It could possibly be. The bells were left ringing for what I see here would be almost three days, and maybe four days, if my math isn't wrong, but at any rate for a long time, and I think this is our third or fourth day of debate here.
When the Speaker resumed on Friday, June 2—I'm sorry: this continued until Thursday, June 6, thereafter—the opposition had succeeded in disrupting the House for a whole week. It's not an activity that any opposition would take on lightly, I would think.
Dave Cooke, then the New Democratic House leader, accused the government of having the attitude of: “To heck”—his word did start with “h”, but I've heard the Speaker tell members not to use that word in the House—“with the opposition. We'll get at the rules by imposing.” Sean Conway, then the government House leader, responded to the opposition's comments on his rule changes by saying that the government would get its business done and would do so without the continuous obstruction from the opposition.
In 1990 Bob Rae became premier and Mike Harris became the leader of the opposition. This obstruction continued, obviously, and many of the same people were returning, so that lack of trust continued into the next assembly. They had lost trust in each other, could not build consensus while working together, and could not find a way to co-operate.
Harris's opposition to the premier's policies resulted in a number of tactics to delay government legislation. The opposition decided to get creative. On May 6, 1991, Mr. Harris introduced a bill whose title included every single body of water in Ontario. I'll let that sink in a bit. I'm not from Ontario, but I would assume that there would be a very large volume of names to write down. Not only did Harris, as sponsor, have to read it, but the Speaker and the Clerk had to read it, in both official languages.
They had to read it in French as well. It's interesting.
The opposition never would have done that if there had been an opportunity to find a way to build trust, consensus, and co-operation, which is why we're pushing this amendment to the motion. We're not saying that we're opposed to any type of change. That is not our goal. We're saying, “don't shut us down”, and I'm also saying, “don't shut yourselves down”. You're members of the government caucus, and working hard to join the executive, I'm sure. However, until such time as you're called upon by the Governor General to join the executive, you should be mindful of your roles as parliamentarians first and foremost. I think that's more important.
Parliamentary government assumes that the government will get its way eventually, but the opposition parties have the right to criticize and to delay business from occurring.
The New Democrats brought in some of the most restrictive changes to those standing orders; there were some that were complaints and were not so much brought in. They limited speech in debate, and time limits were introduced at that time. There was a limited amount of time for the introduction of bills, which is a direct result of Mr. Harris's private member's bill—or the equivalent in the Ontario parliament—that he brought forward, which caused that extensive reading of all the names of bodies of water into the record. They also provided for time allocation of bills.
All of these changes prevented the possibility of the opposition taking over the legislature the way it had been for the previous two years under the New Democrats. As a result, in the wording of the author, the legislature “is much less relevant”—I wouldn't say that about the Ontario parliament—“than it was twenty years” previously. Again, this is from an article, “Evolution of the Ontario Standing Orders since 1985”.
Prior to that I can't speak to the content, the standing orders that existed, and the types of changes that may or may not have been considered, but we have an example there where there are drastic rule changes as a direct result of the opposition's activities. Those were the results, and those opposition activities to obstruct and delay and to be heard were the result of the government's intransigence, inability, and unwillingness to compromise.
All we're asking for through this amendment, Mr. Chair, is compromise. It's a very reasonable amendment that would take a reckless motion and bring it more into line with what should be and must be the standard practice of this House, which is to seek consensus in this committee meeting. Of all the committees that should be able to agree, I think this committee should be the one that should find consensus as much as possible. As for what this amendment will do, it will say that we will study and we will look at the changes, but we want to unanimously agree for the report.
Then our colleagues the New Democrats and we on the Conservative side can come to some type of agreement with the members of the government caucus on what types of changes to the Standing Orders will be suggested going forward. That will elevate the quality and the opportunity of each member of Parliament to represent their constituencies, to edify Parliament, and to steward their seat for the person who comes afterwards.
As I mentioned before, we are parliamentarians first. There is no rule—I can't find anything in the Constitution—that says we must pass government legislation, except for those very few where we need to confirm the oaths of office for the members of cabinet and to pass their budget. That is our main role, along with the estimates, confirming that the government has the confidence of the House and is able to pass a spending bill, or successive spending bills in the case of supplementary estimates. Our core role is to review how the crown spends money. At committee I was told—I won't mention which member of the government caucus said this to me—that it's not as important as looking at policy issues. I agree that policy issues are very important, but looking at the main estimates and how government spends is much more important. It is our constitutional obligation.
As the official opposition, in fact Her Majesty's loyal official opposition, we don't oppose you because we consider you adversaries. As I mentioned before, you're not my enemies. You're not my adversaries. We may not be friends, but I would think that our relationship, as we build it over time, will get better. We can honourably oppose each other but also find ways to co-operate later on.
We are loyal to Her Majesty. We've taken an oath of office to fulfill our obligations. It's our obligation to oppose you, to criticize, and, when necessary, but only when necessary, to obstruct when you are being unreasonable or when we think you are being reckless. We take that responsibility seriously.
We would not obstruct endlessly, because any opposition could do that right from the start. They could just obstruct from day one and not allow anything to happen. There are many different things you could do in this House that would further delay the activities. We choose not to, because the opposition has a responsibility with all this power, just as the government, both the caucus and the members of the executive, have a great deal of responsibility.
I don't see that in “Reforming the Standing Orders of the House of Commons”, this document for discussion that the government has put forward. I don't see that. My personal belief is that they're reckless, some of the changes being discussed in here, or the potential for changes without great details. That's why. to me, this amendment is so important. Moving forward, we need to know, and have faith in you as members of the government caucus, that you will not see your roles as defenders of the executive but as defenders of Parliament.
The John Diefenbaker quote I like to use, the speaking crutch he used to have, that appears in his mention in Sean O'Sullivan's book—I see the gentleman's nephew sitting just behind—was, “I love Parliament”. As a speaking crutch it was incredible, but he didn't just say it, he believed it. We should all—all—believe it.
I mentioned an article at the beginning, and I want to briefly speak to it on the record. Again, it's germane to this discussion. Mr. Julian was the New Democratic House leader at the time. He no longer is. When motion six was tabled by the House leadership, he called it a “draconian motion” that breached the privileges of members of Parliament. He said that it would “put all the other members in a straitjacket and limit their rights and privileges” and would “deny MPs the right to spark debates on the crucial work” of committees. About the executive, he talked about it “attempting to set aside those rights and privileges for all MPs, other than for cabinet ministers”.
That wasn't a belief of just politicians. That was also a belief of the media at the time. I'll quote Kady O'Malley here. She said that there was an attack “on the privileges of the House” and that it stripped “the opposition of their parliamentary rights”.
I think to the credit of the government, they didn't proceed with implementing the motion. I don't think it was because you were convinced of the argument—by “you” I mean the members of the executive—but more so it was the public pressure. We're seeing public pressure mount on the executive, on the government caucus, to stop this, to pull the motion off the table, which would then render the amendment unnecessary, obviously.
Only with the amendment can this all go forward. It is the only way that I can foresee this working out.
I think Canadians believe that if there are changes to be made to how the opposition functions—because these changes are meant mostly for us, for the official opposition and for the third party, and for other smaller party members as well, such as the Bloc, which is not a recognized political entity in this House, and for the independents, who serve on behalf of a political party—this would significantly change the work they do. Without unanimously agreeing to changes ahead of time, without the process by which we will come to agreement, and without agreeing to this at the very beginning, we do a disservice to ourselves as parliamentarians. We also do a disservice to Canadians and their expectations.
On this motion 6, at the time it was said that “the motion would have curtailed the ability of Members to move certain motions which they would have done largely for the purpose of delaying the progress of Government business.” That's absolutely true, but the delay is also an opportunity for us to deliberate and to make a point. That's the only time we have in the House of Commons to make that point, because otherwise the government runs the business. It's the government's orders of the day; it's the government's business.
As the member of Parliament for my riding, I can't rise randomly during debate and say that I'd like to talk about the Green Line LRT. As much as I would like to, I keep those conversations on the side so that I can go to the infrastructure minister and plead the case of my constituents, who really would like to see this done and have the project funded. I've taken every single opportunity—I've found him in a lounge somewhere and on a plane—to raise this very briefly, just so he doesn't forget that it exists.
I mentioned this before, but I have a reference on parliamentary privilege that I'm going to be using here. As members, we have parliamentary privilege, but not from the Standing Orders. The Standing Orders exist to enable parliamentary privilege. I have a very brief list here of the rights, privileges, and immunities of individual members of the House, which we can categorize as the following: freedom of speech; freedom from arrest in civil actions; the exemption from jury duty; the exemption from being subpoenaed to attend court as a witness; and, freedom from obstruction, interference, intimidation and molestation. That last one is with regard to the breach of privilege that was moved last May during an unfortunate incident in the House.
Those privileges and the Standing Orders that impact them and encapsulate how they work in the House, and at committee as well, I think are really important. When the initial changes were done in 1969, and the committees became more formulated and strengthened and became the process by which we have substantive, deliberative debate, committees became the place where you could have an open debate among the different sides. You could hear all the different sides and the disagreements they had. There were legislative committees as well, to debate specific legislation, and you reviewed the main estimates, etc. Members made their points there. You had almost unlimited opportunities to debate. You could move a motion, you could move amendments, and you could debate. In the House of Commons, we were then constrained in debate, and “efficiency” was the original term used.
It's used again in this government document. Again, just for the committee's sake, it's called “Reforming the Standing Orders of the House of Commons”. It's a March 2017 document, which was made public on March 10, I believe. This document talks about efficiency, which, as I've mentioned, is all about speed and speeding up the process. We've done that already, but what they're talking about in this document, and what I fear will be done through this motion without the amendment, will be that we will look at pure efficiency, at how much we produce in a day and how much we hand over to the Senate for its consideration. I think it could be doing more work, I'm sure, and I've met a lot of senators and have spoken to them about the work they do.
I actually read Senate transcripts now to get ideas on what we could look at. Even after this, when this is done, I will go back and maybe read a Senate transcript from its foreign affairs committee that my staff will find for me. They will tell me that it is important for the work I'm doing and for my interest.
If at this committee and at any other committee of the House you limit the debate of members, of parliamentarians—and of you as well, as members of the government caucus—you will find opportunities to represent your constituents reduced when you disagree with the government. Kudos to those of you who are free thinkers and have voted against the government or with the opposition parties. It happens. I've done it as well. I have voted against what the majority of my party thought was the right thing to do.
You will find those opportunities reduced, or potentially reduced. You may not be here during an entire study. You may miss specific meetings where decisions are made and a report is finalized. You may not like the final product.
We're saying let's get it right from the beginning. Let's make sure that the tools by which this review will be done, that the format by which it will be done, are the right ones. Let's get off on the right foot.
When I helped the volunteer policy committees at the chamber of commerce sharpen their focus on some very specific issues that the membership there wanted to treat, we brought it through and created a new committee called the policy advisory council. We went through consultations with every single group to make sure they understood what this would mean. This new council would basically not so much direct the work they were doing but choose from the areas they thought were important and then bring it back up to the board of directors there to make sure that these were issues of immediate concern to the broader membership of the chamber.
That's a good model for the chamber. It's a consensus model. It's a model built on trust, in which staff members and members of the executive on the staff of the chamber serve as go-betweens to inform members. What I see in this document here, though, is an attempt by the government to dictate to parliamentarians what you shall consider and what you shall not. By omission, you can say what not to consider.
I've said from the very beginning that this is so broad, that there are so many substantive things to discuss, you could break this down into several studies. It could take two or three years, potentially beyond the next Parliament, for a new group of parliamentarians to consider whether this is something they truly want to implement.
Again, I would look toward the veteran members, the more experienced members who understand the traditions and customs of this place, who are in a lot of ways mentors to those of us who are new and who are rookies. Although we can understand the Standing Orders, we can read them and comprehend them....
Mr. Nater has probably memorized all of them. There are pictures of his kids memorizing the Standing Orders of the House. I'm sure that's their bedtime reading too.
We understand the Standing Orders in the way that you can read a book and understand what you've read, but to really comprehend them, you have to experience them. That experiential learning is not something that any new parliamentarian can just do with a flick of their fingers, a flick of a switch. At times I have depended on the committee chairs to explain the rules to me. I make a point of clarification. I ask questions. As I mentioned, Tom Lukiwski is the chair of one of the other committees. He has explained to me how to be a good parliamentarian in committee. It's different from in the House, and I think that is important to remember.
Will those disappear in this model? How many of the standing orders will be changed at the end of this, and how will these potential changes impact the work we do? How will we experience the changes in the work we do, in the day-to-day activities? Will there be opportunities to talk like this, back and forth, or will it all be scripted again?
The House of Commons can be scripted at times. When I started in this House, I would write all my speeches, because I didn't have the confidence to speak off the cuff. Now I feel perfectly comfortable, as many of you have experienced over the last few hours, just talking off the top of my head. It took me about a year and a half to get to this point.
I did conferences before, and I spoke at rallies, obviously. We've all done that, at some point. It's different from speaking in the House of Commons, where you know that every single word you say is permanently recorded for the future. Some not very edifying things have been said in the House. If you look back far enough, you're like, “Wow, my predecessor said that? They were kind of a jerk.”