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.
6:40 p.m.
An hon. member
[Inaudible--Editor]
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
6:40 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
There you go. Mr. Simms is saying he still has a bit of a grudge with Mr. Diefenbaker for some of the things he did. It is hard to get over those things. They don't all go by you easily.
Anyway, I make light of something that really is important, because in effect what they are saying is, look, there are some things that we would like to have agreed on. We know we need a change. We agree there should be a change, but we couldn't come to agreement on the language.
At that point they did not say they would give up and let the government use their majority to ram through whatever language they preferred. That wasn't the answer then and it wasn't the answer for us when we did our report, the eleventh report that we just dealt with in the House the other day.
The government has often said, well, you know, we may not get agreement on many things if it has to be by all-party agreement. Possibly, but we did pretty good in dealing with these things. However, when it came to the Friday, we couldn't come to an agreement. The government was keen that they wanted to change the sittings of the House and eliminate sittings on Friday, but the official opposition and we in the NDP disagreed. We disagreed so strongly that it was clear that we weren't going to come to a consensus; we were just that far apart.
It was not unlike our colleagues in 2003, who went through the same thing. Did they say that because they couldn't come to an agreement on things that they all agreed needed to be changed, or on what that exact change should be, that one of the three, four, or five parties should be the one that carried the day and ultimately decided on the language they wanted, and the direction they wanted, and the rest would just have to eat it?
No. They didn't do that in 2003. If it bothers you because it's not today, know that it's not what we did in this committee the very last time the government asked us to address some of these issues. Our colleagues in the past didn't feel that they had failed, even though I'm sure it felt like it, especially if they did agree that they had to make a change. It must have been really frustrating to agree that something had to change, but no matter how hard they worked at it, no matter how much the excellence of the analysts, who came up with incredibly creative language that would have let them try to address it, they just couldn't do it.
It seems to me that we were about the same way on the Friday. There was a lot of emotion in that discussion. The government felt strongly about it. The opposition benches felt strongly too, and in the end we couldn't find agreement.
The government's approach now, unlike what it was a year ago, is that if you can't agree on it, then we obviously have the de facto residual right to make that decision.
No. That's not what our predecessors told us. In fact, our predecessors went out of their way to say to us in that situation that even where you agree you should make a change but you can't agree on the language or the detail of that change, it ought not to happen, and that it is in the best interest of the Parliament we serve.
How come that's not good enough now? It was good enough for the Parliament of 2003. It was good enough for this very committee in this Parliament, the 42nd Parliament, my fifth Parliament here—I did three at Queen's Park—but now we're going to do it differently, and differently from what we just did a year ago.
What it speaks to, Chair, is that in this report they were prepared to do what we had done in the past. The report that we collectively agreed on and sent to the House is just like the report in 2003. It had all their agreement. Therefore, it meant that those changes were solid changes and that no one needed to worry that someone wasn't in agreement. Everybody bought in. We had found consensus.
Our predecessors were telling us that we are better to leave Parliament with rules that everyone agrees on, even if they are inadequate to the task, rather than to find a solution that is only acceptable to the government. That's what the Parliament in 2003 was telling us in the future.
The Liberal government can't accept that. They can't accept that they don't get Fridays the way they want them to be.
I hear one of my colleagues saying “constituency day”. I suppose, if that's the only thing that mattered, why don't we just video-conference Parliament and never leave our ridings? The honourable member throws out a quip, and it's meant to be either helpful or hurtful. It doesn't do either. It's mostly just noise, but he's entitled to make that noise if he wants and I'm entitled to respond to it, if I want. We'll just leave that and see what happens.
I am sure there were government members who....
Tyler, would you just do me a favour and check to see what parliament number it was in June of 2003? Thanks.
I'm sure those members felt just as strongly about the things they couldn't agree on, and I'll bet you a good number of the changes were probably led by the government.
8:40 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
And he's a friend of yours, I know.
At any rate, I'll take your word for it. You would never lead me wrong, I'm sure, David.
8:40 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
He whispered 37th at the same time I figured it out.
I rest Tyler's case.
8:40 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
This will take 30 seconds, Chair. I'll just tell you what I was thinking.
The way I remember it is that I was 35 years old and I entered the 35th Parliament at Queen's Park. If you like numbers, this is kind of cool. I think it is, at least, and my family thinks it is. Nobody else does, I'm sure, but I have to fill time here. So I got there for the 35th Parliament when I was 35 years old. I served in the 35th, 36th, and 37th parliaments. When I got elected federally, because they're not always in sync, I actually got here for the 38th Parliament.
That's nice and easy, and the only way I can remember. It was the 35th, 36th, and 37th parliaments at Queen's Park, and the 38th, 39th, 40th, 41st, and 42nd parliaments.
8:40 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Could I just make a point on that? The 42nd Parliament is the most important of all, because we know that's the answer to life, the universe, and everything.
8:40 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
It's the answer to life, the universe, and everything. It's 42.
8:40 p.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I appreciate that we can have some casual conversation across the table, but in committee I believe we typically speak through the chair. When someone has the floor, they have the floor.
Mr. Christopherson has been doing a great job here of explaining what's taking place in this committee, what has taken place in the past, and so on. Every once in a while, he seems to get a little bit distracted. I would like to make sure that we try to stay on track here.
With this point of order, I'd respectfully draw to your attention, and the committee's attention, to respect, please, our Standing Orders and our procedural process in these meetings.
8:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Thanks for that suggestion. This is the first time you've been here, but we're a little bit relaxed in this committee. Occasionally we allow different people to comment on something that's going on.
Mr. Christopherson, back to you.
8:40 p.m.
NDP
8:40 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
8:40 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Feel free. I wouldn't want to cut anybody off. I don't want to hog the mike. Even I can't deliver that with a straight face.
I believe I was making the point that I suspect that back in the 37th Parliament, when they were doing the 2003 report, there were members and caucuses that felt strongly about things. I was suggesting that, the same as now, it's likely that much of the thrust was coming from the government. The government is the one that has to deliver. The government is the one that has to run on its record, and governments always want more control than what they have. It doesn't matter what the government is. Mine was no different. You'd like to have more control, especially when you start to see....
There was one thing that surprised me when I first got elected. I didn't expect us to form government. I thought I'd be in the back row of the third party underneath a burned-out lightbulb. Instead, there we were in government, and two years later I was a minister. Woo-hoo! However, I found myself on the House management committee. I had served on city and regional councils, so I understood council politics, but I really didn't know much about parliamentary politics. One of the things I learned is that one of the most precious commodities is House time, particularly government House time, because by the time you go through supply days, special days, all the things you're taught, you start to realize that there's a fairly narrow window of opportunity, given that bills rightfully don't just whiz through here, that they take some time.
So I get it. I get the idea that the government wants more control. I have no doubt that in 2003, in the 37th Parliament, there were government members who felt strongly, or were given orders from on high to feel strongly, about some important matters. However, as they told us in their report, their philosophy was that to maintain the respected House that we have, Parliament—not the government, not even us, in our time, but that which is bigger than us, Parliament—was best served when rule changes only happened when there was complete agreement. They recognized that. Is that the most efficient? No. Does it make it difficult and leave the government with some problems? Yes, it might. Does it mean that you actually didn't make changes that you could have because you couldn't come to agreement on words? Yes.
We have the benefit, in this 150th year, of celebrating how lucky we are to be in Canada, that Canada has been around that long, and we're facing that moral dilemma because it's a fair question: is it more important that the House operate efficiently or that there be buy-in for the rules that decide those things? Our predecessors consistently, being in exactly the same shoes as we are, concluded time after time, in different parliaments, in different decades, in different centuries, in the consistent analysis of thoughtful parliamentarians, that when it comes to changing the rules of the House, the only acceptable, positive way to bring change is to ensure that everyone has buy-in.
The Fridays that the government wants to change are absolutely no different than the issues that were dealt with by previous committees in previous reports. Many of those rules, Chair, are there now, as I speak, and we use them.
There have been exceptions. These things are never clear, crystal clear, black and white. There have been exceptions, but in the main, and where there has been thoughtful reflection on the dilemma, parliaments have consistently said that the element of agreement is crucial. What's really weird is that for the first half of the time the Liberals have been in power, they agreed. Guess what? It worked. We did good work. We brought in changes that made things better. We didn't have a big squabble over those changes because the only ones we recommended were those we could agree on.
Chair, you'll remember that we went out of our way to find that language. Luckily we have some of the best analysts you could possibly ask for, and they scoured the planet. They were there as our wordsmiths, listening to us, grabbing our ideas, reframing them. You know how we do this. A couple of words, and it's still not working. Sometimes we stand back and say, okay, let's try it from a different approach. Rather than saying it in the positive, let's see if we can do it in the negative, that type of thing—anything at all that would allow us, collectively, to get to a place, having different perspectives, that we could all live with.
That's not unfair to me. It's not unfair to anyone else I can see. It's not unfair to the government. If everybody kind of puts a little water in their wine, you get to agreement. That's how we got a houseful of rules that for the most part we accept as being “the rules”. You don't hear too often—now and then, but not too often—that members stand up and challenge the fairness of a rule. If they do, it happens to be with the instant case and how it's being applied in a given situation, as opposed to saying a rule is inherently unfair.
We don't have that. All that squabbling that I told you we did in the alleyway as we got our game of scrub going: we don't have that. We start with bills and motions that come into the House. We know the rules. Most of the rules advantage the government; not just the Liberals but the government, particularly in a majority, particularly in a massive majority.
But what it does consistently, Chair...and I've been lucky enough to be here in minority governments and in majority, as have you. I believe you were here for minorities. You will know that the rules, for the most part, are the same. Yes, the government often gets frustrated because they think the opposition is being obstructionist and irresponsible and just delaying things and don't really care about getting anything done and just want to score points on the government. We have that kind of thing.
I can tell you that in every single opposition caucus that I've sat on, and federally that's all of them, many times we're crying over the fact that there's nothing we can do in a given situation because the bloody government has all the power and all the votes and all the control. But that's kind of what makes it work, that we have enough rights....
We have fewer than most parliamentary democracies, by the way, if you look at it worldwide. We are on the tight end of what a majority government can do with a Parliament. But a few things are available to us that allow us to, at the very least...because you're never going to completely stop a government that has decided to do something. The rules are there. They can win this fight. If the only thing that matters is winning this fight, all they have to do is craft a motion, bring it into the House, get it through the system, and they'll have it.
When we have a vote, guess what? The government wins 10 times out of 10.
My friend Mr. Doherty is reflecting on...and he's right. Every now and then things go a little democratic on them, and it's a bit rough. But in the main, as a structure and as an approach, government House leaders....
That was on private members' business, by the way. On full-up business it's very, very unusual. It does happen, but for the most part, a majority government, a big majority government, wins 10 times out of 10. They win the votes. This is why we are trying to delay a vote on Mr. Reid's motion, because we know it is going to lose. That's the motion that says you can do this only if we all agree. They want to kill that motion to leave themselves the right to ram these things through.
Coming back full circle, Chair, I pointed out in the report that I've been focusing on for the last little while that one of the things we could not come to agreement on was the issue of eliminating Friday sittings. That didn't stop us from putting it in our report and acknowledging it. As I'm going to show later, in many cases we actually commit that we'll come back to it, that we're not done our struggle, but it's not going in this report because we're not there yet.
So it's exactly the same issue applied two different ways by two different parliaments, and by one government two different ways within the same parliament.
This was interesting. This said—and it doesn't matter what the time point was, I'm just making a point—the following:
At this time, the Committee does not have any recommendations to make regarding implementing a parallel debating chamber for the House; it may revisit this topic in a future study.
Chair, I think you'll recall that when we started talking about it, I was one of those who said, “What? A parallel debating chamber?” I did not know, and I don't mind admitting that, because I don't think anybody else on the committee did either. We did not know that.
It's an interesting concept, which I don't understand fully, because we didn't go too far down there. We didn't see enough relevance to push on it, but we did say we might revisit it because we had enough ideas, and it was an interesting concept. Basically, it creates a recognized second chamber in which some of the business of the House is allowed to take place, and it runs parallel to the House. There would be this other place.... The Senate would be a great place to have a House of Commons parallel debate format, but I will leave that for a future discussion. It's just like in Quebec. They turned their former senate into the most magnificent, beautiful committee room in probably all of parliamentary history. It's a stunning room. It used to be a senate. Now it's useful. It's wonderful. I do love—
