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.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
There you go. I'm not quite sure if she's a poli-sci student—
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Nursing, okay, that's an incredibly admirable industry. I just had the nurses' association in my office today talking to me about Bill C-211 and some of the things that we're doing with that bill.
Let me get back to the other part because I don't want you to question my relevance on this. I signed on the dotted line, put my name forth, because I wanted to make a difference for those in the riding of Cariboo—Prince George. I think every member of Parliament wants to do that. I think we all come here with the best of intentions. I think maybe we all come here with big ideas that we're going to change the world and we're going to break the bureaucracy. I too think that the wheels of bureaucracy move slowly at times and I'm not one to sit and say, that's the way it is, that's the way it has always been.
I think the people on my fisheries committee could probably see that I'm not one who likes to say, that's just the way it has always been. I think there are efficiencies that we can find in all ways, and we can move forward in being an efficient Parliament.
One of the comments that was made earlier tonight was that if we want to keep going because we're afraid of change and it's not going to be...you know, that's the furthest from the truth. The best way to find a solution is to find a common ground.
Finding a common ground starts with—and I'm going to bring it back to the word we started with earlier—trust.
I think it was mentioned that this whole Parliament is going to be wasted because there's no consensus that's going to be able to come. That's a very authoritarian or maybe not a very realistic way of thinking. If we threw our arms up every time and stomped off because we weren't able to come to an agreement on something, that's not a real-world way of thinking, to begin with.
Mr. Chair, I'm a small business owner. I think I mentioned that before. I own a hair salon. Don't judge, I do it myself. My colleague is staring at me. Yes, I own a hair salon, but I've owned many different businesses over the course of my lifetime. I've been a small business owner from right after graduating from high school. I believe that entrepreneurship is the way to independence and to wealth. It gives one a real sense of accomplishment when they can build something from the ground up and move it forward. These are words to live by. About my hockey players, I'm going to put this out there and this is going to be very embarrassing but I think if my colleague Mr. Simms—he's not even here—can use self-deprecating humour, I can do the same. I'm a big chubby guy, I'm bald, and I wear Lulus on the plane, so it should be fairly easy to pick on me.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
My players who I coached for a long time called me TDids and my son JDids. I always come up with little nuggets, words to live by, by TDids. I don't refer to myself as TDids, just to make that clear—
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
—and I don't refer to myself in the third person at all as in “Todd's getting very angry.”
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Not any more, not after this point, moving forward.
I'm just going to say this. Any successful business people I've met with over the course of my lifetime were great negotiators. Part of being a great negotiator is you're a great communicator and you're able to find common ground. There is give and take. Again, Donald Trump might say that we beat people over the head and it's our way or the highway. That's not for me to say. I've read his book, Art of the Game—
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Yes. I think that is so important because we've seen this time and again with the PMO.
I'm not going to say it.
Again, I say this with all due respect to my colleagues across the floor, because I don't believe, Mr. Chair, that all of the members of their caucus believe 100% in where we're going. I think that there are some very wise people on the other side.
Indeed, over the course of the last three weeks, we've had the backbench actually standing up and voting their conscience, probably against the wishes of the front bench. I think the more we see that we have that ability, perhaps Canadians won't want electoral reform. You don't need it.
That's not to say that there isn't a time and a place for ensuring that we vote as one. Moving forward in different areas in terms of sending messages to Canadians, I think they need to see us working together.
Going back to my comment about common ground, it is so important that we find a way. Whether it's sidebar conversations.... We always used to talk about this on one of the work sites. It's called the urinal conversation, the bathroom conversation. You meet somebody in the bathroom, or in the hallway for a hallway conversation, and you find a way to ask, “What are you thinking about this? Is there a way that we can...?” Sometimes the best ways of getting deals done aren't at a desk or sitting across the way from one another.
I'm not saying that the best deals are sometimes made at a urinal, or in a bathroom for that matter. I'm saying that sometimes the best way of finding common ground isn't in an official setting. It is in an informal setting where you can be truthful and speak your mind without worrying that somebody is going to tape you or use the words that you're saying against you.
I think we've gotten away from that. I don't know why or where. I'll bring you back to where, for me, it kind of went sideways, which was last year on May 17. That probably was one of the the things I was most disappointed in.
I think that we can be better. When we talk about this discussion paper and the discussion that we're having back and forth, it truly is about being better and how we do it, but ramming somebody's ideas down....
This isn't my idea. It's not Ms. Vecchio's or Ms. Duncan's or Mr. Schmale's or Mr. Reid's. These aren't Mr. Reid's ideas. This is somebody telling us that they know better; they know the way. I'm not even going to say that this is Ms. Chagger's. I don't believe that she actually wrote this, if I'm not on record already as saying that. I think this came from somebody else.
Mr. Chair, I think that there are things we should be doing, having that conversation about how to make things better.
I believe the take-note debate on procedures was last fall. I stood in the House and provided some ideas as somebody who had only been in the House at that time for less than 14 months. I think I started it off by saying that I am not a procedural nerd.
I can't say that I've read this cover to cover. As a matter of fact, I was worried when I came here tonight that there would be a test on this.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
I was reluctant to come before PROC because I don't know everything that's in this.
I said earlier on that there are brighter people than I am, people who are more learned than I am, but I think if we go back to the fundamental rules and reason why we are here, and just bring it back to the privilege, the privilege isn't ours. The privilege of freedom of speech isn't so that we have the freedom to say whatever we want. The privilege is that we have the freedom to be the voice of those who elected us. I think we forget at times that the House doesn't belong to us. It belongs to the people.
I'm getting animated. I'm thinking back to my colleague Mr. Christopherson, who I sat here and listened to for hours. It was awesome, sitting watching Mr. Christopherson be so animated, and then watching our translators be just as animated. I loved it. I wish I could have taken a picture of it.
Mr. Chair, I know it's probably been said. I haven't read the blues. I'm being completely honest with you. I wanted to come here—whether it's today or last week—and get something off my chest that had been bothering me for some time, clearly. Thank you for tabling this discussion paper, which will allow me the opportunity to say at length, if I wanted to, which I do, that this House doesn't belong to us. It belongs to Canadians. Whether or not it's been said before by other members, we forget that. I think sometimes our Prime Minister, or the PMO, forgets that.
The contempt for the House is shocking. I don't know what was done previously. I know that the blame game goes on a lot. I can only tell you what I know and what I've witnessed. When I'm sitting there listening and watching QP, whether I'm participating or not, I can feel the contempt. Whether it's real or perceived, I think there are things we can do differently. It starts with the top. It starts with the guy who was elected to be our Prime Minister, or was nominated by his party to be the leader, and then subsequently his party was elected, and all of a sudden now he's the Prime Minister. It starts with that.
We talked about this last May, about parliamentary and unparliamentary behaviours, and how the actions in the week of May 17, after motion six was tabled, were very unparliamentary. I'm shocked at times. I think there are things on each side that go on, and we get very heated at times. I think all sides do. I love QP. The people from Cariboo elected a fighter. I love the art of the jab and the heckling. I'm one who likes that, respectfully. I always tell people that what they see on TV and what really happens are two different things. Usually we work very collegially and very collaboratively across all sides. That's the way it's supposed to be. Our QP is the opportunity—
4:05 p.m.
Linda Duncan
To hold the government accountable
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Exactly, Ms. Duncan.
What we saw with this discussion paper.... I don't believe Ms. Chagger actually authored it, although she put it forth that the more she sits in the House, the more she feels it needs modernizing.
The idea that we're going to limit....but now they're saying that they're not going to limit the Prime Minister, that it was never the intent; it was 45 minutes...that he would answer back and forth.
We know, Mr. Chair, that last week the Prime Minister stood in the House and answered...not every question. As much as the Liberals would say that he answered every question, there was one that he didn't answer. We can all agree that there was one question he didn't answer. Isn't that correct?
4:05 p.m.
An hon. member
Yes.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Right, so far be it from me to bring it up. I think somebody else will bring it forward. The point is, Mr. Chair, that there wasn't a need to change the Standing Orders for that to happen.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
He was still able to stand and answer every question.
Mr. Chair, if the Prime Minister is there every day, he can stand and answer every question or any question that he chooses. Personally, I know there are times.... I think I asked him a question last week that he didn't answer—it went to another person—but he was in the House, which was great. It's always great to see our Prime Minister there; it gives our opposition leaders an opportunity to ask the questions.
I like the idea of having a prime minister's question period. I think it's a great idea. The one thing I would love to see done differently in question period is to give actual answers. I think that is a novel idea. I brought it up before, when we stood in the House in a take-note debate and talked about changing the way Parliament operates.
I don't have the benefit of having been in the House when things were done in the last Parliament, but I can tell you this. The gobbledygook or verbal gymnastics that we hear from a minister or a parliamentary secretary holding on to and reading from their speaking points is—
March 21st, 2017 / 4:05 p.m.
Liberal
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
