Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 21st, 2017

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

They just did. Let them do their job.

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

Mr. Chair, I hope that my grammar was perfect when I was reading the amendment.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Even I understood that with no problem.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Are you reading the motion?

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

I was just going over the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Everyone has a copy of it in front of them.

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

Okay, excellent.

For those who are following the audio at home, that is the amendment I think we are discussing now.

Just to speak to the value of that amendment again, for those who may not have been following the translation, the unanimous requirement is what we're talking about here. That is to say, in recognizing the important role and different perspective that every party brings to the table, it's important that we have some degree of unanimity and consensus among the political parties before we move forward with changes to the Standing Orders.

The context is that this is an amendment to a motion put forward by Mr. Scott Simms of the Liberal Party. It is a motion, as others have mentioned, for which I think we suspect there's pretty clear direction from the leadership.

The government House leader put out a discussion paper, a paper basically naming the kinds of changes they want to see. I'll talk a bit about that discussion paper.

I eagerly read through it as soon as it came out because I do spend quite a bit of time in the House of Commons. I found some interesting points of discussion, but certainly plenty of things to disagree with.

Frankly, there are many things in this discussion paper that were clearly designed to advantage the government. Somebody was sitting down and thinking, “Hey, how do we strengthen the relative position of the government in the House of Commons and weaken the capacity of the opposition to respond and use the tools they are supposed to have?” This is what I saw in the discussion paper we had in front of us.

Then, immediately, we had a motion from the Liberals calling for an immediate study of this discussion paper, with a very tight timeline. Of course, our concern is that there are no safeguards at all in the proposal in this motion, to ensure that there is a substantial degree of consensus among all the parties on how we move forward on this.

In the absence of the amendment we proposed, there is a real concern that what the government would like to do is to push forward changes already laid out in this discussion paper, which would severely weaken the important role of the opposition that I've talked about.

It was said at the time of the debate on motion number six—which reflected a very similar approach by the government and the previous government House leader—that the government seemed to view all of the opposition parties, not just the official opposition, as a sideshow to the main event, which is the government governing.

The opposition is not a sideshow. The opposition has a central function in the process of governing. Naturally, as we have fairly regular changes of government in this country, who the opposition is changes. Those who are in government now will likely one day be in opposition and vice-versa. Really, it is in all of our interest to protect the role of the opposition and to ensure we have a strong opposition that has the tools and capacity to respond.

It has been interesting hearing the interventions by government members on this. They've been fairly limited. We have had comments by Mr. Graham and Mr. Simms that I think have expressed the view of the government in relatively similar ways. They have talked about some aspects of the substance of the discussion paper. They have said, “Let's get on with the study. We want to have a discussion about the Standing Orders. We want to have a discussion about how that works. Let's just get on with doing the study.”

It's similar to the talking point we heard from the government on the issue of electoral reform, when they said, “Come on, guys, stop talking about a referendum, stop talking about process. Let's just get on talking about the substance of the discussion.”

Our perspective, and I think it's the right perspective, is that you need to have some—

Mr. Graham is surprised that I think it's the right perspective.

The discussion of process needs to precede the discussion of substance. There have to be some ground rules on how a decision is going to be made before we step into the process of making the decision. I think this is quite sensible, because if we immediately start down the road of having a discussion of the substance before we've set ground rules, then we've already ventured into a space in which the government may well try to make decisions without involving the opposition in those decisions. We need to establish how decisions will be made before we go on to that next step.

What was striking about the electoral reform discussion was that once it became clear to the government that they had lost the process debate, they stopped having any interest in the substance. They were only interested in moving on to a discussion of the substance of electoral reform once they were sure they could fully control the process of decision-making.

I think members across the way have a point when they say there's important substance to be had here. Their option would be to say, “Yes, we're going to endorse the opposition amendment and accept the principle of changes being made to the Standing Orders with the agreement and acceptance of all parties.” Once that happened, then yes, absolutely we could proceed to the next steps. It would probably make sense to get a bit of a sense of their rationale on timeline and some of these other issues. This is something that could be done and developed through consensus.

I'm a relatively new member, but I worked here as a political staffer before. Generally, the committees I've been a part of have worked on a consensus model anyway. That's how the committees of this House, I think, function best: when there is a collaborative spirit that informs the type of agenda that is set and the way in which we proceed.

It falls to those members, Mr. Graham and Mr. Simms, who made these points earlier on, who are interested in getting on to the study and who have perspectives on issues such as Friday sittings, to agree to a decision-making process that is fair and that respects the role of the opposition; then at that point we can move on to the next steps.

But we shouldn't put the cart ahead of the horse here. In other words, we shouldn't jump on to the study without agreeing on the ground rules, because if we were to do that, we would be ceding, I think, too much ground to the government. We have to first establish a principle, which is the role of the opposition and the important function that they have.

I'd like to go on to the next point. There is a fundamental principle at stake here in the amendment itself that really goes back through the history of our parliamentary system.

There are two ways to think about the origins of constitutions, of rules of order, of governing documents for any institution. You can think of some as coming up in a revolutionary way and some as coming forward in an evolutionary way. I'm going to argue that our system is broadly speaking evolutionary as distinct from revolutionary and that this is good and we need to preserve this character, and that in the absence of this amendment, the motion and the approach of this government deviates from our parliamentary traditions by being overly revolutionary.

When I speak about a revolutionary approach to the construction of rules of order, of standing orders, of constitutions, of legal frameworks, that revolutionary approach would be one in which you start with a group of people who think they're smart and may actually be smart or may not be taking control and themselves seeking to design from the ground up what an ideal system would look like, perhaps with limited respect for history or tradition; rather trying to say, “What has gone before isn't that important; we are starting today in year one. We are going to do something radically different and we in our wisdom are going to design a system that works best.” Whether you're talking about law, society, social institutions, constitutions, or rules of order, this is a revolutionary approach, an approach that rejects the past and starts from now as a way forward.

This is very much the tone of the discussion paper that has been put forward. It's also the tone of all of the talking points we hear from the government in the House. It is a revolutionary approach to political theory that says, we are going to redesign a system that accords with our perception of the needs of the present, and we're going to do it through the power that we have grabbed hold of.

You see this in the repeated use of the language of “modernization” without clarity as to what constitutes “modernization”. This is inherently revolutionary and I would argue quite dangerous. Modernization, of course, can imply and mean certain very legitimate and good things. Modernization can mean updating the way we operate to respond to new challenges, new realities, new opportunities, but there is no explanation of how, for example, moving to having a prime minister working one day a week, reducing the number of sittings—any of these things—has any relationship to unique circumstances of the present time that have not existed in the past.

We're talking about the government wishing to make changes, but we're not actually referring to any recognizable concept of modernization. We're not talking about changes that really reflect an updating towards the modern world. What we're actually seeing is the terminology of “modernization” being used as a justification, as a kind of gloss for the fact that the government wants to change things.

The government wants to change things, so they're going to call their approach a more “modern” approach. Again, it's not obvious that having the Prime Minister there one day a week is any more or less modern. It's different, and we can have the argument about that, but the tone—and I think the intended tone, actually—is a revolutionary one.

That, then, is the revolutionary approach. When it comes to the constitutions of different states, we see a revolutionary basis probably more evident in the American constitution and certain constitutions that have been developed, although our tradition—the Canadian tradition and the tradition it draws from, the British tradition—is more an evolutionary one. In other words, it's one that has emphasized the importance of a regard for the past, of a reverence and a regard for our history.

The Standing Orders we have aren't standing orders about which someone a couple of years ago sat down and said, “I'm going to write standing orders”. Our constitution has elements that were written at certain times, but our constitution isn't composed entirely of something that someone sat down and wrote at some point in time. Our constitutional framework is an evolved one; our Standing Orders are evolved; our institutions are evolved. We can see elements of our tradition that harken back to different periods in our history. I think we can go through that history and can see this process of evolution as it has unfolded.

Now, at first blush it appears strange that we would prefer a system that doesn't actually seem to be the result of intelligent design. Revolutionary systems reflect the mind of someone who at least considers themselves an intelligent designer, whereas evolutionary systems really are the result of the accumulation of historic wisdom but don't reflect the immediate design of a particular person or even of specific groups of people.

I think the endurance of our constitutional framework and the British constitutional framework upon which it stands shows the benefits of an evolutionary approach. We have also seen in the history of the evolution of the British democratic system, however, this revolutionary tendency. There have always been those who have been skeptical of history and tradition and have instead wanted to insert their own brilliant ideas, in the form of modernization or whatever it is, and to use the power they have to do so. I think we see that tendency in a particular way with this current government and with this current Prime Minister.

They do not have the appropriate reverence for history and for the way in which history has evolved our institutions to a point that reflects the collective wisdom of our political and our literal forebears. We need to acknowledge that wisdom and not simply throw it out on the basis of claims to modernization.

Someone told me once that if there's a pillar in your house and you don't know what it's holding up, your first instinct shouldn't be to knock it down; you should first find out whether it's holding anything up. In other words, you shouldn't assume it's there for no reason; you should find out what it does, and if you conclude that it's not needed anymore, then by all means proceed.

The evolutionary conservative political tendency that I've described is not one that is opposed to all change. Indeed, we are open to a discussion of changes to the Standing Orders; however, we wish to make changes in a way that reflects and respects our traditions, that in other words is evolutionary and not revolutionary.

The ultimate guarantee of that is in the amendment. Ours is a tradition that involves the ongoing input of members of Parliament from all parties. Not only are we talking about respect for tradition in terms of the Standing Orders as they represent our traditions; we're talking about respect for our traditions in terms of the processes by which changes have traditionally been made to our Standing Orders.

As colleagues of mine have mentioned, this has been the practice of previous prime ministers: to recognize with reverence the traditions in our system that are represented by the Standing Orders that I have in front of me and to understand the responsibility that they have as the inheritors of that tradition—not even fully as the inheritors of that tradition, but as the managers of that tradition for the benefit not of themselves but of future generations. The requirement of unanimity ensures that.

Let me then comment a little bit on the way in which our tradition has been impacted by the revolutionary tendency, because ours is not, to be fair, a tradition of unbroken evolutionary development of parliamentary institutions. It's one throughout which there have been challenges to that evolutionary idea, again because it's not an obvious idea. It is not intuitive that the best institutions, the best constitutions, or the best laws are not simply developed on the spot but have been evolved over time. It hasn't been an obvious insight, but I think it is one that has been proven true.

Our constitutional tradition really starts with the Magna Carta, when during the Hundred Years' War—a war between England and France, to the extent that those names made sense in that time—the English king was seeking the support of elites within his society. They came back to him with certain demands, certain conditions. This is the beginning of the idea of a constitutional framework that limits the power of the executive. This occurred a little more than 800 years ago. Two years ago we just celebrated the 800-year anniversary of the Magna Carta.

It begins that process in a way unique to our own tradition of recognizing the need to limit the power of the executive. Actually, what's striking is that it does so in a particular way that is even at its inception evolutionary. In other words, even the framers of the Magna Carta were not in their minds creating out of thin air new rights or new obligations or new responsibilities. Perhaps we might say that they were, but they did not think of themselves as doing that; they did not explain what they were doing in a way that was revolutionary. Rather, they spoke about a recognition of pre-existing rights.

Take, from section 1, for example:

In the first place we have granted to God, and by this our present charter confirmed for us and our heirs forever that the English Church shall be free, and shall have her rights entire, and her liberties inviolate; and we will that it be thus observed; which is apparent from this that the freedom of elections, which is reckoned most important and very essential to the English Church, we, of our pure and unconstrained will, did grant, and did by our charter confirm and did obtain the ratification of the same from our lord, Pope Innocent III, before the quarrel arose between us and our barons: and this we will observe, and our will is that it be observed in good faith by our heirs forever. We have also granted to all freemen of our kingdom, for us and our heirs forever, all the underwritten liberties, to be had and held by them and their heirs, of us and our heirs forever.

If any of our earls or barons, or others holding of us in chief by military service shall have died, and at the time of his death his heir shall be full of age and owe "relief", he shall have his inheritance by the old relief, to wit, the heir or heirs of an earl, for the whole barony of an earl by £100; the heir or heirs of a baron, £100 for a whole barony; the heir or heirs of a knight, 100s, at most, and whoever owes less let him give less, according to the ancient custom of fees.

If, however, the heir of any one of the aforesaid has been under age and in wardship, let him have his inheritance without relief and without fine when he comes of age.

The guardian of the land of an heir who is thus under age, shall take from the land of the heir nothing but reasonable produce, reasonable customs, and reasonable services, and that without destruction or waste of men or goods; and if we have committed the wardship of the lands of any such minor to the sheriff, or to any other who is responsible to us for its issues, and he has therein made destruction or waster of what he holds in wardship—

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Excuse me for a second. Are you reading the whole Magna Carta?

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

No, I'm not. I'm just quoting the relevant sections of it.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Since you've been interrupted, I want to raise a point of order anyway, Mr. Chair. I was as concerned as you were that he might do that. Garnett is a man of few words, though, so I don't know that he would actually do it.

The point of order I want to raise, however, Mr. Chair, is actually a substantive one. It is that tomorrow morning we obviously all have caucuses. Ours is at 9:30, I believe.

Is the Liberal one at 10:00, or 9:30, or...? I don't know what time it is.

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

It was cancelled.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Your caucus meeting has been cancelled?

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

Yes.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

We have obviously had a lot of discussion today. What time is the NDP caucus?

[A voice]

It's nine o'clock....

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

It's nine o'clock. Does somebody else want to contribute to the debate over there? Maybe that was Justin Trudeau paging in the orders, or something.

It's nine o'clock for the NDP and 9:30 for the Conservatives. I guess the Liberals can defer theirs to the weekend. I guess the Liberals don't necessarily need to have a discussion about this, because the direction has already been given. Whether that was discussed at caucus or not, who knows?

We've obviously had a lot of discussion today about how the opposition parties feel the need to have some ability to discuss a direction with their caucuses, and to get some feedback. Obviously that will be a bit difficult if we're still here in this room or somewhere, continuing with the debate.

We're certainly not prepared to give way on this—it is too important a principle—but I'm wondering what your intention is, Mr. Chair, in terms of the caucuses. Obviously if we wanted to try to further this and give an opportunity for a discussion at caucuses, so that we might get a sense as to what things are going to look like going forward, it would be helpful for the committee if it were allowed to suspend to go to caucus meetings. I just am curious as to your direction and thoughts on that, Mr. Chair, and what our intention would be.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

I'm sensitive to that, and we'll probably make provision for that, but I think at this moment we should carry on with Mr. Genuis.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Sorry, if I can just press a little bit more on that one, obviously people will want to make plans accordingly as to whether they can attend the caucus meeting or not. When did you intend to make a decision on that, then?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

You can have people attend their caucus meeting.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Okay. Would we be able to suspend the meetings for that period of time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Yes. I'll determine the exact time later.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Yes, but probably at nine o'clock, or some time before that, we would suspend until both caucus meetings have ended.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

What time do your caucus meetings end?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

It's never exactly the same, but it's usually about noon.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

It depends on the day.