I want to thank Mr. Arnold for representing my interests.
I have to tell you that I'm shattered that you weren't just hanging off my every word anyway. I'm going to have to get over that. Mr. Doherty advises me that he was, and so was....
Okay. I'm feeling better now. I was really feeling hurt there, Chair. I thought they were hanging off my every word. There are other discussions going on? Really? I guess I was happier before. Ignorance is bliss.
Anyway, thanks very much for allowing me to have the floor, which under the current rules I am still entitled to.
As I was saying, that general environment of all of us wanting, for non-partisan and non-MP reasons, to take a look at this subject and the merging of that with the government desire to make that one of the first things they moved on, led to Mr. LeBlanc coming here, in a very friendly, respectful exercise of dialogue about what the government would appreciate the committee doing vis- à-vis priorities they had identified for their term.
As I said, that was on January 28. By February 2 we had completely reoriented whatever we were doing. We said, yes, that made a great deal of sense, and there would be no reason for us to be opposed. If we had been opposed in any way, then that would be obstructionist, because there would be no reason for it. That's why I'm not hearing too much claimed, even by the current government, although I expect over time cries of obstructionism will increase, that we're just trying to hold things up. If that's all we were about, Mr. LeBlanc gave us a perfect opportunity to go in camera on this subject, and, quite frankly, if we wanted to, we'd still not be re-emerging. We could keep it going that long, because remember, the agreement was that it was only things we agreed on.
Again, there was a desire on the part of members to do something and a desire on the part of the government to make it a priority. The minister of the day came to the committee and respectfully asked us to consider making this a priority project for our work plan, which we then, in a matter of days—it looks to me as if it might even have been the next meeting—but within two meetings, we were on it. If we were all about obstructionism and getting in the way of the government's victory dance at winning, we had all the opportunity in the world. It didn't happen. It could have, but it didn't, Chair, and that's why I say this is a very good committee.
It has a good mix of all that we need, especially veterans and new members, and that combination, I find, is the best. If you get too many veterans you get lost in the way things ought to be and the way they used to be, and if you get all new members, they really have no context and no corporate history as to what's gone on, what's worked and why, and why you approach certain things this way as opposed to that way. A good combination gives you that mix.
Then the last ingredient you need is a great chair, and we have that. We have this mix of new members and older veterans. Collectively we started working together as a team. I remember this review. Chair, I stand to be corrected, and you could correct me, or colleagues, but I don't recall our going into the ditch even once, where any of these issues became partisan. I'm going by memory. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that on every single one, if we had any disagreement, it was just a respectful disagreement on a different view, a different perspective, a different idea. Chair, how many times have you heard...? For instance—I'll use members who are here—Mr. Graham would give a thought on something. Then one of the opposition benches would say they thought that was a great idea, they hadn't thought of it that way. Then somebody else would jump in, and sometimes we'd get lost in it.
Then you, as Mr. Preston did, would keep an eye on where that discussion was, and then just at the right time, when we were getting ourselves lost because we were getting off on these ideas—all positive, but we were getting away—you'd bring us around. It was never the heavy-handed “thou shalt” and “you will” and “you won't” and “stop doing this” and “you're not on the point”. There was none of that. You knew that you had a group of people who were working together, and that all they needed was a bit of leadership to make sure the discussion stayed focused.
It's just like you do with me. You make sure we stay focused on the main points, and that everything is germane. I say that lightheartedly, but it's true nonetheless, and I've been around to see. When you have a bad chair, you can't even agree on an adjournment time.
So we had all the ingredients. The only thing that could have disrupted that committee meeting, in my view, would have been if one member, just one, had started dragging in partisanship and started talking like a New Democrat instead of a member of the committee, talking like a Conservative or a Liberal rather than a member of the committee. Every one of us saw that the second we sat down in this chair....
There are always some elements of partisanship. Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to describe some kind of fairyland. It's only an instant away. In the multiverse the brains are very thin, and we're very close to that universe where we're fighting. But we got into the universe of working together, and we stayed there through this whole report.
Mr. LeBlanc read his mandate, Mr. Chair, and we put it in the report. With your indulgence, this is from our report. It says:
Mr. LeBlanc’s mandate letter contains the following instruction:
Work with Opposition House Leaders to examine ways to make the House of Commons more family-friendly for Members of Parliament.
It doesn't say “Liberal” members of Parliament. It doesn't say to make it more family friendly for “Liberal” members of Parliament and the heck with everybody else. It doesn't say that.
That wasn't the approach of the minister. He didn't come in and say you're going to do this, you're going to do that, you're going to do it by this deadline, and I don't want to hear any problems.
That's a bit of an exaggeration—