I'm in her good books. I believe she's making use of some of the past modernization functions of this House by watching this committee on ParlVu. So there are ways we can modernize this place, with the consent of all parties, and that's just one specific element.
I do want to start off by referencing some of the authorities that we turn to on this subject. The motion before us and the amendment are important to how we operate as a House, how we operate as a Parliament, and changes of this sort should not be taken lightly. The changes envisioned in the original motion are ones that, by necessity, would have to be taken in a speedy manner, and that's simply not the case.
The learned amendment that's been put forward would require that all parties agree to any changes that are made to the Standing Orders. That's what's been done in the past, in most cases. That's what's been done in a proper functioning way of going about this.
I might start by turning to some of the authorities. I think probably all of us have our favourite authorities. For me it's Beauchesne’s, I think one of the most useful references we have as parliamentarians. This edition is the sixth, edited by Fraser, Dawson, and Holtby. Of course, we all know John Holtby, one of the great procedural minds on this Parliament, a dear friend of Parliament and a learned gentleman who provides guidance to us as parliamentarians on a daily basis, and to me personally as well.
I draw the committee's attention to page 6, paragraph 16, of Beauchesne's, in which the authorities are discussed. Beauchesne's mentions:
Members also are assisted by various publications known collectively as “the authorities”. The term is used to describe the small number of books that attempt to collect and organize the traditions, precedents and procedures of parliamentary bodies. The extent of this group is uncertain. Traditionally, in Canada, the House has recognized the usefulness of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada, and Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada. Sir Erskine May's Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament is a guide to relevant current British procedure.
I would note, as well, that I believe Erskine May is now in its 24th edition, so it is important to recognize the long-term evolution of our practices, and the usual practices we have.
I do want to discuss, going through, the ways in which the Standing Orders have evolved from the past, through both the awareness and the learned changes to the Standing Orders; and also the evolutionary nature of the Standing Orders, the ways in which some of them have changed without even a motion or a change as well. We can discuss that more in depth later on.
I want to start by drawing the attention of the committee to Bourinot. Bourinot is a more dated authority. It was published in 1884 by John George Bourinot, who was, in fact, the clerk of the House of Commons. We'll find that there's a tradition in which our learned clerks collect the usual practices of the House in a single place. We know that one of the more recent documents is the second edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, of course edited by our clerk emeritus Audrey O'Brien and then deputy clerk Marc Bosc, now acting clerk.
I would point out as well that I think it's unfortunate that Marc has the term “acting” in front of his title. I think he is eminently qualified to be the Clerk of the House. Unfortunately, as with a large number of appointments, the government has mired itself in a process that simply has not seen this. I have been a member of this House only since October 2015, but in that year and a half we still have an acting clerk. I think it's unfortunate that we haven't made that appointment yet. I would just say that Mr. Bosc is eminently qualified as a deputy clerk and as an acting clerk for the past couple of years. It would be nice to see that appointment made before too long as well.
I'll go back to Bourinot. It's a more dated reference, but as they say on the radio, it's an oldie but a goodie. I think this is a good example.
I want to draw the attention of the committee to page 210, chapter 5. It's subtitled “Rules, Orders and Usages”. I want to quote from it directly:
The great principles that lie at the basis of English parliamentary law have…been always kept steadily in view by the Canadian legislatures; these are: To protect the minority and restrain the improvidence and tyranny of the majority, to secure the transaction of public business in a decent and orderly manner, to enable every member to express his opinions within those limits necessary to preserve decorum and prevent an unnecessary waste of time, to give full opportunity for the consideration of every measure, and to prevent any legislative action being taken heedlessly and upon sudden impulse.
What I would point out perhaps at first blush here is the balancing that is undertaken, the balance between the majority, the government, and the minority, the opposition. No one expects the government to ride roughshod over the opposition, but at the same time, the opposition does have a duty at times to be constructive. It's a balance. It's a dialogue. It's a discussion. Neither should run roughshod over the other.
One particular point here is that legislative action shouldn't be taken heedlessly and upon sudden impulse. That dictates that we, as parliamentarians, ought not to rush into anything without properly analyzing it beforehand, but here before us we have a guillotine motion that without the amendment would heedlessly rush us into a decision by June 2—by June 2—to undertake fundamental changes to the Standing Orders of our House of Commons in a short period of time.
I don't think there is anyone around this table who wouldn't be open to a discussion, as the government House leader likes to refer to it, but let's have a discussion without the threat of the guillotine, without the threat of needlessly steamrolling the opposition, of forcing each and every one of us into a system that's preferred only by the government party. This could be easily accomplished. If we passed the amendment as introduced by my learned colleague, we could move forward with that discussion. One simple amendment and we can move forward. Unfortunately, the government has given no indication of their willingness to do that, and I think that is unfortunate. I question whether they are simply waiting, trying to wait this out, hoping that the opposition will lose their resolve and move on to other important issues. But this is an important issue. I don't think any of us is willing to necessarily drop this at any time. We find this is an important issue.
To discuss this issue, to discuss the Standing Orders, under the threat of the guillotine is not beneficial to anyone, especially when we look at our international comparators. We have a huge slate of comparative examples we can draw from. First and foremost, our Commonwealth cousins certainly would be a strong starting point—the United Kingdom and the devolved parliaments of Australia, New Zealand. There is no shortage of examples we can look at, and it doesn't say we necessarily have to look only at Commonwealth countries. We can certainly look at non-Westminster systems as well to gauge and to examine some of the issues that are brought up, and then those issues as well, but to do that in the short time before June 2 is simply not a possibility for any members of this committee, especially under the threat of a guillotine.
I want to go back to this quote from Bourinot: “To protect the minority and restrain the improvidence and tyranny of the majority....” I see this especially in the use of a permanent closure, of a programming type of motion by the government to simply in every case have some kind of closure, of time allocation, on every matter that comes before the House. The fact of the matter is that different matters and different issues have different priorities.
In the United Kingdom they have a well-established practice of the “usual channels”. In Canada we have the usual channels as well, but unfortunately we find that the usual channels only work if both channels are working together. We're finding that when the government is unwilling to work through those usual channels, we see breakdowns. We've seen that all too often when the government is not willing to work together.
I was recently honoured to attend a Commonwealth Association meeting in the United Kingdom at which we had a variety of opportunities to discuss the operation of legislatures, of parliaments, in a variety of countries.
This concept of negotiation between House leaders is exceptionally important. The ability to work on things through the usual channels is far more useful than any guillotine motion that might happen.
This would be a good point in time to remind ourselves of the letter that was referred to yesterday by Mr. Christopherson and the willingness of the two opposition House leaders to extend an olive branch to the government, providing an opportunity to get themselves out of this mess that they have gotten themselves into.
