Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 21st, 2017

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That's well put.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

I believe that to be very,very true.

My overarching point is that when it was Mr. Christopherson and I, usually, who were negotiating or trying to do some horse-trading to find a solution to a problem that was before us, to try get to through an impasse, we were on occasion able to come to an agreement. If I gave my word to Mr. Christopherson, I made sure that was held. On a couple of occasions, one I can remember particularly—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

One...?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

—we had agreed to curtail debate at the following meeting, when all of a sudden, before we got to that point, the bells started ringing because our government had forced a vote on something. Mr. Christopherson quite rightfully took that as an indication that perhaps I wasn't being sincere in my commitment, because it interrupted the proceedings of the committee. We came back to the committee and Mr. Christopherson, in his inevitable style, seized the floor and proceeded to “raise a little hell”, as the song goes, and took me to task.

I got my hackles up, of course, and assured him that it was not of my doing, that I had not broken my word. At the end of the day, at best, we agreed to disagree. The point is that on the following day, Mr. Christopherson, to his immense credit, apologized, recognized the fact that I did not break my word, that I would not break my word, and that it was outside of my ambit that the vote had been forced.

I use that only as an illustration, colleagues, to say that when I say we will not give up this fight, that is my word that I give to you, and I'm not prepared to break it, as I have not broken my word to other colleagues in the past. We will continue to filibuster until, hopefully, we can reach a resolution to this impasse. I'll be giving a few potential solutions to you, but I am quite sincere when I say that I would like to find a way out of this.

I don't know if the government wants to find a way out. I'm not sure what their motivation is. All I know is that what is occurring now serves no one, absolutely no one. I can't understand the motivation of the government to allow this to continue, because there are some pretty simple solutions to get beyond where we are now.

I've read a few of the comments made by colleagues in the previous 60 hours. I read with great interest some of the points my colleague Mr. Christopherson was making in one of his earlier interventions. I found again some commonality between Mr. Christopherson and me, because Mr. Christopherson, as all of you know now, comes from a union background. So do I. My father was the western Canadian head of the United Steelworkers of Canada. He in fact mentored Ken Neumann, who is now the head of the Canadian union and is well known to David and others in the NDP movement.

I have a great appreciation for union movements, even though I disagree on many occasions with some of the tactics they use and some of the positions they espouse. I understand the need for unions better than most. I was most proud of my father, who was very well respected in the union movement, for what he told me one day many years ago about what he felt was his greatest accomplishment. He said, when I asked him what he felt would be his legacy.... This was when my dad was in ill health and had retired from the union movement because of his poor health. We were having one of those rare moments when a father and a son can truly bond, when both know that death is imminent.

I asked my father what he felt his legacy would be and what his greatest accomplishment would be, because he loved talking about the union movement, and I wanted to engage him. I wanted to take his mind off the obvious pain and discomfort he was in. In Saskatchewan, the largest negotiating and bargaining unit was at a steel mill called “IPSCO” and now called “Evraz”. He told me—and I was not aware of this until he told me—that he believed his greatest accomplishment was that, in all the years he headed up the United Steelworkers of America union, his union had never gone on strike. I found that odd, but then he went on to say many of the things David said in his intervention.

Strikes aren't things that unions want to do. Strikes are things they believe they have to do as a matter of last resort. If you can negotiate a settlement for your members without the need to go on strike, both the employer and the unions are better served. That is what he was most proud of. He had never had a strike. He had the ability to successfully negotiate contract after contract with his union's employers without a strike ever occurring.

At the time, IPSCO was owned by a private individual, Jack Turvey. David may be aware of the history of Jack Turvey. He was a very colourful individual. He was an entrepreneur who made a million and lost a million, probably two or three times. He built a steel mill in Regina, Saskatchewan, in the heart of the Prairies, where no one thought a steel mill had any right to be built. It became the largest single employer in the province of Saskatchewan and still is to this day. Jack was a tough old character. He was a tough negotiator, but he and my father got along extremely well.

This is a bit of an aside, but I think it's worth relating to this group. I recall that they had a bit of a tradition. Whenever they successfully completed a negotiation, they would retire to Jack Turvey's private railcar, which was a fully restored 1920-something CN or CP railcar that had served as a dining room, bar, and lounge. Jack Turvey spent tens of thousands of dollars, if not hundreds of thousands, on completely restoring it to its original ornate state. It had massive glass chandeliers, ornate china and flatware, a beautiful hand-carved mahogany table, and the finest spirits, wines, and liqueurs that money could buy. He entertained many of his IPSCO clients in that railcar. It was well known within the confines of Regina and throughout the province. In fact, at one point in time, I believe schoolchildren actually got tours of it on a regular basis, just to see what it looked like.

However, it wasn't just for show, because Jack used it for entertainment purposes. At the successful conclusion of negotiations, he would invite members of the negotiating teams from both sides, management and union, back to this railcar. They would complete their successful negotiations with a fine catered dinner and more than a few drinks, to the point where a standard method of operation was that following the conclusion of their drinks, Mr. Turvey would make sure there were at least cabs, if not chauffeured limousines, to take all of the combatants home, as no one, by that time, was in a position to drive.

I point that out because I believe that there can be successful negotiations, not just in the relationship between employers and unions, but here in Parliament. It does not happen often, particularly when there is a majority government. We all recognize that. We all know that majority governments can do pretty much anything they want in terms of changing and passing legislation. That is their right. They were elected to do so.

Of course, there is a role for opposition parties. I hope this government recognizes the role of opposition parties, as most governments before it did, and I hope the Canadian public recognizes the benefits that Parliament and Canadians receive by having strong and principled opposition parties.

I again reiterate that the government does not have the right to change the rules that govern parliamentarians. That is where I take great umbrage when the Prime Minister or others stand in the House of Commons and follow the talking points, which state that the government wants to “modernize” Parliament. The government does not have a right to modernize Parliament. Only Parliament itself can modernize itself. Only Parliament itself can change its own rules.

There have been countless examples of this over the years. We've talked about them here. I've talked about them in the House. I've lived the experience. I've given examples of how, in the previous Parliament, when I chaired an all-party committee, it was charged with the responsibility of examining the Standing Orders and making recommendations on the Standing Orders. We had an all-party agreement that no changes would be made unless we had unanimity. This was a long-standing tradition.

Mr. Simms, in my last intervention, pointed out that the McGrath committee didn't have unanimity as part of its mandate. I agree with that. However, as I pointed out to Mr. Simms, the McGrath committee did employ unanimity as part of its process. As the report itself stated, not one vote was required to change a standing order. In other words, complete consensus was achieved, even though that wasn't in its mandate.

Why? It was because all the parliamentarians understood—as I understand, as Mr. Christopherson understands, and as all members of the opposition understand—that there must be unanimity when dealing with the rules of the House that affect all of us. There cannot be one party determining what the rules will be. There cannot be one party saying, “Well, we'd like to change the rules because we believe it would benefit us.” Not only is that short-sighted, but it is an insult to Parliament itself. I cannot fully understand why members of the government side can't comprehend that very basic tenet.

I appreciate the fact that my colleagues opposite are studiously looking at their BlackBerrys and their iPads, perhaps playing solitaire at this time—

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Multi-tasking.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

—and are silent, because they have been given marching orders. They've been told that “this is what is going to happen”. David and I have had a couple of discussions. I think David may be on to something with his theory about why we are here, because it makes no sense, not only to me but to many Canadians I've spoken with about this filibuster that's occurring.

It's one of two things, as David surmises. It's either that the government doesn't really know what it's doing, which is possible, or there's a master plan at work that this will continue and the government will allow opposition members to carry the debate until such time that the government wishes to invoke closure. Their rationale will be that this impasse is delaying the proper implementation of government business, and they have to do this. They'll say that they do not want to take this draconian step, but they have to, to make sure that Parliament continues to operate as it should, and they have a deadline, a calendar, in front of them. That would allow the government to rationalize bringing down closure, to get their desired results, and to achieve the changes they want to see in the Standing Orders.

But I know, as Mr. Christopherson knows, and as I think every parliamentarian—even on the government side—knows, if that is the plan, and if that is the course of action the government wants to take, this place, Parliament, will start to disintegrate very quickly. There will be a price to pay for that. There will be a price.

Of course, that would further allow the government to say that because the House is in such disarray—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

—they have no choice but to prorogue. Then they will have fully achieved all of the goals. They'll see an early end to Parliament, with changes to the Standing Orders under their belt. They'll be able to come back at some later date in the fall with a new throne speech hitting the reset button, and, in their opinion, all of this here will be forgotten.

But I can assure you that it will not have been forgotten. If you think that some procedural tactics have been used over the course of the last few days to perhaps put a bit of a crimp in the government's style, where votes have been taken at inopportune times for the government, “you ain't seen nothing yet”.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That's right.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

There are procedures that will remain in place that the opposition can avail themselves of, and I can assure you—and once again I give you my word—that we will utilize every procedural tactic at our employ and in our abilities to prevent the government from moving forward and trying to achieve their legislative agenda. They will leave us with no choice but to do that. It's not a course of action that I or anyone else on the official opposition side would like to take, but we will be forced into it because we simply cannot allow the democratic will of Parliament to be usurped, if that is the plan of the government. I truly hope it is not.

One thing I again offer up to my colleagues on the government side is to beseech and implore them to consider what the consequences of some of these changes may be, not only for Parliament but for themselves. I did a little research in looking at the results of the last election, and I found that there were 35 Liberal members of Parliament who won their seats by less than 5% of the vote, and in some cases, by less than a per cent. Primarily, they won those 35 seats because—in my opinion, at least—the New Democratic vote imploded.

The “progressive” vote, as it is called, I believe, picked a political pony to back in the last election, and they picked the current Prime Minister. I believe that they took a look at the two opposition parties at the time, the two considered to be progressive parties, and they determined that the Liberals were more progressive on a number of different policy fronts, electoral reform being one, the legalization of marijuana another, and running modest deficits being a third. I believe they thought that the New Democratic Party leader, Mr. Mulcair, was taking too centrist an approach. Being true progressives, they then felt the only way to defeat the Stephen Harper government was to strategically vote Liberal, even though many of them may have been New Democratic voters for all of their adult lives.

It worked. It was a complete surprise to some, and perhaps a bit of a surprise to others, but it was certainly no surprise to learned and experienced political leaders and observers that the Conservative government was defeated; consistent polling over the previous 12 to 24 months had indicated that the Conservative Party could not get beyond the 30% or 32% mark. It was just a matter of which of the two opposition parties was going to be able to coalesce the voters behind them. It turned out that it was the Liberals.

Mr. Trudeau's personal appeal I think obviously played a great part in that, and for that I give him credit, but the reality is that many of the same appeals that the Liberals had in the last election campaign, and much of the personal appeal that Mr. Trudeau had, are starting to wane. It's starting to wear a little thin.

I would suggest to members of the government that if the NDP vote comes back home, if it returns to its normal home, and if they get anything close to their traditional voting patterns and percentages, those 35 Liberal MPs who won by very narrow margins—and there are a couple of them sitting at this table—may be on the outside looking in after the next federal election. This could mean that we would have either a minority government or, if the tables turn dramatically, a majority government, but with the Liberals in opposition. It still could be a minority government with the Liberals in opposition.

As many of my colleagues and I have pointed out before, the wise, strategic parliamentarian would understand how to be careful of what you wish for, because you might just get it. If in fact these changes are enacted and the Liberals came back in 2019 as the opposition, what would they think then? I can guarantee you that if the tables were reversed and the Conservatives were trying to employ these tactics, members of the Liberal Party would be outraged, rightfully so, and would be using anything within their powers to prevent the employment of these tactics.

For some reason, unbeknownst to me, those strategic masterminds in the PMO have determined, for whatever reasons, that this is the course of action they wish to take. This is the road they wish to travel. I hope, and I sincerely mean this, that at some point in time I come to the understanding of the rationale behind all of this, or that someone explains it to me, because it simply doesn't make any sense, except for the theories that Mr. Christopherson has. The more I think about it, the more I think he's probably right: that this is part of the master plan.

But it doesn't need to be this way, you know, and one of the many dangers of what the government appears to be attempting to do is the either intended or unintended consequences of their actions. What I mean by this is that there have been many times in history when changes to the Standing Orders have been enacted in Parliament and either were intended to be temporary or were intended to be an act or a change that really was never to be utilized or employed.

Before I get into the historical references, let me point out something that is currently before us and is an argument that the government forwards: that their proposed change to the Standing Orders requiring a prime minister's question period once a week does not necessarily mean that the Prime Minister will only show up one day a week—he will show up for other days. Well, I guarantee members opposite that once a precedent is set—and history has proven this to be true time and time again—and once a standing order has changed requiring the Prime Minister to show up one day a week for a prime minister's question period, but not referring to any other day of the week, over time that will evolve, so that future prime ministers, and perhaps even this one, will take it upon themselves to only show up on Wednesdays because that is the only requirement in the Standing Orders that speaks to question period and the prime minister. Mark my words, that would happen.

If the Liberals were in opposition, how would they like it if they had access to a Conservative prime minister or a New Democratic Party prime minister on only one day a week? How would they feel if they could question the prime minister of the day on only one day a week? I would suggest to the members opposite that if they want to truly make this something appealing, perhaps they could come up with some sort of standing order that says that the Prime Minister, in addition to appearing one day a week, actually has to answer a direct question and give a direct answer, because we haven't seen that yet.

We've seen on two occasions the Prime Minister show up on Wednesdays and to his credit stand up and answer every question—or at least talk in response to every question. There have been no answers.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

The one that quite frankly is wearing very thin right now, and is insulting the intelligence of not only parliamentarians but also Canadians, is the Prime Minister's repeated talking points on the question of the billionaire island Christmas holiday. The questions have been quite direct to the Prime Minister. He doesn't answer them directly. He'll give his standard talking point that it was a private vacation, and they look forward to answering any questions that the office of the Ethics Commissioner may have on this and of him.

Well, today the questions from the opposition, both from the NDP and ourselves, became even more direct. We asked the Prime Minister to answer the simple question of whether or not he's met with the Ethics Commissioner yet. What would possibly prevent the Prime Minister from saying, yes, he has, or no, he hasn't but he plans to in the near future? But he still gives out the same shopworn, tired talking point that they will fully comply and work with the Ethics Commissioner.

Mr. Chair, that to me suggests that I don't think the Prime Minister has met with the Ethics Commissioner. And if not, why not? Perhaps it's because he's stalling, he's stonewalling. He doesn't want to meet because he knows that he would have to give her the direct answers that he's not giving to Parliament or to Canadians. We know now that someone was misled with the revelation that there was an alternative mode of transportation to get the Prime Minister to the Aga Khan's island. Originally, and for many question periods in a row, the Prime Minister said the only method of transportation was through private helicopter. In extenuating circumstances, I'm sure the Ethics Commissioner would agree that no protocols were breached and no laws were broken—except we know now that there were alternative modes of transportation.

To add to the mix, now the Prime Minister is suggesting that the RCMP determines his method of transportation for security reasons. Really? Can you show us perhaps some correspondence, some emails, some verification of that? If there is such verification, why would the Prime Minister not want to share that with Parliament and with Canadians? Why foster this culture of mistrust?

I know how Canadians react when the prime minister, or for that matter any politician, doesn't answer a direct and very simple question. We saw that first-hand in the last Parliament, when under questioning from Mr. Mulcair to the prime minister of the day on Senator Duffy, the prime minister, much to my chagrin and others', kept with the talking points. I and others felt he could have simply defused the situation by saying that he never instructed Mike Duffy to do anything, but he just kept following the same talking points, because the strategic advisors, the communication smart guys, felt he should keep to the script—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

How did that work out for him?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

—and not vary from the script.

David asked a question, and I'll answer it: not very well.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That's how I recall it. It didn't go well.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

That's what's happening here.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Exactly.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Canadians want answers. Look, if the Prime Minister did nothing wrong, just say so. If he has met with the Ethics Commissioner, say so. He doesn't have to divulge the content of their conversations. We will wait until we read the report from the Ethics Commissioner. But what harm does it do to answer a direct question on whether or not he's met with the Ethics Commissioner?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That's right.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

It does no harm whatsoever. In fact, I would suggest and argue that it would comfort Canadians that, yes, he has, that an investigation is going to get to the bottom of this. If the Prime Minister has done nothing wrong, as he continually states, then just say so. You're not going to be breaching any confidence of the Ethics Commissioner by saying whether or not you have met with her. If in fact the RCM Police were the ones telling the Prime Minister that for security reasons they believed he must take this private method of transportation, because otherwise security protocols would be breached, that's fine.

I believe, then, that the natural course of action to take from now—I'm sure the NDP have felt the same way—is for members of the opposition to simply write a letter to the commissioner of the RCM Police and ask whether they could provide documentation that demonstrates that they had advised the Prime Minister to take that private helicopter. I don't believe that any security provisions would be breached by the RCMP admitting to either advising the Prime Minister thusly or not, if it's standard protocol.

We all know, for example, that prime ministers are required to take secure aircraft when travelling. They are prevented from taking commercial airlines. We know that. Why do we know that? It's because the RCMP has admitted it. I'm sure the RCMP, if asked, would respond by telling us exactly what they advised the Prime Minister. Or was it a fact that the Prime Minister determined himself that he would take this private helicopter and simply advise the RCMP of his course of action? We need to know that. Why? It's not to begrudge the Prime Minister his taking a private vacation, which he is certainly entitled to do. But now we want to know whether the Prime Minister misled Parliament and misled Canadians. He has stated on the record that it was because the RCMP advised him for security reasons to take this private aircraft. If it's true, then the Prime Minister should have no difficulty in proving it, but if it is not true, then Canadians will be rightfully outraged. Parliamentarians will have more than just a simple case of privilege. We will have much more than that. We will have a documented case in which the Prime Minister deliberately misled Parliament.

I know that the term “deliberately misled” is not considered parliamentary language in the House of Commons, but if in fact the Prime Minister did not receive instructions or advice from the RCMP that he must take, in their opinion, a private aircraft, that is a serious breach of privilege—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

—and there will be consequences. Not only will there be consequences from a parliamentary procedural standpoint but there will be political consequences, I can assure all members.

Going back to my point on the prime minister's question period being one day a week, if members of the government wanted to ensure that they included a standing order that required the prime minister to give direct answers to direct questions, if he had the ability to do so, that would be a welcome change, one that I would certainly support. But I don't see that happening.

Beyond that, Mr. Chair, now that the Prime Minister has on two separate occasions answered every question put to him—

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Chair, I rise on a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Under the Simms protocol, is it okay for Xavier Barsalou-Duval to say something?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Yes, it's fine with me, Chair, absolutely.