Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 21st, 2017

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Again, my best advice would be to watch what your veteran colleagues are doing. As soon as one of us starts saying anything about the Harper government, suddenly they have very important documents that they must look at incredibly closely. Just let it go by, because it won't last, but it's going to be there. Anyway, that's advice to you, my friend, and it's worth what you paid for it.

I just point out that as we get into the detail of why we're here I again want to express how overall disappointing it is. The government started with a lot of optimism. The other thing is that this file itself, electoral reform or anything to do with rules and democracy, is not exactly a strong suit for the government right now. They might recall a slight U-turn that the government recently took vis-à-vis one of their biggest promises to change.... I believe there were words to the effect that the 2015 election would be the very last one that Canada would conduct under first past the post.

They made that promise over and over again. The Prime Minister personally owned that promise: the 2015 federal election would be the last one ever conducted under first past the post. What's going to happen in October 2019? We're going to have a federal election and it's going to be first past the post.

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

Hear, hear!

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Government members, do you see how happy you've made the Conservatives by doing that? Maybe you thought the heartbreak it caused us would be worth it, but I have to tell you that the Cons got the best of that whole deal: status quo, don't change, and leave it the way it is. That's what you gave them, but you promised to do something different. You broke that and then you promised to show respect to committees, and you're in the process of breaking that too. Way to go.

Now that I'm warmed up, Chair, I can move to some of my prepared remarks.

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

David, we have bells in 10 minutes.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That's what I'm banking on. There are no secrets over here. This is it, man. There are no big secrets.

I was just in the midst of reading a very important letter into the record, Chair, which I mentioned to you just briefly and was issued publicly. It's signed by Candice Bergen, the official opposition House leader, and Murray Rankin , the NDP House leader. It is addressed to Madam Chagger in her capacity as the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. It reads as follows:

Dear Minister:

With the Procedure and House Affairs committee set to resume its tainted and unproductive meeting to deal with the government's plan to unilaterally re-write the rules of Parliament, we, the Opposition House Leaders, are reaching out to offer a reasonable alternative to the current fruitless standoff.

We remain committed to the Canadian parliamentary tradition—dating back to the original drafting of our Standing Orders in 1867—of having all-party support for overhauling the rules of the House. Without your clear commitment to respect that tradition, a good-faith study is impossible. As an alternative, we would like to propose the model used by the Chretien Government.

Mr. Chretien's government created the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons that sat from 2001—2003. The motion that established that committee is attached.

Lest the government be worried, I will of course be reading that too. To pick up again from the letter:

The membership of the committee was made up of the Deputy Speaker and one member from each of the recognized parties. The committee operated by all-party consensus and managed to present six reports to the House.

Six reports: a previous Liberal government did that. What headway are we making here? None. Why? Because of the government's power grab.

To pick up again:

We are always open to thoughtful discussions about improving the way the House of Commons operates. That being said, we also recognize the strong historical precedent that has been established for making significant changes to the Standing Orders. As you know, history has demonstrated that the overwhelming majority of substantial Standing Order changes only occurred after receiving consent from all parties.

We believe that a consensus-based approach to modernizing the House of Commons, along the lines of the Chretien model, would respect the time honoured tradition of this Parliament, and be more fruitful and productive.

Your attention to this matter is appreciated.

Again, it is signed “Sincerely”, by Madam Bergen and Mr. Rankin.

Now, the motion referenced in the letter is attached to the letter and forms a part of it. It's headed “2001 Motion to Create the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons”.

It's not that long, Chair. It's in bullet point form and states:

That a special committee of the House be appointed to consider and make recommendations on the modernization and improvement of the procedures of the House of Commons;

That the Members of the committee shall be the Deputy Speaker and the House Leaders of each of the officially recognized parties, provided that substitutions may be made from time to time, if required, in the manner provided for in Standing Order 114(2);

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, the Chair of the committee shall be the Deputy Speaker and the Vice-Chairs shall be the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the House Leader of the Official Opposition;

That the committee shall have all of the powers granted to standing committees in Standing Order 108....

If I may, Mr. Chair, do you see how important it is that the Standing Orders are referenced? Whenever we're taking action, it's the Standing Orders that provide the process we would follow. That's why you're seeing here these references to Standing Orders, and that's why this whole battle and war is under way: because the government wants the right to change these Standing Orders using their majority vote only.

This is why it's so important to us that it not happen. It's not just one ideological principle of whether as the opposition we agree with the government or not on a particular point. It's talking about how we make laws. When there's a reference here to Standing Order 108, there's usually an impression that the Standing Orders are something we all agree on. Why? Because we all had input and agreed that they would become the Standing Orders.

It's when we take certain Standing Orders and make them the domain of the majority government that we see the House starting to come loose. The foundations that hold us together are these Standing Orders, so that every time we want to do anything at all, how it's done in a way that we all accept as fair is nice and easily referenced by saying, “So we'll do that, Chair, in the same way that we do it in Standing Order 108.” The assumption is that when you look at it, whatever Standing Order 108 is, it's something we all agree on and it provides the detail we all agree on. Otherwise, you'd have to go through each of those details on each of these points and decide whether or not we agree on—wait for it—the rules of engagement.

From the fact that I'm making references to Standing Orders consistently as we are passing a motion of action to create an entity that's going to do something, you can see that the importance of all of us having faith and of standing by the fairness of the Standing Orders is crucial. Otherwise, we'd never get anywhere.

I will not repeat myself but I will make reference to the fact that I talked about how as kids we played pick-up games of scrub in the alleyway—at least in my own case—and we would end up spending more than half the time fighting about what the rules were going to be than we did actually playing the game. But even as kids we knew that you have to decide what the rules are and everybody has to agree. Otherwise, what happens is that you don't play.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Christopherson—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

What's this, Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

It's a point of order.

Mr. Reid.

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

I just wanted to say that this whole thing about arguing over the rules for that length of time when you're playing scrub baseball is a confirmed sign of a future labour negotiator.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

That's not really a point of order, but it's entertaining.

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Who knew?

Thank you, Chair.

I have to tell you that there were probably a lot of things that happened in that alleyway that come in handy around here sometimes when it's necessary to get some elbows up.

All joking aside, I think the point is a fair one. I do believe that it's important to show that every time we want to do something we make a reference to the standing order. That provides a whole flood of details and procedures that we don't have to bother reinventing each and every time, because we've decided, when we set out on a certain course of action, “here are the rules of engagement and here's what's fair”, and if they don't cover it, then you make sure you have some special rules that you agree on.

We don't need to have that fight over and over. Once we've agreed on what the Standing Orders are going to be, not only are they enforceable by the Speaker but, more importantly in a Parliament, each of us accepts them as the rules. We accept that they're fair on balance, and that they're meant to be fair.

That can also affect Speakers' rulings on things, because if the government has no intention of being fair when they change the Standing Orders and implement them, that means that at some point some of us are going to be on our feet on a point of order trying to get the Speaker to say that the standing order shouldn't be applied because it's not fair. All of that is eliminated—

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

There go the bells.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I see colleagues pointing to.... Does that mean I have to stop?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

You can come back. Don't worry.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

All right. I still have a couple of things to say.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We're suspended until after the vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We are “unsuspended”. We'll carry on where we left off with Mr. Christopherson. We're glad to have a good audience here to hear this.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

All right. Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate that, but I do want to say again that my preference would be that we would be doing some work. My preference would be that we be engaged in doing the work we've been asked to do.

Picking up where I think I left off—I stand to be corrected by you, Mr. Chair—I do believe I had mentioned the point in the 2001 motion that the Chrétien government brought in to deal with a very similar situation, which was done in a far more co-operative way, even though Mr. Chrétien was known from time to time to be a little autocratic himself, as we all know. On this issue, Mr. Chrétien felt it was important that any changes to the Standing Orders have the agreement and buy-in of everyone. That's why he presented this.

I was in the process of reading into the record the mandate that was given to that committee at that time, given the fact that it is that model that my House Leader, Mr. Rankin, and the Conservative official opposition House leader, Madam Bergen, have both recommended as a way to get us off the....

Do you know what's interesting, Mr. Chair? So far, the only people who have brought new ideas to get us out of this mess is the opposition. The government seems to be quite content to have us in the ditch and stay in the ditch. It's their way or the highway. It's us, interestingly enough, who have consistently, since this began, been putting formal ideas on the table. I can't tell you how many side meetings we've had with Mr. Simms, Mr. Richards, and myself to try to put forward ideas. All those ideas, I want you to know, except for the one.... The government has come up with this one thing. I'm assuming they've made it public—if not, so what—that, oh, they're willing to move off the June 2 dime and make it the fall.

Really, what does that change? Whether you get your political head chopped off on a Tuesday or on the following Thursday doesn't change things too much: your head is coming off. Whether the government held off using their majority until the fall deadline as opposed to the June 2 deadline really doesn't make much difference to us except as days on the calendar.

Again, why the government thought that was going to do anything is beyond me. It's not a question of time, per se, although, Mr. Chair, they do have a bit of a time problem. If I might just say parenthetically, one of the problems they have is that once we get past this we still have a myriad of problems to deal with, not the least of which is that it was the new Minister of Democratic....

I don't think they're called “democratic reform” anymore, we kind of threw that....

Is it still democratic reform?

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

Democratic institutions.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Was it always, or was it “reform”?

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

It was always “institutions”.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Okay. Fair enough.

The new minister of democratic reform...or Minister of Democratic Institutions....

We're the opposition. If the government says something, we go the other way. It's just a natural reflex.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

This is the second minister, by the way. We burned through the first one pretty quickly, which was too bad. I have to say, that really wasn't her fault. She was a brand new member. She came across very effectively, but the marching orders were coming out of the PMO. I feel very sorry for that MP, because they just drove that member right into the wall. She had no chance, absolutely none, given the way it was playing out.

Anyway, we have a brand new minister, and I'm actually quite proud of the fact that she is from Burlington, which is the neck of the woods that Madam Tassi and I hail from in this great country. Notwithstanding that she is a Liberal, it's still very good to see someone local. It's not quite what we would call a regional minister—if someone is going to be a regional minister for Hamilton, they ought to come from Hamilton—but it's a step up from where we were before. I've already had a couple of meetings with the minister, and I must say I'm very impressed, talking about both her file and some local matters and the doors she opened. That was a great move.

My colleague right across the way, Madam Tassi, the newest or one of the newest members on this committee, has been promoted to deputy whip. I'm very proud to see any Hamiltonian doing well, particularly this member, who is very honourable and has done a great job. I know that in her current position it will be easier for her to do her job, but also having the minister in Burlington is going to make it lot easier for Ms. Tassi, who is our go-to person in the committee. You would think it might be the former mayor member, but it's not.

I won't go any further on that, except to say that everybody in Hamilton knew that if you seriously wanted to talk to the government, prior to our having a regional minister, it was Madam Tassi you went to. I have complimented her publicly at events in Hamilton for the role she has played. There are lots of things for us to fight about, and we'll do that on the issues, but on some of these overarching personal matters I think it makes a difference in terms of how we relate in this place to be complimentary to a colleague from another party who has done well, or who has been given a great promotion, and to give them all the encouragement in the world.

The worst thing in the world now would be for that shiny new minister to fail, although I guess it might open up an opportunity for Madam Tassi, who is sort of on the warm-up mat for cabinet. Nonetheless, it's not very good for us when we lose someone who gets up on the issues....

Did I embarrass you? I didn't mean to, Madam. It was a compliment, and I hope you take it as such, meaning that you are clearly, from the viewpoint of the opposition benches, on your way to cabinet. The first move is the one you've made, and I expect it's only a matter of time before I will be addressing my friend Filomena as Madam Minister, but for now she remains in her otherwise still important position as the deputy whip, and that's all to the good.

The point I was making, Chair, was that this minister came in and attempted to unravel the ball of mess that the previous minister's orders—I won't say “her”, but her “orders”—had left. She asked us to accelerate some of our work on the Chief Electoral Officer's report, which I mentioned earlier, making recommendations on changes to the election laws following the last election. She asked us because she committed, as much as you could expect without an absolute oath, that the disrespect shown to this committee would stop, particularly as it relates to issues around the election laws.

She came in and asked if we would take a look at certain issues that we hadn't yet gotten to—whether we would pull that forward and take a look at it, and try to have a report for her by May 19. That was a tight deadline, and most of us were frantically thinking, “How the heck are we going to do that?” The point I'm making is that because of the way the request was made, because it was in our common interest, and because there was respect shown for the committee, our initial response wasn't, “Oh, great, we can make life tough for the minister.” Our first reaction was, “Okay, how can we accommodate this? How is that doable?”

I have to say to you, Chair, notwithstanding the weeks and days we have lost here, I didn't know how we were going to do it then. I have no idea how we're going to do it now—more important work that is not being done as a result of the government's actions.

They have now moved this report to the fall. That's fair enough, but when you look at what started all this, let's remember the components that made up the issue. The original motion—as far as I know, until we deem differently that motion still stands, because it has not yet been amended—requests that we be done by June 2.

Is that correct, June 2, or is it June 9? It is June 2.

We had May 19 and we didn't know how we were going to do that; now we're all blown up and not meeting at all. Then they come in, and the issue that has us all blown up has a deadline of June 2.

All the goodwill in the world can't create weeks and months that don't exist. We have a mess on top of a mess on top of a mess. It's layers of onion here, and every time you peel back one of the layers, you have another layer. That's our problem.

I believe I left off making reference to the bullet point that said that the committee shall have all the powers granted to standing committees in Standing Order 108. Then I talked about S.O. 108.

I know that if I attempt to revisit those arguments you're going to lower the boom on me, Chair, for repeating myself, so I won't even force you to do that; I'll just move right along knowing that you wouldn't allow it.

Let me continue, then, Chair, with another bullet point from the motion that is meant to be the example that our two House leaders, the official opposition House leader and the third party House leader—respectively Madam Bergen and Monsieur Rankin—have proposed as a way out of this.

Again I would underscore that here is the opposition trying to help the government get out of the mess that they created. You'd think at some point the government might have put something on the....

I mean, you suspended, Chair, and gave the government enough time. You gave them all of last week, the last couple of days, and all I know is that there were a couple of small meetings. Other than that, what the heck did the government do with the time they had?

When you suspended us on, I think, the Friday before the constituency week, the Friday or the Saturday, most of us on this side expected that the government would use that week—a whole week—to get some work done. In this case, the work being done would be to ask how do we get out of the mess we're in at PROC? What's our off-ramp? What's our exit strategy? What's our alternative to the government? What are we going to do to get us out of here?

You'd think they would have taken the week. Mr. Doherty beside me here is perplexed, wondering what you did with a whole week. On arguably the biggest issue, at least in terms of what's happening in this place, the government seems to have done nothing.

We came back here on Monday. I was all set to go. The next thing I knew, as I was taking my breath to start, you took a breath, Chair, and said we were suspended again until Wednesday at four o'clock. You didn't give any explanation, sir, but most of us assumed that four o'clock on a Wednesday, which is an unusual kind of time to start a meeting, was meant to provide the parties with not only the time to cut a deal but time to take it to their respective caucuses, have it approved, come back here Wednesday at 4:01, and we would be on the path to getting out of this mess. At least, that's what I presumed was on your mind when you picked that rather unusual time and provided another two full days.

I wasn't at the meeting with the House leaders, but I certainly had a detailed debriefing. I can't go into any great detail, but I'll tell you, there aren't many details to go into. It doesn't seem as though a whole lot happened. They had some discussions, but nothing positive, nothing that even entailed meeting further. It was just, okay, I guess we are where we are.

Again, it's so strange, given that the government is the one who's driving this whole thing. They drove the discussion paper, we believe, although Mr. Simms says different. I respect Mr. Simms, but we still hold that the direction in that motion did come from the PMO. It certainly had their sanction. We believe that.

Basically, where we are is by the design of the government, so you would think, when they were given free time to think about things, that they would have put at least as much time into getting out of this mess as they seemed to have put into getting us into this mess.

I don't believe for one minute that springing this meeting, the filibuster 24-7, which was the government's decision, was done by Mr. Simms or the members of this committee alone. I was part of a government, so I get this. I served two years on the backbenches before I was a cabinet minister, so I get all the dynamics. The government is the one calling the shots. In this case, it's hard to say they're calling shots when there aren't any shots.

It's almost like they're.... I don't know. Are they behind closed doors, clicking their heels three times and hoping magic happens? Are they hoping that suddenly Mr. Reid, Mr. Doherty, Mr. Nater, and I are all just going to fold, and say, “Oh, you know what? You were right. The government's right. We were wrong.”

What did they think was going to happen? If they didn't take the time last week to do it, then they're going to have to take the time going forward. Why they also allow a brand new channel on TV, the “beat up the Liberal” channel, to be aired 24-7 is beyond me, but so be it. I mean, we chased them long enough when we were back in room 112 north.

I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that the previous government would never have done anything like that. Once they decided they were going to be bloody-minded, at least they were consistent. They stayed bloody-minded at every single step along the way. They ultimately paid a price for that, which is why I'm looking at Liberals instead of Conservatives from this side, but that's what they did.

Here, we kept pressing them to take us to a room that has TV cameras so people can watch it, and they kept saying “no”. So we, of course, as you would expect, kept asking, because it's embarrassing for the government, “Why can't we be in public?” The government just said “no”.