Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 21st, 2017

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Oh, excellent. You can correct me if I've misinterpreted anything in this discussion as well.

Before I go to that point, I just want to briefly mention something that we as parliamentarians often forget. I think there are people in this place who do exceptional work for us. I said this at the beginning of my last commentary as well, but I think it's worth thanking once again those who help us in our duties: our clerks, our interpreters, our technicians, all of those who serve this committee. They do an exceptional job of serving us as parliamentarians. I do want to thank them for that.

This afternoon in the House of Commons, I want to talk very briefly about the question of privilege that I moved last Friday. As MPs know, last Thursday there was a question of privilege raised by the members from Milton and Beauce. The Speaker found it to have been a prima facie breach of privilege. I have a great deal of respect for the Office of the Speaker, as I do for the office of the chair.

I think the Speaker is more than a referee. I think too often we see the role of the Speaker of the House of Commons as a referee. We use the sports analogy. I hear it all the time in the media. I hear it from tour groups. I hear it from members of Parliament when they refer to the Speaker as a referee. Certainly there are times in the House when that seems to be the role that the Speaker of the House plays. He is there to maintain order.

But the role of the Speaker, in my view, and I think in the view of most parliamentarians, is much more than that. The Speaker is there as the protector and defender of the rights of parliamentarians, of each and every parliamentarian, whether they are a member of the government caucus, the opposition, the third party, or an independent. Each member of this Parliament is equal under the law of parliamentary privilege. We each have rights and privileges as parliamentarians.

We saw last Thursday the unfortunate incident of a member of the Liberal caucus moving a motion to move to the orders of the day, thereby killing a question of privilege. Never before in Canadian history has this happened. It is entirely without precedent, and the Speaker acknowledged that today, in once again finding a prima facie question of privilege. I then had the great honour, the unfortunate honour, I think, because I would rather have not moved that motion, of moving that the matter proceed in the appropriate manner, namely, that it be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, where we now sit.

I bring this point up, first of all, to reacknowledge the exceptional role that the Speaker has. Once again, this prima facie case of privilege was unprecedented.

My second point is to comment on the negative side effects that this discussion paper has had. I ask this rhetorically. But I think many of us in our hearts of hearts—and I look at both sides—could answer this in the same way: is Parliament functioning better now or worse than before this discussion paper was tabled? Again, I shouldn't say “tabled”, because it was never tabled. I think if we were to honestly answer that question, each of us would say that Parliament is not functioning as well as it was before this paper was brought forward. I think that's truly unfortunate.

The Standing Orders, the duties of this House, belong to all parliamentarians, not one party. I say this in complete honesty.

This has been an unfortunate time in our Parliament, and I wish we could get beyond it. But the House is not functioning as it ought to be, and the reason for that, without question, is the introduction of this Standing Orders discussion paper.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Sorry, I just want to ask about the context of that question of privilege you were just talking about. We were here, so I'm not sure what exactly was happening, but my understanding is that they were actually filibustering the motion of privilege and the amendment. It was carrying on a lot longer than the debate on a motion of privilege normally does. Is that true?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

No, the discussion was last Friday. I raised the question of privilege last Friday morning, the first opportunity I had to raise it. It was basically reincarnating the question of privilege by the members for Milton and for Beauce.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

No, I meant the original one, which was adjourned.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

That, I can't say. I wasn't in the House when it was debated. I wouldn't say it was any longer. In the past, there have been questions of privilege that have been discussed for several days. That one only went to question period that day, so the length of time was significantly condensed. We didn't go past question period until the motion was moved. I would say no. That certainly could be an argument that certain members are making, but it was from 10 o'clock to two o'clock, so we're talking about fewer than four hours of debate on a question of privilege. I wouldn't say that it was exceedingly long.

As I said, in the past, discussions of questions of privilege have gone on for many days. The government does have within its rights the ability to shut down a debate on privilege and force a vote, which is the method that has been used in the past, with a motion of closure requiring that the question be put. That would have been the appropriate manner. At least the House could have said yes or no and taken the appropriate action.

Moving to the orders of the day killed the question of privilege. Under the rules of our House, under O'Brien and Bosc, there is no way to revive a superseded question of privilege. For a concurrence motion or any other motion of the House, there are other mechanisms to do so; even an opposition day motion would be brought to a vote. But in this one case, by moving to the orders of the day, the government killed a privilege motion. Again, this is unprecedented. There's no alternative. The Speaker ruled today that it is an unprecedented situation in which he, as Speaker, was actually finding new ground, new territory, that will in the future be used for very interesting precedents.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

That was the question of privilege when their bus got stopped and they couldn't make it for the vote.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Exactly. Of course, I haven't been here as long as some members, but Mr. Christopherson spoke briefly in the House when the original question of privilege was made, and he commented that this has happened time and time again. It's an unfortunate situation because as parliamentarians, we have—as it says on the back of our badges—the right of access to these precincts by virtue of our membership in this House.

I raised that just as a starting point because I think it is important to acknowledge what is going on in the chamber—some of the games—and I use that term with some deal of advisement because I think it is unfortunate that some games are being played. I think it's unfortunate, because we need to get to the point and to the heart of the matter.

I will leave the discussion on privilege there, but I think it's something that we as parliamentarians and this committee will be coming forward with at some point, because I suspect that the appropriate mechanism will be for the question of privilege to come to this committee, which is the standard practice of the House.

I wanted to start this evening by talking about the role and the importance of the opposition. Parliament, I think, functions best when there is a strong opposition and when there are strong interaction and accountability mechanisms that are held by the opposition party. I recently had cause to review some of the work by Senator Eugene Forsey, who I believe was a member of the Liberal caucus when he served in the other place. He has a discussion here, which I'll be referencing a little later, on the question of confidence.

The question of confidence is an interesting one. It goes beyond simply the written texts of the Standing Orders and the written texts of the authorities, and really helps to inform a lot of the discussions and the machinations that Parliament and governments go through from time to time. I want to discuss a bit this idea of how that operates and how it affects the operation of this House.

Before I do that—this is relevant, Mr. Chair, and if you'll indulge me I will explain this—this is the Anglican Book of Common Prayer. I do not have a publication date for it. All I have is an inscription on the front page—

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Perhaps I could help. I believe that Archbishop Cranmer developed the Book of Common Prayer in 1548, but I may be off by a few years.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Perfect. I know Ms. May does have some education in theology.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Before politics, I was hoping to become an Anglican priest. I have found a different calling, and I'm afraid I do still sermonize.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you, Ms. May.

This official copy is inscribed by a J. Davison from Whitby Terrace, York, dated May 27, 1862. I thank my staff for the copy of this. Jane McKelvie in my office was kind enough to loan it to me so that I could read from it this evening.

I want to quote from it, and again, Mr. Chair, the relevance will be explained afterward. It is from the Form of Solemnization of Matrimony, and it reads as follows:

DEARLY beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this congregation, to join together this Man and this Woman in holy Matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man's innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church; which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence, and first miracle that he wrought, in Cana of Galilee; and is commended of Saint Paul to be honourable among all men:

Here is the important part:

and therefore is not by any to be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, to satisfy men's carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God; duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.

There is relevance to this, Mr. Chair, and it has a connection with Senator Forsey. The role of the opposition is, as its name applies, to oppose. There is no question that is the way our current structure is, but Senator Forsey actually uses the comparison of the marriage ceremony in the Anglican church to the role of the opposition. He writes that “Obstruction, like marriage in the Anglican Prayer Book, is 'not by any to be enterprised nor taken in hand, lightly, unadvisedly or wantonly, but reverently, advisedly, discreetly, soberly and in the fear of God.’”

In the case at hand, this filibuster, this opportunity to discuss this matter without end, is not an easy decision for us to make, as opposition MPs. We do so with great consideration and great thought given toward the challenges of so doing. Certainly we will all, each of us, at some point be subject to our electors back home. We are subject to media scrutiny. Certainly by undertaking this debate over great lengths of time, there is the distinct possibility that we could hurt our case. We could challenge ourselves for not doing so, but as the Anglican Book of Common Prayer notes, we do so with the fear of God, with the concern that we could very much find ourselves in a challenging situation by doing what we're doing. But in our case, in the case of the Conservative Party official opposition, and of the third party as well, we are doing so because we believe it is a fundamental purpose for our being here.

I want to quote from another book as well, and Mr. Chair—

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Excuse me, Mr. Chair. Would you be able to forfeit your time for just a second, John?

I thought you were going to go in a completely different direction with The Book of Common Prayer. I thought you were going to point out how difficult it was to change the rules of an institution.

The Book of Common Prayer was a revolutionary change in the form of worship. For one thing, it allowed people, who were participating in worship, to actually have a text they could read themselves, and not be dependent on someone to translate the Latin for them. It democratized worship. It provided a way that people could go forward in worship. However, it wasn't easy.

There's wonderful book called God's Secretaries about the process of Bishop Cranmer, who was, by the way, horrifically martyred and burned for heresy because he was part of the Reformation. These were sticky issues.

Most Anglicans no longer use The Book of Common Prayer, because we have modernized the language to be more gender inclusive and so on. However, the book and the literature is still exemplary. In the process, which is described in the book God's Secretaries, they had to consult widely. It took a really long time.

I hope I'm not stealing your thunder. You're not going in this direction later, are you? I thought it was a message to the government that it should take a leaf out of Bishop Cranmer's book, to ensure that it wouldn't rush to something too quickly, but consult widely, and recognize that the things that end up being written down last a very long time, and that when we reform the rules of this place, we could be living with them for decades.

I appreciate your yielding the floor to me. Also, I do plan to come over and ask to look at the copy of a book that is dated that very long ago. The member of your staff has quite a coveted and valuable copy of The Book of Common Prayer.

I don't want to press on your time. I was just struck by the parallels between that effort and trying to get our Standing Orders right. It will take time.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you, Ms. May, and thank you, Mr. Chair, for allowing that intervention. That is a fascinating discussion and it's an appropriate parallel as well.

Being a Lutheran, we're traditionalists ourselves. We still use Luther's Small Catechism and his Large Catechism. It allows for that comparison. Certainly, some of those things talk about democratization. Some of the great things of the past still apply.

I would say that I will, when I quote from different documents, try to provide the reference as best I can. I know that our Hansard reporters do exceptional work, and they do have verification practice. I will try to make their lives as easy as possible. In my last intervention, there were many questions arising from what I quoted from. So I will provide them with as much information as possible and save my staff some problems in trying to read my mind about where I got different things from.

I'll be quoting from Ned Franks, C.E.S. Franks, The Parliament of Canada, University of Toronto Press. I believe the publication date is 1987. This is now a 30-year-old book, but it is still one of the go-to books on Parliament and parliamentary democracy. Certainly, Professor Franks is still very active, though he is now an emeritus professor.

In his book he talks about many of the different functions and aspects of Parliament. He quite rightly talks about the role of Parliament itself, from a broad standpoint. He also talks about some of the reform proposals in his book. I might go into those a little later, but I want to talk more about the key functions of parliament and how it applies to where we're at today.

On pages 4 to 5, he identified four functions:

to make government, that is, to establish a legitimate government through the electoral process; to make government work, that is, to give government the authority, funds, and other resources necessary for governing the country; to make a government behave, that is, to be watching over the government; and to make an alternative government, that is, to enable the opposition to present its case to the public and become a credible choice for replacing the party in power.

The third and fourth functions are being eroded, as Mr. Richards comments. There's no question that the government has a legitimate and fundamental role to govern. We had an election; my party lost. Very clearly, that's not in debate. We won 99 seats. As our then prime minister said on election night, the people elected a loyal opposition, but they also elected a government. Certainly, the Prime Minister, his cabinet, and his members have the right and the privilege to govern this country by that virtue. There's no debating that. It's clear, it's legitimate, and it's a majority government at that.

The second of the four functions is to make government work. There's no question that the government has the right to put forward a legislative agenda, supply bills, and a budget. We saw a budget put before the House on March 22, and that is certainly within the right and purview of the government—so much so that only a government, only a minister of the crown, can put forward an authority to spend money. That is certainly a long-standing right of the party in power, the government, a minister of the crown, and this dates back to Magna Carta.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Reid already read Magna Carta into the minutes, so you don't have to repeat that.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I will avoid going back to Magna Carta, other than to say—

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

Mr. Chair, I think he had a different version of the Magna Carta than Mr. Reid, so I think it's okay. It wouldn't be a complete repetition, only a partial repetition.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I will say, just tangentially, that I had the opportunity, in the fall, to attend a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association meeting in the United Kingdom, in London, where I had the opportunity to go to the British Library to see one of the four surviving copies of Magna Carta. For me, as a lover of parliament and as someone who enjoys it, that was quite the moment.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Yes?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

The honourable member could have saved the airfare and come to Edmonton, because we had it displayed in our legislature.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I would have quite enjoyed that as well. I had the opportunity to go to Edmonton once, but it was for a conference. I didn't have time to enjoy the beautiful city that Edmonton is.

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

While he's in Alberta, I think he should try to make sure that he visits the most beautiful places in Canada and come out to see Banff, Canmore, Lake Louise, and the Rocky Mountains. There's still skiing. You can still ski at this point or snowboard, if you like. We have some great skiing still.

We would welcome you to join us out there in the mountains, while you're in Alberta.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I would love to do that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Really, to use the prerogative of the chair, as everyone knows, Yukon is the most beautiful riding in the country.