Evidence of meeting #55 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was opposition.
A video is available from Parliament.
9 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
If it's okay with the committee, we'll go to David Christopherson for a couple of minutes while Mr. Richards has a health break.
9 a.m.
Conservative
9 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thanks, Chair, I appreciate the chance. I wasn't expecting to speak today. It's always good to get my oar in the water, and it's nice to be back after a bit of a rest and reflection and determining whether or not we're doing the right thing here. I have to tell you that was a short reflection, because absolutely we're doing the right thing here. There's no doubt about that. I was able to put that to rest.
I know you were hanging off every single syllable, Chair, so you'll recall readily that during part of my time the other day I was reflecting on some of the comments that were coming out as I was trying to analyze what the government's strategy was. You'll recall that my sense of it was that they thought by pulling the nuclear pin and making us go 24-7 on the Tuesday, knowing that the budget on the Wednesday was going to attract all the attention and would probably spill over to Thursday.... The government's calculation, we think, was that by the time the media refocused away from the budget and back on what was happening here in this room, public opinion would begin to turn against us, and the media would be reflecting a message that the opposition is being obstructionist.
As we all know, in a pluralistic democracy, public opinion is the most powerful force there is. I think the government's calculation was that, having forced us to do 24-7 staffing of the microphones, and with a message from the media that the opposition was being obstructionist, by the end of that week our filibuster would be starting to fall apart. There would be some reticence on the part of our caucuses, which would find its way to us, as their representatives on this committee, and then hocus-pocus, lo and behold, by the Monday the filibuster would just crumble, collapsing on its own weight—imploding, if you will—thereby allowing the government the freedom to move ahead and make any changes they want, willy-nilly, with their majority vote, regardless of what the united opinion of the opposition benches might be.
I was taking the time, Chair, to explain how I thought the government saw this. It's hard to figure out how they saw this as a win, but that's the only thing I can assume. Then you allowed me the opportunity to build my case that the strategy failed. I was pointing out why it failed and how it failed, and I was leading off with some of the most important opinion-makers and leaders in the nation, not the least of which would be, of course, the editorial board of The Globe and Mail, the national paper of record, and the Toronto Star editorial, which oftentimes find itself aligned with the Liberals, not always, as we've benefited from their endorsement from time to time, but for the most part, they've been quite friendly with the Libs.
I read what you can only describe as a scathing editorial in the Toronto Star, which, in addition to being a friend, of course, has the largest circulation of any newspaper in the entire country. It was just scathing. I didn't think anything would match The Globe and Mail. Normally, they're pretty staid and calm. Wow. I could go back and reflect on those, but I think people remember clearly. The Toronto Star was just as hard, and the words that they went out of their way to use again put the political lie to the government's argument that this is all about efficiency and improvement and that all their motivations are truly altruistic.
In doing that, I didn't use all the material I had—it was such a slam-dunk case—and the next thing I wanted to do was to focus on a highly respected columnist and opinion leader in Canada, Mr. Lawrence Martin. That would be the article there, Mr. Chair.
This is new, by the way. I know you like new, remember? I was using old stuff before, but now I have new news, fresh new. Although it's a week old, it's fresh to us and it's fresh to you. It keeps me out of trouble. That's the important part.
It's interesting. Again, he's a columnist with The Globe and Mail, again, not a publication known for over-the-top vitriolic. Mr. Martin weighed in. Again, he was one of those who was keeping an eye on what's happening here even though there was a slight distraction.
9 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
On a point of order, I apologize for interrupting, but I want to emphasize with regard to this Lawrence Martin piece that far from being a new piece of news, this is actually news from the future, because it is March 21, in consequence of which that article is——
9 a.m.
Conservative
9 a.m.
Conservative
9 a.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
9 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
That's funny. I was just reading about time travel a little earlier. Maybe we've solved it here. Maybe we've figured out how that works. You step out through those doors and it's Friday. You stay in here, and it's Tuesday, March 21. We get to stay young forever if we stay in here.
9 a.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
I don't want to cut off Mr. Christopherson in mid-sentence or mid-thought.
9 a.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
I'd be happy to take it back any time he's ready. I'll let him determine that.
9 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
It's more mid-stream of consciousness, so we can pretty much sever that at any time we wish. Or I could just keep going, whatever you like. I'm in your hands.
9 a.m.
Conservative
9 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Then I would be more than pleased to return the floor to you.
I relinquish the floor, Chair, to Mr. Richards.
9 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
In all fairness, I do think that Mr. Richards' interventions have more novelty value at this point in the proceedings.
9 a.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
I do think that Mr. Christopherson has had a bit more time than I've had.
9 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Yes. Please, I need to hear from you. It's been a while. You and I are the two vice-chairs so we have to stay in sync on this. We've presented a united front to the government and let them know that they managed to unify us. If they've achieved nothing else, they're unified the opposition benches. With that, I will hand that mantle over to you again, sir.
9 a.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Yes, they certainly have done that. It's something that I was talking about last night. Mr. Blaikie and I were making some interventions during Mr. Nater's speech, and we were agreeing on everything. As I said last night, I quite like Mr. Blaikie as a person. I turned to him last night and said, “I don't know if you're a drinking man, but I think we could have a beer sometime and we'd get along pretty well.” He kind of nodded his head. I don't know if he wanted to have a beer with me or not, but I think he was saying that he does imbibe one or two occasionally.
I'm sure that if we did have that beer, we'd probably have some disagreements about political issues. We generally tend to disagree on those, I think, but where we don't disagree is on this issue. I can't understand why anyone would not see the need to have consensus and the need to work together. When you change these rules of how Parliament works, there can be a lot of unintended consequences. To have the different perspectives of different parties, and of different people with different experiences, is very valuable in that conversation, I think. They're important and needed. That just doesn't seem to register with the government.
Interestingly enough, while Mr. Christopherson had the floor, I was in the hallway, and who do I bump into but the government House leader? She was giving a tour to a small group of her constituents. We said hello and exchanged some pleasantries. I quite like her as a person. We've always gotten along well. Prior to her being government House leader, which she still is, she had the position of Minister of Small Business and Tourism. She now has both positions. I'm the tourism critic, so we've obviously had a lot of discussions and have gotten to know each other fairly well, I suppose, at least on the level of small talk.
I quite like her as a person, but it's almost as though she lives in a different reality than the rest of us here. I told her that we were in the middle of our committee meeting and I had to get back in there, and she told me to keep up the good work I was doing in there. It was almost as though she didn't get that this is a complete and utter waste of time when we could be working on substantive issues right now. Why are we doing that? Because she won't have a conversation to figure out a way to work on this together. It's like she avoids the reality of the situation. As I mentioned earlier, she came in last night and brought birthday cake and it was “let's have smiles and chuckles”. No. Let's actually sit down, have a conversation, and figure out how we work together to get this moving, in a way that ensures nothing gets done without the agreement of all the parties in Parliament. That would make some sense.
As I mentioned, I wanted to recap, so that's where we're at. If you look at it, I think it's clear that there really can be no other reason why they want to try to force this through other than to try to avoid accountability of the government and of the Prime Minister. They want to avoid being held accountable in question period and in other ways; everything is designed to do that. That's what it's about. That's pretty sad. I think it's terrible for democracy and terrible for this country that they're trying to do that.
What I'll tell you is that I think there are a lot of Canadians out there who agree. I know that there's a petition out there. I'll ask some of my friends here behind me at the back of the room to have a look and let me know, and I'll give the number of how many people have signed the petition. I know that tens of thousands of people have signed this petition calling on the government to do exactly what we're saying, which is to work together and do this with unanimous agreement.
Canadians have signed this petition, but they're also sending emails. If you'll allow me, Mr. Chair, I would like to read some. I've had thousands of them. I'm sure you probably have too, Mr. Chair. I think the Liberal members of the committee have. I'm sure other members of the committee have as well. A lot of them have been sent to me and to the Liberal members as well. It even looks like some of them have been sent to all MPs, potentially. I have one in front of me now.
I'd like to spend a bit of time sharing with the committee the thoughts of Canadians. This is where they're coming from on this. I'm going to say before I read these that there are probably going to be things in them that I won't necessarily completely agree with, but I certainly do agree with the sentiment in what people are trying to say. I certainly agree with that sentiment, which is that they're concerned about the way this government is trying to proceed and the way they see their democracy being eroded by this government through those attempts.
I will kind of read from those.... The way the first one is addressed is pretty interesting. It looks like it's addressed to all the Liberal MPs on the committee, you included, Mr. Chair, and it is copied to a couple of Conservative MPs.
The subject line is “PROC committee: This bill is not—“not” is in capitals—Canadian”. There are several exclamation points after that. I think that speaks pretty well to it. Also interesting is the way it is addressed. It says: “To the ones attempting to destroy the fabric of our country.” That's how serious this person feels this issue is. I'm going to read this email. As I say, I may not necessarily agree with everything in it, but the sentiment and the idea that this is an important issue and one where the government shouldn't be trying to force and ram through things, is something that I agree with. I'm going to read some emails and provide some commentary as well.
This one says: “Tabling a proposal to limit debate in the House of Commons and fundamentally change our Canadian democracy is an absolute abuse of power. I am floored at what you are trying to get away with. You must really think Canadians all have their heads in the sand while you do as you please. This backdoor law-changing has to stop.
“I'm curious if your advisers are actually getting paid to bring you this advice. I've been teaching my children about how very blessed they are to live in a democratic country. How does imposing a time limit on the opposition parties exemplify a democracy? How is there any accountability at all for leading the party if no one is allowed to have a chance to oppose them?
“If the Liberals are pushing for a four-day work week, and they continue to get paid the same salary, then Canadians demand a four-day work week and continue to receive the same salary for work not done. Do you see how ridiculous that is? Sometimes if you read something out loud, it registers differently. Take a moment and say out loud that you want to have a four-day work week and shut down Parliament on Fridays and continue your same salary. I know what would happen in my workplace if I demanded a four-day work week with the same pay. I would be fired. Does this mean that every MP that does not show up for work on Fridays will have the same demise?
“I am absolutely appalled by what your party is trying to do. At what point did we stop being a democracy in this country?”
There are several question marks and exclamation points following that. Next:
“In the words of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau”—and it's a quote—'An attack on the symbol and the seat of democracy is...cowardly and reprehensible'.
“Prime Minister Trudeau spent $127,000 of our money on his Christmas family vacation. Justin Trudeau sits in the House of Commons and on several occasions has been questioned by the opposition on his ethics and his spending. His only response? A smug face. The only way this can be interpreted to the Canadian people is that our Prime Minister is not liking being questioned and challenged in the House. He is not up to the task, so he would rather change our laws than have to be accountable for the decisions he makes.
“There will be an election price for all of you doing this dirty work. Are you not seeing the outrage around this country of people sick of our government not being held accountable for every penny and every action? This is wrong. This should be a non-partisan issue.”
“The filibuster will hold. Canadian voices need to be heard. If a huge decision like changing democracy is going to be brought to the House, then the Canadian people need a chance to hear this and vote on this. Why is the media silent? Every political party believes this is wrong, including the Liberal backbench.
“When all parties agree on something, you must be doing something really wrong.” The word “really” is all in capitals. “The tactics are disgusting. The day you were supposed to be dealing with the new budget, you were sneaking this in so that you were even less accountable to Canadians than you are now.
“If my memory serves me correctly, was this not the same thing the Liberals tried to pass last year? And when it got heated, Justin Trudeau walked across the floor and physically assaulted a woman on the opposition. Interesting this is being reattempted. We notice, Liberals. We require your accountability. Why are you doing dirty work for Justin Trudeau, just because he is too scared to give account for his actions? This is deplorable.”
It's signed by a very outraged citizen.