Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 21st, 2017

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

They're doing fine, Chair. They're doing fine.

[An hon. member]

There is an issue of relevance here.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Oh, relevance. Okay, that's fair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair. Those are very helpful interventions, and they are much appreciated, entertaining, as well as informative. It doesn't get any better. And it's free.

[An hon. member]

Not here.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes, nothing's free.

The government had hoped that, starting with, I would think, the likes of The Globe and Mail—which would be the first ones to not just point out that the opposition and some of us can be a little histrionic—would go through the whole thing and the only negatives the government would take, it hoped, would be the opposition. And at the end of this, it hoped that the heading and the story itself would be all about how unreasonable and obstructionist the opposition were being, thereby laying the groundwork for the ultimate demise of this resistance and the ultimate success of the government, the Liberal government, in being able to change the rules in whatever way makes it happy.

And instead, it got this. But, lest anyone think this is an anomaly, let me quickly dissuade them of that by moving now to what I believe has the title of—

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

You had to clear your throat twice.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you so much. In previous parliaments, I'd have been suspicious about that.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

But it's you, Arnold, and I have every faith. Look at this.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Trust me.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I trust you, Arnold. Thank you.

Again, this underscores the ability to find humour even in the toughest of political moments because of the classy approach of the members of this committee. I believe that, I truly do, having sat on more than my share of committees in my time.

Chair, I was wrapping up my comments on The Globe and Mail's editorial contribution to these discussions, and was about to turn my attention to what I believe is fairly titled as the biggest—and I probably don't have the wording right—circulation newspaper in the country, the Toronto Star. I believe that's true. I'm looking for learned folks to give me a nod, but as one would expect in these things, most of them are—

[An hon. member]

I'm listening.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

—doing something other than hanging off my every word—

[An hon. member]

I'm listening.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

—and as crushing as that is to my massive ego, I can certainly understand and would not suggest for a minute that I have hung off the words of every other person in a filibuster. However, I think that's fairly accurate. The Toronto Star is the most widely circulated daily newspaper in the country.

This is dated actually three days before the Globe editorial. The Globeweighed in on March 31, and this is on Tuesday, so the Star was moving pretty quickly. You have to love it, though. Even when you get criticized, you get a great picture. It's hard to beat that. Anyway, the headline of the Toronto Star editorial as it relates to the matter before us, Chair, is “Potential parliamentary reforms would strike a blow to democracy: Editorial”. This is on Tuesday, to their credit, the day before the budget.

The Toronto Star editorial board said this on Tuesday, March 28, 2017:

The mess of democracy is easy to love when you're in opposition and your job is to hold the government to account. But for those in power trying to push through an agenda, robust democratic institutions—a working Parliament, for instance, or watchdogs with teeth—are too often seen as a nuisance.

So it wasn't just those wild-eyed radicals over at The Globe and Mail editorial board who think that the Prime Minister sees all of this as merely a nuisance. It would seem that the Toronto Star editorial board also feels that Mr. Trudeau views Parliament and its workings as a nuisance.

Isn't that interesting? This suggests that The Globe and Mail felt that, no matter how much it probably—and I don't know anything about this world, so I'm totally speculating, but I suspect, when you're doing the same subject and you're a main competitor, you might want to try to avoid using the same language or the same phraseology just for obvious reasons as competitors, and so one would think that editorial board was at least familiar with what its colleagues and counterparts at The Globe and Mail had said and would have noticed that they used the word “nuisance” to describe how they believe the Prime Ministerviewed Parliament and its committees. And yet they still used the word “nuisance.”

Now, I could be making a mountain out of a molehill. I accept that. But it just seems passing strange to me that The Globe and Mail.... I guess it would be the other way around, wouldn't it? The Globe and Mail would have seen this in the Toronto Star because it was first, and then The Globe and Mail still felt that of all the words available, “nuisance” was still the right word, that it was the accurate word, and, therefore, even though it was repeating a word that its competitor had used, it was accurate and so it felt comfortable using it.

But the original use, at least between these two, was the Toronto Star editorial that came out on the Tuesday and said its impression was that this is how the Prime Minister views Parliament.

I caution my Conservative friends: You're not going to like the next part, so do up your seatbelts and get your head down.

The Harper government was famously attuned to this tension, putting expediency ahead of democracy at every turn. In opposition, Justin Trudeau was an outspoken critic of Stephen Harper’s autocratic tendencies. He tapped into growing public concern about the health of our democracy, promising open government and a post-partisan approach to Parliament.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Wow—an alliteration.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes, it's an alliteration. That's very good. You can see why they pick the best to write these kinds of things, a post-partisan approach to Parliament, a very good alliteration.

But a dubious set of parliamentary reforms currently being floated suggests once again that Trudeau is not, in fact, fundamentally different from his predecessors on this point.

Wasn't the slogan “real change”, with a real emphasis on the word “real”, as I remember the stickers and the podium placards, again playing on the fact that the NDP was talking about change, and so they cleverly came along and said they'd give us real change? It turns out the difference between “real change” and “change” is still defined by the Prime Minister of the day, not the word itself. Campaign on the left; govern on the right.

On balance, the reforms would make it easier for government to govern, but harder for Parliament to hold government to account. And the anti-democratic manner in which the government seems set on pursuing them is further proof that expediency, not democracy, is the priority.

Real change, they said.

Again things change, Chair, but it used to be said back in the day that politicians would be wise to be very careful taking on and criticizing people who buy ink by the gallon and paper by the ton, meaning be careful, as a politician, if you're going to take on a significant newspaper in a meaningful way, because, while being an MP has its perches and its soapboxes, so does a newspaper, even in 2017, especially when it's the Toronto Star.

I often feel so sorry for backbenchers, provincially and federally, in government in particular, but anybody who's from Toronto who is not a cabinet minister, because their local newspaper is theToronto Star. It's so hard to get coverage because there are so many in the Toronto area, that if you're relying on theToronto Star as your local paper to give you coverage for what you do, and you're not a cabinet minister, don't hold your breath. I have heard that from the time I arrived at Queen's Park, in 1990, all the way through. I haven't heard anything different from Toronto. You and I don't have that, Chair, because we have our weekly papers and we have our set paper.

In Hamilton we have The Hamilton Spectator. The beloved Hamilton Spectator—love it or hate it, that's our paper. We have only one, and it's not that hard to get coverage if you're doing something good or bad. But if you're in Toronto and you do something good, an announcement for a nice local thing, or you've done something really important, good luck trying to get covered in the Toronto Star. It makes sense, right? Often the best they have is the local papers. I guess social media is changing that over time. I see my friend Mr. Chan shaking his head and saying no, indicating it hasn't changed that much, and that what I'm saying is an accurate reflection.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

We get no coverage.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

No coverage, yes. So things haven't changed that much for Toronto members from when I first arrived on the parliamentary scene in 1990. It's tough.

I'm going to say this because my dear friend Jack Layton used to say this publicly from time to time. Trust me, it was far more in sorrow than in anger. He would often say that the Liberals should have to declare the Toronto Star as an election expense. It is just that feeling by New Democrats that no matter what happens when it comes to the Toronto Star, we always have this feeling that we're being wronged every time the Star hugs the Liberals. Historically, that's where they've been comfortable—with some exceptions, I must say. During my time at least a couple of times they have endorsed the NDP.

I just thought it would be interesting to show it, and I only mention that to show that this is not a paper with a normal gut reaction to go after Liberals. It's not that at all. If anything, it has some sympathy for the direction and balance of the Liberals, I guess, to try to see it the way they do. Yet, boy, it's hitting hard. It's not pulling any punches. And why is that, Chair? Is it because this is some insignificant little thing and all of a sudden the Toronto Star has decided it doesn't like the Liberals anymore and it's going to go hugging the opposition? No, that's not what's going on.

The reason it's hitting so hard in a paper that is often supportive of the Liberal approach to governance is that it's so important. The reason we're filibustering is that this is so important, and that's why the government refuses to adjourn the meeting, and that's why we're 24-7. On the principle, histrionics and all, the Toronto Star is taking a real run at the government in a significant way, as you will see as I continue to read it.

There's that last sentence:

And the anti-democratic manner...

Think about it. This was the government that ran against Stephen Harper, who was the anti-democratic demagogue.

Here we are not even two years into the government mandate, not even halfway, a little over 18 months probably at a quick calculation, and it's being called anti-democratic in terms of how it's approaching wanting to change Parliament, by an entity that is not afraid to support the Liberals more than time to time. That's quite something. It might suggest that maybe, just maybe, the opposition might have a point. At the very least, the opposition may have a point.

To continue:

The potential changes to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, laid out in a “discussion paper” last week, are a mixed bag. A few are for the good. A measure that would allow the Speaker to hive off portions of omnibus bills, for instance, would weaken one of government’s most powerful shields against scrutiny. A proposal to dedicate one day a week of Question Period to interrogating the prime minister, as the British Parliament does, would also be welcome, as long as the PM showed up on other days, too.

It's interesting— not a single opposition member and so far neither editorial has let go of the fact that the concern is that the Prime Minister will come only one day a week.

In addition to accountability, that focus also diverts attention away from the importance of question period. When the Prime Minister's not there, we can look up into the media galleries, and there is a pretty consistent correlation between the number of media.... I see the chair nodding his head; you can see this from where we sit. When the Prime Minister is there, it tends to be a more fulsome.... It's not that they aren't watching, because they are covering it: they're in their offices and things. Nonetheless, when the Prime Minister's there, they seem to make a bigger effort to actually be there in person so that they can see the whole dynamic and feel the mood of the House. It's just that there are that many more of them when the Prime Minister's there. Conversely, when the Prime Minister's not there, there are fewer.

One of the things that make our parliamentary system so different from the congressional system is the day-to-day accountability of the executive council, the cabinet, in the name of the Prime Minister.

I won't go on, because I can't, but as I mentioned, in terms of wanting to answer every question on a Wednesday, the rules already allow it. The Prime Minister did it yesterday—his big, secret surprise, which they didn't think through, because it also pointed out that they were able to do it without changing anything.

Wow! That really harmed their case.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

It's a novel idea.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Anyway, we'll continue.

Again, regarding the Speaker and the omnibus bills, for instance, it said that would “weaken one of the government's most powerful shields against scrutiny”.

It said that a proposal to dedicate.... Sorry, I read that already. That was the Prime Minister showing up, again the concern being that he's not going to be there the rest of the time.

The Toronto Star editorial continues:

But several others are cause for concern. A proposal to limit debate by strictly scheduling the stages of a bill's passage would likely increase efficiency, but at what cost to democracy? Same goes for measures that would limit speeches in committee, eliminate opposition filibustering and remove other tools for delaying government legislation or alerting the public to problems. In our version of democracy, when the government has a majority, the opposition has few tools as it is.

The Toronto Star is making the case, as did The Globe and Mail, that in the face of a majority government, the Canadian parliamentary system loads everything up in favour of the government, and there are very few, with limited affect, tools available to the opposition.

Here we are with the government of sunny ways and accountability taking away some of the few tools we have, and respective committees not even halfway through their mandate are being accused of being anti-democratic. Those are exactly the arguments we've been making.

It's not as though we've been making a whole myriad of arguments and it took the editorials to come in and focus on things and separate what is irrelevant. Those are the very arguments we've been making, and they aren't limitless.

It's not as though we're creating all kinds of false bogeymen here. Our arguments have been consistent and focused, and they are matched by the comments and position of The Globe and Mail editorial and the Toronto Star editorial. I hearken government members back to the Liberal editorial that said that arguments from the government to the contrary—my words, my paraphrasing—are absurd. That word was theirs: “absurd”.

So again, from the last part:

In our version of democracy, when the government has a majority, the opposition has few tools as it is.

In a richly ironic gesture, on the same day the discussion paper was released, a Liberal MP tabled a motion demanding the relevant parliamentary committee issue recommendations on reform by June 2. Why the rush?

I'm still quoting, by the way: “Why the rush?”

Remember, we were asking. We were trying to figure out whether June 2 was a special day or June 3 was a special day and we had to finish by June 2 because Parliament was going to turn into a pumpkin at midnight if we didn't get this report with its recommendations done? We never did get an answer as to what the magic about June 2 or the avoidance of June 3 was.

In a practical way, the only thing I could think of was that they wanted enough time to convert the report into...probably a motion. It doesn't take a bill to change the Standing Orders; a motion would do it. It would give them time to bring in that motion, use the guillotine of ending debate, and ram the sucker through before we rise in June, so that they can come back fully equipped with all their new weaponry in the fall, ready to take on that obstructionist, evil, anti-democratic opposition whose actions required them to take these drastic steps in the first place.

I suspect that's what June 2 was, but my opinion and a toonie gets you a coffee; there's no guarantee past that. There may be some other magical reason or blatant reason I've missed that June 2 was the day, but boy, the government was sure hell-bent that it was going to be June 2 no matter what.

It's funny that, when it realized it needed to start moving, the first moveable piece was June 2. Whatever reason there was for it originally quickly became less important once it looked as though this wasn't going to go tickety-boo in exactly the way the government hoped.

Again:

In a richly ironic gesture on the same day the discussion paper was released, a Liberal MP tabled a motion demanding the relevant party issue recommendations on reform by June 2. Why the rush? Surely democratic reform ought to be pursued by democratic means

—there's a concept the government ought to give some thought to—

with all the deliberations and debate that those entail. In response to the motion, members of the committee filibustered to draw attention to the abuse of Parliament, using a tool they might not have for much longer.

There's real change: campaign on the left, govern on the right.

A new report from Samara, a non-profit organization dedicated to civic engagement, suggests that confidence in Canada's democracy, while low, has increased since Harper's defeat. In 2015, survey respondents gave our democratic leadership a grade of D;

—heads down: that's a D, as in David—

this year, the mark improved to a C.

Next year's is going to be so bad. Mom and Dad are going to be really upset when they see this next report card, because I think there's a great big F coming, especially in the part that talks about democracy and respect therefor. We're not going to want to bring that report card home. We all remember that.

Well, Mr. Chan, you probably had good report cards; maybe that's why it wasn't a problem. Let me tell you that for guys like me, that—was it two or three times a year?—was the worst part of the year, because I certainly didn't have a lot of shiny A's and I didn't have many good reasons for not having them.

To continue:

This jibes with an EKOS poll that found that, after decades of erosion, public trust in government spiked after Trudeau's election win.

The bad thing is what they did with it. That was the bad thing, and it continues to be the bad thing, but it was a good thing that this government getting elected gave people renewed hope in their parliamentary system at a time when around the world it's going the other way. That was a good thing, and great for the Liberal brand, which I complimented earlier in this modest discussion. The government played to fantastic advantage when they first got elected.

I have to tell you that in the early days it was so bad, I could hardly look at the TV. I could only imagine how Hillary felt in those months following, because I have to tell that you every time I looked at that darn TV, it just ruined my day. It would get worse and worse, and then I'd think that the next day they would trip up. Then when they did trip up, things were going so well it didn't stick.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Are you talking about Trump's election or the Liberals' election?