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.