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.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
Sorry, Chair. That was a little aside there. I enjoyed that.
Thank you, Mr. Waugh.
5:45 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
I just want to say, in response to Mr. Waugh, that I think his story about Saskatchewan and the filibuster that occurred when the government undertook to sell PotashCorp, jointly with the story about MTS in Manitoba, just shows the extent to which filibusters are brought on by issues where the stakes are high. Selling off a major crown corporation like that, whether you're for it or against it—I'm sure we wouldn't find consensus around this table on whether to be for or against those decisions—nevertheless is a significant decision in terms of the future of the economy. Whether those assets are held publicly or privately can make a substantial difference for people in the province. I won't get into substantive debate on the virtue of publicly held assets or privately held assets, but I do think it illustrates that it's when the stakes are high that issues tend to trigger those kinds of filibusters. That's why we're here today, because the stakes are high.
Whatever you think about some of the substantive proposals in the government discussion paper, what's at stake and where the stakes are high is the setting of a precedent, where a majority government uses that majority to rewrite the rules of Parliament. That, for me, is really at the bottom of what we're here for. It's why we're happy to talk at length and provide such a detailed analysis of the issue for the benefit of ourselves and other members, and ultimately for the government, because it's a bad precedent. You can have a government made up of the most friendly, well-meaning people. If they go ahead and establish precedents that future governments can use, governments that may be less scrupulous, then they will have done an incredible disservice to the country, whether they intended to or not. It's just a good reminder of how it is....
I think some people look at the kind of detailed conversation we've been having and ask what we are doing and why we are doing that. It's important to know that it gets done when you're on the cusp of making a really significant decision, and one that can potentially have very negative consequences. When that happens, it is perfectly appropriate for legislators to respond by trying to put that decision off, in the hopes that, while doing that, first of all, they'll be able to perhaps persuade the government that they're on the wrong track.
There's a lot of room here, given the strength of the tradition of all-party agreement, for government to change its mind and simply say that it's come to see the value of reaching out to colleagues, if nothing else, because it wants to get something done; and as much as it may think it can go ahead on its own, it realizes it's not going to get it done if it doesn't reach out to other parties.
That's not the government members saying they were wrong. That would be nice to hear from the other side, but I don't think they even have to go there. I think they can say their priority is to get it done, and they had an idea about how they would get it done. Whether they think it's right or not, that strategy's not working. They're pragmatic, and they're going to adopt a strategy that actually gets results. That strategy is going to be one that's more collaborative with the opposition parties. So there's that, convincing government. We're hearing persuasive arguments tonight.
The second point is to give time. This is one thing. I'll try to not conflate that point about procedure, and majority governments unilaterally making changes, with substantive issues. I think one role of Parliament, and one virtuous aspect of some of the dilatory strategies that opposition parties adopt from time to time, is to give civil society the time it needs to digest what government is proposing and to mobilize, either in favour or against.
Maybe civil society has time to digest that, Canadians come to appreciate what it is the government is doing and say, hey, actually, we really like it. They mobilize against the opposition because they think the opposition is making an error. Or they come to know better what the government is doing, and they say, hey, we really don't like this. They're thankful for that time to impress upon government members that they need to change tack.
Part of the problem with making legislative processes so quote-unquote efficient is that legislation passes before Canadians have time to even really know what's going on here. It is a bit of a bubble in Ottawa, and it takes time for things to seep out. The media have to be covering it. MPs need time to put a householder together or line up their ten percenters and get them out to the riding. They need time to get some of that feedback, to see what's going on. Groups in civil society need time to organize meetings, to organize rallies, and to organize letter-writing campaigns. This all takes time.
One of the virtues of the legislators here taking time and stretching out the decision-making process on an important issue is that it's actually the way in for civil society. If we didn't do that here, if within the course of two or three days we just went ahead and made some of those major decisions, we would be shutting Canadians out of the decision-making process.
When a government says that it wants to consult, have discussions, and stuff like that, part of that is not rushing your legislation through. I think Bill C-10 was a very good example, with changes to the Air Canada Public Participation Act. That bill, through time allocation, passed through Parliament very quickly. When I was out talking to people about the consequences of that bill and what it meant, people were shocked, frankly, that the government they thought they had elected was doing that in the first place. As they learned about it, they really didn't like it.
Partly, they just assumed that this government would never do that. It wasn't part of the election platform. It wasn't part of what they had talked about. People didn't feel that allowing good aerospace maintenance jobs to leave the country was part of sticking up for the Canadian middle class, so they were surprised to hear that. Had we been able to extend that process further, Canadians who came to know of that may have been able to change the government's tack and make the government feel that they were in the wrong.
I think that's an important element of legislative processes and an important part of why we're here tonight.
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
I just want to say how much I appreciate the points that Mr. Blaikie made. I agree with him.
It's not something that often happens, that the Conservatives and NDP are in agreeance on something. I mean, I like Mr. Blaikie as a person. I enjoy his sense of humour. I don't know if he drinks, but if he did, he's the kind of guy I think I could go for a beer with. I think we'd have an enjoyable time. We might argue a little bit about politics, but that's my whole point. We have a very different political world view, I think, generally, but on something like this, we understand the importance of making sure that this is done fairly and in a way that all parties can agree.
When he makes the point about filibusters, or the type of meeting that we're having here, I think it's an important one. It's a very valid one. I've been here eight and a half years or so. I've been witness to or part of a few filibusters—not a lot, but a few—and I've been on both sides. I've been on the side where I've wondered why the person couldn't just be quiet and we could get this taken care of. I've also been on the side of understanding why...well, I've always understood why they were important, but on the side where I believed it's needed in that case.
But when I think about it, every time I've seen one, they have always been issues of high importance, and issues where generally there might be some significant disagreements amongst the parties on what should happen. At the end of the day, it has to be done in what's in the best interest of Canadians.
I think one of the key things that happens when you have one of these long meetings like this, which is one of the things the government is trying to take the opportunity away, you enable engagement by Canadians, because Canadians become aware of the media reports on it. MPs can go and have conversations with their constituents. The constituents can approach MPs. It gives people on all sides of the issue a chance to get more perspectives from Canadians.
That is the really key part of it, that you get that chance for Canadians to get engaged in an issue, which otherwise—if a government forces something through quickly—they don't get that opportunity to do. Once it happens, it's too late. This gives a chance for everyone to give a second thought to the issue and for Canadians to actually bring their perspectives to their members of Parliament, which is really what our job is supposed to be. At the end of the day, maybe the government, even though the opposition parties feel differently, has the consensus of Canadians that this is the right thing to do on whatever issue it might be. Maybe they don't. Maybe they then rethink what they're doing. I think this is a great example of that.
We've seen tens of thousands of Canadians signing petitions. I know that I personally as a member of the committee have received thousands of emails. I'm sure government members would be able to say the same, because I've seen that their names are copied on some of the same ones I'm getting. That tells me that Canadians are engaged. They're interested. Basically what I'm seeing is they're saying, no, this isn't right. This is an opportunity for Canadians to have that say, and they wouldn't have gotten it otherwise.
The one thing we can all agree on here on this side of the table and this side of the House is that this is an important thing. I think in their heart of hearts, most members, if not all members, of the Liberal government would feel the same if they were to examine their heart of hearts. I hope that at some point we can come to some kind of resolution where we can understand that and figure out a way that we can move forward.
I think everybody is willing to look at these issues. We have some disagreements, certainly, on where they might go, but I think there are some things where we do have agreement, too. That's really been my experience in this committee. I've been here three or four years now in this committee, and that's been my experience. We've always been able to do that. We sometimes start from a greater disagreement than we end with, but if you can't even agree to really enable the other side to even have any real say....
We keep hearing about a conversation. We keep hearing that we'll listen. But to listen and have a conversation and then just completely ignore everything you've heard is not really a conversation at all.
That's really what it comes down to, Mr. Chair. It's the opportunity to just dig into the issues and know that you're going to actually have some say and be heard. That's the point that Mr. Blaikie was making. I certainly agree with him, and I just wanted to add my voice to that.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to my colleagues on both sides for their interventions.
To Mr. Blaikie, I would just say that I alway appreciated listening to your father in debates in the House of Commons. I was a frequent CPAC viewer growing up, and I recall the time when he was the dean of the House of Commons undertaking the supervision of the election of the Speaker. He made a comment at the time that it was a bit of an honour for him, as a member of McGrath report who made the recommendation that the dean of the House would preside over the election of the Speaker, and then those years later himself serving as the dean of the House of Commons—and never imagining being part of that.
It's quite an honour that your father has been brought into this discussion. Please pass that on to him about his name being well respected in this place from this side of the House, very much so.
Thank you as well to Mr. Richards and Mr. Waugh and Mr. Simms for their comments.
Incidentally, I didn't realize that Mr. Simms was a weathercaster before coming to this place.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
I wasn't a meteorologist, I played one on television.
5:45 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
You know, after all those years lying for a living, I decided to get into politics instead, I guess.
5:45 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
5:45 p.m.
NDP
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
That's right. A big, dark pall was cast in the sky until I got into politics. It's been all sunshine since—
5:45 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
—in all the appropriate places.
I'll just leave it at that.
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
We are televised, which is interesting, because that was the next point I was going to make.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
I'll throw it to Kevin for sports when I'm done.
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Incidentally, it's fascinating to meet the members of Parliament you've seen on TV before. You think you actually know them when you show up here the first day on Parliament Hill. You've never actually met them before, but you've seen them so often on TV.
One of your colleagues, Kate Young from London West, was a long-time news anchor who I watched growing up. When I first met Kate, I felt like I knew her because I had grown up listening to her on the channel 10 news.
I'm getting a little bit off topic. I will return to relevancy very quickly.
