Evidence of meeting #117 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendments.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Noon
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I appreciate the Liberals, this government, putting out their motion and where they want to see this going.
I would amend the motion by deleting all the words after the words “on Bill C-76”.
I think that a reasonable approach at this point would be to go forward with hearing from the witnesses next week in good faith. I think it's truly acknowledged here that there are discussions and negotiations happening on amendments at levels that aren't currently in this room, so I think providing this change—accepting the witnesses—would be a reasonable compromise and a reasonable ability to move forward on this.
Let's look back a bit at where we've been. The bill itself came forward on April 30, I believe, which was the last day that the Chief Electoral Officer said he could implement something. I haven't seen where the government is willing to amend. I haven't seen where they're willing to accept amendments from the opposition—or the third party for that matter, the NDP.
Before we agree to move into a clause-by-clause situation, I think we need to have some reassurance from the government that what we're looking at and what we really want to see is there. That's the amendment I would move to the motion. Yes, as an opposition we are willing to move forward. We're willing to hear the witnesses and we're willing to have that discussion about going into clause-by-clause once we've heard from the minister on Thursday. At this point, this would be the approach I would take.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
On the amendment, we have Mr. Reid, Mr. Bittle, Mrs. Kusie, and then Ms. Sahota and Mr. Christopherson.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
I could have taken more time to read the connecting words. Where do the words “in Bill C-76” occur? Is it at the very beginning?
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Essentially, John, what you're trying to do is remove the words dealing with clause-by-clause starting on October 2 at 11 a.m., and you're proposing instead....
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Okay, right. But the logic is that this allows us to be in a position where we actually have some ability to get the amendments that we'd like to see considered properly. Once you get the programming motion, the practical result is that a government with a majority need not take into account the concerns of opposition parties. And this is our worry with this motion.
You may recall that a version of this writ large was our concern with the adoption of programming motions in general when that issue arose in March 2017. At the time, we felt that the only leverage the opposition ever has in a majority government would be gone. You can expect that this will be the general response we're always going to have to programming motions of this nature, that they take away the ability to say we have concerns. Let's take that into account.
I know the idea is that majority governments have the will of Parliament, the majority of members, behind them. But sometimes it's an elected dictatorship. That's not what Canada is. It's what an unhappy caricature of Canadian politics would be if someone gets a majority and that's the end. You essentially have a four-year Stalin. That's actually not what the Canadian system is. The opposition has a chance to slow things down in order to get its perspective heard and implemented. This forces the government to make some compromises in which they'll take into account the proposals and amendments that the opposition might have. If we do this, that's gone.
12:05 p.m.
Hamilton Centre, NDP
You were here in the last Parliament, weren't you?
12:10 p.m.
Hamilton Centre, NDP
I'm sorry to interject. I can only take so much of this.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
To respond to David's point, it's actually a valid point. This is a feature we see in majority governments regardless of their partisan stripe. It is a temptation all majority governments fall into. As much as I would like to be able to say this, I would not argue that the Harper government was the one exception to the long history of majority government behaviour in Canadian history. I think that, on that point, we're actually—
12:10 p.m.
Hamilton Centre, NDP
I think they set some records that they have to carry around.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
But these problems could have been and would have been that much worse if the opposition had not had the ability to engage in the kinds of activities that oppositions normally engage in with majority governments, if those had been stripped away. You can see that there were tools there, which remain in place today, that are of use to oppositions. On that point, I think we're probably on the same page.
12:10 p.m.
Hamilton Centre, NDP
Sorry, I shouldn't have interrupted. I want to apologize.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
It's okay.
That is the point here. Once we accept the programming motion, which is what this is, everything else doesn't matter. All we want on this side is a chance to find some way of adopting a motion that allows us to move forward with some assurance that the specific concerns that our party has articulated are going to be incorporated.
Right now, we don't know what amendments are being considered by the government. We don't know if they take into account our concerns. We don't know if opposition amendments would be considered. They normally are not considered in a majority government. That's a statement of fact. But in a minority Parliament, what typically happens is that you need the support of at least one opposition party. David and I were both present through several minority Parliaments.
What happens is that you actually have to stop and show your cards to each other to form a coalition for the purpose of this particular bill. You have to say, look, here are the amendments we want. The other side says, we're willing to give you some of that and not other things, and you have a discussion about that. It happens in a way that produces a piece of legislation that perhaps is not the government's absolute ideal. It's certainly not the opposition's ideal, but it actually is something closer to that centre that is presumably the thing we search for in a Parliament.
After all, the name "Parliament" comes from the French parlement, which indicates à parler, to speak to each other, to seek compromise. This is what we hope to achieve on this bill, particularly since I don't believe.... I was the critic or shadow minister, as we call it, to this minister for the first part of her career, and in between my tenure and that of Stephanie, it was Blake Richards. None of us, the three of us, thought that she is an inherently unreasonable or inflexible person. I thought, on the contrary, that she is practical and willing to look for solutions that would incorporate the concerns of all parties.
I would add that this is not something unique to the minister. Seeking a compromise that involves suggestions from all sides is something that is also felt and supported by our Chief Electoral Officer, Stéphane Perrault, who indicated that....
My point, as well as I can express it, and I believe Mr. Genuis can express it even more fully, is that—
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
A party that has been in opposition for more than half of its history is very concerned about the aspect of democracy that relates to procedural fairness for opposition parties. That's just a feature and reality of this.
Look, in our system we all want to be in opposition some of the time. We need to take great care to make sure that in the moments when we are in government, especially a majority government, we do not forget that we may find ourselves back on the Speaker's left-hand side and in opposition, which is a concern that I think Mr. Christopherson is expressing: that the government of which I was a member may have forgotten this, may not have given it adequate regard. He may very well have a point. It's certainly the case that we want to make sure this government does not forget it.
