Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 21st, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Christopherson, you're on again.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

We got there. You've been avoiding making that full sentence since Monday.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Were you waiting for me to go...?

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

You've got the gavel ready to go. There are a lot of Canadians who'd like to vote right now that you do that. However, with apologies to Canadians, we do have a process to follow.

The process at this stage is to try to force the government to see the light and understand that the wonderful discussion they want to have is one that we're eager to have too. The difference is that the government wants to have what they would call equal, fair discussions, but always reserving the right, if they don't like the way the negotiations go, to just opt out of sunny ways and suddenly use their majority to ram through whatever they desire, regardless of how everybody else feels.

That's where we are. Every time this committee suspends, that's great—we make no bones about it—because our purpose is to prevent that discussion from starting until we have established what the rules of engagement will be.

Again, the government is trying to have everyone focus on the idea that all we want is a discussion. That's all. We just want to talk about these things.

We are ready to do that, but we are not ready to do that while the government maintains that they have the moral right to use their overwhelming majority to smother the opposition and deny us an equal say in the rules that determine how we make laws.

It's unfortunate, because it's a bit like a strike. There are no winners. The second you go out, work is stopping. The company is losing. Wages are not being earned. There are no winners. But sometimes in this world there are certain principles that you have to stand up for and pay whatever price. We run the risk in the opposition that the public will turn, or that the media that informs the public will say, in their dispassionate evaluation, that we're just being obstructionist. That's always a risk.

Before I move to a letter that was just released a few hours ago, it has to be underscored that the reason we're here, at 20 minutes to five on a Wednesday, debating this motion, is that the government refused to adjourn the very first meeting. Again, here in this room, parliamentary la-la land, this is two weeks ago Tuesday. It's two weeks ago yesterday. We're still on that day because the government wouldn't allow the committee to adjourn at its regular time. It's supposed to adjourn at 1 o'clock. The government unleashed an unwarranted sneak attack on the opposition, who are the minority, by refusing to allow the committee to adjourn at its regular natural time, thereby thrusting Mr. Reid, in what was supposed to be a two-hour period of speaking, into unlimited.

If this were the regular process, the filibuster started by the opposition parties would only play out at committee Tuesday and Thursday from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. That's our normal business time. Filibusters happen all the time—“mini-busters”, if you want—where there's give-and-take at the committee. For some reason, the government's about to use their majority to do something that the opposition deems is unfair or unwise or unwarranted, so they quickly make the decision and say, “Look, I'm not just going to let that happen here. If I need to, I'll run the clock.” Running the clock means that you will just take the floor and keep going until the committee is over, thereby denying the government the opportunity to use their majority to ram something through.

Now, normally they, don't last very long. I've only been involved in one other major filibuster like this, and it's interesting that it was under the previous Harper administration, which pulled the same stunt. We were debating Bill C-23, the unfair elections act, on changes to the election laws, and I indicated that I was going to hold things up. In that case, we were looking to get the committee to travel, to get input from people. That's all we were seeking: that element of fairness.

I indicated that until we got that, it was going to be a problem, and we were going to seize things up, and they did exactly the same thing to me that the Liberal majority government did to Mr.Reid. That surprises a lot of people, because when they get the notice paper, a lot of people believe that if a meeting is called for 11 o'clock and is going to adjourn at one, it would, lo and behold, commence at 11, and then adjourn at one. A couple of minutes after one, as the committee Hansard will show, I believe it was a Conservative colleague of Mr. Reidwho made the point that it was a minute or two past one o'clock, the time that we usually adjourned. It was at that point that the chair had to advise that it requires majority support.

I learned that civics lesson the hard way too. It comes as a shock to a lot of people that a meeting that's scheduled, on paper, called by the chair, with all the proper format, layout, and language, and is supposed to start at 11 and end at one, doesn't really have to end at one. It is implied when the chair adjourns at one o'clock that a majority is in support. The government gave indication to Mr. Bagnell, our chair, that this implied consent was not there. Therefore, the chair had no option, absolutely no option, other than to have the meeting continue. That's what thrust this into the big leagues. That's what made this a much bigger deal than we did at committee.

[An hon. member]

That's right. Absolutely.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

My colleagues are agreeing. We were hunkering down for what would probably be.... I don't know, but in my mind I was thinking, well, maybe a couple of or three—and if we really get in the ditch, four or five—committees will be lost to this, and then eventually the government will come to their senses, do what has been done in the past, and in fact do what we've done during this Parliament. That will be the next area I move to, Chair, after I read a letter.

That process, as I'll point out later, was completely done by consensus. There are so many similarities to what the government wanted us to do, and for the work that we did on this committee on that report, yet the approach is completely different. We can say names here; we can't in the House. The previous government House leader, Mr. LeBlanc, used a very different approach than the current House leader, Madam Chagger. It resulted in a report that we just accepted in the House on Monday, I believe.

That's what I thought would happen. There would be a number of meetings—as I said, five or six if we really got in the ditch and the government got obstinate—and eventually they would realize that, okay, that little attempted power play, while it would have been nice, was clearly not going to happen. The opposition was not asleep at the switch and wouldn't allow themselves to be lulled into silly arguments about what this is or isn't—we know very well what it is. At the end of the day, it became clear that the government not only didn't want to do what they had just done the year before, but they were going to launch this from a localized committee “squarmish”. I think that's the right word. I think it's a word. I'm getting close, anyway: “skirmish”? I think that's the right word. I'm getting close, anyway. Anyway, a “skirmish” is a little battle that happens all the time.

I've been involved in all kinds of those. In fact, as I did the one on Bill C-23, oftentimes at committee all I would have to do is threaten that I was about to go into a filibuster and that would be enough to get something moving, because, boy, nobody wanted to hear me do exactly what I'm doing right now for any longer than absolutely necessary. Just having it there and the reference to it and that we were about to do it.... My colleagues do it all the time. Mr. Schmale, even as a new member here, has indicated along the way that, hey, folks, if this doesn't start going a little more clearly, I'm not going to have any.... Then we get over it. We get past that.

That didn't happen here. For some strange reason, the government members believed that it was in their best interests to launch this into the stratosphere, to have all of the national media become aware that a localized issue in a committee is now not only a major blowing up in terms of a 24-7 filibuster, but it's starting to spill over into the House.

I'll add parenthetically that I just thought it was so cute today. The Prime Minister apparently told his caucus that this was going to be fun, and it was kind of cute when he got up and de facto created a Wednesday Prime Minister's question period and answered every question. They were so clever. I'm sure they thought that.... Well, he didn't answer every question, because not every one went to him. Every question that went to the government, the Prime Minister answered, which, as I understand it, is their idea of what this Wednesday Prime Minister's day would look like.

I don't know, but I guess the brainiacs over there in the PMO decided to show Canadians what the benefit would be of having this kind of day when the Prime Minister is on his feet answering every single question put to the government. The problem is that they didn't take the next step and think it through just a little further, because Mr. Strahl and I, during question period, took great delight in thanking the Prime Minister for answering those questions but also pointing out that they didn't need to use their majority to ram through a change to the rules to get exactly what they wanted. They want a Prime Minister's day on Wednesday and—poof—de facto they got one, with no rules changed, no rights abused, no flexing of political muscle.

None of that took place. All that happened was that the Prime Minister answered the questions. All right? If you want to put a special fancy label on Wednesday, which is normally known as caucus day so that it becomes caucus day and “Prime Minister's question period”, fill your boots. Live it up. It was kind of fun.

The next time, we know that we'll be able to line up questions that are meant to go to prime ministers, because, of course, the questions for today were geared to the usual process in which the prime minister answers the questions of the leaders of the parties, out of respect.... Well, most of them. Yes, there's been a change there, too, which is interesting. It was pointed out in one of the articles today.

That's probably the easiest one he's ever going to have, because it was one that we didn't know was coming, but that's a whole other matter. That's fine. That's great. Let the politics of the day take over. If that's what's going to happen on Wednesdays from here on in, then our question period group that makes these decisions in each of our caucuses will take into account that the PM is answering every question today, okay, so our questions will be geared at that level.

It's a very different question if you're asking the prime minister. Even on the same subject, there can be often a difference in the question you would ask the prime minister. It can be a kind of a macro question, whereas a micro question, albeit important, would go to the minister and is sometimes answered by the parliamentary secretary, which is part of our process too.

I thought I would take a minute to point out that while it was very cute and almost clever to have that today, at the end of the day all the government really did was show that with a little co-operation, and sometimes even under the existing rules, they can get what they want. Their first option doesn't have to be the Harper option: “we're going in with a hammer because every discussion is a nail”. That's where we are, yet with a little co-operation, a lot could happen.

Chair, I would now like to shift gears a little and move to a timely piece of correspondence that is 100% relevant to what we're dealing with here today, and it's rather extraordinary. It's not often that you see the House leader of the official opposition and the House leader of the third party sign a joint letter addressing the government. It happens, but not every day. That just goes to show you how important this is and how big this is.

I remind everybody that it wasn't the opposition that made this the 24-7 filibuster that's taking over all of Parliament and looms over everything we're doing. We didn't do that. We were just going to have a nice little filibuster, a kind of respectful filibuster, that you would call a “battle”. I think that's fair. That's what we'd have: a little battle. The government is the one that decided, no, that they were going to take this and throw it into the stratosphere, and blow it up as big as they can. They didn't adjourn the committee, and here we are, over two weeks later, with it front and centre in the national media.

We finally got an awful lot of attention from Canadians. Thank you to the government, because it would have taken us months to do that if we were doing it only from 11 to one o'clock twice a week. I think you should be worried over there that maybe there is a spy working in our best interests. While you may have thought it was a clever move, because at the end of the day you have your majority, look where we are. Way to go. I'd like to know what your objective was, because it couldn't have been getting anything done. There must be some other strange Liberal-think about how this advances the Liberal interests and the government's interests in terms of its process. I don't know. At the very least, it does point out another broken promise, and that is the lack of respect for standing committees.

Again, I've said this over and over, and it sometimes breaks my heart to say it, but as you know, reality is reality. When we didn't win the election, which for a long time or for some time looked like it was going to happen.... I've got to tell you: those were great days. That was nice. I'd never been in that situation before.

I was part of the win in 1990, but nobody knew it was going to happen until election night, so there wasn't that anticipation, that “wow, we're ahead” thing. This time, that actually happened. It was wonderful and glorious, the highlight of my federal time here. It didn't work out in the end as well as I thought it might, and as well as it felt, but you know what, that's democracy, right? You win some and you lose them all. I don't know.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

When it comes to government, at least we're consistent. We've never failed to not form a government yet.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

That's the NDP way.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Well, so far.

It's not deliberate, I want my friend to know. It's not deliberate, Mr. Doherty. It's not the way we'd like it.

Anyway, there we were, chugging along nicely and thinking, “Gee, we have a real shot at forming a government here.” That didn't happen. At least the second-best thing happened, and that was that the Liberals won. There were only two parties that were likely to form a government. The polls showed for a number of months leading into the election and halfway through the election that we were going to form it. It didn't quite happen that way, but we did end up with a change. If it couldn't be us, then certainly in my heart I wanted the Liberals to win. Yes, I know. It's hard to say, but there you are.

[Some hon. members]

Shame.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I did, because we couldn't continue with what was going on before. That had to come to an end. I guess a minority would have been even better than the current one, for obvious reasons. Anyway, I won't get too much into what could have been. Those tears are gone.

I will talk about what did happen, and that was that a party got elected that said they were going to respect committees once again, because Parliament used to have respect for its committees. Of everything we do here on the Hill, I consider committee work to be my favourite part. My top thing, of course, is being in my riding, which is same for all of us, but here, I love committee work. This is where stuff happens. It moves quickly. You get a chance to be far more personal in interactions and to work together.

We still have our battles from time to time, but the whole idea was that committees would now be respected and that we wouldn't see this business of moving in camera, with vicious stuff happening in camera, and then having to come back out and not being able to say anything because the rules tie your hands. We were going to have transparency and respect. I was really looking forward to that.

In some ways and in some areas, they've delivered, but right from the get-go on this committee, the first thing I had to do—I think it was even at the first meeting we had—was to mount a mini-campaign of my own to get the parliamentary secretary off the committee, whereas the government had promised that the parliamentary secretary wasn't going to be there in the first place. You can talk about a voting member but where is he now? I haven't seen him for a long time, so it looks like message received.

You know what, Chair? The government members of the day argued. They were so incensed when I accused them of needing him to ride shotgun.

Of course, I was baiting all of you and you all rose, as I would have, too, and responded with —I'm paraphrasing, no names—“Hey, I can make my own decisions, I'm an MP.” That's fair enough. Mr. Graham talked about being here before too and how that was all insulting. Anyway, we got through all of that, and lo and behold, look around: we don't have a parliamentary secretary anywhere within earshot of this committee. But they had to be chased. That was a little disappointing.

I was hoping that it was a one-off, because they have done some other things that are important. They have increased the resources for the committee, which is the first thing. Of course, the previous government was slowly strangling the ability of committees to do their work. Certainly, they never left Parliament Hill, except on the rarest of occasions. Heaven forbid that Canadians would actually get a hands-on opportunity to talk to their own government.

Mostly it was going to be about tone and respect, and then you'll remember, Chair—it wasn't that long ago—that we went through the issue of the report from the Chief Electoral Officer regarding changes that he would recommend we make to the election laws, having reviewed and learned lessons from the election we had just had in 2015. It's a regular undertaking. We do it every year.

We were actually working very well together under your leadership, Chair. It's an in camera exercise, so I can't speak in too much detail, but it's certainly fair to say that we had a great esprit de corps and that we recognized that the election laws don't belong to the government, or the official opposition, or the third party, or independents. The election laws belong to everybody.

We were working our way through it. We were following a process that we've used before here, starting in other Parliaments. You can call it the “low-lying fruit process”. All it means is that where we can agree on things readily or with a minor change to wording, we would include that in a report and move on to the next item. We would go through those as quickly as we could. As soon as we got to an item where one of the caucuses or even one of the members said that they had a real problem with an item and it was going to give them real pause for concern, we would take that signal as meaning that it was not low-lying fruit and not easily agreeable, so we needed to set it aside. We had that second track.

It meant that when we got to those, a lot of the political give and take was yet to happen, but it's amazing how many things we could agree on that would then allow us to give an interim report to the House, which would then allow the government to consider the opinion of this committee on the changes recommended by the Chief Electoral Officer.

With the government having promised that they were going to treat committees with respect and give their work serious consideration in the development of policy and legislation, everything seemed to be going fine. Then I walked in one morning—I think it was a Thursday—at 11 o'clock, and within that hour, because the House usually starts at 10 o'clock, the government had dropped Bill C-33 on the floor. Now, Bill C-33 was about election laws. In and of itself, it's not a huge issue, other than the fact that some of the changes they wanted to make in Bill C-33 were items that either we were currently seized of or hadn't dealt with yet but were on our agenda to do.

Let's wait a minute. Let's have a look at this picture. The government says they're going to respect the work of committees. They're going to consider their work important input in the development of government policy.

Oh, I've just been advised that it's scheduled for debate in the House next Thursday. That should be fun.

Take the work we're doing. The government says they're going to listen to us, and then they drop this bill, which by its very existence is insulting to this committee, and they break their promise. How can you say on the one hand that you're going to respect what committees have to say and consider what they have to say in the development of policy and legislation and then turn around and drop a bill on the floor that deals with those very issues? The committee has not even finished with it and, in some cases, hasn't even started on it. Where's the respect in that?

To some of us, that was such an egregious action that it seized up the work of the committee. At that moment, we stopped reviewing the Chief Electoral Officer's recommendations, and for this simple reason: why bother? It would seem that, foolishly, all of us, including me, members of the Conservatives, the government members, anybody else who came by, independents who dropped by the committee, the Greens—I'll give you your Greens, Madam—the Bloc, the other independents—

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

They were nice.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Don't confuse me. It's easily done.

They would come by and have input. We believed that it was meaningful, like it mattered that we would take the time. We struggled. We don't just agree with everything automatically. Usually it takes some kind of change, but really, with such positive work and a good combination of veterans and new members, so that we had a good mix, we were doing good work. I think every one of us would say that we were doing good work on behalf of Parliament and on behalf of Canadians.

Then, when they dropped Bill C-33 on the floor of the House, it was as if it was all a ruse, just a joke, a make-work project to keep us busy, or it was pro forma.

I just went through 10 years of that, of a government that looked at committee work that way, and I was really looking forward to getting back to a world where committees mattered, to the important work that the mother of Parliaments perceived when this kind of Westminster parliamentary system was put in place. The whole idea was that the real work would happen at committee. That's why we're a little looser with the rules. That's why we can call each other by our names and not just our ridings.

That's why at committee you can speak until you're done, so that if we're going to talk about water quality and my riding represents a good part of the Hamilton Harbour waterfront, I'm going to have a lot to say about it, or I may have a lot to say. The one nice thing at committee is that once you take the floor, you can go until you're done. That doesn't mean that everything is a filibuster, but it means that if you want to take your time and spell out an issue that affects your constituents as it relates to the matter in front of you, if you're going to build that case, it's complex, and you want to break it down so it's understandable, that may take 20 or 30 minutes or maybe an hour, or maybe a little longer depending on the subject matter.

That's one of the beauties of committee, and we don't have that time in the House. Remember that we come here believing that our main priority objective is to reflect the wishes and interests of our constituents. Because there is so much going on in the House, we all accept that there are going to be time constraints, as difficult as that is.

If I may say so, though, Mr. Chair, at least in the House in the early part of a new bill or motion, you at least get 20 minutes plus 10 minutes of questions and answers with colleagues, for a total of 30 minutes that you have to deal with an issue that your constituents consider important. I want to point out that under one of the proposals the government would make, that would be eliminated. That whole idea dies here: at committee, you get 10 minutes at a time. It doesn't matter how complex the issue is. It doesn't matter how much you need to break a whole lot of.... Nothing matters except that time limit, and now it starts to become a very different creature.

I again want to express how disappointing it is at that level that we're here. I'm trying to be fair-minded, but on balance I couldn't even give the government a fifty-fifty to say that they've honoured 50% of the commitments they made to committees. They've made some. They did honour some, but I have to tell you that when the rubber hits the road, when real politics start to take over and we have real issues in front of us and the government is feeling the pressure, whether it's from entities or the clock, they're acting more and more like the previous Harper government in terms of their lack of—

[An hon. member]

No, no.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

You know, Maj, the best thing you can do is just stay quiet there.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'm just giving you some advice. If you'll notice, your veteran colleagues, whenever I do that, just fade back and say nothing. Having been a former government member, I can tell you that discretion is sometimes the better part of valour. Just sit back—

[An hon. member]

I've been able to let that go.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

My friend would like me to let go of almost 10 years.

[Todd Doherty]

They're the real bad guys.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Aim your guns that way.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I know. I understand, but just because you, my Conservative colleagues, weren't here doesn't mean that you don't have to carry some responsibility for what your party did before. You like to brag when there are things you think were good, so you have to take the bad with the good.

[An hon. member]

There was a lot of good stuff.