Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 21st, 2017

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

The good news is—don't get too excited—that we have a new one. I know you like new, so I have new, lots of new. I have so many. Here's a great picture of Lawrence Martin, and I have another guy.... The names alone for what is out in the public domain should make the government shiver in fear, because so far I've read the.... It's just an embarrassment of riches, like manna from heaven. These new articles keep rising in front of me and affording me hours of material. I should buy a lottery ticket. It must be my lucky day.

I was pointing out the accumulated heft of those who have joined in public criticism of the government in addition to the loyal opposition benches, from which you would expect that. We started with The Globe and Mail. Then we went to the Toronto Star. Then we went to Mr. Andrew Coyne.

[An hon. member]

There's a fire alarm.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Do you see how much material we have? It's now combustible.

It seems as if there's a fire, a real one.... No? Oh. It's like real change: a false alarm.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Now he has his own special effects.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That's right, and that goes with meaning that “he's never going to stop”. I'm giving some consideration to winding up, but we'll see how I feel.

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Well, I managed to find a Subway last night. I didn't get to eat anything here, but I found a Subway last night. I'm not going to waste away to nothing. I'm fine.

I was saying that in terms of the accumulated heft of the credibility of the criticism—the Globe and Mail editorial, the Toronto Star editorial, Andrew Coyne—just to give you a sample of what I have to choose from next in terms of the heft of their credibility, and the aforementioned Lawrence Martin, Chantal Hébert, and John Ivison.... These are the kinds of heavyweights who are stepping in and stepping up and making almost identical arguments, and it's not because of plagiarism. It's because they are seeing it in the same way, and that happens to be, in the main, the same perspective as the opposition's.

We know that at the end of the day public opinion is the most powerful force in a democracy. We always run the risk when we do these kinds of things that we'll get easily labelled “obstructionist”, in which case exactly what I'm doing is done by the government to the opposition benches when the government members take great delight in going through the Globe editorial, the Toronto Star editorial, Lawrence Martin, Chantal Hébert, Andrew Coyne, and John Ivison, when the arguments are against the opposition because we're being histrionically over the top.

More times than I want to admit, we are. That's just the nature of the business. I'm looking at some of you who were here the last time, when you were in exactly the same spot I am, in third place in the House, and you know of what I say, which is that when you're in opposition, sometimes the government has the more persuasive argument, and the opposition is flailing away. That's not unusual.

It is unusual, though, for this many opinion leaders to be consistently in sync with where the opposition members are coming from, because we tend to add partisan spin and components to it, such that we're seen to be kind of over the top. Then these other opinions come wading in and call us on it.

This time, that's not what's happening. You're being abandoned by those who said nice things about your agenda when you were living up to your campaign platform and, in most cases, the way you were conducting yourselves.

Again, as you know, you get it from the analysis. You cannot help but believe that the Prime Minister really does see Parliament similarly to how Mr. Harper did: that it's a nuisance, that it's something that gets in the way of the right thing being done.

The usual arguments for attacking what little rights we have are consistently the same: efficiency and modernization. That's really just another cover for taking away rights from the opposition to make it easier for the government to pass laws. Our job as the opposition, official and otherwise, is to put up resistance and to put up alternatives.

However, there is also a fine line when it's in the nation's interests or in international interests that we would get out of the way and allow things to happen. That's just like today. Today, we find that balance. Here we are. We're in the ditch. This is as big as it gets. We're into a 24-7 filibuster against the initiatives of the government.

This committee made a previous commitment, back in the good old days when we were actually working together in a positive way, that we would meet the Speaker of the Scottish legislature during his visit, which is today, in less than an hour, at one o'clock. When the chair asked us privately if we as a committee were going to honour that commitment, I don't think there was a heartbeat's time before I readily said, “Yes.” So did the Conservatives. Why? Because we have so much respect for Parliament that we believe, even on the opposition benches, that it would be wrong for Canada, especially in our year of great pride, our sesquicentennial....

We had that in Hamilton in 1996. That's how we learned how to say it: sesquicentennial. It took me most of the year.

We believe that the right thing to do would be to not let our domestic politics get in the way of our international obligations. Internationally, we have one Parliament. We are one voice. When I travel in delegations, as a Canadian delegation we present a unified front. We find the ground that we're unified on and we stand there. We don't let our domestic politics.... We don't put out our dirty laundry; we keep that to ourselves. We wait for the bus, the hotel, dinner, or lunch, and then we have 'er out.

When we're with international players, out of respect for the citizens we represent, we all—opposition members and government—present a united front. The corollary to this is that the government members aren't going to turn this into a bring-and-brag and a dog-and-pony show for the government and everything they're doing, because that's going to quickly cause a problem. Normally, in most of the cases I've been involved in, the government members and heads of delegations set a tone that creates ground we can all stand on so that we are a united front. As for our dirty domestic politics and everything that we have—like every other country has—we keep that separate and apart.

On this issue, we did not say no. We did not say that we're in a filibuster, this committee is seized of that, and that meeting is not going to happen, so too bad for the government and let the Minister of Foreign Affairs explain why their actions have resulted in this committee's not honouring its commitment. We could have gone down that road and made a case, and it would have been wrong. The Speaker of the Scottish legislature is here. We've previously said that we would meet with the honourable Speaker, and we will keep that commitment. We will set aside our domestic differences for an hour to allow us to collectively do the right thing.

No matter how much damage this government does to the collegiality of this House, the tradition of our Parliament prevails, that is, that selfless part where as parliamentarians we have to put our own best interests aside from time to time—or those of our party and our caucus aside—and do the right thing for Parliament in looking at Parliament as a symbol of her people. If we disrespect Parliament, we disrespect our own people.

That, Chair, is why, at a minute before one, you will ask whoever has the floor to cease and hold over until after QP, because you've indicated that we're going to rise for QP so that we can all participate. Then we'll all be back here. We'll pick up where we left off and continue to have our knock-down and drag-'em-out fight, but we'll do it Canadian-style. When necessary, we stop fighting and we respectfully do what we need to do as a Parliament.

If I may say so, Chair, it's that potential damage to our Parliament that has us and all these other respected entities and people so up in arms. There's no fairness in any of this, and if ever there was one word that represents a Canadian value.... We try so hard to be fair-minded. That starts with how we treat each other. It showed itself in how this meeting started. Even though we're having pitched battles, colleagues went out of their way to make sure that even though I was held up in traffic, I wasn't denied my otherwise rightful opportunity to continue my remarks.

That's respect. The rules could easily have been used to deny me the floor because I was five or six minutes late in taking my seat. The rules could have been used to deny me that, and that had to be appealing. It just had to be, yet you did the Canadian thing. You were fair-minded and didn't link rain, bad weather, and slow traffic with the rights of a colleague to continue to have their say.

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

That's not how we roll.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That's not how we roll, as David Graham just said, and I agree. When he said “we”, he means we MPs collectively—Parliament. That's my point.

Through you, Chair, to David Graham, it's at that fundamental a level that we can have so much residual respect for each other that even in the middle of this we can show that same kind of common courtesy to each other and to an international visitor. It's because that's the way we roll. That's who we are. And that's why this is so egregious.

Mr. Chair, I think I'll give the indication that I will relinquish the floor prior to one o'clock. I just want to give whoever's going to succeed me a chance to be aware of that.

Will it be you, David? Okay. This gives you a chance to get your thoughts together.

So I will conclude well before one o'clock and immediately ask that my name be put back on the list—just a future threat. I could keep going, because I have to say that I feel pretty good, but others are anxious to get a piece of this. It's not like the last time, when I had to keep going on and on because you guys abandoned me. I was all alone. It was either me or nothing. I wasn't getting any help. Now we have a whole team, and my own team.

By the way, between us we have every single slot filled for the coming week and a half until the next constituency week. By the time the constituency week rolls around, we'll have a new roster ready to go and more new stuff. We'll have lots and lots of new stuff to stay relevant and not repeat.

As I bring to a conclusion these modest, short remarks, which I began yesterday at 4 p.m., I again underscore to the backbenchers on the government side—I don't expect a reaction—that if it were me, I'd be knocking on somebody's door wanting to know how the hell they were going to get us out of this mess. Right now there's nothing in sight except more of this. We're about to get a fresh voice and a fresh perspective, in this case from the government benches. How edifying that will be, not to mention the great opportunity that will be for the person who follows him.

Will that be Mr. Reid? I'm just curious. It is Mr. Reid? Okay. There you go: blockbuster day.

I'm ready to hand off to Mr. Graham, who I'm sure, in one fell swoop, with the eloquence that he can bring and the perceptions that he brings to his comments, will completely convince all of us—all of this—how wrong we are, how the government really is being wronged in this, how they're leading with their heart, and how this is about Parliament and efficiency and modernization. He will somehow make people forget about the electoral reform betrayal.

You can do it, David. I'm sure it's there. Nothing else....

Really, now that I think about it, that's what makes the most sense, that we're completely missing it. In a couple of minutes we'll find out all the secrets, starting with June 2 and its great importance—this is hard to do when you're laughing—or the avoidance of June 3, which for some reason has to be avoided by this Parliament. We'll find out how this will help the opposition and we just don't see it.

I'm sure that's what's coming next, Chair. We'll have a broader, more succinct explanation by a government member about how we have it all wrong, and about how The Globe and Mail have done such a terrible disservice to the integrity of the Liberal government, not to mention their former friend and ally, the Toronto Star, saying such obviously untrue things in such a nasty way before we get to the indignity that Mr. Coyne brought to your motivations. I have no doubt that before all is done, we will hear from others, but Mr. Graham can head that off at the pass by giving us all the explanation we need so that we lesser, mere mortals can understand parliamentary democracy as it's viewed from the lofty heights of the Trudeau Liberals, and that really all that's happening here is that we just don't understand.

Obviously the Liberal government is so far ahead in how it sees parliamentary democracy that what we need desperately, in addition to not hearing from me anymore, is to hear the great wisdom that Mr. Graham is going to bring as he pronounces on behalf of the government how we've all got this wrong, that it doesn't want to hurt anybody, that it wants to help. “We're from the government. We're here to help.” It's that favourite expression that people love to hear. “I'm here from the government, and I'm here to help.”

It almost makes me want to stop—almost.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Close.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

We are getting close, Mr. Doherty. I feel it getting close, but not so much anymore. I've kind of convinced myself—it's what happens—that it's just that we don't understand it, and I and others here have been wrong. We see this as a negative thing. Losing rights that we have must be a good thing; otherwise the Liberals wouldn't do it, because they're Liberals, and by definition they wouldn't do anything anti-democratic, because that wouldn't be sunny ways. It sure wouldn't be keeping their promise.

If I'm right, it means that you are putting a circle around that stain. It must be that we have it wrong. It must be a good thing that we can't talk anymore, that we can't slow down the government, that we are forced to get out of its way so it can continue to do the good deeds that it was elected to do. So it must be that we're just not understanding properly how the Liberal government is actually helping our democracy.

I have no doubt that after Mr. Graham speaks, we're going to see front-page retractions—

[An hon. member]

We'll be enlightened.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

—and The Globe and Mail, saying, “Holy smokes, we're sorry. We didn't get it, but now we do”, and the Star is going to have to grovel even more—isn't it?—because they're buddies, oftentimes, and they said some pretty harsh things. Once Mr. Graham explains to it the wrongness of its perspective and how it is wrongly labelling the government anti-democratic, it too, maybe even in a special edition to curry favour back, with a front-page retraction of its editorial, will begin to realize, once it uses the decoder that Mr. Graham is going to give us, that actually this discussion paper is the greatest positive contribution to Canadian Parliament since we were blessed with the first Trudeau.

That must be it. That would make sense. They're doing it because they really are being democratic, and honouring their commitments, and respecting the opposition. We are just being so pigheaded and stubborn that we're refusing to accept that that's what's really going on.

Get ready, Globe and Mail editorial board. Alert! The same goes for the Toronto Star editorial board: emergency meeting, live stream!

Mr. Coyne, whatever you're doing, stop! Get hooked up!

Chantal, John Ivison, everybody, freeze! We've all been wrong. It's sad to say. It's hard to say you're wrong, but it would seem we are. We must be and I so look forward to relinquishing the floor. It's palpable. Mr. Graham is single-handedly going to use his secret decoder ring to interpret the discussion paper that we all wrongly thought was bad news for democracy. We're going to find out, like parents talking to children. We're going to be told what's real and we're going to be told how this is good for us.

My only regret is that we didn't let Mr. Graham speak earlier, but I'm sure that will be the beginning of the speech from Mr. Reid, who speaks after Mr. Graham. I feel sorry for Mr. Reid, who is one of the most talented members of this place, because, silly us, we entrenched ourselves in opposition to the document on this silly notion that it was bad for democracy. Poor Mr. Reid, because he's the guy who's going to have to 'fess all that up, because I got to do all the wind-up stuff last night, today, and a little bit last week. I got to do all the fun stuff, except as it turns out, as we're about to hear, I was probably misguided, as misguided as The Globe and Mail editorial board, the Toronto Star editorial board, Mr. Coyne, Madame Hébert, John Ivison, Lawrence Martin—all of us. We all got it so wrong and we are so lucky that we live in an era where “sunny ways” is the guiding phrase for us all, along with transparency and accountability.

He can't save you. I'm sorry, David. I see David looking at the Chair. He's almost imploring him, “can you not do something?” That's the thing of this. This is why you need to stop it, because you don't have to put up with this kind of abuse. You shouldn't have to put up with me saying these things to you. You're a Liberal. You're a member of the Liberal government. Who do I think I am talking to you that way? You're so right. Ah, the nerve. It's getting downright uppity and where's the House leader to put me in my place to say, you're getting a bit uppity there, Dave? That's the Liberal government. Where's your respect?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

How dare you?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I can't believe we've been at it for, like, two weeks now. We've been off on the wrong path. We've all been saying horrible things about this government, but it's about to be revealed to us all, with the secret decoder ring, how that discussion paper is actually good for us as opposition and even better for our parliamentary democracy.

Mr. Simms, I know you tried and you did the best you could to give your interpretation, but I suspect that you didn't realize that there was a newer version of the decoder ring. It's shinier and it works better, because, unfortunately, when you used the old decoder ring, it still sounded anti-democratic. It still sounded as though we were losing something over here. It still sounded as though it was all about making life better for the government. I know you tried, and we all hung off every word, but it's not your fault. I'm pretty sure it's that you got that older version of the decoder ring. Your House leader moved to a new version and didn't give you your new ring, but they did get it to Mr. Graham. He used to be a staffer and nobody knows how things run better than a staffer does. It's understandable that he would get the new decoder ring and you had to live with the old one.

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

I'm Robin to his Batman.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That's it—you're Robin to his Batman. Wow! The things we have to just kind of accept as we grow up.

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

I haven't quite grown up yet.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Well, that's a problem, too. At what point are we grown up? Every night I wonder what I want to be when I grow up. At 62, there's not that much left in front. If you think about it, there's a lot more behind me. There's a lot more distance in the rear-view mirror than through the windshield.

However, we don't fault you. You tried. You gave it an honest shot, but with that older ring, when you decoded it, it still came out sounding undemocratic. It sounded like we were losing something. It sounded like you just wanted to make your life better, even though you have a massive overwhelming majority. It wasn't your fault. You tried. You did the best you could.

Now, though, with the new decoder ring, Mr. Graham, Batman....These things stick, you know; you have to be careful, but that's not a bad one. Earlier I bragged about how great the bat turns are, and you did a great bat turn, so it makes sense that there would be a Batman over there somewhere. If that's Robin to Batman, I can't wait for the Batman to enlighten us all.

[An hon. member]

You're getting a little batty.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'm getting a little bit batty? Three hours of sleep and I'm getting a little batty? Do people normally talk like this? Do normal people act like this? For 10 or 11 hours, over two days, really, who does that? I do.

Normal people don't talk like that. Yes, I am getting a little batty. If I go on, continuing to believe that this discussion paper is going to be as undemocratic and do as much damage to our democracy as I think it's going to do, then I'm probably going to get even battier as time goes on. Do up your seat belt.

On the other hand—and here's the beauty part—you're about to persuade me how wrong I've been, batty and all, and you're going to help me see the light in the way that Mr. Simms tried. Because he didn't have the newest equipment, though, he wasn't quite able to get the interpretation the way it should be. But you, Mr. Graham, have that new decoder ring, and you're going to be able to show all of us who have been worrying and fretting, as it turns out needlessly, about the pesky things like minority rights, fairness, justice, and democracy. I'm about to find out, just like The Globe and Mail, how wrong I've been. Now, Mr. Graham is going to make it crystal clear how wrong we've all been.

I wouldn't be surprised if, at the end of it, I asked for a point of order before Mr. Reid takes the floor so that I can formally apologize for all this battiness, all this throwing around of insults. I'm kind of getting ready. I'll fix my tie. I'll comb my hair. I'll get all gussied up, and I'll go in front of the cameras and beg for forgiveness for misleading Canadians when I had the temerity to suggest that the government House leader's discussion paper was anything other than an absolute gift to Canadian democracy and the way we conduct ourselves here. I have to get ready for that. I'm not used to it, so I'll have to practise a lot.

If that's what happens, I need to be ready.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Practise.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

So when I relinquish the floor—and Mr. Graham, be gentle—it's going to be a massive transition for us over here as we start to understand how wrong we've been and how we have wronged you and your colleagues, and prepare to face the nation and tell them how wrong we've been. Be gentle. This won't be easy for us over here, but I have faith in your humanity.

Mr. Chair, I think this might be a fine time to allow all this enlightenment and wisdom to wash over us all as Mr. Graham takes the floor with his new decoder ring and explains to us that the discussion paper presented by the Liberal government House leader was actually a positive gift to Parliament and how it's going to enhance the role of the opposition as well as the government in this great new dawn of “unicorns and rainbows” as promised by the hippie king.

I can't believe they used that term. That was great.

Anyway, Chair, I think it's now an appropriate time, and I wish to do two things: one, to formally advise you that I am relinquishing the floor; and two, to ask the clerk to put me back on the list.