Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 21st, 2017

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

The next person on the list is Mr. Richards. He's not here, so we'll go to Mr. Graham.

Mr. David Graham, you're up.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Oh, I'm up...?

Tom, you're back.

I don't have a whole lot to say at the moment. I just want to remind everybody of why we're here, which is to have a conversation. If you look at the motion that has given us this conversation, we have covered an enormous number of points as it is, clocking in at 544 hours, 42 minutes, and 38 seconds. We've been here some time. It doesn't even—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Who made that happen?

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

What's that?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Who made that happen?

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to intervene.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

On division—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

No—

[An hon. member]

You did, because you keep talking—

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I agree with that. You did it—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

[Inaudible—Editor] twice a week. You wanted to do it 24-7.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

The motion is to have a conversation to expand on an existing study. The letter from the minister provides input to that study. I think that's an important point, because the motion doesn't refer to the letter.

Nowhere does the motion change any Standing Orders: it's to discuss options. As I've said many times before, if we're going to have a filibuster, the appropriate time to do it.... I have no problem with filibusters, and no proposal would prevent them. It may change their structure somewhat, but it would never stop them from happening. The appropriate time to do it is at report stage. Really, David—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Then you'll vote against the legislation if it eliminates filibusters. Is that what you're saying?

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

The proposal in the discussion paper doesn't propose—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

No, no. You've just said that you support filibusters. Are you saying that if there's a piece of legislation that opposes eliminating them that you won't vote for it?

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I'm not here to abolish filibusters. That's not my position. That's not what I'm here for.

The ideas that I've heard have been to allow somebody to speak again, and that if somebody else wants to speak, they're guaranteed a chance to get the floor. I think that's an important point. It's important to have opportunities for everybody to have a chance at the floor.

I say again that I want a conversation, not a filibuster, a one-sided conversation that is not getting us forward, although everybody is putting really interesting ideas on the table, so maybe we don't need the study. We can go straight from the filibuster to a report. That would be great.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

We want witnesses.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

That's correct. I do want witnesses. I think witnesses are very important. I want to see what the best practices are: are we out to lunch or is there actually really good merit in the stuff that's being discussed? I want to go through all the ideas from the debate on Standing Order 51. There are over some 100 ideas in there. A lot of them are very interesting—some of them more entertaining—but I want to have that conversation.

Tom, I defer to you. I wanted to make sure that I put that back on the record one more time. I hope you had a good phone call. You're on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Lukiwski.

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

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.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Hear, hear!

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

The government has no role and no right to arbitrarily and unilaterally take any steps to change the Standing Orders for what they call “efficiency” and “modernization”. That is singularly the role of Parliament. It has been that way for decades. It has been that way for generations. I'll speak to that and give a bit of a historical perspective a little later on this evening to illustrate and to underscore my point.

Let me now change gears just a bit and tell you what I would really like to discuss this afternoon and this evening. It is to try to sincerely find a way, or at least offer some potential solutions, to get us beyond this impasse, because this is not going to end. The opposition is not going to give up and let the debate collapse. We simply will not allow that to happen.

Mr. Christopherson, who knows me well, and better than probably anyone here except for maybe Mr. Simms, knows that during the time we sat together on the procedure and House affairs committee in the last Parliament.... I, of course, was the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader and was taking the lead on almost every discussion on motions or government bills. He knows one or two things about me. The primary thing he knows is that when I give my word, my word is my bond.

On many occasions, Mr. Christopherson and I would disagree—and rightfully so, being on opposite sides of the table—sometimes vehemently. He also knows that on occasion—not frequently, but on occasion—when either Mr. Christopherson or his colleague Craig Scott, who I miss dearly, frankly.... I want to take a moment to say that sometimes I hope we can all recognize the value of parliamentarians who are not members of our own political party.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Hear, hear!

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

I recall on several occasions Mr. Scott making an eloquent, comprehensive, intelligent, and compelling argument that I agreed with and, not frequently, but on occasion, I changed the position I held. On occasion, the government agreed and changed our position because of the arguments presented by the members opposite. Mr. Christopherson realizes that.

When Craig Scott lost in the last election, I sent him a quick email telling him how sorry I was that he had lost. I said—and I believe I'm quoting accurately, “Parliament has been diminished by your absence.”