Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 21st, 2017

[An hon. member]

The 21st.

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

The 21st century.

That's what Mr. de Burgh Graham said. Actually, I wish I'd been here to hear his intervention last week.

It's interesting when we see the suggestion about making electronic voting. I think it's important that we have members of Parliament in the House. We're doing it right around the clock and we're having votes. I think Ms. Sahota said that it was a good thing she didn't bring her family, because it would have interfered with her family time.

I understand what it's like to have your family nearby and get a vote called or whatever. But this is what we signed up for. I never want to take away somebody's family time. I think you heard earlier how passionate I am about my kids. I did things differently in my previous role. This job has allowed me, has afforded me, to be a better father, as a matter of fact. Regardless of whether I'm away from home or whatever, I think we know what we're getting ourselves into when we're doing it.

Getting back to the votes, electronic voting may be a way to modernize it, but there has to be a different way. I think you have to stand to be counted. I think members of Parliament have to be able to stand, on the record, whether they are for something or against it. That's what the electors want us to do.

One thing that my electors asked me on the doorstep was this: “If something's against your party policy, but we in Cariboo—Prince George feel very strongly for it, how will you vote?” You have to vote your conscience. You have to vote your electors. Ultimately, it's not me.

I want to bring you back to Bill C-14, which dealt with physician-assisted death. We spent a lot of time debating other things, considering the amount of time we spent on a piece of legislation that I feel is probably one of the most important pieces of legislation our Parliament would see. Do you want to know why? It was because closure was invoked on it, which I think is sad.

People asked me how I was going to vote. Regardless of my personal beliefs, I listened to my constituents.

I consulted a good friend of mine who is a minister, and I said that I didn't think there was enough time for me as an elected official, that I didn't think there was anything to prepare somebody to be able to really understand the magnitude of voting on something such as that. I was struggling with it, so I went to my minister and asked for guidance.

I heard from our constituents loud and clear, and it varied, but overwhelmingly I heard that.... When we're talking about invoking closure on important debates, I think it's important.... I don't know how many days we debated the question of changing the words to our national anthem. I think we debated that longer than physician-assisted death. To me, for fundamental pieces of legislation such as that, invoking closure on something because you don't like the way the conversation is going.... We heard on the other side that they were indeed twisted in how they were going to vote as well. We've seen that a number of times.

Mr. Chair, I can't talk about what we did as government, but we have seen that over the course of the last 18 or 16 months this government has invoked closure a lot of times because they didn't like the message they were hearing. They didn't like the fact they were getting, perhaps, even some opposing views within their own caucus. I think that is shameful.

We need to make sure that the voices of our electors are never silenced, that we have the ability to bring those forth. Whether we like the answer or not, I think that is important to do. There are things I may not always agree with on the other side, or even within our own caucus, but I listen and respect those views, recognizing that they are the constituents' views of the members. I do my very best to try to educate myself on why somebody feels that way, and I think that's important.

I read Ms. May's paper. As I said, I try to understand all points of view. I can honestly say that, while I may not always agree with Ms. May, there are some things that she says in here that really resonate with me. On electronic voting, she states, “For my part, as the leader of an unrecognized, but nationally engaged parliamentary party, I find the current voting system valuable in many ways.” I agree with this. It is important that members be physically present. Voting from our offices or our home ridings is not an acceptable option, and it is a dereliction of duty. I truly believe that. It opens it up for manipulation.

This is my saying this. I think what we need to do is to make sure that members of Parliament can't absolve themselves of the responsibility of voting. We must not make it easier for them to say, “I wasn't there, I didn't vote on it”, or “somebody else pressed the button”. Instead, stand and be counted. If you are truly there to represent your electors and your riding, find a way to get yourself to the Hill and vote, and be on the record for how you feel.

I want to go back to some of the comments that we've heard regarding the opposition. Again, I don't know the history, but has there ever been a time when the Conservatives and the NDP have co-authored a paper and signed it, and the leaders have stood together on something and had a unified voice? Probably not in the last 10 years, anyway.

This is what the government of the day has done. It's managed to actually unite, for the most part, the full opposition. We've got a letter here from last week written by the Honourable Candice Bergen, our opposition House leader, and Murray Rankin, the NDP House leader, talking about modernizing the House. It brought forth a 2001 motion to create the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons. I'm not going to go into this because I think it's been read to death. But what I'm going to say is that I think it's interesting that I see a lot of kind of grumpy people, angry at what the opposition is doing. They say, “Can you imagine the gall of the opposition to do all these different moves and manoeuvres, and shame on them”. Well, who started this, Mr. Chair? All you've done is galvanized us on this, which is great because for once the guns are pointed squarely across the way and not askew a little bit, because I see that sometimes too. I think it's important that it this on the record as well.

Mr. Chair, it's interesting when we go down the path that we've gotten to at this point. I'm sure every member of the government or the Liberal Party.... And it's all backbench; we don't see any ministers here. Of course, they're busy doing whatever they're doing. Far be it from them to come to talk about their ways, what they think would change or modernize the House. I know they're busy doing things. I'm being facetious. It has been the backbench folks, the newbies who have really been holding up the end for the government—and you, of course, Mr. Chair, who have been doing a great job. I think it is very commendable.

I would love to be a fly on the wall in your conversations behind closed doors. I really would. I'm sure it's not all roses, bouquets, rainbows, and unicorns, because I know that you've got some very strong, well-meaning, very smart, very capable members of Parliament who perhaps don't get a chance to say as much as they would like, or don't get a chance to be the voice of their ridings as much as they'd like. As a matter of fact, just before Christmas, there was a member of Parliament who stood up—and forgive me, because I don't know his name; I should know his name—and was heckling me, and I was looking across the way. It was the first words I think he had said in the House in the 14 months after being elected. I thought, “Is that the best you've got after being elected for 14 months?” It was the first time he was able to stand in the House and be on record. That's the point that we've said. I've stood up a number of times in the House to say—and I'm saying it over and over again here—that the 338 members of Parliament, incredible, strong, well meaning, capable, elected from all walks of life, bring differing points of view and perspectives to this House.

I'll use the Prime Minister's words against him here, that “Canadians know our country is made stronger because of our diversity, not in spite of it.” Does that ring true, that everyone around the table has a say because we come at it from different vantage points? We've probably got people who have been CEOs of major corporations. We've got scientists and microbiologists or marine biologists, and we've got people from all walks of life. We've got ministers. We've got an astronaut, for heaven sakes. So we've got people around the table who are from all walks of life, who bring us different points of view. Can't we come to some form of consensus or be trusted to sit around the table and come up with something or find ways of making things different and better?

It's interesting, too, Mr. Chair—

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order. I'm actually listening to the member, and it would be good if we could have a little more respect from the other members of the committee.

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

I appreciate that. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, as I mentioned this earlier, what's really neat is that when we get a chance to travel with our colleagues from across the way, we really find out about them. I don't know if “belong” is the right word, but we really get to know them a little better. We put away our partisan politics. We can do it over breakfast, lunch, or dinner. We have discussions on a bus or in a plane. We really understand that they are human across the way. We forget that at times, don't we? We are all just human, and we're all here with the right intentions. We all want to do better for our communities and our country. I think this is something that gets lost at times.

Indeed, when trust is broken, regardless of who is sitting across the way from us, respect gets lost as well. I think we've seen that. As I mentioned before, respect is earned; it's not just given.

Are there things we need to do on all sides? I would say, yes, there are. I think respect is a two-way street. So is coming to a common ground, negotiating. We can either beat somebody over the head and make them understand our point of view, or educate them on our point of view and explain the reasons why we're doing the things we're doing.

Mr. Chair, maybe that is exactly what Ms. Sahota meant when she said—in her way of educating us—that the true intent of the discussion paper was to break that glass ceiling. She made the comment that the idea is that if we don't adopt reforms or new ways of doing business, we're never going to break that glass ceiling and we're not going to see more “reasonable people” enter this House, insinuating that we are not reasonable people. That's kind of what the comment was. I didn't take offence. I didn't get a chance to question her on it because my colleague Mr. Schmale was asking all the questions at the time, while I was patiently waiting to get to the floor.

I will inform you now, Mr. Chair, that I'll probably cede the floor shortly—not now, but shortly. I know I have other colleagues who want to have an opportunity. I think that's important. I said this at another point. I like the way we had the Simms rule or the Simms procedure. I would really like to see the 338 members of Parliament come in here and spend 10 minutes talking about how they feel about this. This impacts all of us. It doesn't impact just the opposition. One thing to remember, Mr. Chair—and for all our friends around the table and people who are listening—is that sooner or later the shoe drops and you're on the other side of the floor. How soon we forget. The changes that are made will impact those who come around next time.

Mr. Chair, I'm going to go into a couple of different areas, if I may. I'm almost there, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate that my colleague Mrs. Duncan is listening. Is it “Mrs.” or “Ms.”?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

It's “Ms”.

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

Ms., I'm sorry. I appreciate Ms. Duncan listening, and hopefully I haven't bored her.

I'm going to go back to the tradition for changing the Standing Orders and harken back to the report done on March 28 for the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I was given this the last time we were here.

I believe it goes back to 1913. From 1913 to now, there have been 39 changes to the Standing Orders. For a great portion of them, if not all, members were able to come to unanimous consent. There might have been recorded divisions, but, nonetheless, the changes passed.

The reason I say that is that members of Parliament had the opportunity to vote and have a say. What we're seeing right now and what we've heard from the House leader is that she specifically said they will not give the Conservatives a veto over their campaign promises. Talk about being open and transparent. Talk about being arrogant. That was an arrogant comment. I'm not assuming that Ms. Chagger is arrogant in her personal life or away from the House, but that was an arrogant comment. It's no different from when Ms. Sahota made the comment, and I think she said this last week as well, that they never said there would be consensus or that consensus was needed, or their comments that they didn't want things to change and that every member's role would be important.

These comments can be taken out of context. They may not have been put forth arrogantly, but it's like sending an email in all caps. When my kids text me, Mr. Chair, and it's all caps, I'm like, “Why are you screaming?” They send me back a question mark or an emoji, or whatever it's called, with a weird face, and I say, “Look at what you sent me”.

It goes back to my comment about intent. There's a method to my madness. It's not for me to understand what that person's intent is. The responsibility lies solely with the person to communicate better.

The comment she made was that they would not give the Conservatives a veto over their campaign plan. How is that working collaboratively? It's not, so what's the message we get as the opposition or as Conservatives? They didn't mention the NDP. It's that our opinion doesn't count. It's not even our opinion. It's those who elected us.

Again, we're not here for people to hear my voice. Going back to the privilege of freedom of speech, I'm here to speak on behalf of my constituents. The comment that they are not going to give the Conservatives a veto over their campaign plans is really saying that they will not give those ridings that elected Conservatives a voice. They don't care what they say. She also meant the NDP, so far be it for the NDP and the ridings that elected an NDP representative or a Conservative—

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Three times.

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

—three times.... They want to silence those ridings, because that's silencing my voice. They're silencing the voices of our constituents, those who elected us.

I'm going to bring it back to this:

The privileges of the Commons are designed to safeguard the rights of each and every elector.

Amazing!

Then there's this:

For example, the privilege of freedom of speech is secured to Members not for their personal benefit, but to enable them to discharge their functions of representing their constituents.... When a constituency has returned a candidate, it is the electors’ right that this chosen representative should be protected from any kind of improper pressure....

Privilege essentially belongs to the House as a whole.

It goes on and on.

Let me remind you of what the House is, because I believe that is important as well, Mr. Chair. The House is not the government. It's not.

I'll direct it to you.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

I'll listen for a while.

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

The House of Commons is the elected assembly of the Parliament of Canada. This House does not belong to Mr. Trudeau. It's not his. It's not the government's House. They have been tasked to manage the House. The House is ours. It is Canada's. It is the people of Canada's, the electors. All the time I feel that has been lost as a result—maybe not because of all the people on the other side.... I'm not going to paint everyone with the same brush on the other side, but definitely from a centralized group, they have used every opportunity to show contempt for the House and those in it. That is shocking. I've been on record for that enough.

I'm going to go through a few other things, and then I'm going to cede the floor.

I think it's interesting the government feels it needs to change the Standing Orders to ram some of these things through. We know that the Prime Minister already has the ability, if he chooses, to answer every question in QP, as long as he shows up for AP, answer period, which would be great. It isn't necessarily a QP. Answer period would be great. Let's just start calling it answer period. That would be a great change, actually.

He can answer every question if he chooses. He can stand up. He can pick and choose which members he wants to respond to. One day he might want to answer a question from a kid from the Cariboo who is standing up fighting for softwood—

[An hon. member]

Hear, hear!

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

—when that latter asks when a softwood lumber deal is going to be in place. Did I mention that more than 140 communities in British Columbia depend on forestry? He can answer the question when I ask about what I'm supposed to tell the young lady in my riding who was sexually assaulted. She wrote to me when she heard our Prime Minister's comments about the gentleman.... I don't know the court case; I don't have it in front of me, but the Prime Minister stood in the House and said he backed the decision of the judge who let off a person who sexually assaulted someone.

I'll go back to what I said before. There are common things that are easy to do, and it's the way we treat each other. I'll ask those who are in the House. I'll tell you the same as I tell the people in my riding, and I mentioned it earlier. If I am taking you to task there is a reason. I don't do it frivolously and I don't do it just for the sake of doing it. If I'm taking you to task, there is a reason I'm doing it. However, away from the House I'll treat you with every respect. I'll open the door for you. I'll ask you how your day's going. I'm genuinely interested in that. I told you before, and I say this in public, that politics is really for QP and campaigns. Truthfully, that's what it is, because we do a lot of work collaboratively behind the scenes. The great work that we do in committees is an extension of being able to have that time at QP to really challenge and hold the government to task. Committees are supposed to be at arm's length from departments. We mentioned that. It's an opportunity for us to actually make differences if the government heeds our information and our studies.

I had the opportunity earlier on, when I was deputy critic for indigenous affairs, to talk about the suicide epidemic within our first nations, Mr. Chair. I'm on record, in an emergency debate, talking about things we can do as Parliament to leave a legacy of action, a true legacy of doing some good things...where perhaps Canadians wouldn't question about electoral reform, where our backbench is actually standing up, having a voice, and not being whipped all the time—depending on the point at stake—but voting their conscience.

I think as a House we can do things differently. I use that term again, the “House”, which means all of us. It's not about arbitrarily ramming things down one's throat. I think if you set forth proposals with honest and good intentions, then you can try to find a way to common ground. You can't just stand up and say, “I really wish we could have this discussion.” Mean it, because when you make comments that drip with insincerity, people can tell. Mr. Chair, I think it's important that we remind ourselves that people can see through what we're doing.

I'm going to tell you what I was told early on in my life, that at the end of the day, the only thing we have is our integrity, and so we should lead our life that way. There are going to be bumps along the way, but if we learn from them, I think that is so important.

I'm nearing the end, Mr. Chair, just so you know, so indulge me in this. I talked about being elected on October 19, and I consider it a distinct honour. I remember getting my first pin.

Ms. May, how are you?

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

I'm well.

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

You missed it. I was talking about your paper that you—

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

I'm honoured that you would speak of my Standing Orders paper because I know your time is short, and it's hard to fit everything in.

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

I know, but I actually thought you said some valid things in it, so I give credit where credit is due.

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

Thank you.

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

Marnie says hi, by the way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Doherty, I'm going to take a minute to welcome Elizabeth May and tell her that, as well as using the regular procedures here, we're also using the Simms' procedure.

The legal procedure is that, when the person has the floor, they can talk for 12 hours, like some members have, and you normally wouldn't have anyone else talk, but what we have done here is, if someone wants to comment on a particular point that that person's making, at the leave of that person—and everyone has been flexible on this so far—you can actually make a short intervention on the point they are making. I say this just so you understand the unique way we've been operating here.

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

If I may, Mr. Chair, and with your permission, Todd, I was at the Parliament of Westminster a week ago Monday and was fascinated to see how they manage the speaking time of members. As a general rule, when someone is presenting in our Parliament, we usually have 20 minutes or 10 minutes and no interruptions unless the Speaker recognizes another member, but in the British Parliament, when those 20 minutes are allocated to basically a representative of a party on a particular point, that person, while speaking in the chamber, may, in their language, “give way” at any point. If they give way voluntarily—I think it's something we might want to consider for our standing rules—it animates the conversation, because a member who hasn't been recognized by the Speaker....

The Speaker was busy chatting with someone off to the side, and I was wondering what was happening; the proceedings were running amok. People were standing up and interrupting. If they thank the member who's speaking for giving way, and then they ask a question that amplifies one of the points their party wishes to make on the issue at question, it creates a much livelier presentation.

Of course, their Parliament, like ours, does not allow the reading of written speeches, but their Parliament, unlike ours, actually honours this rule. It really helps a speaker who has a big time slot to fill to be able to have a member say.... The day I was there they were debating transit policy and a new bus bill. Labour members would interrupt a Labour member who had the floor, the member would give way, and then the member who had a point would say, “I'm concerned. In my constituency what I hear is that people have trouble affording their bus passes and that sometimes it's even cheaper to take Uber when you have a large family, and what does the member think of that?” Then it goes back to the member who holds the floor.

Anyway, I think it's a wonderful procedure you're using here at the House affairs committee. I thank you, Mr. Chair, for allowing me to say a few words about the procedure you have chosen to use. It certainly has its precedence in the British Parliament, and we might want to consider that it might work well in our Chamber as well as here at this committee.

But, as ever, Mr. Bagnell, a friend of mine for a very long time, you are willing to innovate, and I thank you for it.

I'll now thank Mr. Doherty for the chance to say a few words and listen attentively to the points he has to make. Thank you very much.

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

Well, I'm actually almost done. I don't know how much longer I will go on, but I really appreciate the chance to get a drink. Last week, when Mr. Badawey made his first intervention, I was ready to fight. I wish Mr. Nater were here for whatever parliamentary procedure he could figure out to say that this was not the right thing to do. Anyway, he calmed me down and we managed to get on with it. I've actually enjoyed the conversation. I think that's more what we're doing here. This is probably what Canadians would expect us to do—to have that conversation.

I want to go back to my pin. When we were elected, I think I talked to you a little bit about it.

I'm going to digress just a little bit because I'm conflicted. I'm a heavyset, chubby guy and my colleague shows up with cake and I think pizza. If I left right now, everybody would say I was only leaving because there is cake and pizza. So now I feel the need to go on a little bit further. I am going to say one thing for my colleagues who are here.

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

You're making me feel bad because now here I am eating this cake.

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

No, it's all good. I'm just going to say one thing. I know that over the course of the three weeks there is pizza and other food brought that is perhaps not shared with everybody. I told the guy last week who asked me why I was taking one of your pieces of pizza that it was because the Chair and Simms told me I could—not that it would have mattered. I'm just joking.

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

He was taking pre-payment for doing your work.

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

Exactly.

I'm just going to say that there is gamesmanship at all times.

Anyway, I'm going to go back to my ring.

Actually, I'm not a big dessert guy. That might come as a surprise.

I talked a little bit about our nomination and how vicious and kind of bloody it was. Our campaign, I think, was great. We had a healthy debate. I respect all those who put their names forward. When you get a chance to take your oath and sign the book, you get this pin, and they tell you it gives you privilege to the House 24-7.