Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 21st, 2017

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

It's a point of order.

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

I'm trying to respond to that, because I do think it's troublesome.

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

That means you have to take the floor.

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

Thanks. I have the floor here.

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

No, you don't. He has.

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

No, actually, the chair has given it to me to respond.

Thank you for trying to be helpful, but anyway I think what I would like to do is just to make the comment that I don't really believe that there has been repetition there. He has a theme that he keeps referring back to, but his points are always different but germane to that theme. I really think it's reasonable to allow him to refer back to the main point of his speech.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

I think he got my point.

Mr. Christopherson, carry on.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I wondered when the noose would start tightening, and there is the first step. We'll see where we are in a couple of days.

I want to thank my friend for shoring up the idea that this is not the opposition's wish. It's not the headline we're looking for. If at any point the government wants to get serious about getting off this dime and getting us back into some positive territory, they have willing partners.

I know Blake did this, but I would ask if there is anybody on the government side that at this point would like to put an end to all of this and suggest that we begin some kind of either offline or online discussions, anything at all, that would give us some hope that we don't stay here. I just looked at every member over there and not one of them looked back or nodded or anything, so I gather the answer is no.

Just remember that at some point all wars usually end with a deal. If we don't blink, the only way this stops is for the government to suddenly be willing to start being reasonable. You stay unreasonable, 100% guarantee, nothing but this happens at this committee. That's it. It's not a threat; it's a promise.

I thought it was interesting that at one point in the discussions, Mr. Simms said in reference to something—he made the comment and I wrote it down—in the “time” that we have available, which I thought was a riot because the time we have available is the time that he said we could have in his motion, not a minute longer. In the “time” that we have—as if all of a sudden from on high.... That's the way they see it. If it comes from the PMO, well, it's practically coming from heaven, so it needs to be accepted as being nothing less than that.

With the time we have.... He's been told the time that he's going to have, so it makes sense that it would be phrased that way.

Scotty, I really feel badly having to weave you through these things, but I'm afraid you were willing to stick your name on this thing.

Mr. Reid went through this once before, when he attached his name to a rather odious action at committee, and I never saw him do anything like that again because of the personal hit he took. I don't know this for sure, but I think it bothered him that much. Every one of us who spoke said, “I'm surprised it's you, because I have so much respect for you and you have so much credibility and you were willing to attach your name to this.” I feel somewhat the same.

Scott, I know you care about a lot of these issues, and I respect the fact that you're a democratic reform critic. It may have been that you and I were overlapping even at one time, because I was a democratic reform critic during some of our time here together.

I do personally feel badly that I have to do some of these things, especially with what I'm about to do now, which is to remind you of some of your previous motions. Again, I will not make it personal, and if in any way I am, please, I'll be looking over, because I don't want to do that. But, hey man, you attached yourself to this thing. If you jump on that bronco, you're going to ride it, and ride it you are going to.

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

I think it's cool to get on the bronco, but it's all right.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

The reason I mentioned “time” was that it also gave me a nice segue to do part of what Mr. Reid did, which was to take us back to how this was done in the past.

This is not an exhaustive list, but these are some of the examples of committees and the time they took to do exactly what the government is proposing—namely, review our rules.

The first example is the Special Committee on Procedure. It was established on September 24, 1968. It's in the formal Journals on pages 67 and 68. The fourth and fifth reports were concurred in on December 20, 1968. The Journals pages are 574 to 579. They took four months.

There was a Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, and that was the McGrath report that Mr. Simms likes to refer to a lot. I have at least a few hours' worth of comment on that report, and I will continue to go through it with a fine-tooth comb to make sure I can find every bit of relevancy between that report and what's going on here. But that's maybe a couple of weeks down the road, as we settle into this.

With regard to the McGrath report, the committee was established on December 5, 1984. By the by, 1984 was the first year I ran publicly. Sheila Copps beat me. I just thought I'd throw that out there.

That was also in Journals, pages 153 and 154. Amendments to the Standing Orders were adopted on June 27, 1985. That's in Journals on page 903 and then pages 910 to 919.

Mr. Simms likes to point to the McGrath report. He's referred to it a number of times, probably not in a repetitive way or the chair would have caught him. I'm sure it was just echoing. That report, which the government and Mr. Simms specifically are so proud of and point to in terms of the wonderful work they did, took seven months.. Again, the report that the government is so proud of, the McGrath report...or “McGraw”, sorry.

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

It's actually McGrath.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

It is McGrath, so it's wrong here.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

It's spelled “McGrath” and it's pronounced “McGraw”.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

All right. We could have a discussion on that, except the chair wouldn't let me get away with it, I'm sure.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Just don't say it too often.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I already do that with a whole lot of words I can't pronounce.

That committee was established on December 5, 1984, and as I said, they went seven months. The earlier reference I showed was four months.

Then there was the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons. That committee was established on March 21, 2001. You'll find it in Journals on pages 208 to 209. The latter committee's first report was concurred in, with certain amendments, on October 4, 2001. In Journals it's pages 691 to 693. That took eight months.

The three examples that I've brought up so far are four months, seven months for the report that the government has held up as a shining-light example of what we should be doing, and eight months.

But there's another one. Further proposals were suggested by the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons, and were debated in the following sessions: November 20, 2002, in Journals on page 210; November 21, 2002, page 215; and November 22, 2002, page 217. The total amount of time they took to do that report was 11 months.

By the way, I did want to mention on the McGrath report that I believe they did three—at least two, maybe three—international trips, as well as taking....

I had it jotted down. I will find it. Fifty-seven strikes me as the number, but let me see if I can find it.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Here we are. I have it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

I believe there's a point of order.

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

On a point of order, I'd like to request a 20-minute suspension so I can have a chat.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I agree.

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

Is there someone from...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We'll suspend for 20 minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We are no longer suspended. Maybe someone could tell me what transpired during the break, or was it just a break?

Mr. Christopherson, you have the floor.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

It would seem that's exactly where we are. I appreciate some efforts, but since I have the floor I'll formally report back that we were not able to get ourselves any further than we are right now, unfortunately. As painful as it is for all of us we're going to have to continue in the same vein and down the same road we just left.

I suspect what that means is that it was good news that we tried. The fact that we failed is probably really bad news, meaning that we're likely going to be continuing to lock horns for the foreseeable future, and that is unfortunate.

I do want to thank Mr. Simms personally though. As a fellow parliamentarian I do believe that his attempt was well intentioned and positive and the three of us did the best we could, but we are just too far apart to find common ground at this time, Chair. Perhaps a little more time going by will motivate us to come together a little more easily, but for now we remain quite a bit apart so unfortunately, Chair, it's necessary for us to continue where we were.

That's just a nice way of saying you're going to have to listen to me for a little longer, I'm afraid.