Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 21st, 2017

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

On a point of order, I want to ask the member, with the indulgence of everyone else, could he possibly finish tonight? Might he finish tonight?

I'm kidding. I mean that in a gentle way.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

I just have a few more papers. I've finished this book. I will need my iPad—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

To cut in for just one moment, you were right, by the way. Section 48 of the Constitution states that a quorum of the House shall be deemed at 20 members, including the Speaker.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you. I stand corrected.

While we have a break, I'll welcome more new members to this team effort. We'll have had everyone in the House of Commons here by the time we finish. We have with us Karen Louise Vecchio, Mel Arnold, Salma Zahid, Randall Garrison, and Lloyd Longfield.

Welcome to the very educational debate that we're having. We're learning lots of stuff.

Mr. Kmiec.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Gladly. It's been a Herculean effort to get this far, as I mentioned earlier, but I hope it hasn't been a Herculean effort to listen to me for this long. If it has—

[An hon. member]

Yes.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

I hear dissent—on division.

In the case of this parliamentarian, from reading this article and the conversation he has on it, he talks about doing this not just because he could but about how important it was for him to do it. He did it to make a point on that particular legislation, “But we do it because we believe our perspective matters—because it might well be your perspective, too.” You just may not want to rise to speak for as long as they do.

We're elected here to be leaders in our communities. I always tell students at the schools I go to not to look to politicians for role models, because we will disappoint them. As it says here, “If everyone who reads our reporting, who likes it, helps to support it, our future would be much more secure.” It's up to individual parliamentarians to rise and speak their minds and obstruct a bill when they feel it is necessary, just the way this Labour MP did. It is inefficient. Perhaps their government members said they wished they could change rules once more—they already have programming—to prohibit something like that from happening ever again. Obviously it was of importance to that member. He only did it once. Once in 2005 was enough to make the point that our perspective matters, because you might have it too.

In 2013, eight years later, the House of Commons in the United Kingdom did consider whether or not filibustering should be banned. That was part of the principles in the discussion paper that was produced by the government. One of the things we would like to be able to protect is the opportunity for “extensive debate”, we'll call it, not just filibustering, because that might have a negative connotation.

This article on the Telegraph website—“Filibustering should be banned, say MPs” is literally the headline—states the following:

MPs face being banned from making long-winded speeches to block legislation introduced by backbenchers, under plans to reform Parliament.

A committee examining the way the Commons operates has suggested that the tactic of filibustering—by which MPs speak at length until time for debate runs out on private members' bills—should be ended.

But this isn't about the government. This ending of filibustering is not about the government but about private members. It's about us. It's about how we do our business.

Now, thankfully we don't have that problem here, because it's automatic after two hours of debate that it proceed to the next stage. Our private members' business, which we should guard jealously, does proceed on a track, on a fixed agenda. I think we could have more time devoted to private members' business so that more members would have the opportunity to speak, to propose, and to have their perspectives matter here as well. These are perspectives that I may disagree with. I fully understand that I am saying this knowing that there will be private members' legislation that will be proposed by members of the government caucus and members of my caucus and the New Democrats that will put me in a difficult position when I choose how to vote on them. There will be more opportunities for divided votes within caucuses and among caucuses.

I accept it. I look forward to it. Those are always the best votes, and the most difficult ones. I may agree with the principle but not agree with the process—just like here. I agree with the principle of tweaking the Standing Orders. I don't agree with the process of going forward without it being unanimously agreed to. That is my problem.

I want to see this amendment passed, quite obviously. It's not just because I like the member who moved the amendment. I like the principle of it. Amending the process by which the study will go forth is, I think, a good idea.

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

Like in the McGrath report.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Like in the McGrath report, yes, and in the Lefebvre committee as well, which I mentioned before.

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

I intervened without getting permission; my apologies to the committee members.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

That's all right.

“Unlike Government legislation”, the article reads, “private members' bills cannot be timetabled,” this is the reference to programming, “leaving them vulnerable to opponents prepared to speak at length”. Just remember, there are over 500 members in the House of Commons in the United Kingdom, members coming from constituencies, some of which have existed for hundreds of years, who represent areas that have long-standing traditions and long-standing beliefs on certain issues. The debates there can get get extremely pointed.

Their debates, though, about ending the filibuster and changing the way the rules work, are to protect private members, to protect parliamentarians, not to protect the government. The government doesn't need more protection. Perhaps it needs protection from itself when it takes bad decisions, the executive. Those are not your bad decisions. You're just members of their caucus. You're not responsible for their bad decisions. It's a reflection upon you if you choose to support bad decisions, just as it is a reflection upon me if I choose to support bad decisions. It's not a reflection upon you. The changes that they debated were to protect parliamentarians.

There is another article I want to reference here. I'm talking about filibusters again and why they could be soon be banned. It's from the same time. It has a dictionary description here, which I will not read because I think we all know what the word means. The article, “What are filibusters and why they could soon be banned under new parliamentary rules”, evolvepolitics.com, is from this year, on March 22. I think this is brand new. My staff provided it to me.

They cite the right to freedom of speech repeatedly, and in “exercising their right to bore”, to be boring. I don't think there's any member who rises in the House who doesn't expect to be interesting, to make a point, to offer a new perspective, but I'm sure some of us find the points they make, perhaps not so much repetitive but covering no new ground, making no new points. The right to be boring, I think, should be preserved. I'll just let that hang a little bit. I think we all have a right to be boring as parliamentarians. I know I'm going to get quoted on that somewhere. It's the “active preservation of democracy”, of our freedom of speech; that's what matters. If you are boring, get new material but don't take our right to be boring away at committee or in the House of Commons.

My fear is also that the government will proceed with whatever its intentions are, anyway, regardless of what we opposition members think. The only pressure that we can put upon the government is to do what we are doing now, which is having an extended, substantive debate on the issues, and to delay so that we can get all of our ideas, our thoughts, our viewpoints onto the record.

In the same article it has here, “I merely use the rules.... I certainly don't make any apology. If I'm accused of being effective I will plead guilty to being effective and I will take that as a compliment.” Obviously, that speaks to having delayed the proceedings, government's proceedings, government's business for too long. I make no excuses for having spoken thus far, and for having made the points I have made, and for trying to defend the interests of the opposition parties and parliamentarians overall, so not just us here on this side of the House but on both sides of the House, for those government caucus members who can't speak up for themselves, or won't speak up for themselves, or are not aware that this debate is going on.

Some of the proposals the United Kingdom considered might bear reflecting on by members who like some of the ideas being proposed without this amendment, so the proposal simply to go forward with a study by June 2. “Proposed measures include reducing back-bench bills from 20 per year to 14”, so there are not very many being considered in the United Kingdom, “and to apply special protection to the first bill tabled on seven of the fourteen Fridays a year on which Private Members Bills would be debated, allowing the Speaker to force a vote at the traditional 2:30 p.m. cut-off point even if MPs are still talking. Unfortunately, the Committee has fought shy of actually enforcing strict time limits which might do most to make filibustering more difficult.”

We have a rule in the House that prohibits us from just reading out a prepared speech.

I've heard, especially from more experienced members, the cry and lament for the loss of free and open debate. Actually, rookie members I've spoken to, the class of 2015, have actually watched old speeches of Diefenbaker, Stanfield, and others, and we are just in awe. They speak with barely any notes or crutches—the “ums” or “ahs” or “I love Parliament”. They were great parliamentarians who obviously knew how to debate and who appreciated the House of Commons for what it is, a deliberative body where you should be able to speak off-the-cuff. When you're running for office, you should be able to come here and speak with no notes.

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

Exactly.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

I have tried to refer to as few notes as possible in the House. Forgive me for the times in Parliament early on, when I was brand new to my role and I could not speak without notes present before me. I had to read them. Now I don't need them as much. I hope I've shown that today. As much as possible, I've tried not to read. I hear members of my caucus laughing here, because they know I can't keep things short. I've done better, I think, than has my colleague Mr. Genuis, who I pick on quite often. He is one of those stellar new members who do speak off-the-cuff quite often, and who are able to engage in constructive, effective debates, to speak of principles and not personalities, and to make a point on government legislation when we have a fundamental disagreement, and when we cannot support the government but we're willing to let the government proceed with the business it has put before the House.

What we don't want to see, though, is for that to be taken away through the Standing Orders. Where will the Kevin Lamoureuxs of the world go? Where will the Garnett Genuises of the world go? Where will I go if you don't allow me an opportunity, occasionally, to extensively debate an issue?

I serve on the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. I know that at times I have tested the patience of the chair when I've asked for just a little bit more time to make a point, or I have not looked in the chair's direction and just kept speaking as loudly as I possibly could to make a point. I do that only when I have to make a point, and then I step away and I allow the proceedings to continue.

My worry is that through these potential—again, they're all potential changes, because there's so little in the original motion that was tabled. There are just themes, really, and we don't know where the work on the themes proposed in the government document could go. That's why our amendment is so all-encompassing. It covers the Standing Orders. It covers provisional standing orders. It covers new standing orders that might be created, the sessional orders, and the special orders to create or revise a usual practice of the House.

I know that Canadians have really started to take an interest. We've seen more media pickup, and we've seen interviews on this particular issue. Canadians do care about their Parliament, which is fantastic. They do care what happens on the floor of the House of Commons. That was probably one of the great surprises I had when I came here. I thought nobody watched CPAC. I was surprised by the number of people who send me notes while I'm speaking, saying I made a good point or saying I made a terrible point, sometimes demanding that I resign, to which I usually reply that I have no such intention but that I take their passion and ardour for a particular issue under advisement, and in the fullness of time I'll consider it.

I've been surprised by how many people actually take an interest in what we do. This “inside baseball” dugout we're in right now, people have paid attention to. We've posted many videos. I just want to mention some of the comments I got: “Wtg...keep up the fight”; “Way to go! Thank you for the great work!”; “Glad it will be televised!!! Do not give up!!! You are our Voice!!!”; and “So proud of you both”, which was talking about me and Mr. John Nater, who was here before, who increasingly lets his voice be heard, through points of order in the House, to clarify through a point of privilege or a point or order. We should expect no less from a member who has so much parliamentary knowledge and is still a rookie of 2015, who will make an enormous contribution to this House.

It says here, from Liz, “We the people will not be shut out... We need to keep the debate going... Government needs to be accountable to the people of Canada.” This is another commentary, “It is arrogant and divisive to make changes without considering the MPs in all parties.” It says, “None of them actually answer any questions. Not only that but those behind the PM just nod and wave nod and wave. Shameful.” It goes on like that.

People do watch these debates. I'm sure there are people now who have watched this televised debate on CPAC, and I thank Mr. Simms for allowing us this opportunity to move it here. I think being able to expound on it has been of great benefit, and I hope people at home haven't thought that I have delayed it unnecessarily. I hope they think I've contributed something. I've added references. Hopefully, the analysts on the committee will be able to look at it, review it, and consider it.

I've found substantive speeches by former parliamentarians, some of whom are still alive today, and they add substantive thought to this. I think there's an opportunity to bring them back as former parliamentarians who could give advice to this committee on what should or should not be done to the House of Commons rules and procedures, the Standing Orders.

Another commentator, Pia, says, “Keep on them Tom. We all have to write letters of support. Please everyone write!” Another one says, “Good work! Canadians deserve the respect of their government. Accountability is a large part of the process. Thank you for keeping this in check.” Again, there are many other comments people have made, such as, “Keep up the good work. Hurrah.” They're paying attention.

Again, I was surprised by how many people actually paid attention at 3 a.m. They were engaged and listening actively when Mr. Christopherson was here and debating substantively his issues on principle, the principle of the matter of not proceeding with changes to the House rules without the unanimous agreement of all parties represented on this committee. I think it is absolutely fundamental to have this amendment pass and to have all of us agree that we can work together and co-operate.

I've mentioned the issue of trust and confidence. I want to mention here other comments that I have received from constituents, 92 of them, from just a few days ago. One says, “Liberals want the next step...for us to be ruled by” a different system “fight...don't let them pass this...motion”. Another one says, “Yes as a Conservative I'm very interested. I'm also very concerned about Canada. I feel like we live in a police state these days.” I think that's going way too far, but she's entitled to her opinion. Another says, “I feel the govt is incompetent” and she says she honestly thinks Trudeau is completely wrong. That's her opinion on the matter.

These are from Canadians posting on our Facebook account who are saying that they fundamentally disagree with the direction the government is taking by directing this committee to potentially strip the opposition of all the powers they currently enjoy. I think that is very serious for parliamentarians from all parties to consider.

I have other comments here from the former interim leader of the Wildrose Party back home in Alberta, “Darn spell check. Keep up the good work, Tom and Garnett. Canadians are behind you.” Another person says, “We definitely are paying attention.” Another adds, “Exactly what I said...he runs Canada like his own dictatorship.” Again, I think it's going too far when we use language like that, but they're entitled to their opinions. I do think it's going too far, but what are Canadians at home supposed to think?

You're trying to move forward a motion that would constrain this committee's study. On a specific day, we have to report back. On June 2 we have to be done. It takes two weeks to write a report. It has taken the foreign affairs committee almost three months to write a report. I would think that the Standing Orders deserve all the time necessary to consider every word, every proposed change, every amendment, and every modification, because they are so substantial. They would change how I do my work on other committees. I substitute on the Standing Committee on Health at times. It will substantively change the way they do their work. The joint standing committees will also be substantively changed.

I don't think we can do this too lightly. I think you should take all the time you need, but I also think you should pass this amendment to show good faith with the opposition parties here that you do want to work with us. We want to work with you on tweaks, amendments, and modifications to the Standing Orders. If you don't pass this amendment and you leave this as it is, in this format here, this is a reckless motion. This is reckless. This is going too far. This is changing the rules without including all of us in the debate.

We don't know what you'll agree to do at the end of the day. Your perspectives matter too. Potentially, as government caucus members, you may fully agree with the government's intentions. Perhaps you are working extremely hard on joining the cabinet. Kudos to you; you've found a purpose.

That is not the purpose of Parliament. It's not to convert parliamentarians into ministers. It is to raise great political leaders. It's to make us better at debating. It's to make us better at considering and better at listening. Being here has made me a better listener to my kids, to my wife, to my constituents. I spend a lot of time listening in my constituency office.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair. As I'm sure everyone is, I'm really enjoying Mr. Kmiec's comments. He has been talking so much, but he just mentioned that he was a really good listener, so—

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Were you wondering when it was going to start?

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

He does listen to his wife really well, and his kids really well, as he was saying. He's probably just getting it all out now while he has the chance before at some point in a couple of days, a few days, when he decides he is out of material that he would like to share with us, when he returns home, he can be doing some listening again to his wife. I just wanted a little moment of levity, Mr. Chair.

I don't really have a point of order. Let's be honest about it, right?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

As you have done that, the new coffee has arrived, so if people want fresh coffee and tea—

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

That was really the reason I was commenting, Mr. Chair. It was just to allow them some time to get in the room and get that set up for us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

Welcome back, Mr. Richards.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

May I continue, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Kmiec, you—

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

I'd love to continue. I'd also love to get up and get a cup of coffee, but I guess I'll have to rely on whatever water I have left here.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I should have thought.... The poor guy has been talking for some time. Could we just give him 30 seconds to grab himself a coffee, or could someone get him a coffee?