Thank you very much, John; and thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for recognizing me. It's good to be back at the procedures committee. As most of you know—at least I've mentioned it on a few occasions when I've substituted at this committee—I spent nine years while we were in government as a member of this procedure and House affairs committee. I was the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, and in fact, I was the only parliamentary secretary that our government had. I think I had five different House leaders; I was the parliamentary secretary to each one. I appreciated the fact that I learned a lot on the job. Obviously I learned a lot about procedures and House management. That was just something that I had to learn because of the nature of my job.
I want to talk a bit about my time on the procedure and House affairs committee and about my role as parliamentary secretary only in order to give some context to my remarks. I'm certainly not going to be saying anything that cannot be substantiated. I'm certainly not going to be saying anything that is either outright incorrect or even considered disingenuous, but I am going to be making some remarks clearly that will be critical of the government because I believe that the subject material that we're discussing right now is extremely important.
Anytime a committee or a group of individuals starts to discuss changing the Standing Orders, it is something that has to be taken with a great deal of serious and sober thought and discussed with a great deal of respect for the Standing Orders. As a matter of fact, I know that one of the most learned procedural minds I have ever met, whom my colleague John referenced early in his presentation, Mr. John Holtby, quite frankly is not in favour of anyone tinkering with the Standing Orders. I recall that, in the last Parliament, I was the chair of an all-party committee tasked with the responsibility of suggesting some potential changes to the Standing Orders, and Mr. Holtby and I had a disagreement on many occasions because I felt that there needed to be some changes. I felt that we could clean up the Standing Orders and make it perhaps more efficient, both from a procedural standpoint and from a cost standpoint to the taxpayers. However, John again was able to point out on several occasions why we shouldn't really make any massive changes, and at best, we should look at tweaking and perhaps allowing some of the more arcane and obscure standing orders to meet their fate by removal from the Standing Orders.
I would also point out that one of the other very learned minds on procedure, who is no longer with us, worked for the Liberal Party for many years; that was Mr. Jerry Yanover. I think if Jerry were here today, frankly, he would be having quite a bit to say about what we are discussing and whether it is the democratic way to move forward, with a government having the final and almost unilateral right to change the Standing Orders.
I should point out to those people who perhaps are watching—those people maybe who have to get themselves a life and have nothing better to do than watch CPAC and proceedings—that the government has an option. The government doesn't have to change or make recommendation to change the Standing Orders through the procedure and House affairs committee—not at all. Although that has been an accepted convention for the majority of the last 40 or 50 years, there have been times when governments of the day with majorities have been able to change the Standing Orders unilaterally. The current government obviously has a majority and quite as obviously could change any standing orders that it wished right now without any agreement from any other political party. All that would need to be done is for a member of the government's party to make a motion in the House to change various standing orders and then it would come to a vote. If the vote is in favour, those standing orders are changed and changed immediately. Knowing that, why then would the government take the route it has taken?
We have a filibuster going on, and, frankly, I believe it will go on for as long as the government wants to maintain their position of forcing standing orders upon the opposition.
In my view, the reason the government wants to go this route is that they believe that if they made these changes unilaterally in the House, they would be viewed as being somewhat dictatorial. In other words, they want the political cover of a standing committee making recommendations back to the House so that they will be able to say, “A standing committee made these recommendations, and we're merely adopting the considered opinion of the standing committee.”
The reality, of course, is that since the government has the majority of the membership on this committee, they can make whatever changes they want over and above the opposition's complaints, with the same effect as unilaterally changing the Standing Orders by simply moving a motion in the House. They're looking for political cover, and that is something we simply cannot abide.
I want to point out as well that when I was on the procedure and House affairs for those nine years, generally speaking, I had a pretty good relationship.
Mr. Chair, is there any significance to the bells?