Fair leave. I did too. I apologize.
You can have that 10-minute block for as long you can. You just have the ability, at 10 minutes, to let someone else have their say. Now, does that work in practice? I think it does. But I'm not the smartest person in the room, and I don't pretend to be. I certainly would love to hear from the smartest person in the room as to how they feel about that.
That's why, when the discussion paper came out, I believe there were three groupings I spoke about with the minister: the management of the House and its sittings, the management of debate, and the management of committees. I think that pretty much entails everything, unless there's something else I'm missing, and there very well could be.
As I pointed out in my last intervention and want to point out again, Scott Reid was talking about the omnibus bills, and brought up the point that the problem with omnibus bills is that maybe we need to cut down on omnibus bill legislation. I remember when Peter Stoffer had a private member's bill about that. I really liked it. I thought it was good. I still do. I think they can be not entirely necessary. It's damaging for us, because all of sudden you find yourselves with something like the Charlottetown accord. Do you remember when we had a referendum on it? I think everything was in there. Did I want an elected Senate, or representation from certain groups of people in the country? It was all in there. There were two things at play. I was just a young child then. I remember thinking that there were two things that most people who voted “no”...or a lot of people who voted no. I couldn't say it was most people. They just didn't like the government of the day. Mr. Mulroney was not very popular. By the same token, when they looked at it they saw just so much in there. All it took was one thing for them to say, “That's it. It's a deal breaker.” It was an omnibus referendum, really.
That's why I've never been particularly excited about having that type of legislation, even when it first came in. Scott Reid brought up a good point—namely, how do you break it up when it comes in? Can the Speaker do it? Does the Speaker have the jurisdiction to do that? I'm saying this rhetorically, because I think I have an idea, but I don't know for certain. I think he brings up a good point, to the point where we can have a witness in here to say, no, here's the deal on why you can't, and the next academic can come in and say, yes, here's why you can.
Quite frankly, I think we can write a report on what I've heard so far. We could. There's nothing wrong with it. The only problem is that I still would like us to hear from such witnesses as our friends and colleagues in Westminster, or from other Canadians who have been through this. Unfortunately, we can't bring in Mr. McGrath. He passed away two weeks ago, God love his soul. He was a revered public servant from my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador. He certainly was a very intelligent man. As a matter of fact, it was yesterday that Nick Whalen, his successor, paid tribute to him. I found it really quite fitting that the week of his funeral his name came up in Parliament, or certainly in this committee, probably more so since the time he left. Coincidence? I don't know. Nevertheless, it was a good report, unanimous as it was, and I agree.
I would say to this committee that this has been a tough road for all of us. There's no doubt about it. I've been here for the entire debate. I think it's incumbent upon me, as the mover of the motion, to be here for this entire debate and to accept all the criticisms I've received. Whether it's you or Facebook, it doesn't matter. It has to come. That's just the world we live in right now.
What I have taken with me from this debate, whether this happens or not, is that I can honestly say that this discussion won't end. It's just not possible anymore. I think we've opened up something here.
If we've not showcased young talent, we've certainly showcased their ideas, and we've definitely showcased our passion about how we want to modernize this House.
Colleagues, as we travel down this road that's obviously adversarial...more adversarial than I had hoped, but as adversarial as I would want, because that's how this place works.
With respect, I will turn it over to my colleague Mr. Christopherson, and I look forward to it.
Thank you, committee, for hearing me out.