Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 21st, 2017

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

How do we diminish trust? That was a question that was brought up last week. A number of different things were done that have diminished the trust. It goes back to my comment that I and others arrived here with the best of intentions. We weren't jaded when we got here. We're not jaded now, but trust has been broken.

This goes to the point where I said that you bypass all the people there. You choose to email, text message, or delegate the delivery of a difficult message to others. Whether Ms. Chagger wrote this or not, I think it came from the PMO and was delivered to her to delegate that message. I think that's a big one. You tell half truths, use spin, avoidance, weasel words, and communication not grounded in integrity, forthrightness, and honesty. That impacts trust.

That's where we sit today. When one side is deliberately opaque or evasive and uses evasive communications, it offers a different kind of transparency. Now, there's a word we've heard quite a bit over the last 18 months. This government was going to have a new, open, and transparent way of governing. Perhaps as things have gone on, they've had the best intentions that this was going to be the way, but maybe there wasn't a plan on how they were going to deliver that, so they're making it up as they go. As a government, we have a very effective opposition, one of the strongest we've seen in a long time. Maybe what we're seeing on the other side is scrambling because we have been so effective in what we're doing. Ms. Duncan is nodding her head. I think that's perhaps...or maybe that's....

At any rate, here's another way you diminish trust, Mr. Chair. You over-promise and under-deliver. Some call it hype. Others reference it by saying, “all hat, no cattle”. That's a saying we use back in the Cariboo. The yield is the same, that if you don't take your own words seriously, why should anyone else trust them? That's what we've found over the course of the last while.

Again, budget 2017 was tabled....

You're going to ask me why I'm saying this, Mr. Chair, and getting to the point of asking if this is relevant, really, to what I'm saying. It absolutely is, Mr. Chair. For the reason as to why it's relevant, I'm going to go back to why, in my opinion, this paper was tabled at the time.

What happened the very next day? The budget was tabled. The government knew that things were weak in that area, that it probably wasn't going to be the flash-bang, whiz-bang budget they were looking at. They needed a diversion, a smokescreen if you will: whiz-bang. It was a diversionary tactic.

I would offer this up, Mr. Chair. Again, I don't know whether this is true or not. Who knows what goes on behind closed doors? That's above my pay grade. But I would think that the diversionary tactic of tabling this paper is taking away the discussion about the budget, and how it maybe fell down in areas. What are we talking about instead? We're not talking about how softwood and forestry companies weren't mentioned, not even once, or a plan to get a softwood lumber deal, which is so important to my riding of Cariboo—Prince George.

Mr. Chair, I don't know whether you've heard me speak in the House about this. There's relevance here. Over 140 communities in the province of British Columbia are dependent on forestry. These communities were waiting for budget 2017 to come out in order to see what the plan was to hopefully get either some relief—I don't know what that looks like—or get a deal done. They never saw that.

I know you're leaning into the mike about relevance, but trust me, it's all structured.

The reason this paper was tabled was to really steer away from what the budget was or was not going to do for Canadians. For the last three weeks, this has really monopolized a lot of the discussion in the House, and here in this committee.

I'll go back to the document that I built here. It's interesting, because as we talk about trust and perhaps why it was broken, we play the blame game. We've seen that a lot. I don't know if that was done in previous governments, or what have you. It's, “Well, this government did this, and Conservatives did that, so we're going to continue doing it this way”, or “We're not as bad as those guys; the reason we're not getting something done is because these guys left it behind.”

I offer this: if you truly had a plan to govern, you wouldn't need to play the blame game. You wouldn't need to play that game. There is a time when you need to lead, but there's a time when you have to build consensus. True leaders build consensus. They're really consensus builders.

Think back to some of the best leaders you've ever had, the best coaches you've ever had. I don't know whether you've played sports at all, Mr. Chair. As I mentioned, I coached for a long time. There are times when you have to lead, but you have to have a plan on what the goal is, on how you're going to move forward. Then you have to build that consensus as you move forward.

To go back to what I said earlier on, the Standing Orders are the rules of the game. You can't just arbitrarily change the rules of the game because you don't like what's going on. It's not for you to do that, to arbitrarily change the rules, take away the voice of Canadians, silence the opposition, because you don't like that the opposition is actually holding your feet to the fire, and actually standing up for the electors. Fundamentally, it's wrong. That's why you're seeing our backs up against the wall.

Mr. Chair, I don't know how many hours you've sat in that chair over the last while, but when you look to point blame.... I don't think we should have blame anyway, but there's been a lot of blame shuffled our way. We're here doing our job, and that's being the voice of the electors. If I take you back to O’Brien and Bosc, our House of Commons Procedure and Practice, it brings you right back to what it is we're talking about.

I mentioned freedom of speech. It's not about our being able to stand up and say the things we want. It's about being the voice of our constituents. We are fighting for our voices and for our constituents' voices. I think that it's interesting when you have leadership in the House from the government standing up and saying that we could be getting on and doing better things and more productive things. I'll tell you this. My electors, my constituents, expect me to be a strong voice, to fight for their voices here in Ottawa, and to make sure that in no way are those voices silenced or lessened—and that is what we're seeing with this discussion paper.

I've gone on a bit about how we build trust and how we've diminished trust, how that happens. I want to talk about how trust flourishes. I think it's important that leaders who build trust operate with three trust basics: they give trust first; they communicate effectively; and they authentically show up. Isn't that amazing? They authentically show up. I think that's important, because it goes back to my comment about contempt for the House.

Again, I can only speak from what I know. Sometimes it feels to the opposition that QP—or, as Ms. Duncan would like to call it, AP, answer period—is almost like an inconvenience for our Prime Minister to be there, and perhaps for some of his ministers. They have better things to do, rather than be held accountable to the people, which, again, is what we were elected to do.

It's very interesting. I'll go back to the comment that they authentically show up. Leaders who build trust operate with three basic trust elements: they give trust first; they communicate effectively; and they authentically show up. If we are truthfully going to have a conversation and be relevant, here's a novel idea, Mr. Chair. If we are going to modernize the House, how about our Prime Minister showing up and being truly engaged? That's a novel idea. How about our ministers showing up? I'm not going to say “all” ministers, because I think there are some ministers who, as I said earlier, actually answer some great questions. They don't need speaking points to actually answer; they know their files pretty well. But if we are to be better, let's have true engagement. Let's not look at it like they're bored, like we're beneath them. I'll remind them through this, and through you, Mr. Chair, that they were once in our position. Again, going back, I've seen some comments from those who were in opposition previously, and some were pretty good hecklers, too, if I do say so myself. How soon we forget what it's like to be on the other side.

Second, effective leaders understand workplace trust that thrives and creates these pockets of excellence. It goes beyond the basics. Here is another way we can make trust flourish in this area: we become really good at what we do. I always said to my team, when I was in aviation or when I was coaching, “Look, if you're a goal scorer, be the best goal scorer you are. If you're a fighter, heaven forbid, do what makes you famous, but be the best at what you're doing.” My thing is this. Whatever file I'm on, whether it's the fisheries file or our work with PTSD, which my Bill C-211 is about, I want to become an expert on what I'm doing. This is the greatest compliment I can get.

To give you an example, I'm overseas and I'm meeting with FedEx. I'm sitting there with FedEx VPs across the way from me. I'm a lowly Canadian aviation executive, and I'm having the conversation with FedEx.

Mr. Chair, regardless of what is being said across the way, I'm having a conversation with you. If they choose to listen to it or not, it doesn't matter.

The greatest compliment I had was that I knew their industry. I knew their business. I knew FedEx inside and out. I think that's incumbent on us, as members of Parliament, to be the best members of Parliament we can. Be interested, be relevant, become the experts, and be good at what you're going to do.

To go back to the comment I made earlier on, about sometimes our Prime Minister seeming disinterested, I don't know whether that's true or not. I really don't. I've had some constituents who have been here and who have wanted to meet him. He's been gracious. He's actually met with them, or taken a picture with them or what have you. Honestly, he is.... I'll give compliments where compliments are due.

As I mentioned, just being a kid from the Cariboo, I'm not one to follow procedure. I don't know the politically correct thing to say or do. I had my mayor from Prince George here. I'm very proud of our communities and I'm proud to show them off. It was funny, because I said that it wasn't so much I wanted them to meet the Prime Minister, I wanted the Prime Minister to meet my mayor. That's really what it was.

So I knocked on the door. Like, who am I to barge past the security? They asked me what I was doing. I told them I was a member of Parliament—“Don't you see the ring?”, that type of thing—and talked about privilege and what have you. To the Prime Minister's credit, he took 10 minutes out of his busy schedule and he actually met with my mayor.

I don't know whether he's disinterested. I don't know whether he is...if this is above him or not, but that's the look that we get on his face.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Yes, today.

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

Not just today, every day.

I don't even know if he's listening. Far be it from the Prime Minister, because I'm sure he has bigger and better things to do, but here's a tip. Here's a point. I have seen this, and I'm on record as saying this. Regardless of who's speaking, if it's not the front bench, if it's a backbench MP and they're literally showing emotion about something that's going on in their constituency, don't sit there and twirl your earpiece and laugh and smile. This is regardless of whether he's smiling at the person who's actually delivering the message or he's smiling because somebody beside him has said something.

Mr. Chair, I bring that up because it goes to my earlier comment about being self-aware. He is, for all intents and purposes, the captain of our team. He's running our country. I talked about parliamentary behaviour, and behaviour being unparliamentary. I think regardless of who's asking the question, he should be paying attention and making eye contact.

That's just me. I can only offer what I see.

Regardless of whether I like hearing what is being said, when I'm in the House, for the most part, if there's not somebody talking in my ear, I pay attention to the debate. I give respect to the people across the floor or down the hall. I think that's something we should all be doing.

It starts with him, because people look to him, as the prime minister, as an example.

Mr. Chair, I know you're not going to say yes or no or anything like this. There may be some things he's done very well, but I would have to say that I don't think he's been a very good role model within the House. He hasn't set a very good example.

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible—Editor]

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

He wants me to get away from what I'm saying.

That's why I love going to Vegas.

I'm not a big gambler. My wife loves going to Vegas. I hate going to Vegas. I work hard for my money.

No, it's relevant, Mr. Chair, trust me. I've stayed on topic for the most part.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

We've noticed that.

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

I love watching people, watching mannerisms. I do that. It's interesting when you sit in the House and you watch other members of Parliament and how they react, don't react, what they stand to, and what they clap to.

I'm going to tell you today that one of our colleagues was talking about Coptic Christians. There were three members on the other side of the House—only three members—who stood and clapped, only three members who stood and clapped on an event that was absolutely horrific. Regardless of what your beliefs are or whatever, you know, we have members of Parliament from all sides who do S.O. 31s, and it's our opportunity to talk about groups, events, or things that we hold dear.

Mr. Chair, while I'm not perfect, I give each and every one of our members of Parliament my attention as best I can, unless there's a conversation going on beside me. Actually, when there is debate, as I think some of my colleagues probably do—I would hope they do—I actually listen to the debate, to all sides. I listen not to respond. I'm going to offer you that. I think it's so important,.

I'll give you an example of what I did, which is completely what I'm talking against right now. I think it's important that we, as members of Parliament, don't ask a question with a preconceived notion on the answer that we're going to get back. I think far too often we listen to respond rather than listen to learn, and I think that's important. I'll give you a case in point.

Last week I asked a question. I already had my response in place. The minister actually answered the question, but I already had my response in place. I fired back with a question saying that it was not an answer. I watched my video over. I was man enough to go to the minister and say, “You know what? I was wrong.” Publicly, I'm telling you right now, I'm not above saying I was wrong. I'm just saying that we should be better. Setting a role model starts with the guy who has been tasked to lead not just his caucus, our caucus, but our country. I think that's so important, that he can authentically show up. If you want to build trust, show that you're truly interested in what we're doing, that you're not just interested in ramming down if you don't like the way things are going when people are asking you tough questions. Questions are going to be tough. Governing is tough. Our job as an opposition is to hold your feet to the fire.

I'm going to go back to what I was talking about, about being passionate. Another thing about trust is that you're passionate about your work. Passion isn't about cheerleading, platitudes, or cranking up fake enthusiasm. It comes from an inner desire, determination, and drive. I think that's important.

I remember the very first conversation I had with you, Mr. Ouellette. You were campaigning to be the Speaker, I believe, at the time. I don't know if you remember the conversation. I do. I remember the call. I didn't know who you were. As we were on the phone, I was Googling you, this guy who was calling me. When I got off the phone, I said, “I don't know who this guy is, but the fact that he took a moment out of his day to call me....”

You actually did some homework on who you were talking to, too, if I remember correctly. It showed me that you had passion, as we were moving forward. Passion can be shown in so many different ways. It's not about the cheerleader “rah, rah, rah, this is what we're doing, sis-boom-bah”. Passion is shown by interest, true interest. I think that's really, really important.

Third, Mr. Chair, they operate with self-awareness. I'll go back to my comments about operating with self-awareness and knowing that with every action, every time you are out in public, every time you are in the House, every time you interact with somebody, you represent Canadians. You represent us. I think that is really important.

There are things we do sometimes where we go, “Yikes, that was the wrong thing to do.” I just told you about something I did. I think there are ways we can do things better. To bring it back to what I said, it starts with the guy at the top and that office, the PMO. I think that's really important.

I'm going to skip through some of the things I have, but they are relevant too.

I think they have to truly care about people. Far be it from me to say whether the folks across the way truly care about people, although I think they do. That's why they went into serving the people. I am talking about how we build trust, that the other side or the group you are working with truly wants the best for you. I'm not quite sure we feel that from the other side. They are operating under the guise of making things better for everyone, for us, and we're going to have a better life. Everything is going to be rosy. As one of our colleagues said, there will be unicorns and rainbows, and things are going to be better. I don't think they truly mean well for all. I think they mean to do well for themselves. Again, it goes back to building trust. We have to trust that they actually mean well.

Another way that trust flourishes is if they listen, if leaders listen, truly listen and understand. They don't just say it. They really care. They truly listen. That's not just listening internally or externally. They listen to all involved. The reality is that what's being proposed impacts not just the 338 members of Parliament but also Canadians. I'm not quite sure that 39% gives them the mandate to actually change that. I truthfully don't believe that.

Another way that trust flourishes is when those who are leaders have perspective. In the real world, they know what matters in life. Trust-building leaders have that perspective. They know that you can't make a decision based on emotion, that you should take a step back, that if you don't like the way things are going, you don't just grab somebody and do things.... I know that the Prime Minister regretted doing that, or he said that he regretted doing that. To me, that gave us a snapshot into the psyche or the person. Maybe it was frustration. Again, we all do things out of frustration, but we have to have real-world perspective.

Again, it goes back to my comment. I don't have enough perspective, being a member of Parliament for 18 months, that I would offer a paper called “Modernization of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons”. Really, if we were to do something, I would better trust having an all-party committee based on folks such as my honourable colleague Mr. Van Loan and others who have been here much longer than we have. This paper basically implies—I don't know how long ago Mr. Van Loan was elected, as I don't have the parliamentary history—that, “You don't know anything. Those who have come before us know nothing. Ms. Chagger knows best.”

I'll again go on the record as saying that I don't believe Ms. Chagger actually wrote this. I think it's coming from somewhere else.

Again, if we were to truly have a discussion, which is what the government wished to have, we wouldn't have negotiated through the media. We would honestly have had that discussion truthfully.

Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

I'll make just a short point. I think you have grasped the relevance point very well. There's also a point of repetition, too, so try not to repeat some of the points you have already made.

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

Absolutely. I apologize, Mr. Chair. As I said earlier, I didn't have the benefit of actually listening to all of the committee work done in the past, but I think I built off of what I've been saying. Sometimes I might have to go back just to add to the point that we are moving forward with. I've tried to make sure there has been no repetition. I understand there is some along the way. I think there have been others here before us who were far more repetitive.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Hear, hear.

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

I think I'm trying to keep it fairly structured.

Our colleague Mr. Ouellette asked me to mention my bills that I came to the House with. As I said, I took the nomination back in 2014. I had the year to work to getting elected. I arrived in the House two weeks after being elected. I had the framework for Bill C-211, but I also had a framework or some ideas for three other bills I wanted to do.

One was with respect to a national appreciation day for first responders. The other one was a bill that dealt with prolific offenders and their release, making sure that it wasn't just up to a judge to decide whether the community or the victims were notified upon their release, that it was mandatory that if high-profile offenders, schedule III, were being released, we didn't rely on the whim and whimsy of a judge to decide: it would actually be mandated.

The other one was to deal with the Canada Evidence Act and a standardized date format with respect to evidence. Mr. Chair, let's say you were pulled over. Maybe there was something in your car that was untoward or what have you and it was entered into evidence. If the well-meaning RCMP officer or police officer at the time entered it into evidence as “010103”, what date is that? Is it January 1, 2003, or is it March 1, 2001? There's an issue. That was another one of the bills.

Then, of course, there's Bill C-211 that I entered and that we are moving forward with.

I hope that satisfied—

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

The reason, Todd, I wanted you to talk about it is that it shows you understood the rules and regulations of the House, and you were able to use them even as a rookie MP. I was pretty darn impressed by it.

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

I appreciate that.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I said, “Wow, look at that. Three bills right off the hopper. There he goes.”

I said to my staff, “Hey, how come we don't have three bills ready to go? Let's go, guys. If Todd can do it, I'm sure we can at least do half of what he's doing.”

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

Absolutely.

My colleague makes a great point. If you know the rules, if they haven't been changed on you, we can all play the game. But changing the rules as you are partway through the game, in the third period or overtime or whatever, doesn't do anybody any good. That's not the way we should be moving forward. It's just not right.

I want to go back to a few different things here. I read the report of this committee that was referenced a number of times, entitled “Interim Report on Moving Toward a Modern, Efficient, Inclusive and Family-Friendly Parliament”. I think one of the unique things in this report—I think Mr. Christopherson mentioned it at the time as well—is that while great recommendations were put forth, in the areas where there was no consensus the committee agreed to not put it forth as a recommendation.

We can table reports—we've done it in the fisheries committee—where we've done a study and not always agreed. We can table differing points of view, and I think that's important.

I'll go back to some of the comments that were in this document, because I think it's important as we move forward.

You can table this and you can say, “Given the lack of consensus the Committee has heard regarding whether the potential benefits of eliminating Friday sittings outweigh the potential drawbacks, the Committee does not intend to propose a recommendation regarding this matter.” Our committee members sat through a study, if I'm understanding this—I've participated in a number of committee studies now—which, I assume, brought witnesses forth. Correct? Depending on the testimony, there was probably some good testimony about eliminating Friday sittings and there was some differing testimony not in support of eliminating Friday sittings.

The committee went back and looked at it. Probably there were some on the government who said, look, we should really put forth a comment about eliminating Fridays. Then those on this side probably said....

I'm just surmising. I don't know how it went back and forth. I don't have the privilege of having that. But it's important to say, because they wrote it down in this interim report, that there was no consensus, meaning there was probably no consensus on the committee and no consensus from the witnesses as well, probably some experts on parliamentary procedure or what have you who came before them. We try to have the best witnesses come forth. These are either industry experts or subject matter experts. We try to bring them forth so that they can give us, outside of this bubble, learned testimony as to the issue at hand that we're studying.

Far be it from me to repeat it, Mr. Chair, but here it said this: “Given the lack of consensus the Committee has heard regarding whether the potential benefits of eliminating Friday sittings outweigh the potential drawbacks, the Committee does not intend to propose a recommendation regarding this matter.” I believe that was tabled sometime in November of last year. Yes?

Here we are four months later. The government has decided now, all of a sudden, that they are the experts. They want you to discuss it again. Talk about a useless waste of taxpayers' dollars. Are there not better things that we can be studying?

[An hon. member]

Probably.

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

Again, I'm not part of this committee. I'm sitting in. I'll hopefully get the chance to come back.

The committees are supposed to be at arm's length, are they not? I know that the fisheries committee, which I've talked about before...Mr. Morrissey is here now. I'm very proud of the work. I've said this time and time again. For the most part we set aside our partisan beliefs. We have come at it from a very unified point of view, that we truly want to make some differences on this file.

There is a time and a place for us to hold the government's feet to the fire, but as a committee, we've actually pushed back on the minister, on the department, on things like that. I'm so proud, because the people across the way have actually challenged the minister and their own department. I'm just telling you that they've done a very good job. I think that's the way things are supposed to be.

My point is that committees are supposed to be at arm’s length. While it's not gospel, and we don't expect the government to act on everything we say...because far be it from a cabinet minister to listen to a committee—

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Be the voice of the members.

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

—be the voice of the members. Exactly.

We already had experts here. I don't know how long the PROC committee actually studied this. This is an interim report, so maybe this is the next step.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

[Inaudible—Editor]

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

Yes. I read the document. I think it was a good study.

All of a sudden now Ms. Chagger has said, again, that the more time she spends in this House, the more she feels it needs modernizing.

Holy smokes.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

[Inaudible—Editor] for years.

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

Yes: 18 months, and we had witnesses. I am only assuming that the committee had witnesses who appeared before it, and that there was no consensus.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

You could have asked.

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

Well, I'm just saying. I've spoken to members on all sides. I think this committee has done some great work, and I think you're doing good work here, now.

As I said, I was not expecting this type of filibuster. I was prepared, when I came last week, and I was shocked when Mr. Badawey made his intervention. I was like, “No, we're not going to do it. What are we doing letting this guy speak? I'm not ceding the floor.” But we had a great discussion. I think perhaps that's a great way that we're changing the way things operate.

Who is the House leader to tell the 337 other members of Parliament that she knows best? I have a hard time with that, obviously. I'm not saying anything about her ability. I don't know what her education was. She wanted to be a nurse, I think.

I would just never march into Parliament, say, “I have all the answers, here they are”, and then have the nerve to actually stand before the media and say that this was the way they were going to bring Parliament into the 20th century.

Is that what they said...?