—we had agreed to curtail debate at the following meeting, when all of a sudden, before we got to that point, the bells started ringing because our government had forced a vote on something. Mr. Christopherson quite rightfully took that as an indication that perhaps I wasn't being sincere in my commitment, because it interrupted the proceedings of the committee. We came back to the committee and Mr. Christopherson, in his inevitable style, seized the floor and proceeded to “raise a little hell”, as the song goes, and took me to task.
I got my hackles up, of course, and assured him that it was not of my doing, that I had not broken my word. At the end of the day, at best, we agreed to disagree. The point is that on the following day, Mr. Christopherson, to his immense credit, apologized, recognized the fact that I did not break my word, that I would not break my word, and that it was outside of my ambit that the vote had been forced.
I use that only as an illustration, colleagues, to say that when I say we will not give up this fight, that is my word that I give to you, and I'm not prepared to break it, as I have not broken my word to other colleagues in the past. We will continue to filibuster until, hopefully, we can reach a resolution to this impasse. I'll be giving a few potential solutions to you, but I am quite sincere when I say that I would like to find a way out of this.
I don't know if the government wants to find a way out. I'm not sure what their motivation is. All I know is that what is occurring now serves no one, absolutely no one. I can't understand the motivation of the government to allow this to continue, because there are some pretty simple solutions to get beyond where we are now.
I've read a few of the comments made by colleagues in the previous 60 hours. I read with great interest some of the points my colleague Mr. Christopherson was making in one of his earlier interventions. I found again some commonality between Mr. Christopherson and me, because Mr. Christopherson, as all of you know now, comes from a union background. So do I. My father was the western Canadian head of the United Steelworkers of Canada. He in fact mentored Ken Neumann, who is now the head of the Canadian union and is well known to David and others in the NDP movement.
I have a great appreciation for union movements, even though I disagree on many occasions with some of the tactics they use and some of the positions they espouse. I understand the need for unions better than most. I was most proud of my father, who was very well respected in the union movement, for what he told me one day many years ago about what he felt was his greatest accomplishment. He said, when I asked him what he felt would be his legacy.... This was when my dad was in ill health and had retired from the union movement because of his poor health. We were having one of those rare moments when a father and a son can truly bond, when both know that death is imminent.
I asked my father what he felt his legacy would be and what his greatest accomplishment would be, because he loved talking about the union movement, and I wanted to engage him. I wanted to take his mind off the obvious pain and discomfort he was in. In Saskatchewan, the largest negotiating and bargaining unit was at a steel mill called “IPSCO” and now called “Evraz”. He told me—and I was not aware of this until he told me—that he believed his greatest accomplishment was that, in all the years he headed up the United Steelworkers of America union, his union had never gone on strike. I found that odd, but then he went on to say many of the things David said in his intervention.
Strikes aren't things that unions want to do. Strikes are things they believe they have to do as a matter of last resort. If you can negotiate a settlement for your members without the need to go on strike, both the employer and the unions are better served. That is what he was most proud of. He had never had a strike. He had the ability to successfully negotiate contract after contract with his union's employers without a strike ever occurring.
At the time, IPSCO was owned by a private individual, Jack Turvey. David may be aware of the history of Jack Turvey. He was a very colourful individual. He was an entrepreneur who made a million and lost a million, probably two or three times. He built a steel mill in Regina, Saskatchewan, in the heart of the Prairies, where no one thought a steel mill had any right to be built. It became the largest single employer in the province of Saskatchewan and still is to this day. Jack was a tough old character. He was a tough negotiator, but he and my father got along extremely well.
This is a bit of an aside, but I think it's worth relating to this group. I recall that they had a bit of a tradition. Whenever they successfully completed a negotiation, they would retire to Jack Turvey's private railcar, which was a fully restored 1920-something CN or CP railcar that had served as a dining room, bar, and lounge. Jack Turvey spent tens of thousands of dollars, if not hundreds of thousands, on completely restoring it to its original ornate state. It had massive glass chandeliers, ornate china and flatware, a beautiful hand-carved mahogany table, and the finest spirits, wines, and liqueurs that money could buy. He entertained many of his IPSCO clients in that railcar. It was well known within the confines of Regina and throughout the province. In fact, at one point in time, I believe schoolchildren actually got tours of it on a regular basis, just to see what it looked like.
However, it wasn't just for show, because Jack used it for entertainment purposes. At the successful conclusion of negotiations, he would invite members of the negotiating teams from both sides, management and union, back to this railcar. They would complete their successful negotiations with a fine catered dinner and more than a few drinks, to the point where a standard method of operation was that following the conclusion of their drinks, Mr. Turvey would make sure there were at least cabs, if not chauffeured limousines, to take all of the combatants home, as no one, by that time, was in a position to drive.
I point that out because I believe that there can be successful negotiations, not just in the relationship between employers and unions, but here in Parliament. It does not happen often, particularly when there is a majority government. We all recognize that. We all know that majority governments can do pretty much anything they want in terms of changing and passing legislation. That is their right. They were elected to do so.
Of course, there is a role for opposition parties. I hope this government recognizes the role of opposition parties, as most governments before it did, and I hope the Canadian public recognizes the benefits that Parliament and Canadians receive by having strong and principled opposition parties.
I again reiterate that the government does not have the right to change the rules that govern parliamentarians. That is where I take great umbrage when the Prime Minister or others stand in the House of Commons and follow the talking points, which state that the government wants to “modernize” Parliament. The government does not have a right to modernize Parliament. Only Parliament itself can modernize itself. Only Parliament itself can change its own rules.
There have been countless examples of this over the years. We've talked about them here. I've talked about them in the House. I've lived the experience. I've given examples of how, in the previous Parliament, when I chaired an all-party committee, it was charged with the responsibility of examining the Standing Orders and making recommendations on the Standing Orders. We had an all-party agreement that no changes would be made unless we had unanimity. This was a long-standing tradition.
Mr. Simms, in my last intervention, pointed out that the McGrath committee didn't have unanimity as part of its mandate. I agree with that. However, as I pointed out to Mr. Simms, the McGrath committee did employ unanimity as part of its process. As the report itself stated, not one vote was required to change a standing order. In other words, complete consensus was achieved, even though that wasn't in its mandate.
Why? It was because all the parliamentarians understood—as I understand, as Mr. Christopherson understands, and as all members of the opposition understand—that there must be unanimity when dealing with the rules of the House that affect all of us. There cannot be one party determining what the rules will be. There cannot be one party saying, “Well, we'd like to change the rules because we believe it would benefit us.” Not only is that short-sighted, but it is an insult to Parliament itself. I cannot fully understand why members of the government side can't comprehend that very basic tenet.
I appreciate the fact that my colleagues opposite are studiously looking at their BlackBerrys and their iPads, perhaps playing solitaire at this time—