Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 21st, 2017

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

That's until the Liberals try to take it away from you.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

It's for the rest of your life, I guess, until someone tries to take it away from you. That's is the point I'm getting at. I was told that during the terrorist attack in 2014, when the person was coming onto the Hill, they were looking for the pins. They were looking for somebody wearing the pin. So it was recommended at the time that you find a way to display it differently.

I have a good friend who's a first nations artist and does incredible work. If you're okay with it, I'm going to mention his name, Keith Kerrigan. He's incredible. He's a lawyer. He was my business lawyer to begin with. However, he's a far better artist than he was...I'm sure he was successful. Anyway, he built this ring for me and I wear it every day. To me this is my Stanley Cup ring. This is my Olympic gold medal ring. This is my Grey Cup ring. It means the world to me. The reason this means the world to me is that I get the opportunity to serve Canadians. I get the opportunity to try to make a difference in people's lives, and I think we're doing that with Bill C-211.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. It's actually just more of an interesting bit of information, a bit of a lighthearted side note, I guess.

I heard Mr. Doherty talking about this being his Stanley Cup ring. When I was a kid, I had two dreams. I wanted to be an NHL hockey player. I wasn't too bad of a hockey player, but I wasn't that good, so I didn't quite make it. The other was to be a member of Parliament.

When I got elected I thought, “I was able to achieve one of two dreams,” and I wondered which one was the rarer achievement. I actually did some research and discovered that there had been about 6,500 people who had played at least one game in the NHL and less than 4,000 people at that time who had been members of Parliament. The rarer feat is to become a member of Parliament, so this is like a Stanley Cup ring. He's right.

I just wanted to share that with you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

That's very interesting.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

I thank my colleague for doing that. He completely stole my thunder because I was going to use the same analogy actually.

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

Oh, I am sorry.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

I'm just kidding.

He makes a very good point. We are so fortunate to have the opportunity to serve Canadians and our ridings. I mean this with all sincerity. The other part of why I cherish this so much is that I get an opportunity to come to the House every day. I get a chance to work with people from all walks of life, regardless of whether they're from the Conservatives, the NDP, the Green party, the Bloc, or the Liberals.

I truly cherish other people's points of view. I think it is an incredible honour to walk through those doors, to represent our country, and to be able to make a difference in people's lives.

I remember the day that I was elected, October 19. I will remember it forever. I think we all have the same emotion, whether or not we've been a member of Parliament for a long period of time. Perhaps we're jaded. I think that was the word used earlier. I think we forget at times why we've been elected, why we've been sent to Ottawa. As somebody mentioned before, we get caught up in a bubble.

It's not so that you can hear Todd Doherty blather on for five hours, or hear John Nater go on about procedure; he's the guy who knows this book better than I do. It is to make a difference in people's lives. We do that through legislation. We do that by investing in areas that perhaps the previous governments didn't; or other governments did but maybe not to that degree.

I've said this before. I think every government sets out with the best of intentions, and I think every member of Parliament sets out with the best of intentions, but we get caught up in our little bubble, thinking that we know best.

The reality is that we should be looking at those who came before us as examples, remembering that the reason we have what we have today is that the people who came before us were probably far more learned than I am. The reason we have the flag that stands up there and allows us to be the true North, strong and free; and the reason we have the opportunity that we have is because there have been people who have laid down their lives for us.

We have the opportunity to do the things that we do because of those who have come before us, because of those who have sacrificed for us. We should never lose sight of that. We should never lose sight of why we truly are here.

I'm kind of a goal-oriented guy, whether it may have seemed like structure or not. What I want to bring to you is that we're not here to win or lose, as was mentioned before. We're here to represent and build the best Canada that there is, truly, and to give Canadians every opportunity that there is.

By muting or taking away Canadians' voices...because really, truly, if you read this discussion paper you'll see that that is exactly what is being proposed. Someone doesn't like being told that that's wrong or that they're wrong, or they don't like being held accountable.

Fundamentally, Mr. Chair, I think that is wrong. That's the reason we're here. I think we lose sight of that very often. I think there's always a voice of reason in the House. Sometimes I lose sight of it. I admitted earlier tonight that I listen to respond rather than listen to learn. I think if we take a step back and listen to learn at times we would be far better.

With that, Mr. Chair, I'm going to leave you with one last quote from Dr. Seuss. To Ms. May's information, I've used two. I'm not going to quote any literary giants beyond Dr. Seuss because It think we have some very valuable lessons here. Here it is for you, Mr. Chair: “I know, up on top you are seeing great sights, but down here at the bottom we, too, should have rights.” I think that's pretty appropriate to what is happening today, because what we're really talking about is taking away the voices of Canadians. I think that's wrong.

With all due respect to those who are here and all those who have spoken before, and those who will speak moving forward, I just want to say thank you to the committee for the opportunity. I appreciate those who have sat in. I truly appreciate the feedback and dialogue that we've had. If I get a chance to come before the committee again, I will do my very best to make sure that I don't replicate any of what we've said. I hope at least, Mr. Chair, and those who are here and Canadians who are listening, that you've heard maybe not so much on procedures and policy, but really from a member of Parliament who cherishes the opportunity to be the voice of his constituents.

My fear is that, despite the protestations of those across the way—not this group here, but the leadership of the government—it's not with good intentions, not with the best intentions, that the leadership put this discussion paper forward. I would offer you this, that if it truly were a case of the best intentions, they would not have tried to do their bidding or their negotiating through the media. They would have truly tried to have a discussion.

Perhaps there is a way to find common ground. Maybe it is just through discussion. Maybe there is somebody listening to us who can take little nuggets of wisdom from this. I know that I've listened to those who have spoken while I've been here. Mr. Christopherson, in particular, made me giggle the whole time that he was speaking. I learned quite a lot from him.

I think it's important as we move forward that we recognize that every person has a valuable point of view and that with respect we come to understand that we have much to learn, that we really don't know much beyond what is outside our own backgrounds. We have so much to learn. I think there's value in asking those who have come before us, those who have been here a long time, how we can do things differently, rather than the new generations coming forth with the best ways. I think it's important that we take a breather and walk a mile in somebody's shoes before we choose to throw them out and say that we have a new pair of shoes.

With that, Mr. Chair, I'm going to thank everybody for the time and I'll leave you at that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you very much, Mr. Doherty. It was a very interesting talk for the last few hours. It's great to hear the perspective of a new MP and your thoughts on your riding.

Now we move on to Mr. Nater, who was very interesting last time, so I'm delighted to hear him back. I want to—

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

Mr. Chair, I found what Todd Doherty shared with us to be just so sincere and so moving. I just want to thank him for sharing what he personally feels as an individual member of Parliament in representing his constituents. I think that is something we around this table all share.

I just want to throw in my two cents before letting Mr. Nater take the floor. That is, I think this place would be better if we didn't have political parties. It's a radical notion, but it's what they do in Nunavut. It's what they do in the Northwest Territories. If individual MPs knew that their job was to do the best they could do for their constituents, I think we'd have a very different and more consensual Parliament.

I still think that's an option. I put it forward in my recommendations for the Standing Orders. I recognize how unlikely it is. I'll be honest about this: it's impossible, because the people who will control the decision, if we ever were to consider getting rid of political parties, are the people most invested in partisanship. We are at our best when individual members of Parliament, like Todd, stand up and say, “I'm here for my constituents. This is how I want to work. I want to work respectfully. I want to listen to people. I want to learn from people.”

I just want to thank him before his words fade too much into our memories.

Thank you very much, Todd.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you, Ms. May.

Go ahead, Ms. Duncan.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I just want to add something here. I know Ms. May has spoken about this often, that we'd be better off if we didn't have parties, but with all due respect to Ms. May, I find it disrespectful. Each one of the parties has the opportunity to develop its own policies and positions. I wasn't a big-P partisan before. Frankly, I joined the NDP to vote for Jack Layton as leader—I have no regrets—and then eventually I decided to run, for various reasons that I made very public.

I think there's a lot of good work done in parties. The wonderful thing about my party—and I presume the other parties are the same—is that the positions I take come from the grassroots. By having a party behind you, you have people across the country who are helping you develop your policies. You have people you can turn to.

I think there's lots of good work done on this Hill. Mr. Doherty talked about a lot of good work done in committees, across party lines. We need to remember that. That was one good reason why we decided not to have parliamentary secretaries on committees, because a committee is supposed to represent the views of the individual members. You are there on your own and you're expressing your view.

As much as I'm a very small-p partisan, and we get very upset sometimes when things become partisan, I think we need to remember that there is a lot of value in those parties. Our members would be horrified at the suggestion that their views aren't valued. Certainly in my party, our policies come from the grassroots.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Go ahead, Ms. May.

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

I just want to apologize to Linda Duncan if this came across as disrespectful. I am the leader of a federal political party, and we have a very grassroots process for developing our policy, and that is an important part of who I represent here. What I find lamentable—and I've been doing, goodness knows, over decades, a lot of reading and developing a larger sweep of history around it—is the growth in power of political parties. Maybe that's what I should have said.

I turn to one of my favourite political scientists in this country, Peter Russell, a professor emeritus of political science at the University of Toronto. He wrote a terrific little book. It is short. It is, I think, essential reading for people interested in our democracy. It is called Two Cheers for Minority Government. He goes through the history of false majorities and minority parliaments, and what minority parliaments were able to accomplish. The point he made in that book was that he put a lot of the difficulties in our political culture down to the growth of well-organized and powerful political parties.

When I first worked in this building, I was senior policy adviser to the federal minister of environment from 1986-88. Linda and I were already friends. We've been friends a long time. In 1986-88, when I worked for the federal minister of environment in the Mulroney administration, there was much less partisanship in Parliament. There were shots taken in question period, for sure.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

John Fraser helped to maintain that.

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

Yes, John Fraser was Speaker of the House, and he's a dear friend of mine and Linda's. The nature of partisanship was that it did not continue past the election. The party strategists controlled the House business, and there was far too much engagement by partisan strategists who were looking for their big win in the next campaign, as opposed to looking for how to serve the people who elected us and sent us here.

I would love to see the spin doctors and the strategists be given a nice long hiatus between elections, and stay out of the business of Parliament. While that role is here, it undermines.... On this, I agree with Linda. There's good in having a political party that lets voters know the general thrust of the issues that engage the different candidates who represent them.

When you look at the growth of political parties, I remember I was shocked the first time I realized that up until the early 1970s, Canadian voters looked at a ballot with just the names of their candidates on it. No party was referenced on the ballot. One problem they had in Quebec, apparently, was that quite often they'd end up with candidates with the same name. So what do you do when you have two Pierre Lafortes or two Ayottes? They thought they had to identify them differently.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Use an initial.

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

They ended up deciding to put the name of the political party next to the candidate's name. Then they had the problem of deciding whether that person was really the candidate for the Liberal Party or the Progressive Conservatives. How would they know that the party wouldn't say, “Wait a minute. That guy can't run under our banner. That person's a nutbar.”

That's when they accidentally—and I do believe in the law of unintended consequences, because this is a big one—decided that the leader of the party must sign the nomination papers of every candidate. For the first time, they gave the political party structure supremacy in this place, with a big stick to discipline an MP who wasn't towing the line, and also to tell candidates what issues they could not mention, or they would find themselves replaced by another candidate because the leader's signature could be withdrawn.

So the power given to party leaders in the 1970s—and I think it was an accident—was all about helping voters know which candidate represented which party. Since that time, the power of organized political parties has taken off, and that's why we're around this table and will be until midnight. The decisions around how to resolve a conflict that sensible people could resolve with good will are in the hands of House leaders who, with all due respect to the individuals involved, are getting advice also from people who are looking at the next election instead of how to make this place work better.

So again, if you hear me say anything in this place around this table...and I know I'm not a member of the committee, and I'm grateful, very grateful for the leniency you are showing me, Mr. Chair. The reality of partisanship in Parliament and politics is that the more politics and partisanship we let in the door of the House of Commons, the less functional we are as a body. This is why I'm hoping that with the sensible voices here, like Todd, whose presentation I found to be extremely sensible and sincere, that all of us would rather talk about moving ahead on the Standing Orders, some of which certainly could use changing, and some we might not want to change. The sticking point is how do we, in fairness, come to decisions that are in the interests of Canadians and the Parliament of Canada without this being a zero sum game for political party backroom guys who are looking—

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Not about making our job easier.

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

No.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

It shouldn't be about making our job easier. We knew what we were getting ourselves into.

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

I'm not trying to make our jobs—

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

No, no, but that's what I'm saying. We lose sight of that. This modernization shouldn't be about making my job easier. It's how do we do things differently, so that we can best represent our ridings. I don't agree with the premise that this is what it is. You missed my comments. I don't believe for one second that Ms. Chagger actually authored that paper.

Your comment was that perhaps there were others around who were thinking that this was going to be a win in the media, but it has backfired. We always have to remember, and I've said this a number of times, that if you go back to parliamentary privileges, one of them is freedom of speech. It's not freedom of our speech; it's freedom to be the voices of our electors. We should never do anything that mutes, limits, or takes away their voice. That's so important.

I'll leave it at that. I've talked enough. I really appreciate your comments, and I'm going to leave it there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

We'll now go on to Mr. Nater, who, as I said, spoke on some very interesting information, new information the other night. We look forward to your continuing input to the committee.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is a pleasure to be back here. I say that in all honesty, as I do enjoy this committee. I enjoy interacting with the members of the committee. I think it's a worthwhile enterprise. I do want to thank Ms. Duncan, Ms. May, and Mr. Doherty for their comments. That's another interesting conversation as well. I think if we could get past this impasse, what I've called the Standing Orders stand-off, I think we can legitimately have a meaningful dialogue.

I think there have been offers put forward that could make this work. Unfortunately, those haven't been accepted for whatever reason, and that's not for me to judge. I think there are opportunities for us to have a meaningful discussion. I think there are voices around this table, voices outside this room, as well, in Parliament. There is a worthwhile conversation to be had. I will it at that, other than to say that I think it would be nice for us to move forward on a meaningful dialogue.

Mr. Doherty did quote from Dr. Seuss. I can't promise any Dr. Seuss quotes this evening. However, I do have the Anglican Book of Common Prayer. Believe it or not, there's relevance in this. I will be citing it a little later. As a good Lutheran, I'm more likely to quote from the Small Catechism, but tonight I'll be quoting from the Anglican book of prayer, and I'll be moving forward there.

[A voice]

[Inaudible—Editor]