Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 21st, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Barsalou-Duval, you have the floor.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm pleased to be speaking to the committee today because my party doesn't often have the opportunity to do so. I know my colleague had a great deal to say, and I want to thank him for letting me take part in the discussion.

The members of my party don't often have the chance to speak. We have little or no speaking time in committee meetings. The only exception was when the Special Committee on Electoral Reform allowed the Bloc Québécois to sit on it. Since the last Parliament, we haven't been able to sit on any other committee. This is a major problem for us. Each time a bill is submitted and we have issues to raise, we can't do so. We also can't suggest amendments. We sometimes manage to do so, but often, we can't do so the way we would like to.

This causes specific problems. We're members like all the other members in the House of Commons, meaning we were elected by the citizens of our constituencies. There are 11 members in this situation in the House of Commons. No, there are now 12 members because a former Liberal member is now sitting as an independent.

The mandate from our constituents is the same as the mandate given to the other members by their constituents, which is to represent them in the House of Commons. It's unfair because we can't represent our citizens the same way the other members represent their citizens.

The committee should look at this issue to ensure that it's taken into account in the possible changes to the Standing Orders. The members must be able to express their views in all the House committees, and not only in the committees dealing with the Standing Orders of the House and the changes to the democratic rules for committees.

The democratic rules were discussed in a committee that studied the change to the voting system. I appreciated the openness to us and the fact that we were allowed to share our views. I think it was essential. When the rules of our democracy are changed and certain people aren't invited to the table, democracy is denied, because these people are part of the democratic process.

In this case, the situation is similar since we're talking about changes to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. Obviously, the Standing Orders play an essential role in the parliamentary process. When it comes time to change the lives of parliamentarians, it's important to hear what all parliamentarians have to say on the matter. On that note, I appreciate that the committee is giving us the chance to speak. However, I don't think it's sufficient to give us the chance only on this occasion. We should also have the opportunity to speak on other occasions, in all the committees.

I don't think we should implement a practice of automatically assigning a member to a committee. We're 10 independent members, since you don't want to recognize us as Bloc Québécois members. Since there are more than 10 committees, we can't sit on all the committees, given the number of members in our party. Nevertheless, whether one or 11 independent members are elected to the House of Commons, we need to look at the possibility of those members sitting on the committees—no matter which committee—and participating in a meaningful way. It's a key way to allow everyone to participate in the democratic parliamentary life.

I'm sure the parties considered independent could agree on who would take the place of independent members on a given day. For example, I'm sure the member from Saanich—Gulf Islands would regularly sit on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. I'm sure she would often leave us her place on other committees. When we would have issues to raise in the committees that interest her personally, there wouldn't be any problem either. I think it would be something positive.

It would be all the more desirable because, in a democracy, we talk about the proliferation of views. Having views from all the parties is even better for the House and for all the members.

We each received in our offices a document that was released to the public. The document is a policy paper from the government describing the changes it wishes to make.

One of the changes is to sit four days a week instead of five. It's an interesting option to explore, but it involves many risks.

First, all members must be able to spend time in their constituencies, but they must also spend enough time on the Hill. If we decide to sit four days a week, for example, would members seen as independent have their number of questions reduced? Currently, each independent member has the right to ask one question a week. The Bloc Québécois has 10 members and can therefore ask 10 questions a week. The Green Party has one member, so it can ask only one question a week. These members mustn't lose the opportunity to ask their questions. They already can't ask many questions, and they may ask even fewer. I think the current system is already completely dysfunctional. Regarding the questions, it's not right that parties with fewer than 12 members aren't recognized. Parties should be recognized whether they have ten, five, four, two or one member.

The policy paper we received talks a great deal about London. The example of the British Parliament is provided. The British Parliament doesn't always sit five days a week and the Prime Minister sits only once a week to answer questions, as proposed in the policy paper. However, in London, the parties with two or more members are recognized, whereas here the parties need 12 members to be recognized. Great Britain has a population of 60 million and Canada has a population of 35 million. If we establish an equivalency based on the number of inhabitants, a party should be recognized starting at a single member. If the equivalency is purely based on how the British Parliament works, that's what must be done.

It isn't right that the members don't have the same resources. Recognition means the ability to ask more questions. In a question period where over a hundred questions may be asked, the party that's unable to ask questions can't even be included on the agenda and comment on what's happening on a given day. All political parties must be able to speak every day about key issues. Things are happening in society, and when the members of these parties can't be heard, their views aren't heard at all.

If we were to sit four days a week, we would sit for more weeks to compensate and to ensure the government sits for the same number of hours. We can look at this, but we're wondering what would happen to the recess weeks. Would the parliamentary recess weeks be eliminated? Would we sit more often? All members must have time to spend in their constituencies, especially the constituencies that cover a large area.

Important dates must also be considered. Sometimes, the House sits on June 24, which we find completely unbelievable as members from Quebec. June 24 is Quebec's national holiday, and it's an extremely important day for people in the province. All Quebec residents expect to see their members in their constituencies, to meet with their them, to celebrate with them and to share this important time. June 24 must be free so that Quebec members can go to their constituencies. I'm sure the Quebec members from the other parties would agree. The national holiday is very important for everyone in Quebec.

The policy paper also refers to the possibility of independent members sitting on committees. We're pleased about this, but I want to point out that members need preparation time to sit on committees. When members seen as independent are invited to committees, the time required is demanding. It's often said that time is money. These members need additional financial resources, because they currently don't have enough to prepare to sit on committees. Sitting on committees results in additional responsibilities, and financial resources must be allocated accordingly.

If ever there is a reform that allows independent members to sit on committees, or parties to be recognized in various ways—for instance, we could recognize a parliamentary group without acknowledging it as a party, or recognize parties on the basis of a lower minimum threshold—then budgets would also have to be made available at a lower threshold. Members will not be able to take on bigger workloads without having the financial resources to do that work. I think this is the most important point we have made today: additional financial resources are essential.

Currently, our Bloc Québécois members have to cut their riding office resources in order to be able to do parliamentary work. That means that they are not on an equal footing with the other members from recognized parties. All of the members should be able to serve the citizens of their ridings without having to amputate their constituency budget to do parliamentary work. What is happening currently is very difficult for our members. I think it is important that everyone be able to provide reasonable service in their ridings and on the Hill, both with regard to constituency files and parliamentary work.

Electronic voting is also discussed in the document. We view this with a certain amount of interest. However, there seems to be a certain ambiguity as to how this electronic voting would proceed. The document says that the members could continue to work in their ridings and vote electronically, or while continuing to work at the House. We are wondering how security measures could be put in place to ensure that the member who is in his riding has the proper context to allow him to vote for or against a bill. How can we ensure that the vote has really been cast by the member? For instance, it is not normal to have someone who is travelling vote without anyone verifying his identity. I think that the security systems have to be very reliable. We really need proof that this would be concrete and effective.

Whether we like it or not, there is a history that explains the way we vote now. The history behind the way in which the vote is carried out currently is an important symbol for a lot of people. If a change is made to the way in which we vote, I think it would be important that on certain important occasions, such as the vote on the Speech from the Throne, the budget or other such occasions, we be allowed to vote in the traditional way. That is part of our tradition and history, just like the way the pages, the Speaker of the House or some of the table officers dress. We should be able to continue to vote in the traditional way on certain special occasions.

We have not yet made up our minds about the idea of sitting four days a week, but we are open to the concept, as well as to the electronic vote. I think it is important to talk about it, and that it is a good idea to submit this to our committee so that we can discuss it today.

However, there is something that concerns us in the document that was presented. It concerns time allocation. It seems to open the door for the government to resort more easily to time allocation, that is to say that the House will be forced to take a position on certain issues and debate will be cut short, both in the House and in committees. We are concerned about that because according to the way things are done currently, we cannot even take a position on many bills, or debate them in the House. That too is a problem.

In other parliaments of the world, such as the National Assembly in Quebec for instance, when any member wants to speak, he or she has the right to do so. He can express his opinion on all of the bills that are introduced, and on every topic that is discussed.

We think it is abnormal not to be able to express ourselves. If a bill is tabled, it is important that all of the members be able to speak on it. With 10 members, it is not true that our group is so small that it should not be allowed to speak. There are parliamentary groups made up of 12 members. With only two additional members, they are allowed to speak on all topics, whereas we are not, although we have 10 members. There is quite simply something wrong with that picture. It is important that changes be made to that way of doing things. If it becomes easier to resort to time allocation, we fear that this will adversely affect members who, like us, already have trouble making their views heard in debates.

Traditionally we have always voted against time allocation because we think it is a way for the government to cut the debate short.

We think that cutting debate short is dangerous. It is important that the members be able to put forward their points of view. There are 338 members in the House of Commons and I think that if 338 people speak on a bill, it is not the end of the world. It is in fact interesting to hear about the vision of each of the members of Parliament on every bill.

You know, some members belonging to the same party may not have the same position; after all, people vote for a member, first and foremost. That is how our system works and it is important that this still be recognized today.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

I've been listening intently to the comments by my colleague in the Bloc, but with the conversations going on, I'm having difficulty hearing all of them, even with an earpiece. I would like to make sure I am able to listen to all his comments, so I would ask the people who are not at this table, if they have a conversation, to please take it outside, if that's possible.

Excuse me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you. That was appropriate.

Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

We are very concerned by time allocation. Indeed, this is not something to be taken lightly. When you muzzle parliamentarians, it is because you want to prevent them from expressing themselves. However, we have been elected to Parliament precisely in order to be able to express our viewpoints. And so we have some serious doubts about the use of the guillotine, and we are anxious to see what form this will take. It is a dangerous instrument that has to be used with caution. Democracy consists in giving everyone a voice. Preventing people from expressing their opinions on issues alters democracy directly.

We also note that the document expresses the government's concern regarding the fact that the way motions are dealt with sometimes results in changes to the orders of the day it establishes itself, or which other parties establish occasionally. In my opinion, it is important that we maintain the possibility of introducing such motions. If urgent situations arise in current events, it is important that Parliament be able to deal with them. This can be a terrorist attempt or a major food crisis, for instance. There are all kinds of emergency situations Parliament has to be able to discuss.

These situations are not always to the government's liking, but Parliament must nevertheless be able to engage with these issues. The opposition has to be able to put the government on the spot occasionally. This is part of the roles of Parliament and of the opposition parties. It does not mean that the opposition is not doing good work. I think, on the contrary, that the fact that the government is sometimes put on the spot indicates that the opposition is playing its role properly. Indeed, the government must be transparent at all times and the opposition has to help it respect that obligation.

The document also refers to the possibility of the Prime Minister only being present one day a week in the House, and we consider this problematic. There is a seat reserved for him in the House. We understand that due to circumstances he sometimes cannot be there, but question period only lasts about an hour. There are 24 hours in a day and 5 business days in a week. Therefore I think that it is not unreasonable to expect the Prime Minister to be present in the House five hours a week. It is very little, considering the number of hours in a week. I think the Prime Minister must be accountable and that it is a matter of transparency that he also be present in the House. In my opinion, the ministers should also be there as often as possible. Quite often the ministers are not present in the House. Questions are not always addressed to the Prime Minister, they are often addressed to the ministers as well.

I would now like to speak about private members' bills. The parties introduce motions, but they also introduce bills. Members who are considered independent may also present bills. All of the members follow the same processes. However, very little time is allocated to debate private members' bills. We think there should be more time for this and that this is important. Parties and the government have a lot of weight, but private members' bills must also be heard. They sometimes raise important issues and can make significant breakthroughs possible.

Bills are not always partisan in nature. Of course all of the members have their own ideas and these are generally in keeping with those of their party. It is normal that this tendency is reflected in private members' bills. That does not mean that these bills are not interesting and do not deserve to be debated. We need to increase the amount of time set aside to debate them. It is all the more important because members cannot introduce very many.

For my part, for instance, I will probably not be able to introduce a single one in the course of my entire mandate, since the number I drew in the lottery is higher than 200. I will not have that possibility, even though this is my first mandate. It may be the only one in fact, even though that is not my wish. But the fact remains that if this is my only mandate, I will have been a member for four years without having been able to have a single bill debated in the House of Commons. I think that is not normal, and that it should not be possible. That is nevertheless the system we must work with at this time.

The fact that votes often take place during the day is another thing that concerns us greatly. Members have a lot of work to do and they must often work in their offices in Ottawa during the day.

Moreover, the votes happen sporadically. After question period, we return to our offices only to find out, often enough, that a vote is being held and that we have to return to the House. Sometimes a whole day can go by when we are unable to work on our files.

Of course, for the parties that have a lot of members, that isn't as serious because they have a lot of people to call on, a real army. And many public servants also work for them.

However, in the case of the smaller parties, the members have more work to do. When there are five, six, eight or ten votes in the same day at various times, we spend the whole day going back and forth between our offices and the House. And so this prevents us from working on our riding files and our parliamentary dossiers. Since we have fewer resources, we are more penalized than all of the others. It would be important to think about those members when things are being organized. I don't know exactly how they could be organized, but I think it is important that we plan the day better for the members, because everyone has work to do.

Sometimes we meet with citizens, groups, or the representatives of Quebec organizations who come from our ridings. It can be an association of chicken producers, egg producers, or pork producers. All sorts of associations can come to meet with us. We make appointments with these association representatives, and they expect to see us. When there are votes at all times of the day, it is not easy to have productive meetings with them. We need to be able to plan our time more easily; that would be an improvement. It remains to be seen how that can become concrete reality, and we are anxious to see it.

It's the same thing for those who answer questions. I mentioned earlier that the Prime Minister should be present more often in the House in order to answer questions. We think that the obligation to answer questions should not apply only to the Prime Minister. I think that the ministers also have a duty to be present in the House to answer questions. Quite often the answer is given by a parliamentary secretary. A lot of parliamentary secretaries are certainly devoted and interested in the files they are given, but like it or not they are not the ones who make the final decisions. In the final analysis, the minister makes the decisions; he is responsible. The minister must be able to answer members' questions when they are addressed to him. I think that is fundamental.

I don't know if there is a mechanism that could force the person to whom the question is addressed to answer it. Often, people who are not familiar with the dossier at all answer the questions simply by reading a memo, which does not move the debate forward. Such answers do not help anyone to gain a better understanding of the issue. And so we are forced to ask the same question five, six, eight, ten or twenty times and every time it is difficult to obtain an answer. If it is difficult to obtain an answer from the minister or the Prime Minister, imagine what it is like when another member or a parliamentary secretary answers us. We always hope that he is providing a good answer, which sometimes happens, but I think it is important that the minister be present.

It would also be important that these regulations state that the ministers must also spend a minimum amount of time in the House. These rules should not apply only to the Prime Minister.

This week we also discussed omnibus bills. This topic came up again. As we know, these bills were a specialty of the previous government, but we are finding that the current government has also developed quite a fondness for this type of bill.

You will remember Bill C-29. In it we found a measure that affected consumer protection legislation. This would have meant that the banks would no longer have been subject to that provision. We think that is unacceptable. There should be a restriction on omnibus bills so that when a different issue or department is involved, a different bill must be introduced. It is not normal that bills touch on 200, 300 or 500 different topics.

As I mentioned earlier, a smaller parliamentary group has fewer resources and it is more difficult for it to review an entire bill. Imagine the situation when a bill has 200, 300, 400 or 600 pages; in the case I am referring to, with fewer resources, it is much more difficult not only to have a complete and informed position, but also to find the points in the bill that are of interest to the people in our ridings. In light of that, I think it is essential that a limit be placed on the size of bills.

I don't know how that could be done because certain bills are complex. At least there should be a way of understanding the content of bills. Little poison pills should not be scattered throughout a bill either because that is the problem. Little poison pills scattered throughout the bill do not improve the government's image because, when these poison pills are discovered and discussed in public, the public is not happy and the government is in the hot seat. So the government should really never do that kind of thing.

As to the debates in the House, it is difficult at this time, as I noted, to speak to bills. In some cases, we cannot speak at all. There is a procedure to break up members' speaking time, that is, to break up the 20 minutes into two blocks of 10 minutes—which is interesting—but it should also be possible to break up those 10 minutes into blocks of 4 or 5 minutes, to give members from the smaller parties the opportunity to speak. Once again, it is important for various people to speak.

There is another issue regarding members rising to speak: it is also important to be able to ask questions to someone taking part in a debate. I submit this issue to you very humbly. I think we have to think about it. I am looking for ways to give all members as much speaking time as possible. A member might repeat themselves in 20 minutes, but perhaps the member would be more concise in 10 minutes. If more people are given the opportunity to speak, the discussion becomes more constructive. So that is something that could be considered.

Another aspect, which is an irritant right now, pertains to question period. During question period, right now our questions are systematically relegated to last place. We understand that the parties with more members are allowed to speak first. I think that is part of protocol and the way things work. At the same time, however, we believe that systematically having the last question of the day makes it difficult to capture the public's attention because, as question period wears on, people grow tired and are less attentive. If you and I become increasingly less attentive as question period progresses, the same is true of people watching the parliamentary network. This is even more so the case with journalists. In the interest of democracy and the diversity of points of view, members from the smallest parties should also be able to ask questions before the very end of question period.

Those parties' questions could be scheduled at another time, perhaps after the first blocks, because there is a block for the first opposition group and another block for the second opposition group. Blocks could also be set aside for the other opposition groups. That would provide a more balanced approach, especially as to the number of questions. The status quo seems completely unfair to me. The small opposition parties must also be entitled to ask more questions and to receive more resources. It is not normal for certain parties to receive millions of dollars for research, while we get no research budget at all.

I think there is a party in the House right now that has about thirty members. We have about ten, one third the number of that party. Yet we are very far from being able to ask a third the number of questions that party can ask in the House and very far from a third of its budget. So I think some major changes are in order in this regard. In my opinion, it is essential for us to be able to express our views as much as the other parties.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

The interpreters are having a hard time. If we could try to keep the room a bit quieter, it would be very helpful.

Please continue.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

I will conclude my remarks here.

Some people might argue that we have fewer members and that this is how it has always worked. Fewer members does not necessarily mean fewer votes, however, as was mentioned earlier. It was pointed out that, although the current government did not garner 70% or even 60% of the vote, it has a much stronger place in Parliament than the percentage of the vote it earned.

In the 2011 election, we won 23% of the vote in Quebec, yet we won just 4 of the 75 seats in the province. The number of members did not at all reflect the number of votes we received. When the number of members a party has does not at all reflect the number of votes earned, the budget allocated to that party in Parliament is not fair to the people who voted for that party either. That should be considered. The number of members elected should not be the only criterion; the number of votes must also be considered. In the last election, more than 800,000 people out of 8 million people in Quebec voted for the Bloc Québécois. That is a significant number that should not be overlooked.

Forty percent of Quebecers are separatists and the Bloc Québécois is the only separatist party in Ottawa. Forty percent of Quebecers want to hear our point of view and are interested in it. We must therefore have the necessary resources to make our point of view heard.

I am not arguing for my own interests alone. Some people will say that the Bloc Québécois has 10 members and that we had four before. Let us not forget that the NDP once had nine members and the Conservative Party had only two. All parties can end up with fewer members. It is normal for budgets and speaking time to be reduced when a party has fewer members. The problem is that it is not proportional. It has to be proportional. Unfortunately, that is not the way it works at all right now and that is extremely unfair to all those voters and people who support us.

Mr. Chair, those are the points I wanted to raise to the whole committee. I hope they will be considered and that we will be invited to speak more often, because we have a lot to say to you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you very much.

Thank you to Mr. Lukiwski and the rest of the committee members for allowing the member time. I think it's of very great benefit for us to hear from the representatives of the 800,000 people who voted for the Bloc Québécois and who wanted input into this process.

Thank you very much, and we look forward to more of the same.

Thank you.

Mr. Lukiwski, you have the floor.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

I have a question for you, Chair, before I resume my intervention. What is your normal practice when supper is served? Do you have a formal break, or do individuals go up and...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We've just been carrying on, but if you want to get yours before you speak, go ahead.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

If we could take a five-minute break so that I could at least see what's on the menu, that would be great.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Sure.

We'll suspend for dinner, for about five minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Everyone got some food. Thank you, Mr. Lukiwski.

Mr. Graham notified me that when we started at 4:30, we were at hour number 544.

Tom, you had mentioned some hours.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Hear, hear. That's the time since the beginning of March 21. So it's 546 o'clock on March 21.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

[Inaudible—Editor] wanted 24-7. They're incurring these costs.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

As we proceed, the interpreters thank us for keeping the noise level down, because they have very thin walls and it is disruptive to them. They appreciate it, and if we could carry on with that, it would be helpful.

Merci.

Mr. Lukiwski, you're on, and thank you, Mr. Barsalou-Duval, for your intervention earlier.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Yes, I want to concur with our chair and underscore that I very much appreciated hearing from the Bloc Québécois. I did not know that they would be appearing tonight, but I was more than pleased to cede some of my time to hear the perspective from another political party.

I think that also underscores the essence of what we're discussing here, that the rules of this place, the Standing Orders of this place, affect all of us. Whether we are in government, the official opposition, a recognized third party, an independent, or a single member wanting to speak and have his voice heard, the rules apply to everyone equally.

I stress the term “equally”, because the rules do not give more benefits to the government simply because it has more members of Parliament. The rules that we observe, the Standing Orders, which guide us in our daily actions, apply to every single parliamentarian equally. In fact, they have been designed and entrenched and codified so that they not only guide us equally but benefit us equally, so we're all playing by the same rules. I'm sure that in the hours that preceded my intervention there have been examples and analogies to sporting ventures, and how unfair it would appear if two football teams took the field but only one of them could set the rules by which they play. That's what's happening here. At least that's the attempt that the government is trying to do here. They are setting the rules, or attempting to, that would benefit themselves.

My colleague from the Bloc Québécois went over a number of the problems and issues that his party has with the discussion paper. I will go over some of those myself, because I share some of those concerns. But once again, I speak directly to my colleagues on the government side of this table and suggest to them that some of these proposed changes could in fact end up as an all-party agreement if we were afforded that ability to begin with. I think it highly possible, if not probable, that if the government simply said that they would abide by the same tradition and convention that other parliaments before them have done when observing potential changes to the Standing Orders—that is, that unanimity must be observed—then I think we could have a fruitful discussion. I honestly do.

I have some thoughts on electronic voting, for example. I'm a bit of a traditionalist, and I believe the term “stand and be counted” was done for a reason, but in terms of efficiency, there is an argument to be made for electronic voting. It's certainly happened in other jurisdictions, and I think that would be a worthy and worthwhile debate. But under the terms of reference that the government has imposed upon us—that being no equality among members of the procedure and House affairs committee and no requirement for unanimity—I will simply not engage in that debate, because it's worthless. Why should I and any other parliamentarian subject ourselves to a reasoned and rational debate when in fact we know at the end of the day that our words will not only be unheeded, they will be ignored? It would be totally irrelevant, because the government has their mind made up on what changes they would like to make to the Standing Orders.

Colleagues, in years past, and I'm talking decades past, any proposed changes to the Standing Orders caused uproar, not just in Parliament but in Canada itself. To give you all a bit of a history lesson, for those of you who don't know, closure was introduced by the Sir Robert Borden government back in 1913 in response to the naval aid bill. Back in 1913, the prime minister at the time was called upon by Lord Admiral Winston Churchill to update the royal naval fleet.

Prime Minister Borden decided that a $35-million investment would be required to do just that. As I'm sure everyone can appreciate, $35 million in 1913 was a lot of money, and it consequently sparked a vigorous debate among all parliamentarians. Seeing that this debate would be going on for perhaps an interminable amount of time, the prime minister and his party at the time, the Progressive Conservatives, introduced closure. That—simply an introduction of a standing order that would offer to the government in a majority situation the opportunity to shut down debate in order to pass a piece of legislation—infuriated not only parliamentarians, but Canadians at large. It was called unprecedented, draconian, dictatorial, and an assault on democracy. These were words not from parliamentarians themselves, but from members of the media and Canadians.

The debate raged on. I use the term “raged” quite appropriately. It was visceral in its intensity. I'm told that Canadians from across Canada would make their way to Ottawa merely to sit in the gallery and listen to the debate as it raged on. This was something that was completely unprecedented and, in the view of most Canadians and certainly the majority of parliamentarians, unnecessary. Until that time in history, there were no limits on debate. Some debates went on for months.

At the time, parliamentarians of all political backgrounds were held, I think, in a little more esteem than they are now. They were considered to be learned people, respected people who regardless of political affiliation were working tirelessly on behalf of all Canadians. Debate was an important part of the function of establishing laws and legislative initiatives that would benefit Canada, which at the time of course was literally still in its infancy. Canadians were quite comfortable with the fact that debate could go on for months and months without resolution, because they felt that this was the appropriate course of action to take when trying to determine an appropriate law to be passed.

When Prime Minister Borden introduced this concept of closure, it was something that took most political observers aback. Most Canadians viewed it as a highly undesirable course of action for that government to take. Nonetheless, in order to pass the naval bill, Borden pursued and, in fact, if memory serves me correctly, enacted closure on 19 separate occasions to get the bill passed. He whipped his caucus, and it was passed. But because the uproar from Canadians—or, to use a term more closely associated with today's generation, the “blowback”—was so intense, closure was not really utilized again for a number of decades. No politician, no political party, wanted to run the risk that Borden had and incur the wrath of the general electorate. So closure, while it was still on the books, was simply not used.

The next time it came into the forefront and the next time Canadians became aware of closure and were similarly outraged was in the 1956 great pipeline debate. The Liberal government of the day wanted to ensure that the TransCanada pipeline taking Alberta crude to eastern Canada was built. But there was a timeline, a deadline in which it had to be completed, and the debate seemed to be never-ending. Once again, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who I believe was the prime minister at the time, enacted closure to get that debate completed and the bill passed. Similar to what happened in 1913, there was a great outcry not just from politicians, but from....

Yes, go ahead.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Did you say that was 1954?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

It was 1956.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

So that was probably Louis St. Laurent and not Sir Wilfrid Laurier.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Did I say Laurier? I should have said St. Laurent. Thank you very much for the correction.

There was no appetite for closure, but because it was on the books, St. Laurent was able to utilize it.

I point this out for a reason. I mentioned earlier in my intervention that what we do now will have repercussions, will have consequences. It may not be apparent to individuals at the time, but any action causes a reaction. Even though closure was not intended to be enacted after 1913, it was, because it was available to the government of the day.

Fast forward from 1956 to 1969, when time allocation was first introduced by the current Prime Minister's father, Pierre Trudeau. It was hotly debated, but the reaction was not quite as visceral as it was in 1956, and certainly not as much as it was in 1913, because by that time Canadians had been somewhat acclimatized to the fact that parliaments had the ability to shut down debate. Prime Minister Trudeau the elder again whipped his caucus, and time allocation was something that came on the books as a standing order.

I note with great interest and point out to committee members that in the five years prior to the introduction, the approval, and the ultimate passage of time allocation as a parliamentary tool, a number of different parliamentary procedural committees discussed this very concept, and on five different occasions all-party committees decided not to approve time allocation. Why? Because they didn't have unanimous consent.

I'm underscoring this because it has been a long-standing tradition. Whether or not a special committee on parliamentary reform is constructed, whether or not an all-party committee is formed to examine potential changes to the Standing Orders, each and every time throughout history, all parliamentarians agreed that they must have unanimous consent—that is, until now.

Make no mistake that what this government is attempting to do is to shut down the ability of the opposition to prevent changes to a standing order by not agreeing to grant unanimous consent, merely allowing a parliamentary committee of which they have a majority to determine what standing orders should be changed.

Mr. Chair, that in my view is not a discussion, such as this government continually brays they want to have. It is not a conversation, because a conversation has to be two-way, and you have to be able to listen to and accept arguments from both sides and both points of view. This is merely a totalitarian attempt by this government to unilaterally impose their will on the opposition under the guise of a parliamentary committee.

I would suggest to my honourable colleagues on the government side that this has the potential to be extremely problematic for them from an electoral standpoint. This heavy-handed, ham-handed attempt by the government to curtail the opposition's ability to affect the rules of this place will be seen as dictatorial, as draconian, and they very well could end up paying the price for it.

I talked a little earlier in my intervention about how many of the Liberals were elected by a very small margin in the last election and how they have disappointed a lot of the progressive voters by their actions to date. They have greatly disappointed progressives who were looking forward to a government to follow through on their commitment to electoral reform. They were very disappointed with a government who said that they would respect the will of provincial and environmental jurisdictions by approving pipelines. They were disappointed, to say the least, that the government made a number of promises and have not fulfilled them—the two I have mentioned plus the fact that the modest $10-billion deficits have now mushroomed into a $30-billion deficit.

There is a host of progressive voters, I would suggest, throughout Canada from coast to coast to coast, and to the fourth coast, who will be looking to rethink their position and rethink their support for Liberals because of these disappointments. I would suggest that this course of action will only add to the frustration and disappointment of those progressive voters. I believe that will translate itself into votes, but they won't be votes for Liberals.

I would also suggest to members at this committee that one of the benefits of being elected is that backbenchers, in a truly enlightened government, have the respect of their party. I would humbly suggest that that respect has not been afforded anyone at this table. You know as well as I do that you have been instructed to follow a certain course of action to ensure that at the very least this filibuster continues. I suspect—although I will probably never be able to prove with any certainty—that many of you in your heart of hearts disagree with the approach your government is taking.

I can speak from experience that in the previous Parliament—I think most of my colleagues, if they were being completely honest, would agree—there were initiatives our government in the past engaged in that many of us did not agree with, but we only have ourselves to blame if we were silent. We can always fall back on the old tried-and-true adage that, well, we were just following party discipline. We wanted to be loyal. That's all well and good, and I agree with party discipline. I agree with having a united front, because if you didn't have it, it would prove to be politically disastrous for any political party. However, there comes a time when every single parliamentarian and every single citizen has to say stop.

I believe every Canadian knows the difference between right and wrong. We know that intuitively. It is simply wrong to try to impose the will of the government, the tyranny of the majority, upon the political process and the Standing Orders that guide us all. I believe that if members of the government—many of whom are sitting at this table—would speak honestly, they would agree with that statement.

That's not going to have any influence on the outcome, but I can tell you this. Having successfully run for election on five different occasions, I know what it's like to go back to my constituency and try to explain to constituents a course of action that my government took that was not appreciated. You can spin as long and as much as you want, but the reality is that constituents know when a course of action taken was wrong.

I heard it loud and clear in the last election and lead-up to the last campaign. Luckily for me, my voters did not blame me, but they blamed the prime minister and the government. Frankly, if I had been in any other region of Canada except the Prairies, there's a good chance I would not have been re-elected, simply because voters wanted to express their displeasure at the actions of our government.

The first individuals on the government side who will potentially experience some heartache from this action, combined with the actions their government did before, are backbenchers. They will be asked why they didn't stand up and say no.

To credit the current government, and to the members of the Liberal Party, on a few occasions I have been pleased to see government members stand up in opposition to their marching orders, usually with respect to private members' bills. I think that's extremely positive. I think that's healthy. But this is something that goes beyond just a private member's bill. If there is a point in time when government backbenchers should say, no, we don't agree with this course of action, then this is the time. Trust me, if some of these changes go through, and if you are successful in your re-election bids, at one point in time in your future you will be sitting in the opposition benches, and you will have to live with the changes you brought down yourselves. It will not be very pretty.

I would also suggest that if the government simply agreed to this long-standing tradition of unanimous consent being required, the government might be pleasantly surprised at the reactions of some of the points that you put up for discussion. More than anything else, this impasse we are currently seized with would be completely eliminated. There could be a fruitful discussion on potential changes.

I can let members of the government know that in the previous Parliament, during the discussions of our all-party committee, many of the items it raised in its discussion paper were raised and discussed by our committee. It wasn't that all of them were opposed vehemently. In some cases there may have been one party that had some objections for some particular reason. In that case we took that standing order proposal off the table. However, there was some intelligent, reasoned, and rational discussion. Arguments were being made that did sway from time to time the opinions of others. That could be the case here, but it will not take place if the government continues to take the position that it does not require or request unanimous consent.

Simply put, if the government wants to continue down this road, and it appears it is doing just that, members of the opposition will have no choice but to continue our opposition, and not just continue our tactics such as filibusters, but to increase in intensity our opposition in other tactical and procedural ways.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

We have no choice.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

My colleague Mr. Arnold is quite right. We have no choice but to do that. We have to be able to show our displeasure as vociferously and as pointedly as we can to try to underscore the importance of what we are discussing. It is not enough to say simply that this is an issue that most Canadians aren't concerned with, that it's inside baseball. That may be true, but it affects Canadians nonetheless, because it affects how their elected members of Parliament have the ability to do their jobs.

In other words, it is undercutting the ability of any opposition party to be an effective opposition. There have been countless examples throughout history when, because of a competent opposition party, potentially damaging and destructive legislation was stopped, was prevented. Unfortunately, this government, when it talks about efficiency, wants the Standing Orders to be efficient only for themselves: to remove roadblocks from their way; to prevent opposition parties from having the ability to slow down and, in some cases, delay and prevent legislation from crossing the finish line. I'm all for efficiency, but I'm certainly not for a form of dictatorship, and that seems to be the considered approach of this government.

Let's look at a couple of examples from this discussion paper. One of the apparently more innocuous suggestions of the government is to change the length of time until a government is required to respond to written Order Paper questions from 45 to 65 days, or, as the government puts it in the discussion paper, put “an upper limit”, so that a government is required to respond between 45 and 65 days later. The rationale is that the 65-day upper limit would give the government more time to give a more considered and thorough response.

To that I say balderdash. I've been in this place for close to 14 years. I was in government for nine. I saw questions coming from the opposition that caused us to respond, in some cases, in 50 to 100 pages for one question. As I made reference to in my last intervention, to prove a point, I stood in the House and read one of the opposition Liberal Party's questions into the record. It took me 17 minutes to read it in the record. That was one question.

I made a suggestion that perhaps we ought to put some rules around the types of questions that can be asked so as to prevent opposition parties from abusing their right to ask written questions. It took countless public servants days upon days to develop answers, which then had to be translated into both official languages, photocopied, and presented. The cost to our government was enormous. I did a calculation and found out that literally tens of millions of dollars were being spent to respond to opposition questions, many of which were dilatory, frankly. They were simply done to try to put a monkey wrench into government operations by taking skilled professionals away from their jobs and into responding to a question. It was obstructionist at its very core.

I appealed to the prime minister at that time that perhaps we should take a look at doing at least a review of the Standing Orders, because I thought we could save taxpayers millions of dollars. The prime minister said it sounded like an interesting concept and to send him a memo, as he normally said to members who had ideas he felt were worth exploring.

I did. I sent it to them. We had a discussion. What ensued from that discussion was that the prime minister made it crystal clear to me that any standing order changes had to be done for the right reasons. He didn't talk about unanimous consent at that time. That was something I brought forward on my own initiative when we assembled the committee. His marching orders to me, however, were very clear. If the standing order changes proposed by the committee make sense, that's fine. However, we—and “we” meaning the government—were not to introduce proposals that would effectively impinge upon the rights of opposition parties.

That surprised me, frankly, because the prime minister was a very wise and some would say brilliant political tactician. Some changes to the Standing Orders, which haven't been included in this discussion paper but I certainly considered, would have hamstrung the opposition. The prime minister wanted none of it. He understood, I believe more than anyone else in our party, why the Standing Orders were put in place to begin with.

At the heart of everything else you can say about the prime minister, he understood what democracy meant.

[An hon. member]

Hear, hear!

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

He knew that since we had a majority, if we wished, we could change the Standing Orders in a number of different areas that would have benefited us greatly, that completely—completely—would have removed the ability of opposition members to hold us to account. He would have no part of it.

Therefore, when at the procedure and House affairs committee I raised the fact that we were legislatively obligated to study the Standing Orders between the sixtieth and ninetieth day of the new Parliament, as all Parliaments are, I suggested we go a step further; rather than have a day of debate in the House, we do something about it and see if we can agree upon changes that would make the Standing Orders better, clean up some of the more arcane items contained in the Standing Orders at that time, and hopefully make the House of Commons a better place in which to work and to act.

The opposition members agreed, and at our first meeting I brought forward a proposal. This was not something that came from the PMO. This was something that I felt would be appropriate based on my conversations with the Prime Minister. I was the one who suggested that we consider changes to the Standing Orders, but to do so in a manner that, if any proposed change were objected to for any reason by any member of the committee, that proposal was off the table for discussion. We didn't even debate it. We didn't try to convince other members of the worthiness of the proposed change. We just took it off. You know something? That was probably one of the best-functioning committees I've been on. It was actually a subcommittee.

All of the members of the committee went to back to their caucuses. They consulted with them extensively as to some of the proposed changes that our caucus members would like to see. Then we came back to the table, put our respective proposed changes on the table, and went from there. I can tell you, quite honestly, that in our caucus of the previous Parliament, some of the changes you have on your discussion paper were suggested. There weren't many, but there were a couple of people who recommended we go to a four-day week. You have that in yours. There were some who talked about electronic voting. There was a lot of other discussion about areas that would hamstring the opposition, and, as I said, I didn't entertain those.

I mentioned this in the last intervention, Mr. Chair, but I'll say it again because we have some new members at the table. I want to give a couple of examples of what I speak of. In the last Parliament there were only seven or eight members who were not part of recognized parties. By that I mean they didn't have 12 members of a caucus, so they weren't recognized. Ms. May was there representing the Green Party. I think there were two or three members of the Bloc Québécois, a couple of members of some other Quebec sovereigntist associations and political parties. However, in total, there were only, I believe, eight of them.

On two or three occasions during the last Parliament, the three major parties came to an agreement on some motions. Normally it would be something like the time we rise, or we ask for UC on, something that the Conservatives, the Liberals, and the NDP could agree upon. On two or three occasions, though, when we introduced the motion asking for unanimous consent, one or more of the seven or eight of what we should call independent members said “no”.

What happens? Well, you have to “stand five”, which they did. That forced a vote. We ultimately got approval of the motion we had introduced, but it took an hour out of our time. There were 30-minute bells, and you have to go through a vote. It delayed the government's own legislative agenda for an hour. Some may say it's not a big deal, but it is a big deal if it happens frequently.

This government is seeing what happens if you have unwanted or unnecessary votes. Your legislative agenda is getting thrown off the tracks. We're doing that by design.

But I digress. Going back to the issue of the day, as some have suggested, the stand five provision was put into place several decades ago, when there were far fewer members of Parliament than there are at this time. From an inflationary viewpoint, one could make the argument that if the stand five provision was in place when there were only 180 members, and now there are more than 300 members, wouldn't it make sense to change the Standing Orders to say that you have to “stand 10” to force a vote? What would stand 10 do? In that political environment, stand 10 would have prevented Ms. May, the Bloc members, and the other independent members from ever being able to force a vote.

We didn't introduce it. I would not allow it to be even discussed at the all-party committee, because based on my conversations with the prime minister, I knew what he would say: “no.” Quite frankly, I was a little fearful that if I allowed it to be discussed at the committee, I'd be hauled on the carpet. But I didn't do it because I knew that's what he didn't want to do. I also knew that it was not the right thing to do. How could we, the tyranny of the majority, be obstructing the ability of individual and independent members of Parliament from doing their jobs, doing what they felt was necessary to represent their constituents? It simply wasn't right. We thus didn't go beyond that point.

I also made mention in my last intervention of another scenario, if you want to talk about numbers. It was on Standing Order 56.1, which we used successfully on a number of occasions, both when the Liberals were the official opposition and when the NDP were the official opposition.

For the benefit of those of you at this table who are new and may not know what S.O. 56.1 is, it basically means that if a government introduces a motion asking for unanimous consent and the consent is denied, they can then reintroduce the same motion under the rubric of S.O. 56.1, and if 25 members do not stand, the motion is deemed approved.

What we would do on occasion is wait until a Friday morning, when attendance is traditionally lower than it is normally. We would even put some advance scouts into the opposition lounges to see how many members were sitting, and perhaps not in Parliament sitting in their seats. A lot of times on Friday mornings, as we all know, unless your whip has pretty good discipline, members don't tend to show up. So we'd wait until we thought we could win because there weren't 25 members to oppose. We'd bring in S.O. 56.1 on a motion, and what do you know? We'd get it passed, when we otherwise wouldn't have gotten it passed.

Some of our caucus suggested that the opposition was on to us now, and that their whips were never going to let fewer than 25 people be in attendance at any time; that we'd never get this done again. A member who shall remain nameless, who was actually defeated in the last election—perhaps it was a good thing—thus suggested, why not change the provision from 25 to 35 or 40? Then we'd probably get an S.O. 56.1 passed every time. If nothing else, it would inflame the opposition members, because they would have to have more of their people staying in Ottawa on a Friday.

I didn't let it happen. I simply would not entertain it, and it never came up for discussion in our all-party committee, because it wasn't right and because I knew the prime minister wouldn't accept it.

Those are just two examples of what one party could do with a majority to change Standing Orders to the absolute, absolute destruction of democracy. I choose my words very carefully here. I don't want to engage in hyperbole, but what members of the government are attempting to do is exactly that. The Westminster form of government was established by very learned individuals, and for a reason. They recognized the usefulness of Parliament as a decision-making body, but also they recognized the ability of opposition members to contribute to that process. Negating the ability of opposition members to hold the government to account is a very, very dangerous thing to do.