Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 21st, 2017

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Oh, they did sign their name, but I don't have their consent to give their name, so I'm not going to do that. I didn't seek consent from this person, so I won't give their name, but they did sign their name, yes. It's an email, so obviously their name is attached to the email as well.

At the end of the day, as I said, I don't necessarily agree with everything in there. I mentioned the four-day workweek. I acknowledge that probably not too many MPs are looking to try to go home to put their feet up and watch TV on a Friday, but Justin Trudeau and others are trying to avoid being held accountable in question period, certainly, on Fridays.

I think the sentiment of the letter says a lot. This person has very strong feelings about the fact that this government is trying to avoid being held accountable. It's the point I'm making, but it shows that Canadians are seeing that as well.

I'll read another one. Someone from Surrey, British Columbia, wrote this one. Again, I haven't pre-screened these. I'm just picking out of a random pile of thousands of these things I've received. This one says: “Good day, members of Parliament. Thank you for your service to this great nation of Canada. I appreciate your sacrifice for democracy. I'm writing you concerning the motion put forth by MP Scott Simms to change the House rules. I ask that you protect the freedom we have within our democracy and put a stop to this bill.”

There's a different tone to this letter, obviously, Mr. Chair. This one is asking the members to protect democracy rather than expressing an outrage at what's happening. I think it's meant from the same place, but just takes a different approach.

The writer goes on to say this: “Under the guise of efficiency, this motion will limit and restrict accountability in our government. Perhaps the energy for efficiency could be channelled to the budget. I appreciate the creativity this government has put into finding ways to get more money out of my pocket. Perhaps we should focus that excellent ability to lessen its spending instead of increasing it and seemingly dodging work.

“I do not agree with the House not sitting on Fridays. There are a lot of important issues to be handled by our government, so working one less day in the House limits the ability to deal with them. I understand that your role is taxing, and I thank you for your service, but this is what you were elected to do. It is a tough job. I also believe the Prime Minister must show up for more than one day of question period per week. Does he have a problem with accountability? He is the leader of this country and should be there to run it, and be held accountable to its due process.

“I do not agree with limiting debate time within committees and debate time within the House. This, to me, represents a clear attempt to avoid accountability. You have an opposition for a reason. You are not a dictatorship. The seats belong to the people and not to any one party. Not every idea you come up with is a good one, and that is why we have MPs in place to question them, like this very issue.

“How are my concerns as a citizen being heard when you limit my voice? Written questions submitted to MPs should have a time limit on response: 45 days seems fair. Having no required response time would allow for MPs to disregard questions they don't want to deal with, as you are to represent all of us and deal with questions you might not want to.

“Lastly, the approach with which this motion has been tabled seems deceptive. I am all for efficiencies and accept modernization with caution, but the week of the budget seems not the time. What do you have to hide? Why has there been so little information provided to Canadians about this? Canadians should be made aware of an issue like this, a fundamental change to our democratic process. It should be wide open for debate and discussion. I ask that you stop this motion. I ask that you uphold accountability and transparency within our government.

“Thank you for your representation in the House of Commons.”

This one is signed “respectfully”.

Again, it has a different tone but makes the same basic point. There's a feeling here from this citizen as well that the government is trying to avoid accountability, that the Prime Minister is trying to avoid accountability. That comes across very clearly in this letter, with things like, “How are my concerns as a citizen being heard when you limit my voice?”, and “Not every idea you come up with is a good one, and that is why we have MPs in place to question them, like this very issue”, and “I do not agree with limiting debate time within committees”.

It talks about Justin Trudeau: “He is the leader of this country and should be there to run it, and be held accountable to its due process.” It asks, “Does he have a problem with accountability?” It's clear. Then she closes with, “I ask that you uphold accountability and transparency within our government.”

That's what she's asking for.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Blake, may I interject for just a second—maybe a minute?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Sorry, but I really haven't had much of a chance to speak, and I would have to ask that you allow me to do that. I don't have a lot of time this morning.

Maybe you can get on the list for future meetings.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Sure.

Please add me to the list.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

There are not a lot of people on the list right now.

Sorry about that.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

No problem.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

I would ordinarily do that, but I won't at this moment.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Chair, on a point of order, I thought we had an agreement that if someone asked to take the floor—

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

No, we no longer do. We don't have to be nice on this committee anymore.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

—it wouldn't be unreasonably withheld. I thought that was the commitment we had.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Yes, we do have that commitment, and I continue to give that commitment. I wouldn't unreasonably withhold it, but I haven't had a chance, for a couple of weeks now, to participate in the debate. I have a very limited amount of time, and I have some stuff I want to share.

I'm happy to let Ruby have the floor, but I know that the speakers list is—

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

You actually left the floor awhile back. We could have—

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

I don't want to get into that, Mr. Chair, but—

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

I don't want to get into a debate about this. The bottom line is that we won't unreasonably withhold it, and I wouldn't, but this is reasonable. The list is short. Ruby is able to get on it and be part of the list, so....

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

On a point of order, Chair, I just want to speak a little bit on this.

Just to be clear, then, can I have on the record the grounds for which the member is not being permitted to interject at this point? Can I have Mr. Richards explain the grounds upon which this interjection is being denied?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Go ahead, Mr. Reid.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Thank you.

The way points of order work is that you refer back to one of the standing orders. This is a reference to a gentleman's agreement, or an informal agreement, as opposed to the Standing Orders, and hence there are no procedural grounds on which to make an interjection, only an agreed protocol.

So there is no standing order that needs to be referenced. It's simply the way we do things around here.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Perhaps I could get verification from you, Mr. Chair, and the clerk, on whether there is anything in the Standing Orders on this.

When Mr. Richards had the floor earlier on, he left the room and he left his spot on the floor. What are the actual guidelines, and not the Simms model that we've been working with here? We've been so cordial up until now. What actually happens when someone has the floor and they decide to leave the room and come back 10 to 15 minutes later? Can that person resume their spot, or do they have to get added back on the list?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Filomena, then Scott.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Chair, this is the concern. I'm not having an argument over what the Standing Orders say. That's not what this argument is about. We understand what the Standing Orders say. We had a discussion previously about the way this committee was going to operate. That discussion was on good faith. We made the agreement that we would go televised provided that if someone wanted the floor, the floor would not be unreasonably withheld to that person who wanted the floor.

Now, I recognize that's not a standing order. We're not talking about the Standing Orders here. We're talking about an agreement—at which, I'll remind this committee, I was challenged, because I was taking so much time to get the wording of the basis upon which this agreement was made.

The wording is very clear. I had assurance from both opposition parties that the floor would not be unreasonably withheld to a member. I recognize Mr. Reid's point. It's not a standing order. But it was the agreement upon which we are moving forward.

So it's one of two things: it's either that agreement is not being honoured...or what are the grounds for not granting Ms. Sahota permission to have the floor?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Yes, I can understand the dilemma and I can understand Mr. Richards, in terms of time, as we measure it here, having the floor. He just sort of finished clearing his throat. But we did have the understanding that Ms. Tassi is making reference to.

Could I ask a question? Is it the intent of the honourable member just to do what has happened previously, which is take the floor for a couple of minutes to make a comment, or is there something more to it?

To be completely honest—cards on the table—there's some concern on our part that there may be something afoot, and using this as that opportunity. But if this is just the same interjection....

Maybe the member could give an indication of how much time she was looking for to see how that fits within the question of reasonableness, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Perhaps Ms. Sahota can answer that.

Then it will be Mr. Richards and then Mr. Simms.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

I had indicated at that time, on the record, that I would be requiring one minute.

But there are still, I believe, a lot of questions, at this point, to be answered, and Mr. Simms—

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Go ahead.