Debates of April 13th, 2017

Access to the House of Commons

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite just referenced when I have been and have not been in this House by suggesting that I have not been following this debate. There is more than one way to follow a debate. One can follow it in the back, via television, and in the office. That is why the bells ring.

I fundamentally ask the Speaker to correct the record. We are not to reference the presence or absence of members in the House. That is a privilege I would hope all parties agree to and all parties respect.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his intervention. He is correct. I must confess that I did not pick up on the commentary of the member for Beloeil—Chambly in that respect. Members are not permitted to make reference to the absence or presence of members in the chamber. There is a long history of practice and convention in that regard.

I would ask the hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly to avoid those kinds of comments.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Are we resuming debate or are we at questions and comments?

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I apologize. We are indeed at questions and comments following the speech from the member for Calgary Nose Hill.

The hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly may continue with his question.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was not actually talking about the member's presence in the House, but rather the fact that he did not properly identify the substance of the debate on the question of privilege and the Speaker's ruling.

As my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill explained so well earlier, cutting short the debate on a question of privilege is unprecedented. It is funny because, in his speech last Tuesday, the member for Winnipeg North and Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons spent 10 minutes selling the merits of the conversation we are supposed to have and the discussion paper the government put forward. So much for relevance.

The comment I would like my colleague to respond to first of all has to do with the very important link between access to Parliament Hill and our ability to do our job. Second, I want to emphasize the link between that and the fact that the government does not want to discuss this privilege. Lastly, I want to emphasize the very important link between this question of privilege and what is happening at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the member in saying that my colleague opposite mischaracterized the debate. The motion we are debating right now is on an unprecedented move in Canadian history. We are going to be celebrating Canada's 150th birthday this year. This is the first time we have had to discuss this. The government tried to shut down debate on a motion of privilege without a vote. That is exactly what happened. I think the member missed that point.

Any Canadian who is watching this today should be affronted and absolutely taken aback that the government tried to shut down debate on something as fundamental to Canadian freedom as a question of a member of Parliament's privilege. My colleague from Sarnia—Lambton called it draconian, and she is absolutely right.

My Liberal colleagues are asking why this is happening and cannot believe that we are having this debate. They just want to go home. No. We have to be here, and we have to debate these kinds of issues, because that is how Canada works. It will be over the dead bodies and over the fight of every single opposition member in this place before we allow the Prime Minister of Canada to use this place as some sort of convenient audience before he goes to Broadway to have a selfie taken.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, 99% of the things I just heard from the member were most inappropriate. She is attempting to come across as a defender of democracy. I am sorry to disappoint the member, but she is wrong on so many counts.

This is an issue of privilege. I have had the opportunity to debate issues of unfettered access to the parliamentary precinct. This has occurred in the past. The member should listen to the debate that has taken place. I have listened to the debate thoroughly. It seems to me that the Conservatives are working with their brothers and sisters in the New Democratic Party. It is great to see the two parties getting along so nicely. It is nice to see them giving hugs and high-fives and feeling good about their relationship.

What is actually taking place in PROC is all about a discussion on reforming and modernizing Parliament. I get that they are having a difficult time with that.

This motion is all about unfettered access. That is the privilege issue. That was the motion being moved. Why would the Conservatives and the NDP not want to see it ultimately come to a vote?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, much to my colleague's chagrin, I am debating the subamendment, which says that this particular issue should take precedence at the PROC committee, which has been sitting for hours pushing back against the government's attempt to unilaterally change the rules of democracy.

My colleague opposite says it is me who is trying to push back on this and that somehow I am at fault for this. No, it is the people of Canada, who are represented by me and every single other person in this place, who are standing up and saying that this is wrong, and we are not going to stand for this.

I could read quote after quote from the member of Parliament. In fact, I am going to start having on my desk the numerous times, when he was in opposition, he stood and railed against time allocation as somehow an affront to democracy. Now he stands when he has to defend a Prime Minister who is changing the rules of Parliament. That is the epitome of hypocrisy. That is disgusting. He has a daughter in the legislature in Manitoba. For him to stand and defend this vile tripe is probably one of the worst things I have seen in my history as a parliamentarian.

We will stand here and continue to push back against this utter garbage, and Canadians will take note, and the Liberals will pay in the next election.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak about this important privilege motion and to share some of my thoughts with the government, other members, and those watching at home.

Because there are many issues that are alive in this conversation, it is important to set the stage a little in what we are discussing and why it is so critically important.

We are in the midst of this pitched battle between the government and the opposition in this place. It is not a partisan fight. It is a battle between government and a united opposition, united on the issues with respect to procedure. That includes not just the Conservatives and the New Democrats, but also the Bloc and the Green Party.

The four opposition parties do not always agree, but when we are talking about the fundamental rights of the opposition and the integrity of our parliamentary institutions, then there are times when we do come together to challenge the abuses being proposed by the government, especially by the Prime Minister and government House leader.

The context of this discussion is a particular privilege motion. Here is what happened.

We had an important vote taking place in the House of Commons on budget day. A number of members were trying to get here for the budget vote. They were prevented from doing so because of some issues with security. They were told that it had to do with the Prime Minister's motorcade, and thus they were unable to vote.

It is a very important principle of this institution that members of Parliament ought to have unfettered access to the parliamentary precincts. It is so fundamental to our job that we be able to be here to vote, but in general that we be able to access Parliament in order to do our job. When things happen to prevent members from accessing parliamentary precincts, therefore preventing them from doing their job, that is by definition an issue of privilege.

This issue was raised and it was recognized by the Speaker to be a prima facie case of privilege. That then opens a debate on the question of privilege, which is supposed to then lead to a vote and then a referral to the procedure and House affairs committee. However, another piece of context is that the procedure and House affairs committee is in the midst of a discussion about the government's desire to unilaterally impose Standing Order changes on the House of Commons.

The government House leader put forward a discussion paper which contained a variety of different ideas, most of which marshalled in the direction of strengthening the relative power of the government in the House, not just the power of the government over the opposition but also the power of the government relative to individual members of Parliament, be they on the government backbenches or on the opposition side.

This was proposed as an issue to study at PROC. Quite wisely, the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston put forward a motion to have a requirement in the context of that study that there be unanimity on changes that went forward, the principle being that if we were to change the underlying substructure of democracy, the rules that shape how decisions were made, then it was important that all parties agree on them.

We do not want to set a precedent where the government gets to make unilateral changes to the way our democracy works to their advantage. I think government members can understand that this would be a problem, because they are not going to be in government forever. One day, hopefully after the next election, they will be in the opposition, and we, or perhaps somebody else, will be in government.

It is not in their interest or in the interest of this institution to establish a precedent by which a government, any government, could make unilateral changes to the way our system works that would work to its own advantage.

This was the context in terms of the study that was happening at PROC, and the ongoing discussion about the Conservative amendment. It was an amendment that was supported by all opposition parties. As the rules allow for us to do, we are doing the important work of talking that amendment out to ensure the government is not in a position to rush forward with unilateral changes.

While we raise these concerns about the government making unilateral changes, we see continuing actions of the government which contribute to, unfortunately, bad faith. We had this discussion going on about the question of privilege in the House. Then the government realized it did not want the question of privilege going to PROC directly in a way that was envisioned by the amendment put forward, because if it were to do so, this would supersede the discussion on the Standing Orders.

The government is eager to make unilateral changes to the Standing Orders without allowing a meaningful voice for the opposition. It does not want this question of privilege to go to the committee in a way that supersedes the existing piece of committee business being discussed.

The Liberals came up with what they thought was an ingenious strategy to circumvent the way privilege motions were supposed to work. They did something that the Speaker acknowledged in a subsequent ruling was without precedent. They tried to adjourn or end the debate on the question of privilege without a vote on it. They wanted to simply remove the discussion of this important question of members having access to the House of Commons without even voting on it.

At the same time, the Liberals had a member at the procedure and House affairs committee move a motion to say we would do a study of this question of privilege from the House, but we would do it at some point in the future. This was their way of taking the heat off them in the House and then also, in the context of that committee, continue to try to force through the changes they wanted to the Standing Orders.

There are a few important points to recognize about this. One is that this is a failed strategy. It assumes that at some point the opposition will give up with respect to the resistance we are providing at the committee. I can say quite confidently that no member on this side of the House has any interest in giving up that important fight for the integrity of our institution. We have had a number of members speak so far at the committee, but many members have many things to say, have not yet spoken and are eager to speak.

Ironically, this is in the midst of a discussion that has gone on for so long one would expect us to run out of speakers. However, the Conservatives, the New Democrats, and other members in the opposition are eager to continue to bring forward these arguments. Last night and this morning I spoke for about six hours and I have many more things to say. I look forward to bringing those forward at committee. I know other members are in the same situation. We are not backing down on this point of the integrity of our democratic institutions and the way in which Standing Order changes are made.

Nonetheless, the government members thought they were clever by doing something totally without precedent, which was to adjourn a debate on a privilege motion without a vote. This further has contributed to the bad faith that exists here, the concern we have that the government simply cannot be trusted when it comes to preserving our institutions.

What happened after that is what brought us into this subsequent discussion of a question of privilege raised by another member, pointing out what had happened, saying that it was inappropriate and a violation of privilege for the government to end the debate on the previous question of privilege in the manner it did without a vote. The Speaker, quite wisely, ruled that it was not appropriate for the debate to simply end at that point and the possibility of a motion discussing this brought forward at committee did not replace the very important discussion that was happening, that needed to happen in the House of Commons followed by a vote in the House of Commons, which then would go to the procedure and House affairs committee.

Now we are back to this point of discussing this important privilege issue. Yes, it speaks to the issue of members having unfettered access to the House. In principle and in theory, everyone says yes, members of Parliament should have unfettered access to the parliamentary precinct, that they should be able to vote. However, what is happening is that we have a government that is more interested in pushing aside these vital points of discussion because it wants to take advantage of the opportunity it thinks it has to make unilateral changes to the Standing Orders, which would work to the advantage of the government.

We are very saying very clearly, through this motion and also through the amendment we put forward, that this privilege motion is vital. It needs to be addressed here in the House. After that, it needs to go to the procedure and House affairs committee to be studied, and it needs to take priority. This is an urgent question. We are voting quite often in this place because of the current circumstances with, unfortunately, the failure of the government House leader to work constructively with the opposition around the Standing Orders. We are in a situation of having frequent and relatively unpredictable votes.

It is very important in the present time that we ensure members have the access they need to the House of Commons. We take that position very seriously.

There can be a discussion on changes to the Standing Orders. In the context of my remarks thus far at the procedure and House affairs committee, where I have talked for a total of about 16 hours, I have barely scratched the surface of the kinds of prospective changes I think could be made to the Standing Orders. I have actually put out a lot of different ideas for the kinds of changes we might see. The discussion of those changes has to happen in the context of an acceptance of the principle of consensus, that we would work together among parties to identify things that would actually improve the functioning of our institutions. We could bring those forward, they would then get support, and we could get them done.

First, we need to deal with the privilege question. Then we need to have an amendment pass, the amendment we proposed, which has the agreement of all the opposition, to ensure the government does not make unilateral changes that undermine the health of our institutions and put all of the power in the hands of the small group on the front bench of the government.

These are the things we need to do. We need to address this privilege question. We need to support it and move it to committee. At the same time, we need to move to a framework in which political parties are co-operating. We are all better off when parties can work together, but that can only happen if we have serious responses from the government with regard to our concerns about unilateral action. We do not see the kinds of efforts the government has put forward to change our institutions. We also have heard the very disingenuous arguments the Liberals have brought forward for them.

It is hard to make sense of the arguments coming from the government on Standing Orders issues. The Liberals reference a mandate from Canadians and they reference the platform they ran on in the last election. Of course, the platform has not been an impediment for them to do things that they had previously said they would not do. It is interesting how selectively they apply it.

Nonetheless, two things in the platform dealt with things that may in some sense have had a relationship to the Standing Orders. One was this idea of having a prime minister's question period where the prime minister would answer all the questions. The other dealt with omnibus bills.

As we have seen, it is not outside the scope of the Standing Orders as they presently exist for the Prime Minister to at least stand after every opposition question is posed. I did not say to answer or respond to, but certainly to stand. There is nothing to prevent that. In fact, there is nothing in the Standing Orders to prescribe which member of the cabinet responds to which question.

Today, we had questions about the legalization of marijuana that were answered by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. I am not aware of what the impact of marijuana use has on climate change. Maybe there is something I do not know about the carbon footprint there. There is nothing in the Standing Orders to say that the minister responsible for a particular file has to answer the question. A member of the government is seen as speaking for the government in response to the question. Therefore, it would actually be quite unusual for the Standing Orders to prescribe that a particular member of the government respond to questions.

If we put in the Standing Orders that the Prime Minister has to answer questions every Wednesday, it actually creates some problems. We on this side of the House would accept that there would be certain times when the Prime Minister, because of international travel meetings, could not be in the House for, let us say, a week at a time. Perhaps there would be a situation where he could not get back here for legitimate reasons. Let us say he is stuck on an island somewhere and there is no commercial travel available. How would he get back? These are the kinds of situations that may arise if the Standing Orders narrowly prescribe exactly who must answer what questions when. If the Prime Minister wants to answer all of the questions posed every Wednesday, he is welcome to do. Although we have not seen that yet, he can stand after every question on Wednesday if he wants. That does not require Standing Orders changes.

Regarding omnibus legislation, again it is entirely within the purview of the government to decide what kind of legislation it brings forward. The Liberals brought forward a budget implementation act that is over 300 pages and would make amendments to over 20 statutes.

The discussion paper no longer says what the Liberals previously said. It no longer says that the Liberals would cease to bring in omnibus bills. It only says that they would end the inappropriate use of omnibus legislation. It is hard to understand what principal difference there is between their version of the appropriate use and what they described as inappropriate use at previous times.

I said in committee earlier today that omnibus legislation should be used conservatively, in both senses of the term. The government is using omnibus legislation liberally, in both senses of the term. It has not in any way offered a clear way of distinguishing between the two.

In any event, if we are going to talk about prospective standing order changes that have some relationship to the commitments that the Liberals made in and before the election, those are the two we could talk about, that being prime minister's questions, which in some sense the government has started to implement and clearly without requiring changes to the Standing Orders, and—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order. Is the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader rising on a point of order?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I truly do appreciate the level of interest in the Standing Orders and the discussion paper. I really would love to see PROC have that discussion. I have been somewhat lenient in rising on a point of order, but I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that you encourage members to be more relevant when it comes to the motion that is being debated currently.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his intervention on the issue of relevance.

Members know of course that there is a great degree of liberty on the part of members to pose their arguments in a way that supports a particular premise that they may introduce, usually at the front end of their speech, and we follow this as best we can. We always encourage members to make sure that the points that they include in their remarks are pertinent to the question that is before the House. They do have the option of making points of comparison and then exploring arguments around those comparisons in the course of their speech. I recognize that has tended to be the pattern that we have been seeing in this particular debate.

I would encourage hon. members to make sure that they do, in making these comparisons to a particular premise that they might introduce in their remarks, continue to keep them relevant.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will just say with a great deal of goodwill for my friend from Winnipeg North that his challenging someone on relevance is like the government challenging someone else on omnibus bills.

I do want to clarify that the important point we are establishing here is that there is a pattern of behaviour from the government and that a tenor exists within this chamber. I would like to see us resolve that.

What people are seeing from members on this side of the House are members who want to see us move forward, to move back to the place we were at one time, which is co-operating across the aisle in terms or organizing debate and scheduling things in the House or committee. Members know that this co-operation existed.

We are now at this point that the government sought to adjourn the debate on a question of privilege without a vote, and we have arrived at this point in the debate of efforts to make unilateral changes to the Standing Orders. It is striking because what we heard from some members in the context of the discussion at PROC was that they would like to get to unanimity, that they would like to reach an agreement with respect to changes that are going to happen to the Standing Orders.

Then the government House leader said on television that the Liberals will not allow the Conservatives to have a veto on changes that the government wants to make to the Standing Orders. Unfortunately, if the government House leader is intent on drawing a line in the sand in favour of unilateral changes, then we are obliged—and it is not just a political choice, but we are obliged—to stand up for this institution, for the integrity of the process by which we make decisions and the substructure of democracy, and to do so not just as Conservatives but as members of a united opposition who are committed to these issues and as proud Canadians who care about the strength and integrity of our institutions.

We are going to continue to raise these issues in terms of this privilege motion, in terms of the discussions at PROC, in terms of the problems with the way the government is approaching it. Right now, there is just no off-ramp unless the government agrees to come back to the table to work with us— yes, to have a conversation about prospective changes to the Standing Orders, but also a conversation that ensures that all voices are heard.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, again I come back to what is at the heart of this conversation, which is the question of whether the point of privilege about a member of this House having the right to vote was dealt with. That is fair enough. The House has made a ruling, and we respect the ruling that the Chair made.

However, the fundamental issue is not really even about the rule changes that have been proposed as a point of conversation. I remind Canadians and people watching that there has been no bill or motion introduced around any particular change to the House procedures; what there has been is a request by the government to have a conversation about how to modernize this place so that, for example, people do not get stuck on a bus and miss a vote, which I think is an archaic way to manage the affairs of a modern Parliament.

What we are trying to figure out and look at is actually a series of contradictory ideas: Should we sit on Fridays? Should we have longer constituency periods and longer sessions of sitting? Should we sit longer in the day, or should we sit shorter in the day, but sit for more days? It is a series of contradictory ideas that are being presented to try to modernize this place.

What I find fascinating is that what is really being stopped here is not a change to the House's procedural rules. What is being filibustered, effectively, by this motion and others, is the idea that the majority of the House of Parliament gets to choose an executive, and the executive gets to set the agenda.

There is no prescribed outcome to this conversation. There is no dictated, formal set of decisions as part of this conversation. If fact, if we read the document that is being filibustered, there are contradictory ideas that we want Parliament to resolve.

I think the two sides are united in their opposition because they share something else: they share ideology as the basis of political operation. This party uses ideas; the other party uses ideology, which means they have the answer before the question is even asked, which is why they resent this government proposing agendas for conversation.

Is it not important for the government of the day to set the agenda, and is that not the right that is being challenged by this filibuster?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe I did hear some applause from the gallery, so maybe I'll just make a reminder about that, in terms of the security protocols we have.

It is striking to me, listening to that member's incoherent efforts to distinguish between idea and ideology, that it is beyond ridiculous. It is not even worthy of refutation.

The member, though, cannot get through a series of questions without directly misstating the relationship between the executive and Parliament. He says that it is up to the executive to set the agenda here. We have government orders, which are a period of time in which the government has the ability to bring forward legislation, but the agenda of this place is set according to rules that are agreed on by members of Parliament. It is not up to the government to decide unilaterally when this House sits, when it does not sit, or what kinds of things are discussed and when.

The government is able to bring forward matters for discussion during periods that are prescribed within those Standing Orders. That a parliamentary secretary, an ostensibly senior member of a government, would get up to say that this is designed so the executive can set the agenda shows how fundamentally flawed the understanding of this executive is, how fundamentally flawed its approach is to the way this institution is supposed to work.

He spoke about rule changes being, allegedly, a point of conversation. Maybe I will have a chance to get to that in the next question.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is always so eloquent and informed when he speaks.

I am struck by the hypocrisy that I continually hear in this debate. The government is bringing a message that we are having a conversation. This is so misleading to Canadians. There is a motion that it is using its majority to drive through to change procedures. That is unprecedented in 150 years of Parliament. The government says it is open and transparent, but then there are these sneaky things going on in the background.

I wonder if the member would comment, because he has seen them first-hand.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is a good point. I do not have a problem with the government bringing forward a discussion paper. I do not have a problem with that being discussed at committee, but we have insisted that there be a framework for that discussion that ensures that opposition voices are heard, because that is what a discussion is. It is where both sides talk, hear each other, and come to some kind of a conclusion.

The government House leader talks a lot about the need to have a conversation. I am all for that conversation, but it has to be in the context of a framework where both sides are talking and both sides are listening. It is not even actually both sides, it is all sides, all different parties, as well as perhaps the different perspectives that may, and indeed do, exist within parties.

The talk on the government side has these sneaky words, not really that cleverly disguised words, that are designed to paper over its effort to impose things unilaterally. Liberals talk about modernization and yet modernization can mean all kinds of different things. At one time, the modernization of Parliament meant increasing the efficiency of the legislative process so that the executive could pass more bills. At another time, modernization, or reform, was used to mean enhancing the role of the private member relative to the executive.

We can see in our own parliamentary history in the last 60 years how modernization and reform have been used to describe opposite impulses. That is why we need to have a real conversation that includes every voice.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity in the past to work with Conservative governments and New Democratic governments when there have been substantial rule changes. I have also had the opportunity to work in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs when there were some changes to the rules.

The way the changes to the rules would be made is committee members would say they would adopt the low-hanging fruit that everyone could agree on, and nothing really changed. They could not make reference to Speaker's rulings or electronic petitions. Now we have a government that says it wants to modernize Parliament. That means there will have to be some substantial talks. When I reflect on my years in the Manitoba legislature, never did I ever approach the government and say that if I could not get unanimous consent, there could not be any rule changes in the House, because that would be undemocratic.

Would the member not recognize there is a need, at least from the government's perspective, to modernize Parliament? That cannot be done in the identical fashion of everyone agreeing on the low-hanging fruit, such as adding a comma or a period here and there. There needs to be good faith negotiations from the opposition, too. The opposition also has to have a role. It is not fair to demand a veto on it. Would the member not agree?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of this characterization of a veto, when my wife and I discuss where we are going to go on vacation, if I told her, “You are not going to have a veto on where we go on vacation”, that would be a pretty inappropriate thing to say. If there is a decision that should be made together, then effectively, it is done by consensus. It would be silly to—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

You love her. You love each other.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Well, we can have a kind of love across the aisle, as well, Mr. Speaker.

My friend talks about modernization and asks if we need to have modernization of this House. Before we get to answering that question, I have to know what he means by modernization. As I have said before, modernization can mean completely different things. It can mean opposite things, depending on who brings that forward. If the members across the way want to talk about it, that is great. Let us pass the amendment and get on with the discussion that ensures they are listening.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when my colleague was speaking, he inadvertently pointed out a contradiction in mentioning the Minister of Environment and Climate Change answering a question on the marijuana bill being tabled today. It is a contradiction to the Liberal green ideology, where people would be puffing up and putting carbon dioxide into the air. It speaks to the whole basis of the junk science upon which they implement these types of taxes that taxpayers are subject to.

When we see these kinds of contradictions that do not make sense, how would the changes to the rules impact our ability to govern and provide Canadians with fairness?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will only add that it is clear that the government's credibility on this file has completely gone up in smoke. It should work with the opposition.

We can achieve consensus. I believe we can make substantial changes to the Standing Orders. I know the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has told The Hill Times that he wants to see substantive changes, not just little changes around the edges. I think we can make those changes with consensus. Actually, it is much harder to make those changes unless we have consensus, and it would not be appropriate to make substantive changes without that consensus.

I am optimistic. I think we can get there. Let us get it done. Let us pass the amendment, and then this Parliament can achieve some great things.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying that the debate has evolved since the last time I spoke about the question of privilege that is before us. However, one element has persisted, and that is the fact that the government does not seem to understand one thing about this question of privilege concerning access to Parliament Hill and more specifically access of the members for Milton and Beauceto the House of Commons.

If we are stuck in this debate and the Liberals are frustrated that we are still talking about this, it is their own fault. They decided to take unprecedented action, namely, to end debate without a vote and to simply move to orders of the day when the House of Commons had before it a question of privilege, which is the most fundamental issue, according to the existing rules, at least before a change is imposed by the government.

Shutting down debate on a question of privilege and moving on to the orders of the day set by the executive, as the government seems to want to do in every aspect of our work, is unprecedented. The government does not seem to understand that the reason we are still seized with this question goes beyond simple access to Parliament Hill. Access to the Hill is a very important issue that we are addressing today, but the problem is that the government unilaterally decided, as has been their style for several months now, to put an end to this debate, which sends the message that the members' privilege is not important enough and that we have to move on to one bill or another that they want to debate. That is a problem.

We are debating privilege and I will repeat what I said in my speech earlier this week. Privilege is a word that can have a negative connotation. For example, we might associate privilege with the Prime Minister's vacation on a billionaire's privately owned island. However, when we are talking about our privilege as members, we truly mean our ability to represent our constituents here in the House. That is why this is a critical issue.

On the question of privilege, there is a link that needs to be made. Whether it is access to Parliament Hill and to this building here in Centre Block or whether it is the debate on privilege, which, as our Standing Orders say, is supposed to be the issue that seizes the House when it is brought forward and when the Speaker rules that there is a prima facie breach of that privilege, that then becomes another question of privilege when the government ends that debate, despite the Speaker's ruling.

The Speaker qualified that as unprecedented. To me it is inherently linked with the behaviour of the government for over a year now. It started with Motion No. 6, when the previous government House leader decided that he was too good for members of Parliament's privilege, he and the Prime Minister. Let us face it: we know where this agenda is coming from, and with all due respect to the government House leader, it certainly is unlikely to be coming from her.

The Prime Minister and the then-government House leader decided that they were going to change the rules of the House in order to limit opposition MPs' ability to do their jobs, which is to speak on behalf of the people who elect us.

What happened then was that this whole place became chaos. The government, realizing that it and only it had driven this whole place off the rails and had delayed its own legislative agenda because of its own belligerence and its complete contradiction of its own electoral commitment to make this place work better, decided, wisely, to withdraw. Then the temperature cooled and things went a little better.

Unfortunately, the consideration given to Motion. No. 6 over the summer did not produce any results. When we returned in the fall, the government began to abuse time allocation once again. The Liberals are quickly catching up to the previous government's record number of time allocation motions, despite the clear promises that they made during the election campaign.

The government presented this discussion, this conversation, or this plan for modernization to cause confusion about its real intentions, which are to find a way to make Parliament work better for the executive branch, or cabinet, not for members in general.

The substantive issues that the government wants to discuss are very important, but we are not prepared to talk about them as long as we do not have the simple guarantee from the government that it will not proceed unilaterally, since doing so would go against a tradition that has existed in the House of Commons for over 100 years and that has always been respected by both Liberal and Conservative prime ministers.

That is the essential issue, and I do not know why the government cannot understand that. The Liberals keep asking the House why we do not want to discuss this. The reason is that it is not a discussion. It is a dialogue of the deaf, as I said in my last speech on this subject.

This government is looking in the mirror and congratulating itself for its great ideas, but it is not prepared to reach out to us and establish a concrete, formal process that will give Canadians, through their MPs, including opposition members and Liberal backbenchers, the assurance that the government will not proceed unilaterally. It is such an easy commitment to make, except, it seems, for the government House leader and, of course, the Prime Minister.

I want to come back to access to the parliamentary precinct and the question of the Liberals' true intention and ability to respect their own commitment to make this place work better. I want to look at why this problem persists. In some ways, it is getting worse when it comes to access on the Hill.

I want to preface my comments by saying once again, and on this point we can all certainly agree, anything we say criticizing the structure of how things work in this place is always in recognition of the fact that the work both the PPS, the parliamentary protective services, and the RCMP do is second to none. Certainly, it is something I have no ability to be up to the task on. Therefore, we thank them for that. We always recognize that it is a very difficult job.

However, following the events of October 22, 2014, many may have forgotten that a fundamental change was brought to how security operated on Parliament Hill. I want to remind folks of the debate. It was something the New Democrats opposed, but the Liberals and Conservatives supported giving more power to the RCMP for security. On the surface, that is something seemingly benign. However, the key is how parliamentary privilege operates in this place. When we look at the expertise of different security agencies and groups that operate security on Parliament Hill, it is a complicated thing.

The priorities of RCMP officers and their training is not the same as that of the parliamentary protective services people, who fundamentally understand what parliamentary privilege is. It is part of their training to understand the importance of allowing me, or any of my colleagues as members of Parliament, and consequently the people they represent, to get here unimpeded. It is certainly symbolic through the interventions we make representing them. The priority of the RCMP, as we saw with the events on budget day which prevented the members from Milton and Beauce in particular from getting to the Hill on time for a vote, is to protect the Prime Minister and other aspects of protection. That is fine. That is its mandate.

However, it causes confusion. We have to really wonder if the Liberals truly understand the need to really look at these fundamental questions. In the last Parliament, as on many issues that were brought forward by the previous government, they did not ask those tough questions. They just rolled over and said that they would let that change happen because of whatever reason. Unlike the New Democrats, they were not asking the questions on how this would change how this place worked.

That is important, because once again, it seems that the Liberals are doing the same thing, but on the other side now. They expect us to roll over and fundamentally change how this place works and not have a process in place that allows us to ask those questions so the work opposition MPs and Liberal backbenchers need to do can be done properly.

If we take a closer look at the overall debate on this question of privilege, the debate we are having today and have been having all week, it is interesting to note that parliamentary secretaries are pretty much the only members speaking to this issue. They represent the executive. We do not hear backbenchers say what they really think. We did hear from one backbencher, but he is very experienced and very respected by all parties in the House. The person I am talking about is the member for Malpeque, and I would like to share what he said about the opposition:

However, this place is called the House of Commons for a reason. It is not the House of cabinet or the House of PMO. Protecting the rights of members in this place, whether it is the opposition members in terms of the stance they are taking, is also protecting the rights of the other members here who are not members of cabinet or the government. We talk about government as if this whole side is the government. The government is the executive branch. We do need to protect these rights.

I could not have said it better, whether it is a question of access to Parliament Hill or a member moving to cut this same debate short, a debate on a question which the Speaker of the House, who also protects the rights of all members, has deemed critical, or when this debate is cut short or a motion is tabled in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in lieu of discussion, even though a unilateral attempt is being made to acquire more power over the same executive.

We are in full agreement when we hear such quotes. It is not in fact for the government or the executive to dictate the agenda of the House of Commons. As the Conservative colleague who preceded me said so well, it is Parliament that has to table its legislative agenda in the periods prescribed in the House. There are certain ways of doing this. There are prescribed periods and routine practices that exist. The whole way that the House works is structured, be it the duration of questions and answers during oral question period or the right to table opposition motions. These procedures have always been established with the support, consensus and consent of all the parties, all the members. This is how we preserve the sanctity and the essential functions of the House in our democracy.

For the first time in a great many years, in over 100 years, we have a government that was elected almost solely on its claim to do a better job of respecting democracy than the previous government, and yet, its actions with regard to the operation of Parliament are worse than those of all the governments that came before—not just its immediate predecessor, but every government, ever.

I do not want to exaggerate. I am not the one who is claiming this: the Speaker himself stated that the act of shutting down debate on a question of privilege is unprecedented. Jean Chrétien, Stephen Harper, Paul Martin, all the prime ministers have always sought the consensus of the opposition parties before making fundamental changes to the way that the House of Commons operates. A few minutes of research is all it takes to know that this is not the opposition's claim, but rather a historical fact.

That is why I cannot understand why the government is not simply willing to stand up and say that it will formally commit to not proceeding without consensus.

It is even more baffling when we consider that a fundamental piece of the Liberals' last election campaign, the platform they supposedly are seeking ways to unilaterally adopt, and the reason they are even doing this move in the first place, was electoral reform. However, there was no consensus on that. I suppose consensus is just about as good as everything else in the Liberals' platform; it is only when it suits them. That is unfortunate.

That is a fundamental problem with the way of operating, because if the Liberals really want to make Parliament work, it is not about cherry-picking from their election platform and deciding that consensus is only good when it is good for the Liberal Party of Canada and the front bench of the Liberal government.

[David Christopherson]

That's right. People get it.