decisions on priority issues, but the opposition also has to play the role of watchdog on behalf of the people. Have you seen that kind of thinking among the public? It is important. It is said sometimes that the opposition cannot do anything and that it only criticizes and complains. That is a very superficial way of looking at the role of the opposition. I look forward to the people waking up and saying that the opposition is also important and that it has its place in a parliament.

[Christopher White]

May I answer in English? I really have no hope of sitting on the Supreme Court.

[Some hon. members]

Ha, Ha!

[Christopher White]

I'd actually been working on that joke.

I think what's really interesting about what's happened is that a lot of people are starting to really think and reflect—I'm speaking personally, as well, here—about the different actors in Parliament. Again, it's correct, the opposition is not simply there; they're as critical to the proper functioning of the Government of Canada as the governing party.

I think what's interesting is that a lot of people have actually started taking more interest in procedure and that sort of thing and actually started thinking more. It's quite interesting to see. The main idea we have of Parliament is question period, the yelling and the heckling, and all of that. But then to see a fairly collegial atmosphere among different actors or different parties is quite refreshing.

I think people are taking more notice of that and paying more attention to what goes on in committees. Again, there was the question as to whether prorogation was requested in order to prevent the Afghan committee from asking questions. So people started thinking about what committees do and what their role is. It has been quite encouraging that there has been a lot more discussion, and people are considering that. Even on the CAPP forum, I have people asking questions, and then they'll go to the Parliament website and take out the little bits of information, post it and discuss it. It's been really encouraging to people.

It's not until you have your voice taken away that you really realize how important it is to be able to have that. I think that what's happened here has actually been quite good in some ways. It's gotten a lot of people to wake up and start paying a lot more attention.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Were people aware that it was the third time the government had used prorogation since it was elected four years ago, in order to silence the opposition or to avoid accountability on some issues?

The reasons were almost the same the three times Parliament was prorogued. If we look at what the previous governments did, we see that there were four prorogations in 10 years. So we can say that this use is abusive.

If there is prorogation when parliamentarians are on holidays, for example during the Christmas holidays or summer break, would you look favourably on parliamentarians being called back to the House to debate explaining to the people what is really happening in order to stop this kind of cynicism? We are told we are on holidays, we should be happy, we are in our riding and we do nothing. Often, the people do not know what the members do; they are not aware of all the work that goes on in the riding offices, unless they need to see a member for such and such a matter. What do you think about that? When we heard about prorogation, we were a little insulted about not being able to come back to Parliament. The prime minister decided to prorogue Parliament, and we had no say in it. We also have no voice.

Have you perhaps thought about a formula where parliamentarians could come back to the House when there is a need for debate? The House could be prorogued, but there could still be the need for a debate.

[Christopher White]

This is going beyond my expertise as to knowing actual procedure and that sort of thing, but I do know in regard to prorogation that once the time has been set it can actually be recalled earlier, but again that power resides with the Governor General. So that's this idea of talking about changing the Standing Orders, or introducing legislation to perhaps put in some sort of mechanism, some way to either recall earlier or something. But again, for me the main thing is to at least put the question before the House, maybe not even necessarily require the House to vote on it.

I know one of Professor Mendes' recommendations was to at least have the issue debated to understand what parliamentarians feel about it, because part of how government works is to be able to have the question brought forward and have it debated, and people to go back and forth on it, and for Canadians to be able to hear that, and understand what the different perspectives are and make their opinions based on that. I'm very much in favour of some mechanism to bring the House, the entire voice of Parliament, to the table when discussing when it should be prorogued.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Right on time. Are you guys working out with your own clocks down there? To me, that's fantastic.

Mr. Christopherson, you're up.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Christopher, it's good to see you again. Thank you for coming.

It occurred to me while you were talking, if our ages were reversed, I could be Christopher's son. That will give him something to groan about.

Let me just say to you that you're very impressive. It's not easy to come in here in front of a group of parliamentarians, particularly given some of the antics we do get into. I think it's fair to say that, particularly to a lot of younger Canadians, you're a folk hero, and I hope you wear that appropriately, because you now are part of the community of leaders who people look to in terms of the direction in which we ought to be going as a country. I appreciate what you've done so far, and wish you well going forward, and hope you stay involved somewhere in public life. I think there's a role for you, it's pretty apparent.

One of the things that was interesting—picking up on where Mr. Reid was going in terms of the phenomenon of social networking—was the question of whether there would be a transference of activism from sitting in one's home any time, night or day, regardless of the weather, and just clicking and suddenly you're an activist, versus the call for January 23 in the middle of winter to actually come outside and put yourself out in the elements to make your point. And lo and behold, they appeared.

I was in Gore Park in downtown Hamilton on January 23, and it was packed. It was speakers in the back of the pickup truck, it was about as grassroots politics as you're ever going to see. There was just a natural outrage that people felt, as you well put it, that something had been taken away from them, that they had something and it was taken away.

You've been following the advice, and you're obviously very learned in your own right, and you'll see that there's some question of whether we could do anything, short of a constitutional amendment, that would actually stop it. You mentioned we have a legislative route, we have our Standing Orders, and a constitutional amendment would put a stop to it. We'll probably wrestle with disincentives and different things, but in large part--and that's the point you made--if we do it through the Standing Orders and legislation, it's going to be the political price that a Prime Minister of the day would pay, as opposed to the actual penalties, because they can factor those in. What they can't factor in is where the public is going to be.

So my question to you is, do you think that's enough? Do you think there have been enough civics lessons, that people get it enough that if the Prime Minister were to ignore either legislation or the Standing Orders, which don't have the same anchor as a constitutional amendment, people would react to that and say that the Prime Minister is not following the rules and would get it that this is wrong, or are we putting in place a paper tiger here?

[Christopher White]

Realistically, nothing short of a constitutional amendment will have any weight to it. But part of the reason I started the group in the first place was to put a stop to it, not having this become routine. Because it happened twice in two years, it was very dangerous.

If this becomes the new attitude--and I'm thinking beyond the current government--some day we will have the Liberals in government again, and for them to take what has happened before and keep going with it.... That's the general excuse we see in government, that the last guys did the same thing, or they did worse.

So they would say the buck stops here; let's try to get back to something that makes a bit more sense and understand what the spirit of Parliament is in a democracy. I think that as long as the public has the interest and the capacity to be involved.... And that's the great thing about social media and social networking: it empowers Canadians in a way that probably wouldn't have been possible 15 or 20 years ago.

You see it in other cases too. There was opposition to the sale of NB Power. They had very large demonstrations in New Brunswick about it. They had a very large Facebook component as well. I know in Ontario there was an issue about young drivers and again a lot of organizations went online. So I think this is a new era. And I would stress again that even if there is no new legislation or a Standing Orders change, part of what's going on today is establishing this convention. There is a recognition that prorogation is the issue, that it's absolutely necessary, but there are times when it should or should not be used.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thanks.

To follow up on your comments about engagement, one of the things that was disconcerting about a year ago.... The politics of it is one thing, and that's fine, that's what we do. What was upsetting, though, was how easy it was for the government to tell Canadians there was something unconstitutional, there was some kind of coup going on, and that coalitions were somehow illegitimate. I'm wondering, given that we don't know the outcome of the next election, we don't know where we're going to be, we may end up revisiting these kinds of things.

This is speaking to the people understanding a civics lesson. Do you think there's enough knowledge out there that they're not going to pull off that scare, and if there's going to be a debate is it going to be about the politics of the matter, as opposed to a civics lesson? Because a lot of Canadians still believe that when we have an election they elect the Prime Minister and they elect the government, and that's not the case. We elect members of Parliament. Parliament chooses who the government's going to be.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Christopherson only--

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Yes, I was just getting to it, Mr. Reid. Thank you very much.

I know you're having fun with each other over who the next coalition will be, but let's talk about the one that might have been rather than the one that might come.

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Do you think the government can do that again, pull the wool over--

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We're finishing that point of order. Sorry.