Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 21st, 2017

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

I just need 10 seconds more, Mr. Simms.

The point is, he's saying not to do this, not to rush this through, not to force this through, not to ram this through. Hear the different MPs. Hear the opposition. Let them be a part of making these decisions. That's the right way to approach things. That's the point this person is making.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We're finished.

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

Does Mr. Richards feel that all provinces should also be open on Fridays? Should all the provincial legislatures also be open on Fridays, and will he work toward to doing that?

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

Well, obviously, that's their decision to make, but the point I'm making here is that I have a lot of people from all across Canada who are saying that they think that Parliament should sit. I'm just reading their emails.

As I said, I don't necessarily agree with everything that is being said, but the point they're making is that Parliament should be sitting.

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

I'd like to get in on this one, seeing it's a point of order. I know we're at 11.

I don't know how Mr. Richards feels about it, and in all fairness, I don't have an opinion on the provinces, but in Ontario we have the same ridings federal and provincial ridings, and so I get a lot of chance to compare notes with my opposite number in a way that is different than other provinces.

I would say that in Ontario it was a mistake to go to four-day weeks. I can't say that for a smaller province. Take the extreme example of P.E.I. It might be different, but certainly for Ontario, I think that five days a week would be preferable, and my opposite number thinks so too.

Seeing that we'll have a chance to come back on Tuesday, I might be able to give you some of the substance of why my colleague Randy Hillier thinks that way, and we could carry—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

On a point of order, Chair. It seems to me that somebody's filibustering the filibuster here. It's after 11. Chop, chop.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay, given that it's 11:02, I would just point out now that on Tuesday we'll probably be in room 253-D. We will start at 9 a.m. and we will break at either 1 or 1:30 for the informal meeting with the Austrian president.

Mr. Reid.

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

I don't know if we need to do this, but if we start at 9, and say for the sake of argument, mirabile dictu, there were some kind of agreement worked out by the powers that be, and we all found ourselves in harmonious conclusion on something. I don't know what that outcome would be, but would we be able to move right away at 11 to a meeting with Elections Canada. Or is that just beyond the realm of possibility?

I say this because, obviously, we have a job before us, and I'm concerned about time. That may be unrealistic, so I just wanted to ask.

I want to ask you to think about that, maybe rather than doing anything.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

You know what? We'd have to look into that, if that occurred.

We are suspended till 9 a.m. Tuesday.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Good morning, everyone. Welcome back. I know you missed the time away, so let's get back to our business at hand.

We're back to the 55th meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. This meeting is being televised. We have the media here, keeping guard. The meeting was last suspended on April 7. Mr. Richards had the floor, and he's going to be sure not to repeat himself this time.

For your information, I've reserved room 253-D all week, along with the television crew. The committee agreed to meet informally with the delegation from Austria, led by the Second President of the National Council, Mr. Karlheinz Kopf, whose position is like that of our Deputy Speaker. The idea is to suspend at 1:30, but based on a good idea from Mr. Richards, we'll suspend a bit early so I can—

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

I can't take credit for the idea. I think it was Mr. Reid.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

I'm sorry, Mr. Reid.

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

I'm always willing to take credit for a good idea, but....

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Not this one. Okay.

It is so I can introduce them and everything, because we only have half an hour and we want to make sure we get as much back and forth in and not as much of the formalities. We tried to get them earlier, but they have a meeting with Mr. Watson, the mayor, just before our meeting.

I'm hoping we'll come to harmony today and get this all resolved, but if that doesn't occur, we'll go to midnight and then, basically, the schedule for this week is the same as last week: 4:30 tomorrow until midnight. Then Thursday will be like a Friday, because the House changed Thursday hours to Friday hours this week.

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

That would mean what.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

It would be 9 a.m. until 11 a.m.

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

Okay, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

This is all tentative, but that's what I'm thinking.

Okay, Mr. Reid, we're looking forward to stimulating and exciting input this morning, bright and fresh in the morning.

Mr. Richards, sorry.

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

It's okay. I've been called worse things.

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

That's a matter of interpretation.

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

I can assure him I have certainly been called worse things.

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

But [Inaudible--Editor].

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

Here we are, still here, and as you say, Mr. Chair, one can always hope there would be some way to resolve it. We all know the way that it can be resolved is simply by the Liberal government agreeing to do this the way things are generally done when this kind of change is contemplated. When this type of approach is used, it does not fly very well with members of the opposition; it doesn't fly very well with members of the public. Obviously, the easy and most appropriate path to resolving this would simply be to agree that the way it should be done is that changes that are made would have to be arrived at through some consensus, unanimous agreement of the parties, the way it typically is done. Let's hope. We don't see any real sign of change of heart there, but one can always hope that at some point there will be.

I see that someone brought in a cake today, recognizing the fact that it's our third-week anniversary of the beginning of this meeting that we're still in. Obviously, that's done as a result of three weeks, and if we want to avoid having a cake for the fourth week or the fifth week or the sixth week, or seventh month, there's one way. There's one way to avoid that, and it is for the Liberal government to recognize that they need to do this in a way that is appropriate and the way it's always been done.

I can tell you the opposition is not going to back down. The opposition is here for the long haul in order to protect the rights of Canadians to hold this government accountable. That's what this is really about. It's about the right of Canadians to hold this government accountable. Obviously, one of the ways that's done is through opposition members asking questions in question period, through opposition members utilizing committees to raise awareness of issues that are going on. All of these things are done to ensure that Canadians have a chance to look at the government's agenda and determine whether it's appropriate and one that they agree with. If the government can get the public's favour on what they're trying to do, it can move through Parliament. If they can't, they can certainly still try to move it through Parliament, but they'll pay a price. When a government tries to do something the way they've done this, which is to sneak it through without Canadians having a chance to know about it, the reaction isn't good. It's not good from the opposition parties, and it certainly isn't good from Canadians.

As evidence of that, when we last met, last Friday, Mr. Chair, I was sharing with the committee some emails that Canadians had sent to members of the committee, expressing their displeasure. I want to read a few more of those, because I think they really tell the tale as to how Canadians are feeling about what this government is trying to do. It's something that I hope will be taken to heart by the members of the government in finally realizing that this needs to be resolved in a way that is appropriate and satisfactory to Canadians, which would be to allow it to be done the way it has always been done, rather than trying to ram something through Parliament, which is really a sneaky and inappropriate way of approaching it.

This one is written specifically to the Liberal MPs on the committee. The person writes, “Greetings, Liberal MPs. I was appalled to hear of the motion recently tabled to alter the current rules of Parliament. Though I may not have all of the details, what I do understand about this motion is quite alarming. From what I understand, this motion will limit the time that MPs have to voice the concerns of the people they represent. It will close the House of Commons on Fridays, and it will allow Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to attend Parliament just once a week.

“As a law student about to enter the profession, I find this absolutely disgraceful. Our justice system is a fragile beast that deserves every bit of consideration that it gets in its formation. By changing this parliamentary process, it takes away the valuable time needed to consider proposed legislation and hastens the time remaining. These decisions are not decisions to be made recklessly. These are decisions to be made after every voice has been carefully heard and considered. This is the sole purpose that we have a democracy, to elect officials who will be the voice of the people in the process of creating laws.

“Please do not silence your own voice, and please do not silence my voice through you. As a voter who regretfully voted Liberal in the last election, I say that this motion would drastically decrease my confidence in the parliamentary democracy that we so proudly boast of as Canadians. After all, does my vote even matter if the Liberal Party does not even wish to hear the voice of the leader I elected?

“Please reconsider this motion to protect the democratic liberties of all Canadians.”

To unpack that, what we have here is someone who's obviously a very reasonable person, a law student, someone who is seeking a career in law, who obviously has the ideals of justice and fairness in mind. They've written a very reasoned letter here. What they're saying is that what the government is trying to do here is not fair or just. This is an attempt to try to silence the people who have been sent on behalf of all Canadians to represent their interests. The person indicated that, yes, they did vote Liberal in the last election, so this is typically a Liberal supporter. They're saying they regret that fact. They regret that fact because what they're seeing now is something that has come forward from that Liberal Party that would drastically decrease our confidence in parliamentary democracy in Canada. That is not something I think this person wrote lightly, from the sense I have. They seem like a pretty reasonable person.

The headline, the subject, of the email was, “Parliamentary democracy at risk”, so a reasonable person who understands the gravity of this situation has expressed that quite reasonably but also strongly.

Another one here that I have says: “Dear sirs and mesdames: The Liberals want to change the rules to benefit themselves and destroy our Canadian democracy. Canadians realize across the nation that something is seriously wrong. When all of the opposition parties are united against the Liberals, something is seriously wrong. We call upon the Government of Canada to adhere to longstanding parliamentary tradition and procedure, and not force any changes to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons outlined in the mentioned discussion paper, without the unanimous consent of all political parties currently represented in the House of Commons.”

Again, here we have someone who sees this as an attempt by the Liberals to just change the rules to benefit themselves. In their words, it “would destroy our Canadian democracy.” They say that it means there's something seriously wrong. They're asking in a very reasonable way to see the government adhere to what they call “the longstanding parliamentary tradition and procedure” to not force changes to the Standing Orders without the unanimous consent of all political parties. I would agree; that is the longstanding tradition.

I have another here, as well. It's addressed to one of the Liberal MPs, and copied to, I think, all the rest of us as members of the committee, and it looks like a number of others—some of the party leaders and others. I won't read whom it's written to, but it has a greeting here, and then it says, “It has come to my attention that you and other members of the PROC committee are about to change the rules in Parliament, without due consultation of the public. I understand that Justin favours the ways of China, but as of now we do not live in a dictatorship, and I will certainly not permit one to arise in my country as long as I live. What about you? Unilaterally closing down Parliament on Fridays is just not acceptable. The fact that our Prime Minister only wants to appear to answer questions once a week is outrageous. Any attempt to cut down the time allowed for our representatives to openly discuss and debate issues on our behalf, in pursuit of the most viable solutions to complex problems, must be seen as an attempt to compromise the integrity of the democratic process. You and all other elected representatives of the people have not, in my opinion, been given a mandate to make changes to any fundamental parliamentary rules of operation without due consideration and consultation of the public, who elected all of you to office. You just don't get to freely change the rules on the quiet behind closed doors, just because you think you can get away with it. You can't. If you do succeed it will surely come back to bite you right on your ample posteriors.”

I won't make any comment on that.

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

It's always good to get to the bottom of it, anyway.