I do recall her telling me that she had debate planned out, that they were going to argue this bill, and the way she was going to do it was by being steaming mad as a Labour Party member. Her constituents, a lot of people, were destitute and in poverty, and she wanted to stand up for them. God love her for doing it. She had a plan and was going to start with this particular subject, that particular subject, and then on to this one over a period of about three weeks. She got to the second week and said, “This is the time now when I get to debate this. This is the very moment when I get to stand up and say, 'Hey, this is the time'”, yet all of a sudden, down came the guillotine. I say “guillotine” for how they cut debate over there like that, but obviously, we call it something different. Scott Reid gave an excellent explanation and long historical context for the term “guillotine”. I say that with great affection because he actually did a good job.
She never got to the most important part of her fight. When she got into government, she thought to herself, “We want to enact this piece of legislation.”
Here, let's face it. I look across the way and recall Tom mentioning earlier the use of this type of measure in government. On the flip side, people will say it lessens debate, but yes, government has to put its legislation through. In this regard, there was a Huffington Post headline that “Trudeau Government's First Months Were Least Productive In Decades.” The article states:
Parliament passed 10 bills during Trudeau's first nine months, the public database reveals. In their first nine months after winning a majority mandate in 2011, the Conservatives enacted 18 pieces of legislation—including nine bills moved in their first 23 days.
However, that came with many measures that guillotined a lot of debate, so now we find ourselves in a balance. You have a government that's been elected and has to get through its mandate, but it needs to provide a substantial debate for us, and for our constituents, to hear.
That is why she decided, as she phased it, that this was “organizing debate for adults”. That was her terminology. They enacted it in 1997, but here's the thing, though. Tom is not a big fan of this, if I recall correctly. He said that all of it would be done this way. However, I would not advocate for that whatsoever. I do believe that government House leaders get together beforehand, as Mr. Christopherson pointed out. In a mature manner they can decide how this goes out, because many people have said that if the House leaders get together and plan the debate, there's no problem. If we have a certain time and a certain expiry date to it, as long you're responsible and respect that people who want to talk about it do get to talk about it, there's no problem. But some of us don't always have the best intentions, right? It's called political strategy. Let's face it folks, we're not all innocent of it. We all use political strategy to a certain extent. It could be you personally in your riding. It could be right here nationally. This is an adversarial system, folks, and we have to accept that and we have to be honest with ourselves.
She wanted to do this in a very responsible way, and I give her all the credit in the world because, remember, she didn't come up with this in government. She came up with it in opposition. I spoke to her and asked her if she would like to be a witness for us, and she said, yes, she would do it. Now you may not agree with her, but I tell you she has some good history behind her. She has a lot of parliamentary history. She's very smart and she could make it. She's been in politics for many years, and then people like Tom and Garnett come by and show that kind of flash in the same way.
To tell you the truth, I'd like them to hear it as much as anybody else, because people like Tom and Garnett and others are so interested in parliamentary procedure—and David is, of course, too.
I'm not ruling you out because you're older than they are. Trust me, sir.