Evidence of meeting #55 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was opposition.
A video is available from Parliament.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I know he was ready to really get into it and I've just ruined it.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
The momentum was there, but I'm sure he'll get it back.
Mr. Chair, yesterday we tried four times to have these meetings that are supposed to be about accountability in the open, so that we can be accountable to people for what's being said and done here, and particularly so the government can be accountable.
I want to make another attempt. They have had a chance to sleep on it, and I hope they may have had a thought—
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Oh, so this is now the sixth attempt to try to televise the meetings. I assume the Liberal MPs denied it again this morning, then.
12:20 p.m.
An hon. member
Yes.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Okay. I have something here that they should hear and might find helpful. Maybe they would choose to reconsider. This is from the procedure and House affairs committee—this committee—from the first session of the 39th Parliament, in its 40th report:
I'm going to read a small section of it, Mr. Chair, if I may. It begins with “As has been stated in previous reports...”, so this isn't the first time this has been issued in a report of PROC, but it's one time that it has, so I'll read it:
As has been stated in previous reports, it is important that Canadians be able to see more of the work on committees and of Members, and that the televising of committees is an integral part of making Parliament more accessible and transparent to the public. The original objectives were to provide Canadians with a fuller picture of Parliament, to give them an opportunity to see MPs at work and to see what committees are doing, and to promote coverage of less high-profile hearings and committees, including those of particular interest to certain regions or interest groups. It remains our hope that the electronic media will take advantage of this opportunity to enhance coverage of the work of parliamentary committees.
It would seem that the existing guidelines are appropriate and that they have proved successful in providing the necessary framework for transparent access to, as well as a better understanding of, the work of the House of Commons and its committees.
It then goes on to make some recommendations about broadcasting and televising of committee meetings, but the important point here, Mr. Chair, is the statement that
...it is important that Canadians be able to see more of the work on committees and of Members, and that the televising of committees is an integral part of making Parliament more accessible and transparent to the public.
Now, we've seen on many occasions—yesterday's budget is of course another example of it—that this government's words say one thing and their actions say another. Certainly, the example that comes to mind for me is from yesterday's budget. There are a couple of them. The deficits were going to be small, at $10 billion. We can argue about whether $10 billion is small, but that was what they claimed. Of course, now we see that the deficit is in the neighbourhood of $25 billion to $30 billion. Also, they were going lower taxes on the middle class. Well, we see all kinds of tax increases.
That's just an example, and this is another example. They promised that they were going to be an open and transparent government. What I've read out there is exactly about that: the televising of these committee hearings. According to this committee in the 39th Parliament, and in parliaments before it as well, it would make “Parliament more accessible and transparent to the public”.
For them to deny that ability is to say that they don't want to be open and transparent to the public. Obviously, this motion itself is an example of the government trying not to be open and transparent and accountable, and so is this about televising. It's really troublesome. I hope that maybe these words will have meant something to the Liberal members on this committee and that they'll choose to allow these meetings to be televised so that Canadians can view them for themselves.
I would ask once again, for the sixth time, Mr. Chair, for unanimous consent.
12:20 p.m.
An hon. member
No.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
It's unfortunate that for the sixth time Liberal members are denying that unanimous consent. It's quite unfortunate.
March 21st, 2017 / 12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Perhaps my colleague could repeat all of that for the benefit of our fellow members across the way, who I do not think were actually listening to his proposal. It's a very serious issue about transparency. If it has come up this many times, I think maybe it should be repeated so that members across the way could actually listen and participate in this, rather than having side conversations and showing disrespect for the whole process, not only for transparency, but also because it's something this important that has come up six times now in a short period.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
It is unfortunate. I agree with my colleague that the members were choosing not to listen to those very important words. I can assure the committee that maybe after those members have had a chance to think about it, I'll give them another opportunity to have those words sink in.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
We're still on this point of order. Is that correct?
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Unfortunately, the members on your side chose to deny unanimous consent. Hopefully, maybe you'll have something that you can say that will convince them to change their opinion. I really hope so. You seemed to be in favour of it last night yourself.
12:20 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Maybe some of the other members on your side will listen to you.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
I'm beginning to think that I should ask Blake to write my householder, because that's....
I have a question and then I have a comment.
It has been the past practice of this committee, notwithstanding the current Standing Orders, that if we achieve unanimous consent, we could make an intervention that you would cede the floor for not a long period of time but a limited period of time, to discuss the subject matter. If we were televised, would we still have that opportunity?
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
