Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 21st, 2017

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

During the time from 2006 to 2011, our party was in a minority government situation. In other words, we did not have control of procedure and House affairs; the opposition did. The reality was that it was a six-to-six situation, but one of our members was the chair, so we really had only five voting members against six opposition votes at any one time. It proved to be challenging, but it also proved to be instructive, because for us to get anything done we had to have some co-operation from opposition members. I recall that at times it was difficult.

In fact, the last time I was in a situation in which I engaged in a filibuster was when we were discussing the so-called in and out scandal. I spoke for eight and a half hours at one time so that the opposition would not be able to bring forward a motion that we felt was unfair and unjust. That ended when the opposition to my filibuster became so pointed that they started challenging and almost insulting the chair, who ultimately adjourned that meeting. But most of the time I enjoyed my time on that committee.

I can also say quite honestly that the four years after we became a majority government were the most pleasurable for me, and not just because we had a majority. I'm going to take a moment or two just to give a shout-out to Randall and his colleagues in the NDP, because I found, during those times, that the membership of the NDP at procedure and House affairs was individuals who were intelligent and fair-minded, and with whom I could work very well.

For a while, the point person for the NDP was Joe Comartin, a man whom I respected greatly, a long-term member of Parliament with a great deal of common sense and affinity for parliamentary procedure. When Joe left—he retired, actually—David Christopherson took his place, and he and Craig Scott were the two mainstays of the NDP. I can honestly say that, despite what most people may think about extreme partisanship having have taken root in Ottawa, there were times, although not frequently, when either Mr. Christopherson or Mr. Scott presented an argument that was in opposition to the government's position, and I agreed with them. We came down from our position on a number of occasions because I felt that the argument presented was basically cogent. It made sense and it strengthened the position, whether it was a piece of legislation or a motion that we were studying.

I make those points not to do anything other than point out that over the years I believe I have become far less partisan than I was when I first took this job. I think that's probably true of a great many parliamentarians. I had a conversation with Minister Scott Brison over the course of the last few months. Scott has been attempting to make some changes to the Standing Orders, and I'll speak to those specifically a little while from now. During our discussions, I told Scott, “I really think that the objective you're trying to achieve by changing the Standing Orders to better align the estimates process with the budgetary process is laudable. However, the way you're going about it is problematic.” That led to a discussion about the lack of trust between opposition parties and government members and the like.

Ultimately, I told Scott, “I don't know about you, Scott, but I know I'm becoming far less partisan the longer I stay in this place.” And Scott said to me, “Tom, I'm exactly the same way. As a matter of fact, when I first came to Ottawa I was an absolute...”—and he used a word I can't quite say in televised proceedings. He was referring to himself as being hyper-, uber-partisan. I think that many of us, when we come to this place, are in that position, but I found that I get a great deal of satisfaction when I have the opportunity to work with members from the other side and come to a consensus on a great deal of issues.

Scott, I see you have an intervention.

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

It's a little noisy in here. I'm trying, but I can't hear you.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

It's perhaps due to some of the conversations at the back of the room.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Just while we've been interrupted, if there are any House of Commons staff who haven't eaten or anyone in the room who hasn't eaten, you're welcome to the food that's left.

Mr. Lukiwski.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Thank you very much.

Thanks, Scott.

I point that out to the committee because I think that in almost all cases, the best results for Canadians are achieved when there can be a consensus. I'm not so naive as to suggest or even believe that there can be consensus in a lot of areas. Clearly, a government is elected, regardless of political affiliation, to govern, and if given a majority mandate by the people of this country, they have the absolute right to bring forward legislation that they see best fit and pass it. It does not give them the right to do so at the expense of the democratic opportunities of opposition members and, unfortunately, I think that's what we're seeing in this instance. The government is trying to quash the ability of the opposition members to make a meaningful contribution to any potential changes to the Standing Orders.

To give you a sense and or some specifics of what I'm speaking to, I want to give you a few examples of what happened in the last Parliament. I've mentioned on a number of occasions that I chaired an all-party committee that was examining potential changes to the Standing Orders of the House. The way we got to that point was that I'd written a memo to Prime Minister Harper suggesting that we make some changes. I gave him a couple of examples that I thought would be better for the Canadian taxpayer. Let me give you one example. As you know, opposition members can write written questions to the government and the government is obligated to respond to those written questions now within 45 days. During the period of time between 2011 and 2015, we found that many of the questions posed by opposition members—I think primarily the Liberals, but they had, I think, a little better procedural staff at the time—would literally go on for pages and pages. Any time a government gives an answer to a written question, it has to be done in both official languages, obviously, and then photocopied and presented. To prove a point of how ridiculous I thought these questions were getting, I once read into the record one question from a Liberal member. That one question alone took me 17 minutes to read into the record. I felt this was an abuse of the process of the written questions that were afforded all parliamentarians. So I suggested to the Prime Minister that maybe we could look at putting either some sort of a limit on the number of words that could go into a question or somehow clean up the object of these questions, because the object of written questions originally was for them to be specific to one particular area of concern. You were to ask that question and to request a response. But to get a question—

Mr. Chair, perhaps you could ask the House leader to take her conversation outside, unless she wants to participate by sitting in and listening to some of my comments? I would appreciate the attention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Carry on. It seems to be quiet now.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

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.

[An hon. member]

Hear, hear!

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

I mention that not to try to lift myself up in the eyes of members of this committee, but to say that over the course of nine years, I had the opportunity to do a lot of negotiating with members of the opposition parties, and not every time did I meet counterparts who honoured their words. That promotes nothing but lack of trust. My colleague, Mr. Nater, spoke of that a little earlier.

In our committee, I made sure that any time I gave my word, my word was not broken. I can assure members as well, from time to time, I was called on the carpet—let's say, by people with a higher pay grade than mine—because I had made a commitment that was not viewed favourably by others. However, I kept the commitment. Those others, who perhaps were a little angry at me, recognized the fact that I couldn't break my word because then the trust factor would have started to break down. Once that happens in this place, it is very difficult to achieve anything.

I only mention that because I say to you—and I'm sure others have said it as well—we, as an opposition, will not let this filibuster end. I will guarantee you that. We can be here as long as the government wishes to be here. We can be here past June 2. We can go to the next federal election, if you wish. We feel that strongly about his.

Mr. Nater talked about the fact that we don't mind having a discussion. He's right. Neither do I. However, it has to be done in a manner in which we reach unanimous consent by all parties because of the fact that it affects all parties and all parliamentarians. Changes cannot be made just to benefit the government. I pointed out examples about how we had the opportunity to do so when we were in government, and we didn't do so. I have to be honest. Quite frankly, I don't see a lot on the other side of the House, on the government side of the House, that makes me think they are willing to enter into such an agreement. In fact, I see just the opposite. I see things, sometimes almost on a daily basis, procedures and attempts to shut down meaningful debate from the government, which makes me truly question whether or not they are willing to work with members of the opposition.

The most recent example happened this afternoon. We were having a debate on a question of privilege, a privilege that affects every single parliamentarian, the right for parliamentarians to come to the House in an unfettered manner and to be able to vote. Two of our members had that right denied most recently, and they raised a point of privilege with the Speaker. The Speaker quite rightfully said he found a prima facie case of privilege. This is not new. During my nine years on procedure and House affairs, I believe we dealt with the same issue on three separate occasions. Separate members were denied access to the Hill for various reasons. Sometimes it was because there was a motorcade. Sometimes it was because a security official didn't recognize the individual as a member. There were times, though, when members were denied access to come to the House, and they missed votes.

In each of those cases, the Speaker found a prima facie case of privilege. Debate ensued in the House. A vote was put forward. The House approved a reference order to be made to send the question of privilege to the procedure and House affairs committee. That's the appropriate method. That is the appropriate course of action. What happened today? The debate was ongoing, and the government shut it down. They didn't postpone it or delay it. They shut it down. That has never happened before.

Unfortunately my colleague and friend Mr. Graham, who is not here right now, earlier said that we Conservatives did that in the last session, the last Parliament. It's not true. Granted, there was a debate on privilege and we invoked closure, but a vote was held. Parliamentarians from all parties were able to vote on that question of privilege.

This did not happen. This government shut down debate, and the vote will never be taken. Individual members—backbenchers, frontbenchers, members of the government, members of the opposition—were denied the right to vote on a privilege issue that could impact each and every one of us sometime in the future. It impugned and impinged upon the democratic right of parliamentarians. A vote was not even allowed.

Trust me on this one, and you all know this: governments come and governments go. You have now set a precedent, so one day, perhaps not in the not-too-distant future when you're sitting on the opposition benches, the government of the day may have a majority and will be able to say that there has been precedent and it doesn't have to allow members to vote on a privilege, even though it's been viewed as a prima facie case, because the previous government denied that vote.

This is dangerous ground that the government is treading, and there is an easy out.

Mr. Chair, I see an intervention coming, so I'll certainly cede my time for that intervention.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Will we apply the Simms' principle? Are you okay with the Simms' principle here?

I just feel compelled to respond as the person who presented the motion at PROC on the very matter you are discussing. I just want to make clear that the motion I presented actually brings the matter to PROC, while the case scenario you're describing has the same result.

The reason I brought that motion today is that I believe it's the committee's right to determine the priority of the issues that the committee discusses. It was not the motion but the amendment to the motion in the House of Commons that actually directed this committee and decided what I believed was this committee's prerogative, which is to decide the priority of the matters we discuss.

The matter in the House of Commons today is a very serious matter, as is what we are discussing here. I just want to go on record as saying and making it very clear that I brought that motion because, in my view, it's this committee's prerogative to determine the matters and the priority with which we deal with those matters.

Thank you for letting me intervene.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

It was my pleasure, but with all due respect, the motion you brought was basically an attempt—and it was successful—to shut down debate and to be able to say that what you were really trying to do was to allow the discussion about privilege at the committee, but you're refusing a specificity. There were two members of Parliament whose privileges were denied, and regardless of how you try to sugar-coat the motion you're trying to bring forward here or have presented here, it still denies those individual members their right to have a debate and a vote on their privilege. There's quite clearly a difference. There's a big difference, and that has never happened before. Your government has set a precedent, and it is a dangerous precedent in my view, a very dangerous precedent.

I should also point out, Mr. Chair, I've had emails from a number of political parties and political observers across the country who are watching this debate. They're watching to see what happens, how we deal with the Standing Orders, because provincial legislatures have the same rule book we have. That's why this is such an important debate. I would again suggest to the government that what we are doing here is so unnecessary. I don't mind spending a few hours here. I've done it before. As I said, I spoke for eight and half hours the last time, and I'll speak for longer if I have to, although I have to leave in about a half hour from now—

[A voice]

No, no, no.

[A voice]

More, more.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

I can see the disappointment etched on the faces of committee members. I assure all members that I will be back next week.

The reality is that this is so unnecessary. If the government truly wants to make changes, then just go and do it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Would you allow Ms. Tassi to intervene?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Absolutely.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

I want to be clear, in response to what you have said, particularly on the mover of the original motion. I have a great deal of respect for her, and you're absolutely right that it's a very serious matter. It's not the issue of debate that is my concern. Absolutely that matter should be debated. We need to debate that, and members have a right to debate it.

The issue to which I take exception is that this committee is going to be told what its priorities are so the whole intention behind my motion was to ensure.... The amendment to that motion was that it would come here and be a priority, which would mean it would circumvent the current debate we are having right now, so that's the procedural—

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

That is not unless it was a reference from the Speaker.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

That's the procedural concern and issue I have. I think this committee should be the master of its own priorities and that the matter we are discussing here is also important. That's the reason I brought the motion, not to in any way curtail or shut down debate.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

But you did.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

No. It was the amendment to the motion that caused that. The amendment would have the effect of telling this committee the order in which the items this committee entertained would have to be set. I'm fine that this is on the record, and I'm happy I get to say it before we leave, so thank you again.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

The reality, however, with all due respect, is that debate was shut down. On one hand, you say you don't want to shut down debate, but you did. The government did. It brought in a motion to return to government orders. It shut down debate, and now it is impossible for the opposition to bring that privilege motion back for debate. It is shut down.

It is not postponed. It is not delayed. It is gone.

The members who brought forward the motion of privilege, which was found to be prima facie, are denied the ability to further discuss it, debate it, and vote on it in the House. That's what the government did. Again, I go back to my most basic point. Why are we even here?

Mr. Chair, you're doing yeoman's work just having to sit there for hours upon hours each day to listen to a debate that could be, quite frankly, close to endless, because there is no will on the opposition benches to allow this debate to stop, because you know what the result will be. As soon as that happens, there will be a vote on the discussion paper, on the proposed changes. The government members in the majority will pass it, a report will be tabled in the House recommending proposed changes from the procedure and House affairs committee, and the government will use that as its cover, saying, “They are recommendations from committee. We're not doing this unilaterally. We're not imposing our will on Parliament. This was a committee recommendation.” Right. That's something I just don't think any fair-minded person could possibly agree to.

Governments are elected. I said that before. Governments have the right to bring in their own legislation. Governments have the right to try to create a Canada they believe to be the right course of action, but opposition members are here for a reason. We are here to point out government shortcomings, at least in our opinion. There are shortcomings. We are here with a right to debate, and at times to delay, if we feel it is necessary, motions and legislation, but this is different from that. This is not a piece of government legislation we're debating in this committee. We are discussing the very rules that guide us and that are so fundamental to parliaments across the world.

I made reference to the fact that many learned authorities on procedure, such as Mr. Holtby, such as Mr. Yanover, would be dead set against any changes to the Standing Orders, except for the most minor tweaks, because they feel that those Standing Orders that have evolved over time are there for a reason. The government suggests that it wishes to modernize Parliament to make Parliament more efficient. Well, if it truly would benefit all parliamentarians, if it truly would make Parliament more modern, if it truly would make Parliament more efficient, then there shouldn't be any difficulty getting unanimity among all parties, because if they would benefit all of us, why wouldn't we approve changes to the Standing Orders?

Some of the ones we changed in the last go-round, when I was chairing the committee, were very minor. I want to give you a couple of examples, because they were easily agreed upon unanimously. A few were actually references to arcane situations that perhaps meant something back 100 years ago but mean nothing today.

For example, there was reference in the Standing Orders to the supper hour. There used to be a supper hour in Parliament because Parliament didn't meet as early as it does now. It opened in the afternoon and met into the evening, so there was a designated supper hour where committees would stop. Parliament would stop, and members had a chance to go to the Parliamentary Restaurant, or go off the Hill and have something to eat and then come back. There is no supper hour now, so we just deleted that from the Standing Orders.

There are also references to $5 fines administered by the Sergeant-at-Arms if a transgression took place. We deleted that and issues like that.

There was no question that all members agreed to those, because they made sense, but if there was any suggestion the standing order could adversely impact either a political party, and its ability to do its job, or an individual parliamentarian, those changes were never even discussed again.

Where does that leave us? It leaves us in a position where we're going to continue to filibuster unless saner heads prevail, and there can be some agreement among House leaders. I agree, my colleague talked about the fact that the House leaders are the ones who make these types of decisions. They give, frankly, the marching orders, and that's why they're in the positions they are in, but I also realize, having lived it—and anyone who has been in government lives it—there are other forces at play other than just House management. I'm specifically talking about the PMO.

Without question—and I'm not asking any of my colleagues on the government side to acknowledge this or to even say it's correct, but we all know it is—the PMO gives not just the suggestion but strict marching orders on what committees are to do. My good friend, Mr. Simms,—and I say that not lightly, he is a friend, I consider him to be a friend and one of the good guys—has stated that the motion that he brought forward, the motion we are now discussing, the motion and the amendment, was his doing. With all due respect, I believe there were other forces at play there. I simply do not believe that a discussion paper was forwarded, and mere hours later a motion fully translated came before this committee. I believe, without question, there was a decision made at a higher level than this that is instructing government members to follow through on this course of action.

That happens. I get that. It happened with us. It happened with previous governments. It will happen with governments after your government is long gone. That doesn't mean it's right.

If the government is so firm in its belief that these changes are necessary, then it has the ability to do it right now, but do you know something? I believe—and I may be wrong on this—that most of the suggested changes are in themselves a bit of a cover for the one change that the government really wants to have occur, which is on the estimates process.

Let me give you a little background on that. I am the chair of the government operations and estimates committee. That committee has a responsibility. When I say responsibility, I mean it deals with several government departments, one of them being Treasury Board. Minister Brison, another individual I like very much and whom I respect greatly, has come before our committee on several occasions trying to convince the committee to change the Standing Orders deadline for estimates to be presented not by March 31 but May 1. He said he ultimately wants to better align the estimates process with the budget process. Frankly, it's an objective with which I agree.

Right now, as we all know, if you have any knowledge of how the system works, it's just the reverse of what should happen. A budget is presented, and afterwards the estimates come in, rather than estimates of what might be in the budget discussed first and then the budget follows the approval of the estimates. It's ass-backwards. Other jurisdictions have changed the system sequentially and gotten it into better alignment. That's what this government is trying to do.

I applaud the government for trying to do that, but Mr. Brison is trying to do so by changing the Standing Orders to allow him, for a two-year period, to change the timing of the estimates and when they're presented to committees. The difficulty with that is that once you change the Standing Orders, there's no guarantee they'll ever be reversed.

The government doesn't have to change the Standing Orders. It has a number of options at its disposal to achieve its objective of better alignment. It has the ability to present financial information at any time. It's not restricted or constricted as to when it can do so. It's certainly not forced to bring down a budget in March or April. It can bring down a budget in January, should it wish, which would solve the problem entirely. However, Mr. Brison has stated that he wants this to happen, and he has stated that if he can't get it by going to the government operations and estimates committee and getting its approval, he will find another way. My belief is that he's trying to find another way in this package of changes.

Just look at the big four. My understanding, and I get this only from reading articles in the media, is that there are four primary changes that the government now has said it would like to see enacted in the Standing Orders.

One is having a Prime Minister's question period once a week. They don't need to change the Standing Orders for that. We saw that the other day. Frankly, I applaud the Prime Minister for doing that. To my knowledge, it's the first time it has been done. He didn't give any answers; nonetheless, he got on his feet and he said something to each question. I give him credit for that, but you don't have to change the Standing Orders for that.

The second thing is on proroguing Parliament, having to change the Standing Orders to force governments to give justification for prorogation. You don't need to change the Standing Orders for that. In fact, any prorogation that I can recall has always been justified and some rationale has been given. There has never been dead silence and just prorogation occurring. Whether it be provincially or federally, there has always been a reason, so you don't need to change the Standing Orders. If it wishes to prorogue, and I understand the government is probably contemplating prorogation perhaps this summer, that is its right, obviously, but also it would make some sense at the halfway point of the four-year term of this government that it might want to hit the reset button. Prorogation would make sense in that regard, to come back with a new Speech from the Throne sometime later in the fall. That makes some sense. I can understand that, but you don't need to change the Standing Orders. Just prorogue and give your rationale.

The third change in the big four is no more omnibus bills. That's fine; just don't bring one forward. Some might argue, well, we can do that, but we want to make sure that future governments don't do it. The fact of the matter is that you do not have to change the Standing Orders today to stop the use of omnibus bills. You have the ability to do it yourself.

What does that leave of the big four? It only leaves changing the Standing Orders to deal with the estimates process and the timing of estimates. That's the only one left, and even though the government has the ability to deal with it without changing the Standing Orders, for some reason the President of the Treasury Board feels that he has to do this, that he can't do it any other way.

That's why I believe that is the true motivation behind this so-called discussion paper. The rest is almost like a bit of a subterfuge. “Let's throw a whole bunch of things in there and slide this point in, this standing order change, in a package of other proposed changes. We don't care about the other ones but we really want this one.” I think that's what's happening here.

If you want to have a discussion about better alignment of the estimates and the budgetary process, that's great. We're having that at government operations. We members, other than the government, have stated at committee that we are in favour of a better alignment process. It would make sense, and it can be done. It would take a couple of budget cycles to get there, but it can be done. However, the way in which the minister is proposing it has not been received well, and there has been opposition. You can understand why. It's because it would require a change to the Standing Orders.

Even though I take Minister Brison in good faith—and as I say, I respect him greatly and like him as an individual—once you change the Standing Orders, there is nothing to stop future presidents of the Treasury Board from abusing the situation. There is nothing to say that the Standing Orders would be changed back to their original March 31 date in two years.

Once the government changes the Standing Orders with a commitment to revert back to the old dates or the old ways, there is nothing to stop them from keeping the standing order changes as they see fit. As for the precedence that is being set, I cannot stress enough that it is extremely dangerous. I can certainly see a time when some government in the future would take the changes that are being proposed here and try to manipulate them to their own benefit.

Let's have a discussion by all means, but having a discussion in a forum in which the government has the hammer and the sole right and ability to make changes is meaningless. It's pointless. It's not a discussion. It's lip service to the opposition to try to keep them at bay and to say, “Well, you know, we consulted.”

No, you didn't. All you did was report a sham. Meaningful discussion means unanimity on changes to the Standing Orders.

I would suggest to my friends and colleagues on the government side that this is eroding whatever trust is left between opposition members and government members. It's no secret to members of the government that their failure to follow through on their commitment on electoral reform has eroded a lot of the trust and goodwill in this Parliament.

I would also point out, while I'm speaking of electoral reform, that the government is now taking the position of saying, “We made a campaign commitment to democratic reform within Parliament, so that's why we're bringing this discussion paper forward.” It seems a little hollow to me.

Not only was there no specific discussion about many of the proposed changes in the so-called discussion paper. There was a firm commitment in their campaign platform prior to the 2015 election to change the way in which we vote in this country, specifically, “This will be the last first-past-the-post election,” definitively, period, full stop.

What happened? We didn't see that happen.

If you break a campaign commitment and a campaign promise, how can you then possibly have the chutzpah to come back here and say, “We have to do this. We have to make these changes because we made a commitment in our campaign platform”?

No. There is absolutely no reason for the government to attempt to do what it is attempting to do with these proposed changes. There is no rational thought that I can come up with that makes me think they have justification to do what they are doing.

Consequently, we are where we are, but I hope, and I mean this sincerely, that there's an opportunity for the government to perhaps draw back just a little bit. They could agree to either setting up an all-party committee within PROC with equal representation from each party and a commitment that unanimity must be achieved before any standing order changes are implemented, or to accept the suggestion from my colleague, Mr. Reid, to establish a special committee on parliamentary reform requiring unanimity, which has been done before by a previous Liberal government.

I know my colleagues on the government side are all aware of that. Prime Minister Chrétien made the provision that an all-party committee would be set up, and it was, and it would have to have unanimous consent before any changes were made. It worked well. It has always worked well. This was the first time in my recollection that—although I stand to be corrected, but I believe I'm on solid ground when I say this—in the history of the Canadian Parliament, where a government is attempting to have a committee discussion of parliamentary changes and recommend them without unanimous consent.

Governments have done so unilaterally, but they haven't done it through the committee process. They have never done it through the committee process, so why now? It's simple. They're looking for cover. They want to be able to say to Canadians that these changes were discussed, debated thoroughly, and the committee recommended these changes, even if there's a dissenting report.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

That's repetition, since you've already said it.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

I'm very familiar with the concept of repetition.

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

I have a point of order.