Sorry? Oh yes, tomorrow morning. That's an hour. It takes us that long to clear our throats. I was looking past there, to where we'll start getting back into some serious debate again and some serious hours of very riveting points.
On the McGrath report, the government likes to hold it up and say, “Come on, colleagues, see, we have to do the same kind of thing in our era.” The government says that it's up to us, that we have to pick up that mantle, do like the McGrath report did and make this a better place like they did. As for holding it up and waving it around, all right, fine, but what else does that report say?
Right after what Mr. Simms just read, which was the “Order of Reference”, after the very next two pages is the “Preface”, with the personal remarks of Mr. McGrath.
If I may, I also will add my condolences to the family on their loss. Aside from what I'm saying here, Mr. McGrath was clearly a good role model for all of us in terms of what it means to be a parliamentarian. I suspect that he would have been the kind of person who was willing to take the hits back home if necessary, if he knew that here it was the right thing to do. To me, that's always the sign of a parliamentarian who searches their heart as much as their future when they make decisions. It's a loss for all of us.
He did give us that pedestal. Under the preface, he said this:
I wish to thank my six colleagues on the committee for their patience and support. That we were able to operate by consensus without once voting on an issue is a testament to their selfless dedication to reform.
The government likes to suggest that they want to reach the loftiness of that. I suggest that they can't even reach step one until they at least recognize the respect that was in that committee room, the respect for each other regardless of whether they were members of government, the official opposition, the third, fourth, or fifth party, or independents. There was respect. All Mr. Reid's motion is seeking is to reaffirm that respect.
I have only a few minutes left. I was going to go somewhere else on this, but I want to get this on the record tonight because I think it's really important. There's another report, with more of our predecessors doing the same work. Each of us does this in our time, in our era. This is from Bob Kilger, who was the chair of the report of the Special Committee on the Modernization—there you go, there's your favourite little buzzword—and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons. That was chaired by Bob Kilger, MP, in June 2003.
I'm watching the clock carefully, Chair.
I don't think it can be put any better than how they put it. Listen to this, Chair. I'm quoting:
The Committee’s order of reference—like that of its predecessor—required that...any report be adopted by unanimous agreement of all members. We believe that this is desirable for meaningful change, as parliamentary reform is best achieved where there is consensus and all-party agreement. While this may, of course, mean that change is more difficult and may take longer to achieve, in the final analysis, we believe that it results in stronger and more viable reform. The requirement for unanimity has meant that on a number of [occasions], recommendations were not possible....
They were acknowledging that the standard, the threshold of unanimity, meant that for some of the changes—even though they recognized that in principle they might be good—they couldn't make a recommendation, because they couldn't come to a unanimous all-party agreement on what that language and principle would be. That refutes entirely the government's arguments, when they put them up, about why unanimity won't work, or why we shouldn't do it, or why it's not necessary in our time but it was in theirs.
The fact is it is a lot harder. It's much easier just to have the majority government do whatever the heck they want, which is all they're trying to do here. That's very efficient.
I won't say anything more than to say to those who are students of history that just because you can make the trains run on time, it doesn't mean this is the right system to have. That's a bit extreme to say, but the point's made. It's also as close as you can get without losing automatically in debate, right? The first one who says...loses. You know what I'm saying.
Kilgour continued:
The requirement for unanimity has meant that on a number of issues, recommendations were not possible; by the same token, on some issues the members of the Committee have compromised....
That's still not a dirty word in Canadian politics. There are other places where they're making compromise out to be weakness, as failure. We've always seen it as our strength to accommodate one another, to respect one another without giving up our principles.
As Kilgour said:
...by the same token, on some issues the members of the Committee have compromised and worked toward achievable solutions that reflect our differing interests. It should be emphasized that there has been a remarkable degree of agreement, and shared concerns. While we may not always agree on the nature or causes of problems—or of the solutions—we have attempted in this report to recommend changes that we believe will improve the House and the work of its Members. All members of the Committee are committed to the institution of Parliament, and to the importance of the House of Commons as central to our democratic form of government. Obviously, the interests of government Members differ from those of opposition MPs; and, among the opposition parties, there are variances based on traditions, culture, size, and other factors. In the course of our deliberations, we have, nevertheless, had respectful and useful discussions, as we have tried to convince each other of our proposals, or argued against other propositions.
I see the chair signalling that he's wishing to bring us to a conclusion.
This is maybe a good, natural place for me to pause, Chair. I will affirm with you that it's my intention to be back here tomorrow, to pick up my speaking spot when we again meet.