Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 21st, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Vance.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I've been here twice now and have listened intently, as well as participating a bit at the last session, in trying to move this file forward. I like what Ms. Kwan is stating here on trying to do just that: to try to move these yardsticks down the field, so to speak.

I gave a lot of thought to this two- to three-week filibuster when I left the last time, and I thought, why? There's a way that we can present ourselves here with respect to the direction we want to take and the objectives we want to accomplish, by attaching to all of that some actions to move it forward, and hopefully execute a plan that we all can work on. When we look at moving forward, I ask myself, why are we not having a vigorous debate on this issue, as Ms. Kwan called for? Why aren't we calling in witnesses to listen to all sides of what other people think, besides members who sit in the House on a daily basis? Why are we not coming forward, all of us, with recommendations to form a report that we can all digest, debate, amend, etc., and then, of course, agree or disagree on? At that time, weeks or months down the road, there will be an opportunity for those who disagree to react, as they may be reacting now. But let's get something on the table first before we get into the process we're involved in now, which, quite frankly, is a total waste of time.

I just want to make one clarification, based on a similar process that we're involved in here. The President of the Treasury Board, Mr. Brison, put forward the very recommendations that Ms. Kwan talked about earlier with respect to new budgetary procedures and looking at the estimates a bit more rigorously and diligently, as 338 members of the House versus fewer than that. That proposal, in itself, was filibustered by the opposition.

Let's not make any mistake about this whole process: at the end of the day, we're trying to move this file forward; we're trying to move these yardsticks down the field with all members. The frustrating part is that we can't come to a point of making recommendations based on what we hear from witnesses and from others around the table, and, of course, then move forward with that debate and the possible reaction to recommendations that might come forward.

Without being repetitive, Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate. I think we're wasting a lot of people's time here when, quite frankly, the cart is way before the horse. Let's react to something. Right now we're not reacting to anything really. Let's come forward with witnesses. Let's come forward with recommendations based on debate and, of course, from there let the cards fall where they may, which may in fact be where we are now. But let's get to that point first, before we start reacting to something that we're just making an assumption on. Quite frankly, we all know what the true definition of “assume” is.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Nater.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I know that Ms. Kwan would like to make a contribution. I would just like to make a couple of comments and then I will give way.

I appreciate where Mr. Badawey is coming from. I appreciate his eagerness to get on with the discussion. I think we would all like to have that discussion, but what we have before us is a motion with a guillotine. We have a guillotine motion with a deadline of June 2. To have meaningful dialogue, a meaningful discussion, to hear from witnesses, to address the three points that are laid out in that motion in the time constraints of a June 2 deadline, without any assurance that this isn't going to be rammed through unilaterally by one party at the end, I think is unfortunate. That's where we find ourselves in this discussion today.

I appreciate the eagerness of the member to move forward, but at the same time, I think we need to have this discussion on trust. I think, unfortunately, the way this has been brought forward by the minister by publicly releasing the document, the way these motions came about, is unfortunate.

To the comments on the estimates process, I don't think there's any debate that there can be improvements to the estimates process. To take away those two months of review time.... Ms. Kwan has rightly stated that parliamentary committees have only a limited capacity to do that, and taking away two months of that opportunity is challenging.

The parliamentary budget officer, again an authority in this place, has expressed serious concerns about where the government is moving on this matter. The estimates process has been an on-going, long-time issue in the House. In my first intervention, I referenced a former professor of mine, a former senator from the other place, Senator Segal, who has written and spoken extensively on the deemed rule, the rule that estimates are deemed to have been reported back to the House regardless of whether or not the committees has reported them. I think that's unfortunate.

A final point on the estimates is that a lot of this can be solved if the government simply moved up the budget time frame, moved up and tabled an earlier budget. That solution has been suggested in a number of quarters, to move up the budget, even to the fall, in fact, as done in other jurisdictions.

Those were my few comments on that. I know Ms. Kwan wants to make an intervention. I appreciate her allowing me to get in a few words, and now I give way to the member for comments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Ms. Kwan, then Mr. Whalen and Mr. Simms.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I just want to jump in for a minute to respond to Mr. Badawey's comments. How we can move this forward is really a bit of a leap of faith, I think, for all parliamentarians. In other words, all of us have to shelve the idea that we can hold all the power and therefore be able to override the opinions of others. That would require the government to let go of that idea and to say, for purposes of this discussion, that it was willing to facilitate the discussion to get to the place of agreement, which we hope for in the end—and I have faith in that, if we can do that.

If the government can let go of that power and control and trust all parliamentarians to put in their best effort, to come forward with ideas of how to reform the parliamentary system in the interest of all Canadians, then I think we'll get somewhere—I really do.

The government is refusing to do that. We could go through an exercise in which, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter what people say and what witnesses propose, because the government will just bring down the hammer and say, “This is the way we're going to do it, and that's just how it is.”

I think that would defeat everything that members hoped to achieve. I just think that would be so very unfortunate. Why don't we have a do-over in a way? Why don't we accept the idea of allowing people to have their contributions and to make everyone work harder to achieve results? That would mean that everybody needs to set aside fixed ideas, that power does not rest with one party but with all the people around the table, to come to an agreement. Then I think we'd get somewhere. Let's get on with it.

I think we all want to do it. If the government can do that, I think we can get somewhere. I just want to reiterate that point, because I think it's such an important one. I think if you did that, you would also send a strong message to Canadians on the whole who want to have faith in their politicians and in our system, showing them that there can be a better way forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Whalen, go ahead.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

As a parliamentarian and a first-time MP who is interested in the way this place works, who wants to see it function better, and who wants to participate in a process by which ideas can be shared and different views on how the place can be improved can be examined and debated, when we find ourselves prematurely in a situation where the opposition parties refuse even to discuss the ideas, I feel robbed by the opposition of an opportunity to have my ideas heard and debated in this forum, an opportunity that was put forward. The filibuster is premature. If the opposition members are looking forward to a filibuster, why don't they wait until members of Parliament—backbenchers, independents, members of recognized and unrecognized parties—have had an opportunity to bring their ideas to the table?

I don't disagree that opposition parties have the right to filibuster. I just feel that, in this particular case, it's premature and it's robbing everyone in this House of the opportunity to participate in the debate. If you want to filibuster, wait until after the ideas are out there so we can have an honest discussion and debate, and then filibuster the recommendations. This is so premature and wasteful of everyone's time.

As a first-time MP, I am somewhat flabbergasted that this is the strategy, because the government campaigned on parliamentary reform—and we'll do it. The better way is to do it after having a proper discussion. If the opposition refuses to engage in debate, they will be left with the fruits of their own labour.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Simms, go ahead.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

I appreciate everyone's comments on this. I honestly do. I think that, to a great extent, the debate has been going pretty well, as far as we ourselves are concerned. One of my biggest concerns is that we are not hearing from witnesses who can provide some experiential testimony from having done this before.

But, in the spirit of what was proposed, Ms. Kwan and Mr. Nater, I'll say this. Since it is my motion, I'll change the date. You don't like the guillotine—let's change it. I'm in. Ms. Kwan, if you're in, I'm in. Let's vote on the amendment and get it out of the way. Once that's done, I'll put in an amendment to change the date. That's my promise to you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We have Mr. Richards and then Mr. Graham.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Thank you.

First of all, Mr. Simms, I know the date is an issue for some people, but it's not the main issue. Obviously, the amendment is not here to address the date. The amendment is here to address the fact that this is something the government is trying to reserve the right to do unilaterally, and that's the problem. I heard the comments the other members were making, and I think the kinds of comments I was hearing either belie ignorance or assume that the opposition is stupid. It's one of the two. I hate to be so strong in my language about that, but those are the facts.

At the end of the day, what this is doing is giving the government the ability to unilaterally change the way this place works. That is not the way this is typically done. It's not the way it has been done in the past.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Yes, it has.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

No, Scott, it has not.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

It was done in 1991. I'll give you evidence that it has been done.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

That's not the way it has typically been done, Scott, and you know that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Hold on a second. I have a point of order.

This is just a clarification so that we're not debating this point. The researcher has given everyone a paper. He did a paper on the ways that the Standing Orders have been changed in the past, and sometimes it was.... For the facts, people can refer to that paper.

Sorry, go ahead.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

The facts are that this is not the way it's typically done, and we all know that. There seems to be agreement that that's the case. For members to try to pretend somehow that they don't understand how this is done.... I hope they actually do understand and are just assuming that we're all too stupid and that they can pull the wool over our eyes. I hope that's the case; otherwise they haven't been listening at all to what's being said here and they haven't even read the amendment before speaking to it.

I can tell you that opposition members are not stupid. Canadians are not stupid. They see what's going on here, and they understand what the attempt is here. All of us here are saying that we would be more than happy to actually talk about the substance of this. We've actually gotten into some of those kinds of conversations during this time, and I think they've gone well. I think we could be productive. But that can't happen unless there is some assurance that those conversations are actually going to lead somewhere and won't just leave the government with the ability to unilaterally make these changes on their own if they don't like the way those discussions go. That is where we sit now, and that's why this amendment is so crucial.

I really hope that members understand this and will see fit to allow the amendment to go through. It's the only way we can begin a proper conversation. We hear this every day in question period. We hear it in the media. We hear it particularly from the government House leader—and we're kind of getting it parroted here today by members sitting in on the committee—that somehow there's going to be this conversation or this discussion. Well, you can talk about having a conversation or a discussion, or you can actually have one. If you want to actually have one, you have to give some assurance to the other side of the conversation that they will be listened to. That's how we can have a conversation, and we would all like to have it. Let's get on with it. Agree to the amendment, and we can do that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Graham.

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

The most recent standing order change was done by Mr. Reid in a narrow vote on a private member's motion, so it's a little bit rich to say this is always the way it's been done. It is not the way it's always been done, and it didn't ask for consent. It didn't even propose a motion for consent to get it through. Pick one. You can't have it both ways.

To Nick's point, I totally get it. Why are we filibustering at this point in the process? Have the conversation. We cannot report this back to the House, anything, without a report, which requires a vote from the committee. The filibuster belongs at the end of the study. It belongs after we've had a chance to at least find out what the best practices are around the world.

Again, all we're looking for is a conversation. It is completely reasonable. The study exists. It has been going for months. This is not new. The motion before us doesn't even mention the often cited minister's letter. It's not in there. It is simply to create a wider conversation based on a Standing Order 51 debate that we've already got under way.

That's all I have to say on that. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

It's interesting, and perhaps some of the members are choosing to ignore the central point, which is the government having unilateral power to ultimately decide what the changes would be. I am asking for the government to let go of that power and to come to a place where all the voices of parliamentarians would be respected, and to assure us that it will not make these decisions unilaterally. If we can have that commitment, I think we can get somewhere.

Members may say, “Don't worry, trust us”, but I'm sorry to say, we have seen this movie played before on electoral reform. People worked really hard to have conversations. MPs had town halls in their own communities. The committee travelled across the country and invited feedback from members of the community. The committee made recommendations and the government unilaterally decided to reject them, rejecting and breaking a major commitment that the Prime Minister himself had made to Canadians on electoral reform.

It's not the path we should go down. It's certainly not what the Prime Minister wants Canadians to believe about his approach, the sunny ways approach of collaboration and bringing together people. That hasn't been demonstrated, and here we are talking about substantive changes to the way in which the House would be run.

To ensure that discussions take place in a way that would yield actual results with the respect of all members of the House, it is really important for the government members to know that the government needs to relinquish its desire to make unilateral decisions on these changes. That's what is needed. It's not a question of dates. It is the most important question of making sure that the opposition members also have buy-in with respect to these changes, and the only way we can achieve that is for the government to let go of its desire to make these decisions unilaterally.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Not to abuse the Simms' principle, we'll let Mr. Nater continue where he left off.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

I was starting to really miss his interventions.