Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 21st, 2017

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

These proceedings are being televised, of course, but the public might have had the opportunity to see me speaking from a different camera angle that they'll now be deprived of, but that's no great loss, I think, to be fair.

As I was saying, Althia Raj did a podcast. Kady O'Malley was a guest, and I think she made a very good point about the government's approach to programming. I've spoken before in broad strokes on the issue of programming, but I want to bring her point to the attention of the committee because I think it's one, as I look for ways to persuade government members about this, that government would do well to take on board, which is that not only does programming limit the opposition.... In a nutshell, the process of programming is one in which the government would decide on every bill exactly how many days would be spent on debate not only at different stages of the bill in the House, but also in committee. This is a totally unprecedented proposal.

For a long time governments have used some form of time allocation. Of course, every time that time allocation is used, it is controversial, but there isn't time allocation in the context of committee. The government does not have the power to come in and say, “Committee, we're going to allocate a certain number of days or number of meetings, and then you're done.” Committees, as my NDP colleague Mr. MacGregor is pointing out, are masters of their own domain. Of course, programming is a major derogation from this idea of committee autonomy, which is important for the integrity of the committee process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Sorry, Mr. Genuis, but on the programming, you said it's just decided by the government. How is it decided in Westminster? I don't know how it is decided, which is why I'm asking you. When we had the Scottish Parliament here, we heard there is programming, but it's decided by all of the parties in a committee what the program is for each bill. I was just wondering if you know how it is done in Westminster.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I don't know all of the details in terms of how they do it in Westminster. My understanding is they have a number of additional committees, things like backbencher committees, that actually take a more active role. I don't think anyone would argue, incidentally, that the executive is more powerful in the British system. If anything, our party leaderships here are much more powerful than in Westminster. In Westminster, of course, we know there are more opportunities, and it has happened where caucuses will throw off their leader.

If Mr. Simms wants to make an intervention, I'll....

Do you have a comment on the subject of programming?

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

Yes. I was going to let you finish, but I could intervene on a point of order.

I'll speak long enough to give you a break. If you want to take a break, go ahead.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

No, it's only been 20 minutes.

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

Oh, really? I've lost all concept of time. What can I tell you?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

You're welcome to make an intervention.

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

I want to jump in on this discussion about programming. I went to Westminster about three weeks ago, and I had a lovely conversation with Margaret Beckett. She was the House leader for Tony Blair way back when. She introduced the idea of government programming for the sake of providing finality or at least putting a set time around bills, not at second reading, at report stage and third reading up to the vote. That's what they would do. She did this because she was tired of the guillotining of certain bills. When she was in opposition, she had wanted to debate a bill on welfare back when Margaret Thatcher was prime minister. She had her debate done in three stages: about this, that, and this. By the time she got to the second part, it was guillotined, time allocated, and done. She never got to the crux of her argument. This is why she thought there must be a better way than that.

They went to other parliaments similar to that of the U.K. They found this thing about government programming. They had a commission set up from 1995 to 1997. In 1997, they fleshed out the idea of having an outline where they would use it for some government bills that were important to pass.

I don't mean this facetiously, but—I look at you, Candice, because I know you were there before—I'm surprised that your government didn't look at this prior to.... Maybe you did; I don't know. It actually is an effective way. If you want legislation to go through in a reasonable amount of time and, by the same token, attain the balance where a set number of people can be involved in the debate, you can set the time by which you do report stage and third reading.

In doing that, people really found this issue to be so important to them, whether it was their constituency or their area of interest, that they were able to leverage time into that debate based on what they knew, their expertise, and how they were going to do this. They were able to do this because they were able to see it.

They instituted a review, and I think in 2004 they decided it needed to be tweaked because there wasn't a lot of getting along, we'll say, as far as the House leaders were concerned. It sounds really familiar on occasion, but you get the idea—sorry. They decided that both the government and opposition.... It was also endorsed by the Liberal Democrats, who at that point had been the minority partner of a coalition. They, too, agreed that this was the way to go for major government bills, to provide programming, and the Liberal—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

They wouldn't be in the next Parliament anyway.

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

Probably not, but—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I was living in the U.K. at the time. I was doing a master's degree at the time of some epic student riots. The Liberal Democrats were the main target because they'd had some pretty aggressive promises on tuition, and tuition tripled. It was quite a cultural experience for me to observe.

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

I think eight of them survived out of a group of about 40.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

It turns out that Liberals don't keep their promises in any country—just kidding.

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

Liberal Democrats or...? Yeah, right.

Basically, the former House leader for the Liberal Democrats.... He was the minority House leader. I met him. He was elected. He's still there. He's from Scotland. He described government programming as a debate among adults. It's how adults would structure a debate and conversation. It's too bad we can't get to that point where we get witnesses, because I want to bring her and him as witnesses here. I'm not trying to start those fires again, but you get the idea.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

I know.

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

I was hoping to bring them over as witnesses to give an illustration from both sides of the House—actually three sides of the House with the exception of the Scottish nationalists—about how government programming could be an effective way. Not to steal a slogan from years gone by, but we'd make it a “made in Canada” solution, as it were. Whether you start it at second reading or not, I don't know, but the people who have.... I know how it works, and I know the machinations of it from looking at the journals of 1997 to 2004 and all those years when they used it, where it was successful and where it was not successful. However, it would be nice to hear people at our level, politicians who have such a genuine interest about certain issues, come here and say, “It's not that great.”

Elizabeth May knows about it as well. She talked about this because she talked to her counterpart in Westminster. She was not a fan of programming, but why? I don't know why she didn't like it, and I'd like to hear from that person so I could say that she may have a point, or she may not. It may be because she's the only Green person in Westminster and doesn't get her fair say. I think it's worth looking at. I say that because whatever evolves from this filibuster or this committee, I hope that at some point we get a chance to have a look at it, not just for us, but for future governments.

That's about it, unless, Mr. Genuis, you'd like a bigger break, but you're only 20 minutes in. As David Christopherson would say, you're merely clearing your throat.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Really, I am—

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Sorry.

Mr. Berthold.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

I would like to take a moment to say a few things, Mr. Genuis. I think it would be good to hear a bit of French around the table this evening.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Yes, by all means.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity.

I was impressed by the short debate we just witnessed, with Mr. Simms talking about the desire to do something to improve the rules in Parliament.

For a long time, I have watched how things work at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I have also been watching what has been happening in the House of Commons recently. I sense that all parties truly want to have this discussion and talk about different kinds of parliaments. I was listening to Mr. Simms just now and have rarely found him so interesting. Not to say that he is uninteresting as a rule, but I found him particularly insightful.

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

I'm beginning to think you live in my riding.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

It should be noted that Mr. Simms is the president of Canada-Europe parliamentary association, of which I am also a member. So I have to be kind of nice to him.

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

Thank you very much.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

They are interesting ideas nonetheless. That is exactly what we, including Mr. Genuis, have been trying to say. Let's discuss this.

You are passionate about what you just said, Mr. Simms, and you want to do something.

A real leader, someone who truly believes in their ideas, can convince others without forcing them to follow suit. That is the beauty of Parliament and of our democratic system. Changes take place gradually, as people adopt others' ideas because they are well presented and prepared, and because systems that work well elsewhere are cited as examples. I think that is a good way of making changes to the rules of a chamber or assembly that makes the laws for a country. We have to follow certain basic rules of procedure, I believe, and you made some interesting points in that regard. We could discuss them to see if the opposition and the government are in favour. We have to discuss them at least.

At the same time, something that Margaret Thatcher said comes to mind. She once said that if you have to tell people you are a lady, you aren't. In other words, if the government has to use its power to assert itself as the government, it is not governing properly. That is what we are attempting to show here.

Have faith in yourselves, have faith in every member of your party. Try to convince us and the NDP that your discussion paper should be sold to all members of Parliament. That way, you are sure to convince some people. That would be a good thing. Unfortunately, that is not the approach you have taken.

It has been a pleasure for me to speak. At least I can say that I was able to speak briefly. Nonetheless, since I know Mr. Genuis has much to say this evening, I will not take up any more of his speaking time.