Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 30th, 2019

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Yes, but the easiest way to make sure that people are delivering their own words is if they're not reading a speech. I would go to Scott's point about the timing. For instance, in the British Parliament, the Speaker is more flexible about the time, but we have these hard and fast rules around timing. It's 30 seconds to ask your question in question period. That's not what happens in the Parliament of the U.K. So a bit more flexibility on the part of the Speaker would allow for someone to actually speak extemporaneously.

The only time I ever read anything in the House was when I did a very detailed point of order, with loads of quotes, in the 41st Parliament to try to stop Bill C-38, that it wasn't truly an omnibus bill. The only time I read something is when I have a detailed legalistic point. I have a little clock in front of me. When I start speaking for my 30 seconds and then it gets to 20 seconds, I know I have to wrap. When I start speaking for 10 minutes and it gets to nine minutes, I know I have to wrap. So I don't ever read; I'm lucky that way.

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

Nine minutes down and not nine minutes left, correct?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Nine minutes gone and one minute left.

Your question is a good one, David, about there being a way to verify that you wrote the speech yourself and didn't just get it handed to you. I mean, when I hear members reading speeches and mispronouncing words, I know they're not familiar with the concept and that's why it's coming out all funny like that.

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

You're right.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Could I add a little bit there, David?

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

Yes.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

This touches on two points here. We talked about how this thing should be done when we get a new Parliament. I would not have been in a position, newly elected, to espouse these things. I had to read the rules, but I also had to experience the rules. People say it should be redone in a new Parliament. I actually think it should be done now. I would again make the argument that because we're seasoned now, we can make that change.

When it comes to reading, I did it once. I'm a team player, and I was new and didn't understand. Someone asked me, “Will you do this?” I said, “Yes, I'm part of the team.” I read it—once, and once only. When I realized what I had done, I said I would never do it again, because it's not right. I am speaking as a member of Parliament, and if I'm going on record, I should at least be putting my words down and I should at least know what I'm talking about. I had to experience that to realize that it's not right.

Michael Chong once related to me a very funny anecdote about how one time in their party, by error, the exact same speech was read twice—verbatim.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Well, I put it in my point of order to the Speaker at the time—this was with regard to why Bill C-38 wasn't in proper form—that I'm there all the time, and I heard whole paragraphs read verbatim the same. This is embarrassing for MPs, but these weren't just any old MPs; these were ministers. It wasn't deliberate plagiarism, but someone in the back room was just trying to spit out the speeches. I was hearing the same text over and over and over again from people who obviously had not written it themselves and didn't really know what they were talking about but were prepared to read a speech.

I think Parliament is about talking.

We are here to say what we mean in our own words.

You're not supposed to read somebody else's work.

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

Right.

I'm running out of time already—

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Sorry, David.

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

That's okay. It's always fascinating. I wish we had many more hours.

I would propose that what we need is a 15-minute slot where you speak as long as you feel like up to 10 minutes, and all the remaining time goes to Qs and As. If you want to have a conversation, and have a two-minute speech and 13 minutes of Qs and As, go for it. That's what I would prefer. I'd much rather have a conversation than a speech.

But I don't want to belabour that point. I'm already probably past my time, and I just started my list.

The first time I met you, Elizabeth, was in 2008 at the Guelph Mercury community editorial board. One of the first questions I asked you was about whether our politics work because of or in spite of the parties. Your answer was very clear and very direct: It's very much in spite of the parties. So how do we fix anything when at the core, no candidate exists in any election if the party leader doesn't approve them and then has complete control over the membership at committee and all sorts of things? At the end of the day, there's always that power at the end. We can change everything we want, but we still have to do what they want if we want to come back at the next election.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Michael Chong's original version of the Reform Act that he brought forward was to take that away. We have to remember that the rule that the party leader must sign the nomination papers was an unintended consequence of saying that the parties' names would be on the ballot along with the candidates' names. Between 1867 and the seventies, we didn't have the parties' names on the ballots, just the candidates' names.

My party, if you want to know how do it, has passed a bylaw that I'm not allowed—no leader of the Green Party is allowed, it's not particular to just me—to refuse or decline to sign a nomination paper without the support of two-thirds of the elected federal council. With regard to the misuse of the leader's power to pull nominations from really good candidates and to stick in somebody they like better, I would just say that reducing that power is something that we could do legislatively. Michael Chong did try.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

I'd be remiss if I didn’t say that the only person who has actually followed the time here has been Madame Lapointe.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

She didn’t actually follow the time either.

We have time for one more question and I’ll give it to Madame Lapointe.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. In my opinion, I have complied with the seven minutes allotted to me. Everything always starts with following the rules. I must say that I personally like it when everyone follows the rules we set up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Sorry, you had seven minutes and 56 seconds.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Baylis, earlier, you talked about the reasons why women do not get involved in politics. Everyone has given their opinion on a number of things. However, I am a woman and I have spoken to many women who were considering becoming involved in politics. You said that women do not want to get involved because of the behaviour in the House, but that is not the main reason. Women think more about the quality of life they will lose on a personal level. However, if you ask a man whether he would like to get involved in politics, he will not think twice about it. If you tell him he'll do a good job, he'll go for it without hesitation. Women think much more about the consequences. Most of the time, they are the backbone of the family. That's more the sort of thing the women I have talked to told me.

In terms of decorum, the purpose of the motion is to establish co-operation rather than confrontation. That's what you said at the outset. Frankly, it's a very good objective. Yes, we need to work together, and yes, we have things to do.

That being said, it is a very substantial motion, which is divided into a number of separate items. If you ask me to vote for or against the motion at the end of the session, I would point out to you that we will not have had time to debate it and check whether it will accomplish exactly what it is supposed to accomplish. I'm not convinced of that yet. I will have some questions for my colleagues about that when they are here. For the time being, the motion is too substantial for us to make a decision.

I would like to know how you think we could proceed with such a lengthy motion.

I do not agree with the motion in its entirety. However, I am very much in favour of certain aspects. No, it is not normal to have voting marathons. No, it's not appropriate. It's not healthy. No one can impose that on anyone. However, our rules allow opposition parties to do so.

Everyone here at present was elected on the basis of an election platform. In principle, you, Frank Baylis, represent the riding of Pierrefonds—Dollard, but you were elected under the Liberal banner. The folks opposite are members of the opposition and have promised to do certain things. When you are in the House, you represent the people of Pierrefonds—Dollard, and I represent the people of Rivière—des—Mille—Îles, but under the Liberal banner. We cannot ignore that aspect when we are in the House. We promised to do things.

Could you comment on that?

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

You make some very good points, Ms. Lapointe.

First, I want to clarify one thing in terms of women's involvement in politics. It goes without saying that we have women in our ranks. My comments were based on an article about a survey of all female provincial premiers across the country. That's where I got that statement from. They were asked about their experience and why so few women held those positions. Those women are the ones who said that the main obstacle to encouraging more women to get involved in politics was what they saw during the oral question period. I just wanted to share that with you.

Let me reiterate that this will also help productivity. I sincerely believe in courtesy and productivity.

Furthermore, you are saying that the motion is too substantial. However, if we are talking about making changes to create a parallel chamber, we will not be able to get around it being substantial. It's written down, and it's up to you to decide whether or not you want to proceed.

Finally, I completely agree with maintaining a balance with the electoral platform. We are elected as Liberal members of Parliament. As a Liberal member of Parliament, when the work was done, I asked for an appointment with our Prime Minister, who is also from the Liberal Party. I explained the process to him and asked him whether it could be a free vote. He did not answer 100% yes, considering that he had just been briefed on my entire proposal, but in his opinion, it met the criteria he had previously established to determine when it could be a free vote. It is not against our platform or the charter, and it is not a vote of confidence. That is what our Prime Minister told me.

So in terms of the balance that needs to be maintained, it is maintained in this case. I would ask you to check with our Prime Minister.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Can we have your closing comment, Elizabeth?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you.

I want to say that the work Frank initiated here is already proving its worth in that we're having this conversation. I would love to encourage all of my colleagues to think more about it.

I hear what you're saying, Linda, but it's very important that we remember that the only job description that we have in law is in the Constitution of Canada. The Constitution of this country doesn't mention the existence of political parties. We are here to represent our constituents, and Westminster parliamentary democracy says that all members of Parliament are equal, and that the Prime Minister is basically first among equals, primus inter pares. We are not here as cogs in the machines of our respective political parties. To remedy this, to say the pendulum has gone too far in the direction of MPs being mere cogs in a larger machine that exists to attain power for no other purpose, I think we are in a good position as members of Parliament in 2019 to start making the change that says let's push the pendulum back even a bit, because it's gone too far.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you very much.

Thank you both for coming. You've obviously opened up a lot of topics that people have very interesting and passionate views on, as David Graham said—

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

We've opened Pandora's box.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

I was thinking that.

As David Graham said, we could discuss this for hours and hours, and I'm sure we'll discuss it more.

We're going to suspend for a few minutes while we change to the next section of the meeting.

[Proceedings continue in camera]