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.
9 a.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
I guess it's those Timbits that we were eating, Mr. Simms. Maybe the cake will help, too.
9 a.m.
Conservative
9 a.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
The writer goes on to say they hope that fundamental point is clearly understood, and asks, “If Prime Minister Harper had attempted to pull this little stunt, how would Justin and the Liberal Party have reacted? Prime Minister Harper was labelled a dictator for much less. How would Liberals feel when the next Conservative government relies on these same procedures? Would it be considered fair or foul play? Are you comfortable with that scenario? Get my point?” The writer asks if we are on the path to becoming a banana republic, where the party in power believes it can ramrod and railroad new rules and regulations in its favour at will, with little or no say from the opposition and the public. They hope this will not happen on our watch.
As the writer says, this is not a partisan issue, but one of basic decency and integrity, and I quote: “It's highly likely that there would be a steep cost to be paid at the ballot box by any candidate who had unwisely supported such an ill-considered and short-sighted tactic for crass political advantage.
“Please consider voting against this blatantly cynical move by the government to limit their own accountability and impede opposition to their policies. It cannot stand.”
The letter is signed and includes the person's name, but also says, “a very concerned citizen”.
This one comment about the ample posteriors makes me really feel bad, because I've been working so hard to try to stay in shape, Mr. Chair. But outside of that—
9 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Also make sure the camera angles in this committee are focused where they ought to be. Our posteriors should be off-camera.
9 a.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Outside of that, when you look at this email, it says we do not live in a dictatorship and says “as of now”. Those are strong words meant to imply, obviously, that what they're seeing here would lead in that direction. They say they would never stand for that.
They're talking about things like the Prime Minister only wanting to answer questions once a week. They call that outrageous. They talk about closing down Parliament on Fridays and say that it's just not acceptable. They're raising the issue that this is something all parties need to consider, and it needs to be done with say from the opposition and the public.
They make the point that this is not a partisan issue, and they're right. It's not a partisan issue. They say it's one of basic decency and integrity. That's a good point.
The next one says, “There is some shady business happening up on the Hill. It would seem that your government is trying to sneak through some changes through Parliament and how Parliament operates. I cannot in good conscience let this happen without me at least standing up and letting my voice be heard. It is important to any democracy that it have a strong opposition. That's how we keep the checks and balances to ensure that the government of the day is held to account for the things it does. We need to have our voices heard, and the idea that the Liberal government is finding new ways to stifle any opposition is disturbing.
“Putting aside Mr. Trudeau's dismissive attitude toward Alberta, what he and his government are doing is affecting us all—racking up more debt every year, meaning more money to service debt, taking away money that should be paying for programs for Canadians. But the fact that he wants to spend less time in the House of Commons in question period, to do what? What is more pressing than answering the questions of MPs that were elected by Canadians? I did not vote Liberal, but I did vote, and my representative needs to be heard. That is democracy. Perhaps the Liberal Party needs to look it up”.
There's a quote here she's given: “A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.”
She continues. “Absolute power corrupts absolutely. No party, including my own, should be stifling voices from people that oppose their views. The fact that the Liberal Party wants to do less and have less opposition to the things they are doing doesn't surprise me. What can you expect from a party who have self-proclaimed themselves to have the divine right to be leaders of Canada? What you are trying to do is stifle my voice, stifle my rights. We are not insignificant or not worthy of having a government that works for us, because you do, after all, work for us, all of us. You should remember that. Rant over. Time for a selfie.”
It's obviously someone who's frustrated. It wasn't a Liberal voter, so again, there are people here who support all different stripes of political parties, but they all seem to be united by one common thread. That is, they see what's being done here as, in the words of this person, disturbing.
She calls it shady business. She calls it trying to sneak through changes to how Parliament operates, saying she can't in good conscience let it happen without standing up and letting her voice be heard, saying that this is trying to stifle her voice and her rights. Those are pretty strong words, and understandably so.
The next one says, “Shutting down Parliament on Fridays is not in the best interest of Canada. Many Canadians like me expect to see all of Parliament at work with a full House every day of the week, including Friday. As for the Liberals' back-door change they are attempting to slide past Canadians, legislation that would permanently limit debate and scrutiny of bills, Canada is not a dictatorship. This is Canada, with a democracy, and we the people demand Liberals stop their back-door ways. I expect every bill or legislation put forth to be scrutinized by all parties in Parliament, any and every day of the week. I have also noticed that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau needs to attend the House way more than part time. Canadians deserve a full-time prime minister that is in the House to answer our MPs' questions every day. Tell Justin Trudeau we Canadians want the questions of all MPs answered by the Prime Minister himself on any legislation or bill Justin Trudeau's Liberals try to impose on Canadians.
“Take these words under careful consideration and stop doing Justin Trudeau's dirty work, and respect Canadians first and foremost.
“If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me and I will be happy to answer anything you are unable to understand.”
In that one, I think they were pretty clear. They're saying this is something that they consider Justin Trudeau's dirty work and they think it's inappropriate, and they're asking for Canadians to be respected first and foremost.
The next fellow here says, “In order to preserve democracy in this country, I demand that Parliament be open on Friday and I expect Trudeau to answer questions in the House. It's his job to be accountable to Canadians, and our elected representatives are to question his actions and he must be present to answer their concerns.
“Parliamentary procedures are not to be changed solely at the discretion of Liberals, as this is not the democratic way in which we operate.
“I also object to having a time limit imposed on MPs to challenge proposals that your government wants to make. If you're trying to jam changes through by limiting objections, then your government will be defeated in the next election, which can't come soon enough.
“Where are all the jobs that Trudeau promised to create when he was campaigning? We Canadians are having to learn to survive on less money and I have not seen where government has tightened their purse strings. Is this what you call responsible government?”
That individual is saying, man, you guys are going to pay the price in the next election. You'll be defeated if you do such a thing as to change this without the consent of all parties, and he's saying, if that's the case, it certainly can't come soon enough.
The next one says: “Good day, everyone. I've taken some time today to review the discussion tabled regarding proposed changes to the functions of the House of Commons. Upon review of these changes, I was very disheartened to see such a high level of support from the Liberal Party for processes that would, from my understanding, ultimately limit the voice of the Canadian people.
“Our House of Commons is an extremely vital component of our ability to function as a diverse yet collaborative community here in Canada. I do not support the prospect of limiting our elected voices from the ability to speak on our behalf, nor do I support the prospect of any federal government having the ability to deny the opportunity for debate.
“I cannot grasp the benefit of the House of Commons not sitting on Fridays. I would love to have a greater understanding of how this change would benefit the Canadian people. Without a direct benefit, I cannot see a purpose to this option.
“At this point, I do not feel that members of Parliament, nor the Canadian people they represent, have had the appropriate explanation or amount of time to process the potential implications of the changes put forward in this discussion. This is not the way of my Canadian political platform.”
That person was using some reasonable language, talking about being disheartened to see Liberal support for this thing that they would see as limiting the voice of the Canadian people. They say they don't see the benefits and they really don't think there has been an appropriate time for discussion about something such as this, and they're certainly right. There has not been appropriate opportunity for that. It's just being brought forward and table-dropped in front of the committee as a motion.
This one says, obviously addressed to the Liberal members of the committee, “I think your motion on behalf of Justin Trudeau to change the debate rules in the House, as well as other items to limit accountability, is self-serving and shameful. Further, your attempt to sneak this motion through on budget day is quite pathetic. The only conclusion that can be drawn by rational observers is that the Liberal government does not want to be held to account by the citizens.”
It indicates that it's copied to other MPs, and then it says, “as well as Kent Hehr, who is my MP.”
Then it addresses him specifically by saying: “Kent, I'm quite curious to hear your exact position on this motion and I'm surprised that you appear to support it. Rest assured there will be a steep price to be paid at election time for those who proposed and supported such nonsense.”
It's making it quite clear that although they may have supported Kent Hehr in the last election as the Liberal MP in their riding, they certainly would say there would be a steep price to be paid, which I would assume means their vote would certainly not be going there and they believe the vote of others would not be going there if they were going to support what they call such nonsense, saying, “The only conclusion that can be drawn by rational observers is that the Liberal government does not want to be held to account by the citizens.”
I think that's a pretty fair conclusion to draw. It seems that what's behind this is an attempt to try to find a way to avoid being held accountable. Think about Justin Trudeau only being in question period one day a week. Think about removing the one day a week when there's question period now—that's 20% of the question periods. This certainly would ensure there is less ability to hold them accountable. When you talk about changing the way committees work so that things can be rammed through in a very quick fashion, that is taking away accountability. It is also taking away the ability for the opposition to shine a light on things so that the public can become aware and make a determination on whether they think it's appropriate for Parliament to proceed with such things.
The next one says, “I'm writing to add my voice to speak out against the changes that have been proposed by the Liberal government to change the rules of the House of Commons. The rules of Parliament were established to ensure that all Canadians have a voice that is represented by their member of Parliament. You are not 'modernizing' the House of Commons by shutting down sitting days on Friday. You are not 'modernizing' the House of Commons by limiting the days that the Prime Minister needs to attend question period. My voice is not represented if the number of sitting days is reduced by 20%. My voice is not represented if members of Parliament cannot ask the Prime Minister questions every day. On a day when the federal budget is being tabled, this is a transparent attempt to sweep criticism under the rug. Governments do not last forever. There will be a time when you will be sitting on the other side of the House and your job will be to hold the government to account. Keep this in mind as you make changes that will have an everlasting impact on how Canadians are represented in their Parliament. It was not long ago when similar attempts were made to change the rules via Motion 6. The outrage from people who do not ordinarily pay attention to procedural matters in Parliament was resounding. You may think that Canadians do not follow these matters, but they do. I hope you will listen to the voice of reason and accept that these changes do not benefit the Canadians who elected you to represent their best interests.”
There were some really good points made here. I think it was the first email I read that recognized this. it was obviously someone who must watch question period. They hear the government House leader and her responses, because there's often been this talk that somehow this was modernizing Parliament. I noticed they said that we were not “modernizing” the House of Commons, and I noticed they used it in quote marks. They're absolutely right. This is the exact thought I've had a number of times in question period as I listened to that bogus answer that somehow shutting down Parliament on Fridays, that somehow limiting the Prime Minister's attendance in question period to once a week, was modernizing Parliament. I mean, what a load of BS. This person goes on to say that if you reduce the sitting days by 20%, if you only expect the Prime Minister to be there to answer questions once a week, what you're actually doing is making sure that their voice is not able to be represented. It has come up in a number of the letters I've read that the government needs to think this through, because I think what they're trying to do is make things easier for themselves. They want to make it so they can push through their agenda quicker, but what they're doing is changing the rules for all time. They're changing the way this Parliament always works. I point out to them that they will be in opposition some day, and that could be a lot sooner than they expect if they're going to continue to do these kinds of things that show them to be unaccountable. At some point, they'll be in opposition, and they'll be the ones who will be sorry that they made these changes. That's true.
The next one says, “I am an angry Canadian. I find out through social media that there is an attack going on in a hidden room in the House of Commons, an attack that was tried before and failed, an attack on my rights as a Canadian to have representation in the House, an attack on holding this sitting government to account, an all-out attack on democracy. Shame on you all. Shame on you for thinking the Canadian people are just going to lay down and take this. Shame on you for the devious way you're going about this. Shame on you for thinking all of us in the middle class and those working hard to join it cannot see exactly what you are trying to pull here.”
It continues: “Shame on you for thinking that Canadians are stupid. I mean, you must think we are all stupid by thinking you can get away with this. By the way, you all respond to every question asked with the same old talking points over and over again.
“Shame on you for so-called transparency you were supposed to be bringing to the House. Shame on you for the non-accountability you have shown the Canadian people thus far. Shame on you for campaigning on being present and accountable to the Canadian people and then pull this garbage. Shame on you for taking the money and not wanting to put in the time or effort to make Canada a better place. Shame on you all.
“Come to your senses immediately and drop this attack. Have some decency and let democracy rule. Let the people of Canada keep their voices and fair representation in the House of Commons, the House you are a temporary guest in—remember that.”
“Hoping that you will put Canada first and stop the madness.”
This person is obviously quite upset. The subject line they used probably said it all. “We have had enough,” they say, and they're saying shame on this Liberal government for what it's trying to do to eliminate accountability.
The next person says, “Hello. I'm writing in regard to your attack on our Canadian democracy. What are you people thinking? This is an attack on every Canadian and the only way we have our voices heard in Parliament. Justin campaigned on being present, accountable, and transparent to us. You know us, the Canadian people you all keep claiming to be working for. I cannot believe you are trying to change the rules and kill democracy as we know it in the House. That does not belong to you but belongs to the people of Canada. Unbelievable, to say the least, and shame on you again. Don't think I have forgotten the talk of this nonsense before. I guess that's why you have chosen the path you have to ram this attack on democracy through.
“Once a week question period for the Prime Minister? You've got to be kidding me. This is not a vacation. This is his job. Get in there and answer the questions, and enough with the talking points over and over and over again. Questions deserve an answer, not a talking point. We, the people, want real answers and be held accountable for his government's actions.
“Limiting debates? You've just cut off the Canadian people's voices. Unacceptable. Our representatives are just that. They represent Canadians. To limit time is to limit our voices, not theirs. This is our time, the Canadian people, for consultations that you are trying to limit and avoid hearing. This is us, the people, talking through them. Why do you people not get this?
“No Fridays? You all signed up knowing the work week is five days. How dare you change the contract between us, the Canadian people, and yourselves?
“Then to add insult to injury, I have to find out about this on Facebook? Where is your accountability and transparency when you hide in a room and push to get this nonsense rammed through without the public knowing? Shame. Our tax dollars pay for you to rent that seat five days a week. You do not own it, nor do you own the House. Stop this madness right now and start doing your jobs, which, by the way, is to work for us, the Canadian people, not against us.
“On a side note, if you feel there is not enough work-life balance in the positions you hold, then maybe you're not the right fit for this role.
“Hoping you will make the right decision and stop this madness now, and never, ever bring this to light again. Signed, a very concerned Canadian who helps pay your wages.”
9 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Just on a point of order, we have some special, esteemed guests here whom some of you may know from ancient years.
Paul Szabo was here for 17 years. When they used to count the number of words uttered in the House, a number of times he was the person who had said most there. He was like the Kevin Lamoureux of today
There's also Derek Lee. As you know, in these meetings, and you can look at Mr. Reid's pile, we look at all of these learned books. Derek Lee is the author of one of these learned books, The Power of Parliamentary Houses to Send for Persons, Papers and Records: A Sourcebook on the Law of Precedent of Parliamentary Subpoena Powers for Canadian and other Houses. He was here 23 years and was close to being the dean of the House, the longest-serving person here. If you want to chat with those guys, they don't get to Ottawa that often anymore.
Welcome, it's great to have you seeing our erudite hearings that are going on.
Carry on, Mr. Richards.
9 a.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Welcome to the two former members, who obviously both served this place and the Canadian people for a very long time. We celebrate and congratulate them and thank them for that. I wonder how they would have felt about this had this come forward while they were in opposition. I wonder whether they would have enjoyed having their rights eroded and taken away, as members of Parliament on behalf of the citizens they represent.
Mr. Chair, now I'll get back to some of the concerns that Canadians have about this.
The next email I have here says, “I am absolutely disgusted with this. Who exactly does this committee work for? I thought all parliamentarians worked for the benefit of all Canadians. Anyone who votes in favour of changing the policy on sitting in the House in order to allow a self-serving Prime Minister and his cohorts to avoid scrutiny doesn't deserve any support from Canadians. I'm hoping that there are millions of others who feel the same way. The Liberal Party and its members have lost their way. Perhaps it's time to retire them all.”
It's short and simple. The point is that they feel like they've lost their way. This is a government that has only been in power a year and a half and people are saying that it's lost its way and maybe that its members should all retire. They see the Prime Minister as self-serving and trying to avoid scrutiny and they say that he doesn't deserve any support from Canadians.
This next one looks like it's been sent to almost every MP, or very close to it, and it's from someone in Saskatchewan.
It says, “It's time for the Liberals to start working for Canadians and not for Trudeau. Trudeau is not your boss, but the Canadian people are. Trudeau loves dictators, while Canadians hate dictators. Trudeau is acting like your puppet master and you are letting him. You were not elected by Trudeau. Your responsibility is to Canadians, particularly those lost souls who elected you in their constituencies.”
I guess we know how they feel.
It continues, “Canadians hired you to do a job with specific rules, a job description, working conditions, and hours of work. Canadians have the power to fire you and unless you are deaf, blind, and totally ignorant of the rage building across this country towards the Liberals in power, you should be thinking about your future job security. If you don't like your job anymore, if you find the working conditions unbearable or find attending committee meetings just too hard on you, if you don't like listening to opposing points of view in meetings, if you cannot abide anyone who doesn't agree with your puppeteer's ideas or dangerous plans to dissolve our democracy, and if you cannot handle five days a week of having to be accountable for your actions, then I have one suggestion; resign right now. You were hired to do a job with set rules, hours of work, working conditions, etc. So was...”.
I won't use the words they use here to describe Justin Trudeau, but they aren't a very big fan of Justin Trudeau, clearly.
Furthermore, “If you are not prepared to accept those terms any more, then that's tough luck. You do not have the right to change the rules by which our Canadian democracy works. You are not part of a dictatorship yet. We will fight you to the death on this matter. Trudeau may have you all convinced that he walks on water and that you are close to accomplishing that feat too. Wake up. Start paying attention to what Canadians are saying about the puppeteer who is pulling your strings. You are making a joke of our democracy and of the work that is supposed to be done in the House of Commons and at the committee level. Who do you think you are? We know that Trudeau has no respect for the lowly Canadians he lies about wanting to help. You and the Prime Minister can help us by quitting. Walk out or resign. Let's get this over with now, rather than waiting for 2019. If your puppet master is so confident that he knows what Canadians want, I challenge you to tell him, “Call an election right now”. I have never been as disgusted and outraged at any sitting government as I have been with Trudeau Jr. and his band of merry thieves. They have lost their way and have drunk the toxic Trudeaupian Kool-aid once too often.”
I've never heard “Trudeaupian Kool-aid” before. That's an interesting term.
The person continues, “His incompetence, immaturity, and unsuitability for the job is now fully in the spotlight. He can't cope with being challenged or questioned in the House of Commons, so he wants to be there only one day a week? the country or the world, handing out our money to other countries is his idea of what his job should be. Canadians have a very different opiniFlying around on. Time for Justin to grow up and work full-time for the first time in his life.
“Redeem yourselves. Save your reputations and do something for a change. Stop this nonsense now. End this fiasco now, and he might earn some respect from Canadians who are watching in horror at the games that Trudeau and his advisers are playing with no respect for any of us.”
That person certainly didn't hold back on their feelings. People are angry. The subject of that was, “Concerned with Canada's future”—probably the least strong words they used in the whole email.
The subject matter of the next one is, “In protest to the lack of accountability”. It says, “I am very upset and concerned about how this government is trying to sneakily make these changes, changes that are no small deal. I can't believe that Canada's leaders of the Liberal Party don't understand the value of being leaders.
“The fact that you want to shut down Parliament on Fridays and take away the accountability that every government should be subject to in the form of plain and simple questioning astounds me. It doesn't matter what you are leading. Whether it's a federal government or you are the reeve of a small rural municipality, leaders need to be able to answer questions from those that they are serving. They have a duty to answer to the best of their ability and to subject themselves willingly and openly to scrutiny, because running a country is a big deal. Trying to actually do it well and with honesty is a big deal.”
Then, they have the next part in bold: “Please step up and be an example of good leadership. Show that you even believe you are to be serving the citizens of this country and that you even care what we have to say. I really don't believe that you do.”
I'm sure that person hopes that they will be proven wrong, that there will be good initiative shown, that the Liberals will show that they want to serve the citizens of this country, and that they actually care what people have to say.
The next one says, “To whomever this pertains in the Liberal Party, you cannot amend the rules in the House of Commons just because you feel like it. Are you going to change the name 'Robert's Rules' and call it 'Trudeau's Rules'? Rules in the House of Commons have been there for a reason, so that each everyone can debate and voice the opinion that represents the people of their province. Taking that away is truly insane.
“Liberals, sorry—not sorry—to burst your bubble, but the House of Commons is not about you and what makes it easier for you. It's not supposed to be easy. It's about decision-making for the betterment of the country, even if it takes all night. Even if one person in that room doesn't have a chance to voice their right to speak, how is that anywhere fair?
“I don't understand how you don't see that. What if the Liberals' voice were taken away? You would be”—and I won't use the word they use, but “angry” is what they're getting at—“and frankly”—and again, I won't use their word—“I'm angry, along with many other Canadians. This is not okay. I cannot believe we have to fight for ridiculous stuff like this when there are so many other important things we could be talking about.”
Again, I won't use the language here, but they essentially say that if Justin Trudeau thinks it's too much work to answer questions and wants to take a day to limit that, he shouldn't be in office at all.
Finally, “I'm so disappointed in your representation of this country that my heart hurts.” That's someone who's pretty disappointed.
The next one asks, “How in any way do you think that what you are doing is honouring this great country that we all live in, let alone while our 'wonderful' Prime Minister is putting us in more and more debt because of his outrageous expenses and luxurious vacations? Do you honestly think that granting him more days off will in any way help this country? Frankly, it will more likely put Canada into more debt than we are already in now, not to mention the headache this will cause for years to come, and the financial stress that it will continue to place on this country and on taxpayers like myself. If you think that this will win the Liberal Party more votes at all in the next election, you are mistaken.”
It continues, “I, for one, will not be voting in your party's favour in the next election due to things like this. As men and women who are paid to stand up for the people of this country I feel as though you have outrageously failed us. Sincerely, a very disappointed young voter.”
The subject of this was actually “Weasels in Parliament”, so they're pretty upset, saying they won't vote for the Liberal Party. They're a very disappointed young voter because of what they're seeing here, a young person who's paying attention to what's going on and saying, this is not appropriate.
The next one's addressed to Liberal MPs, although copied to others, obviously: “Dear Liberal MPs, you can't change the rules of how Parliament runs, without consulting Canadians. You do not own your seat. You were entrusted with it by Canadians. Stop trying to push through these changes without due course. How dare you tamper with democracy in our country like this? You are trying to escape accountability, and you need to drop this motion.”
Then they indicate they're looking forward to a reply.
The next person says: “I expect Parliament to be open on Fridays and hard work to be done. I expect Trudeau to answer questions in the House, and that he can't limit the right of my MP to scrutinize legislation. I really expect there to be more respect for my tax dollars. The rest of us Canadians would never dream of wasting money like this government is doing, because we know the value of money. We have to work hard and make tough choices to support our families, and it is extremely disrespectful to take our money in taxes and then sit in your castle and show all of us peasants how powerful you are to oppress us with your wasteful spending. It's just sickening.”
This person, besides thinking that this is a sickening attempt, I think really summarized quite well in their first paragraph the thoughts of many of the people writing these letters, in saying that they expected Parliament to be open on Fridays and expected Justin Trudeau to answer questions in the House of Commons, and that the government shouldn't be limiting the rights of MPs to scrutinize legislation. That sums up, in a very brief way, what the problem is here. I think that for many of these people it's really hard to believe that's what's happening here, that the government is trying to take these rights away from Canadians and the people who represent them.
The next person here is from Toronto, Ontario, and they've written to the Liberal members on the committee—obviously it must have been copied to the rest of us—but it says, “We, the taxpayers, have serious concerns regarding”, and then they have a number of bullet points here. It says: “With the high budget deficit; the $127,000 vacation expenses by the Prime Minister; the gifts to Bombardier, with no apparent benefits to taxpayers; the secretive dealings with Aga Khan; the change to parliamentary rules; the waste of billions of dollars with UN irrelevance; the low GDP numbers and what the Prime Minister is planning to do to resolve it; and many more. Certainly, the Prime Minister has the time to travel the world and he has time to show up for work on Fridays and answer our questions and concerns.
“I think what they were trying to say there is if he has that time he should be able to show up and answer the questions and concerns. Obviously, they had a number of concerns themselves.”
The next person is from Hamilton, Ontario, and says: “Good afternoon, members of the PROC committee. Respectfully, today I'm writing to voice my dismay regarding the proposed changes to the Standing Orders and the process by which Parliament operates. Why did you move this motion? Did these changes originate with you or with the PMO? I've copied my MP on this”—I guess I'll use his name—“and urge Mr. Christopherson to say 'no' to shutting down the House of Commons on Fridays.”
I won't speak for Mr. Christopherson, but based on what I've heard from him, I think you can count on his saying “no”. Obviously, I think the hope is that other members of the committee, particularly the Liberal members, will choose to follow that example.
The person goes on to say: “Hard-working Canadian taxpayers deserve a working government. Please remember that you are elected public servants with a mandate of representing the people in your riding, not the whims of the party in power. The citizens of this country depend on you to show up for work, represent them, and thoroughly debate all issues. Kindly maximize the time that you, as MPs, are in Ottawa. There should be no limit to the amount of time debated on issues. Canadians are diverse in our opinions and all voices should be heard. Governments should always be scrutinized and the Opposition MPs represent the majority of Canadians. Furthermore, the Prime Minister should be expected to show up in the House and attend question period more than once a week. Taxpayers shouldn't be funding vanity trips for the PM when the business of the country is being carried out in the House of Commons.”
I have a few more that I want to read today, Mr. Chair, and then I'll probably turn the floor over to one of my colleagues—whoever is on the list there, so they can be prepared.
9 a.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
The next one says, “It is unconscionable that you and your party are ramming through a motion at committee to try to close the House of Commons on Fridays and to limit debate at the committee level or in the House. Shame on all of you. You will be gone after this term anyway, but in the meantime, know that the Liberal Party is a joke.” That's strong. “You don't represent real Canadians; you represent yourselves. You are as out of touch as ever, and to think that what you are doing is somehow fair or just is asinine. How do you sleep at night? Do the right thing and quit while you're behind. Put this nonsense to rest.”
Those are some pretty strong words, but that's what they feel. People are concerned about these changes.
It continues, “Dear members of Parliament, I do not support the changes you are proposing to the shutting down of Parliament on Fridays, limiting Justin Trudeau's appearances in the House of Commons, or changes to the rules governing debate. This is a sneaky way to limit accountability. In the election, you promised to be accountable to Canadians. I voted for the Liberals, but if these changes are made, you will lose a vote.”
That's short and to the point, saying that they don't agree with shutting down Parliament on Fridays. They don't agree with limiting the amount of time that Justin Trudeau has to be in the House of Commons to be held accountable. They don't agree with changes to rules that would change the way debates work in committees. They are saying this is “a sneaky way to limit accountability”. They are saying that they voted for the Liberals in the last election, but if the Liberals make these changes, there's no way they would do it again. I've read that a number of times. All members of Parliament know that when you get a letter, it represents a lot of other constituents. Think about the number of these that I've read. This could be a very significant thing for them to be paying attention to, if they wanted to ensure their chances in the next election.
The subject line of the next one is “What is happening to our democracy?” It is signed by a number of members of one of the Liberal MPs' constituencies. It says, “Dear member of Parliament, I am writing this email to express my great concern over the Liberal move to hijack our democracy through the proposed changes to House of Commons rules. I also believe that giving Parliament an extra day off is irresponsible and a misuse of our tax dollars. The Liberals campaigned on real change and transparency but have delivered nothing but chaos and lack of accountability. I just believe that you have to work for the benefit of this country and all Canadians, not to the benefit of the Prime Minister. After all, that's what you were elected to do. Please stand up for Canadians by refusing to support these changes.”
Again, there is the theme of being here to represent Canadians, not to work for the Prime Minister. Being here to work for Canadians is a common theme that people are trying to get through to the Liberal Party here.
Here is one signed by a number of people from Ontario—Waterloo, Toronto, St. Catharines, Stayner, St. Clements, Kitchener, and Ottawa—as well as Westmount, Quebec. There are a number of people here from all across Ontario, and into Quebec as well. It says, “Dear members of Parliament, we are outraged that the Liberal government is planning to reform the Standing Orders of the House of Commons and considering eliminating Friday sittings. The Prime Minister continually talks about being open and transparent, but we haven't seen much evidence of that. He needs to be accountable to Canadians and the House of Commons more than once a week. The Prime Minister's job is not a part-time position. Please let the Prime Minister know that we are not in favour of making these changes, absolutely not in favour of shutting down Parliament on Fridays, and strongly disagree with limiting debate in the House of Commons, a cornerstone of our democracy. Let him demonstrate to us that he really listens to Canadians. While many Canadians are without jobs, and some working two jobs, the Prime Minister spends $127,000 on his Christmas vacation. I just heard a report that only 400,000 Canadians make more than $100,000 a year before tax. We will not forget who supported these plans and the budget.”
Again, this is someone who is saying that Prime Minister Trudeau “talks about being open and transparent”, but they've never seen any evidence of it. It's saying that he can certainly talk the talk, but why doesn't he start walking the walk? It is a very good point.
I'll conclude here. I have hundreds more of these emails, but I'm going to stop here for today. I'll just read one last email. It says, “I am appalled to hear of the goings-on in Parliament currently, and in such an underhanded way. For a government who claims to be more open and transparent, you go about doing the exact opposite. As MPs you are all elected to represent the people's interest, not Justin Trudeau's. Why should Parliament and Justin Trudeau not work on Fridays? Why should Justin Trudeau not be available at question period more often? (As it is, he's seldom there.)
“Why is this bill being put forward by backbencher MPs in the backroom? Why are you doing Justin Trudeau's dirty work? Why is this not being discussed in the House of Commons so people can be aware of it and have a say in how they are governed?
“I would like to add that this is not a partisan issue. Every government needs to be held accountable. (You might not be the next government, and they would have to also be accountable.)
“Why is this being done on budget day? Again, trying to slip through the cracks, which has become a Liberal way of doing business. This is closer to being a dictatorship rather than a democracy. As elected MPs, you should be doing more for the people who elected you. Absolutely nothing Justin Trudeau has done has been for the benefit of the Canadian people. In fact, everything he has done and is doing is blatantly detrimental to the people who elected you. If you will open your eyes and even do some cursory investigation, only Justin Trudeau personally and his close Liberal insiders are the ones who are directly benefiting from his actions to date. Please do the right thing for all Canadians, not just the few.
“Thank you for your attention to this matter.”
I guess, with that, one can only hope that the Liberal government is paying attention to this matter and is understanding that what they're doing will limit the ability of Canadians to hold their government accountable, and that they will think better of it and realize that this is just not happening. This is just not right, and they should change their course and allow for there to be proper accountability in the House of Commons and in committees to hold this government to account.
Obviously, there are a lot of people here who have expressed a lot of frustration with Justin Trudeau and the way he's governing this country. They deserve a right to have those concerns aired. They have a right to have answers to their questions. They have a right to see this government truly make any kind of an effort to show themselves to be accountable.
With that, I'll yield the floor, Mr. Chair.
9 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Thank you, Mr. Richards. Thank you for bringing new material.
Mr. Reed.
Mr. Reed and Mr. Richards, do you want to do anything with your cake at this time?
9 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Oh, well, Mr. Chair....
Mr. Richards, do you have a few minutes before you leave?
9 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
There's been a bit of a discussion here. The authorities differ on this point, but as we all know, a certain number of cat years are included in one human year. There are, I think, seven dog years in a person year.
The issue came up as to how many filibuster years there are in a person year. We've concluded that filibusters celebrate their birthdays on the week anniversary. Today is the third “filibursary”.
This particular committee meeting started three weeks ago today, on March 21. To celebrate that event, we have a lovely cake. I think perhaps, in order to keep things.... I guess in a way this is relevant, but in a way that's purely the way it should be, we could either light the candles now and sing “happy filibursary”, or, if you wish, we could wait until we are interrupted by, say, bells ringing in the House, or something like that. I leave that to the discretion of others.
9 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Maybe we'll wait a little bit, because I wouldn't be surprised if there are bells coming.
9 a.m.
Conservative
9 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Mr. Reid, you have the floor. I'm looking forward to you. Last time you gave us a lot of interesting historical parliamentary information and learned input, so I'm very looking forward to your input today.
9 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Thank you.
Many years ago, Mr. Chair, I was giving a 10-minute intervention in the House on.... I can't remember what the matter was, but you know how it works with speeches in the House. You start it, and then, if you're interrupted by some other proceeding—
9 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
If you're interrupted by some other proceeding, the Speaker will tell you, “Mr. Reid, when the house returns...”. He won't address you by name, but he'll say, “The honourable member for Lanark-Carleton will have five minutes when the House returns to the subject.” As it turned out, there was a two-week break commencing. When I came back, I made the point to the Speaker that when I was making the first half of my remarks it was two weeks ago, and there is nothing like a two-week break in the middle of a 10-minute speech to let you organize your thoughts.
The same thing applies here. It's been a three-week break. I was the first participant in this discussion. Indeed, the motion we are currently discussing is an amendment I proposed to Mr. Simms' motion. I return now to those comments. In so doing, a number of things have transpired, one of which, although it was to some degree evident three weeks ago, is that much more evident today, and that is the fact that our agenda.... We had a busy agenda three weeks ago; it is still busier today with the number of things that this committee needs to get done. I have a little list. I want to go through them to indicate how substantial these items actually are.
Certainly, the items we had on our plate when we began this discussion included, first, the review of the Canada Elections Act. We have a cyclical review in every Parliament of the Canada Elections Act. The rhythm is like this: you hold an election, in this case the 42nd general election. That is followed by a report from the Chief Electoral Officer, who makes his, or theoretically her, recommendations—it's “his” in this case; it was Mr. Mayrand—on things that could be done to make the 43rd general election an improvement on the 42nd.
The nature of these reports, as everybody on this committee well knows, is highly technical. They go step by step through different provisions of the elections act, detailing how the act could be changed to make improvements in areas as disparate as access to the polls by disabled voters—itself a long, complex, and vexed question, or series of questions, because each disability provides its own problems. Mobility issues are different from visual impairments, which are different from any of the other issues that affect what we would broadly label as the disabled community. We see issues as broad as that, down to issues of the problems that are involved in trying to get personnel to staff the polling places, down to issues with voter identification, and so on—literally hundreds of different topic areas in what is a very large and very technical piece of legislation.
We then review the recommendations made by Elections Canada and write, typically, a series of reports. This has been the approach this committee has taken. We started working through topic areas—topics A, B, and C were the groupings—and went through A first, choosing just what we call the low-hanging fruit, the things that were easiest to achieve a consensus on, a model that bears some resemblance to what, of course, the opposition parties are recommending to deal with changes to the Standing Orders, namely, to look at what is easiest to agree upon first. A lot of the stuff we're dealing with in the Elections Act....
Forgive me, I just have to ask what you're doing.
9 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
It's so I can plug in my cellphone, if I have to be here for 12 hours.
