When I approached the Prime Minister—and I gave several other examples, as well, of where I thought the Standing Orders could be changed to improve the procedures of the House—he agreed, but with a few conditions. Some of the opposition members from that time may feel this to be a bit of a stretch, but I can assure you it's true. He wanted to make sure that it wasn't overly partisan and that we weren't doing anything to try to ram changes through. Consequently, when we established the all-party committee and I chaired it, I said the rules that I would like to abide by were simple. I suggested that all political parties and all representatives on this all-party committee could go back to their caucuses, discuss what potential changes they would like to see, and then bring them back to the committee for discussion, with one caveat: if there were any proposed changes to the Standing Orders that were opposed by any individual on that committee, those proposed changes were off the table, no discussion, because, as I pointed out, the Standing Orders affect us all. They are the rules by which we play, and they are to benefit and to assist all parliamentarians. My rationale was that if that is the case, how then can we possibly proceed unless we have unanimity? If these very rules that guide us are to be of benefit to all of us, how then can we arbitrarily, or by a majority, change the Standing Orders if they are not agreed upon by their members?
There were several examples. With regard to the NDP standpoint, I recall quite vividly when Joe Comartin said that he wanted to bring S. O. 56.1 to the table and to look at eliminating it from the Standing Orders. For the benefit of those at this committee who may not be familiar with Standing Order 56.1, or for those Canadians who are tuning in, what S. O. 56.1 does is allow the government to seek unanimous approval when it has already been denied unanimous approval. How does one do this? If the government asks for unanimous approval to, let's say, pass a motion or a bill and unanimous consent is not granted, it can then immediately invoke Standing Order 56.1, read the same bill or motion into the record, and unless 25 members in the House stand to oppose it, it is deemed to have been adopted. We used that two or three times between 2011 and 2015, and we used to do it normally on a Friday morning. Fridays, as everyone knows, are usually not that well-attended. Many parliamentarians go home on Thursday evenings so they can spend time in their constituency, so literally we would look for an opportunity when the opposition benches were depleted. The odd time, we'd even take a little tour through the opposition lounge to see how many people might be lounging back there. If we felt there weren't 25 members of the opposition present, we would introduce a motion, it would be defeated on a voice vote, we would reintroduce it under S. O. 56.1, and on two or three occasions it passed. I used to kid my colleagues on the NDP side to think of that as a teaching moment for them, but it had an effect because I think after the second time the opposition made sure that on Friday mornings and at all times they had at least 25 people in there. Mr. Comartin wanted to bring that forward and to suggest that S. O. 56.1 be stricken from the Standing Orders. Obviously, it didn't fly because there was opposition from us. It wasn't even discussed. It wasn't even debated. It might have been an interesting debate.
I can certainly give many reasons why S. O. 56.1 has a place in the Standing Orders, but because of the procedures, because of the rule that I put in place for our all-party committee, if anyone disagreed with a proposed change, it was off the table for discussion. That's how we worked. You know something? It worked well. We made a number of changes, most of them somewhat minor, but it worked well.
Everyone, I can assure committee members, was in complete agreement with my lead on that, namely, that we needed to have unanimity.
I can give you a couple of other examples of things that I didn't even allow to come to the table as a proposal. If you know Standing Orders, if you're familiar with procedures and practices of the House, if you've read O'Brien and Bosc, you will know that there are many opportunities for a majority government to invoke the tyranny of the majority through standing order changes.
Let me give you just one example. In the 2011 election, members of the Green Party, the Bloc Québécois, and other independents, if we can call them that—non-affiliated, non-registered, non-recognized parties in the House of Commons—had seen their numbers go down to about seven or eight. On more than one occasion, the three major parties—the Conservatives, the Liberals, and the NDP—had agreed that a motion, perhaps a motion to adjourn early or some other motion that seemed popular among the three parties, would require unanimous consent in the House. On such occasions, one of the independents would voice-vote no, which forced us to “stand five”. They only had seven or eight members among them, but they had enough numbers to “stand five” and force a standing vote.
Of course, they didn't have the numbers to be able to win that vote, but at least they could delay the proceedings and put the government in a position where it had to have 30-minute bells and a vote, so that debate on legislation would be delayed. It was an irritant, so there were some suggestions by a number of members who said that the “stand five” provision had been around for a lot of years. When it was first put in, there were far fewer members in Parliament than there are today.
One could argue with some justification that as an inflationary method we change the standing order from “stand five” to “stand 10”. If we would have passed that, those independents would have had no ability whatsoever to force a vote. I can tell members that I didn't allow that even to be brought to the table. Why? Because it would be impinging upon the rights of certain parliamentarians. It would be stripping them of their ability to act as an effective opposition. Even though their numbers were small, they still had rights. We could have taken those away in a heartbeat. That did not happen, because I and other members of our committee respected the rights of all parliamentarians, not just the tyranny of the majority.
Speaking of S. O. 56.1, the same suggestion was made because of the inflationary factor. Having to stand 25 people to stop a S. O. 56.1 from being adopted was done many decades ago and written into the Standing Orders. There was a suggestion—and we certainly could have done it had we wished, because we were a majority—that we change the number from 25 to, say, 35 or 40 or beyond, making it even more difficult for the opposition parties to block a S. O. 56.1. It didn't happen. We didn't even bring it forward. Why? Because it would be unfair. It would be using the tyranny of the majority to try to better our position politically. It simply didn't happen.
That's why I feel so strongly about what's being attempted here. If the government truly wants to make these changes, if it is sincere in its belief that these proposed changes will improve the functioning of Parliament, then they should do it. Introduce a motion and pass it. You have the majority. You have the ability to do this. The government, however, is not doing it, because it wants political cover from this committee.
They want the ability to say that a standing committee of Parliament recommended changes, and because it is an all-party committee, we will adopt those changes. It's a sham, and it is, at best, disingenuous.
We are here because we recognize what the government is attempting to do. They have the ability to do so if they wish. If they wish to do so unilaterally in the House, just do it. However, to try to make it appear that a report tabled by the standing committee gives tacit approval for them to do so is, quite frankly, deceptive, deceitful, and it shouldn't be allowed. That is why we're filibustering.
I also want to point out to committee members that while I was the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader for that length of time and our lead on the procedures and House affairs committee on many occasions, I had an opportunity to negotiate with members of the committee. If Mr. Christopherson were here, I know he would support what I'm about to say. I can assure you—on many occasions we were negotiating, whether it be a motion or the ability for the opposition members to bring forward an issue they wanted to discuss or a host of other issues that arise from time to time at committee—whenever I gave my word to a member of the opposition, my word was my bond. I never broke it.