I don't want us to get too far ahead of ourselves.
Past examples of changes to the Standing Orders have been mentioned more than once in this committee by different members from all sides. I think those discussions are instructive. Certainly the McGrath report is one document that I have a keen interest in. As a graduate student, I wrote a research paper on the McGrath report. It was titled “McGrath at 25”. It was a 25-year retrospective of the McGrath report: where it had come in those 25 years, what had changed, what had not changed, which changes had been beneficial, and which had not been. Perhaps, if I have an opportunity, I may come back to the McGrath report, because there is a lot that's instructive in that report.
I want to go a bit more to the heart of where we're at. That is the fact that there has been a discussion paper presented by the government, as is their right. Any member of Parliament can present a discussion paper, and I think that's a great opportunity. I know Ms. May has done so. It certainly has some fascinating comments in it. Some would create major changes. Some would be at the margins, but that's like any discussion paper, and that's the opportunity to really have that discussion.
That's why, for the next bit of time—I know there are other colleagues who may want to take the floor at some point tonight, so I'm going to be cognizant of that—I want to go back to a past example of a discussion paper and the way in which that discussion paper aligned more properly with the common practice of the House of Commons. I would draw the attention of the committee to this document. It's titled “Position Paper: The Reform of Parliament”. It was tabled in the House of Commons by the Hon. Walter Baker, a PC MP, in November 1979. At the time, he was the leader of the House. He was also the President of the Privy Council, a title that still exists, though it is not commonly used.
This is an example of a document, a discussion paper, that really got at the heart of the back-and-forth, of the actual, meaningful opportunity to debate and discuss among multiple entitles: government, opposition, and further opposition parties. Certainly, those in the Ottawa area are familiar with the gentleman who developed this paper, Walter Baker. He was an MP from the Ottawa region. He passed away in 1983, I believe, at a relatively young age.
Walter Baker was probably, and still is, best remembered as the House leader at the time of the collapse of the Joe Clark government on the budget. He took a great deal of the blame for that defeat. As all current members know, often blame is assigned where it ought not to be, and he probably shouldn't have had all the blame. It was probably slightly more of a whip's responsibility at the time. Certainly, he was a distinguished parliamentarian with a distinguished career, as a member but also as a government House leader. He served in this place from 1972 until his death in 1983.
I think the tributes that were offered to Walter Baker upon his death are informative when we look at his work on the reform of Parliament, the suggestions he brought forward, why he brought those suggestions forward, the manner in which he brought the discussion forward, and the way in which they really go to the heart of our current discussion.
I want to quote from Hansard. This is from Debates, Monday, November 14, 1983, page 28,819, “Tributes to former member”. The leader of the opposition at the time was Mr. Brian Mulroney, who, I might add, was on the Hill today advising on NAFTA, which is certainly an issue far outside the scope of this committee, but I suspect our colleagues in other committees will be dealing with it.
Mr. Mulroney began his comments by expressing sadness at the loss of Walter Baker, and he stated:
With Walter's death yesterday, Canada has lost a gifted leader and a distinguished parliamentarian and all of us who knew him have lost a warm and a generous friend. While new to this House, I am not insensitive to its traditions. During the short time that I have been here, I have seen that one of the noblest traditions seems to be the friendship that emerges from the forge of partisan battle. Such friendships, Mr. Speaker, tempered as they often are in the cauldron of debate, are both genuine and durable because, irrespective of Party, they are born in the deep respect that comes from true accomplishment on behalf of Canada.
That is a really meaningful comment by the then-opposition leader on a former colleague.
He went on to say—this is again Mr. Mulroney:
During one of my first conversations with Walter after my election as leader, he spoke movingly of his recent visits with the honourable member for Winnipeg North Centre....
This was a gentleman by the name of Mr. Knowles from the New Democrats, who still has an office named after him upstairs. Mr. Mulroney continued:
Walter told me of the Hon. Member's great contribution to Parliament and to Canada over three decades and how much he would be missed should he decide not to run again. I found it both poignant and elevating, Mr. Speaker, that Walter would speak with such obvious affection for someone of another political Party. I knew that a man capable of such discernment loved people, revered Parliament and ennobled it by his presence.
I read these comments about Mr. Baker, who passed away before I was even born, so I never knew the gentleman personally, but the respect in which he was held by his parliamentary colleagues from all parties—and for those who are interested, you can read the entire series of tributes to him from Liberals, New Democrats, and Progressive Conservatives, including the prime minister at the time, Joe Clark, as well.
The important thing to recognize with these comments about Mr. Baker and his service to Parliament is his ability to work across party lines, referencing Stanley Knowles, a New Democrat, and it feeds into his work as a parliamentarian on this discussion paper and the way in which this is presented in order for them to move forward at the time.
Certainly at the time that was a short-lived Parliament, so much of what was proposed in here was not acted upon at the time it was brought forward, but it nonetheless provided the basis for many discussions in the years following. And as we work through this document, we will find the ways in which a consensus approach can develop to the better functioning of Parliament.
I would point out as well that, whenever someone has a discussion paper, if it's one-sided, it loses credibility right at the start. If it's one-sided in the sense that it's only empowering the government or it's only providing opportunities for the opposition parties to undertake their methods to delay and obstruct, it loses credibility. Going back to what Walter Baker represented in 1979, you see right at the top how a gentleman of his standing in Parliament, working across party lines, can present a document that can really do it.
I have a suspicion that perhaps the current House leader hasn't had an opportunity to review this document. The last time it was withdrawn from the Library of Parliament was July 13, 2005, by Mr. Pat Martin, MP, who is no longer with us in this place but certainly was a long-time member of this place.