Thanks to David for keeping his comments short, and thanks to my colleague Mr. Nater for ceding his time.
I'll spend a bit of time—perhaps a few hours—giving my impressions on a number of different themes. I'll call them “themes” for the time being.
I want to start with my interpretation of and my observations on how we got here. Then I want to talk a bit about what we might be able to do collectively to get beyond this impasse.
Lastly, I want to make a few observations as to some historical perspectives on what might happen if the government gets its way on unilaterally changing the Standing Orders, because I believe that is the essence of the situation. Besides the sham or the cover that the government has by saying that they want to have a discussion, their true intent is to make the changes that they believe would best benefit themselves. That, of course, is why opposition members are so outraged and why we're in the middle of this filibuster.
As I understand the course of action that took us to where we are today, it's that, as David quite correctly pointed out, the government introduced what they call a “discussion paper” ostensibly to engage with all members of Parliament on potential changes to the Standing Orders. Well, if that were true, and if we were to take the government on good faith that they actually, honestly, and sincerely wanted to have a discussion, I wouldn't have any problems with that. I would take no issue with that.
Unfortunately, their little facade was exposed very quickly, because literally within hours my friend Mr. Simms brought forward a motion to this committee, dutifully translated in both official languages, imposing a deadline of June 2 for proposed changes. Quite obviously, this was orchestrated, and quite obviously for anyone who understands how this place works, it was orchestrated through the PMO. The government House leader and Mr. Simms, being good and loyal soldiers, did as they were instructed, but because all opposition members could see through this little facade very quickly and with great clarity, they collectively raised up their voices to oppose what the government was intending.
Then, as my learned colleague and friend Mr. Christopherson noted just a few moments ago, we, as the collective opposition, would have been filibustering, yes, and we would have been carrying on this debate for a considerable length of time, but the government determined—and used their majority to ensure—that the debate would not suspend at the end of a normal two-hour committee rotation and would continue on until the debate collapsed.
In other words, Mr. Chair, it is well known to I think all parliamentarians at this point that the government themselves caused this filibuster to take place. I certainly hope that the government understands that, at this point, after some 60 hours of discussion, that there is no will—absolutely no will—on behalf of the opposition to end this filibuster under the current circumstances.
We all recognize what's at stake here. We recognize that if the government has its way, and if this debate collapses prior to June 2, there will be a vote taken in this committee, and that with a majority being held by the government, of course, a report will be tabled with suggested or proposed changes or recommendations coming from this committee that will be ultimately for the sole benefit of a government, and not parliamentarians themselves. That's why we're here. I get that. I understand that.
I don't agree with it, quite obviously, and I would like to point out to members of the government a few things they've probably heard from other members who have sat at this table for the last 60-some hours, and that is to try to impress upon the government how dangerous a precedent it is that they are attempting to set.
I noted last night, when I made a brief intervention in a debate on privilege in the House, that my friend and colleague, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, continued to say what the Prime Minister actually echoed today and what I've heard other government members say on occasion: that is, the government wants to modernize Parliament and that the reason for the discussion paper is that the government wants to modernize Parliament. I would like to impress upon my colleagues on the government side that the government has no right to modernize Parliament. Parliament modernizes itself.