—versus unanimity. How I would love for all parliamentarians in this House to be able to agree on all things by consensus—I know you're not suggesting all things—but in particular, the rules.
Recently we had representatives from two different parliaments before us. We had Austrian officials here today. We had the chairperson from this committee in Austria before us. We had the presiding officer from Scotland, which is the speaker of their house, before us as well in the last couple of weeks. It enlightened me again.
Through my time on the electoral reform committee, and on this one as well, since the very beginning of this term, I've been learning quite a lot about parliamentary procedure, stuff I thought was quite boring when I was in law school. I thought, procedure, I have to take it to pass, so I will, but it's not the most exciting of topics. When I was presented with the opportunity to sit on this committee, I wondered if it would be like watching paint dry.
My experience has been quite different. I've loved the opportunity to be a permanent member of this committee. I've learned so much from all of my colleagues on this committee, especially the ones from the opposition side. I've learned a lot of good skills, some tactics, some manoeuvres, and what you need to be doing. I have also heard genuine input and information that I sometimes agree with. I've learned a lot from my colleagues, as well. What I mean to say is that my time here on the Hill has been very fruitful.
However, it's those times I'm speaking about, and one was yesterday. I had my family up here on the Hill. To have these tactical procedural votes held with no notice at all I'm sure works fine. It works fine for me most of the time, because most of the time, I'm glued to my seat here in PROC, especially in the last three weeks. Having a vote called unexpectedly is not a problem for me.
I've also made the choice to not bring my family up to Ottawa, because they have lives, and I don't want to disrupt them. I have a young son who has a lot of family members to love and care for him there. I don't want to see him spending his days alone here on the Hill, maybe with a nanny service, when we get out at midnight from PROC. That was definitely the right choice, and I've accepted it.
Mr. Doherty mentioned, the last time he was here, that this is the life we've chosen. We knew what we were getting into as parliamentarians. I understand that point, and I do for the most part appreciate that we have taken on a difficult role and that with that will come some trade-offs. I'm ready to make those trade-offs, and I already have. I think each one of us has sacrificed a lot to be here, and we do so on a daily basis. However, I do not think there is anything wrong with our trying to improve ourselves and better ourselves and with encouraging those who don't want this type of lifestyle for themselves to also become parliamentarians, or to at least consider it for a day. Most people come up here and think it's a lot of talk and not a lot of action and that nothing gets done, or it takes years to get things done. I'd love to hear what the walls in this place are thinking, because I think they've heard this conversation happen many times since the Parliament Buildings were built.
I've heard and read that this debate has happened many times over the years, and we're still where we are.
Some great things came out of the McGrath report. We talk about that report a lot at this committee. We talk about the work we did at the beginning of this term on modernizing Parliament. There was an interim report, and through the process of that report, I learned a lot about where everyone's priorities lie and whether they're necessarily in a place at which they want to see this place improve. I don't know whether that's everyone's motive. If it were, I think we could come to some agreement, but I don't think such is the case.
I think everyone is more caught up in winning and losing and considering how this is going to look in QP, rather than in doing the right thing. It's really important for not just this government but this Parliament to take some bold initiative and make some changes, so that we aren't talking about these things for the next hundred years and so that we don't need this Parliament to burn down.
Some colleagues have told me that they have worked on making changes to parliaments around the world and that it was much more contentious than this. I asked if they were in the middle of a war. Yes, actually, they were. It's a lot easier to rebuild after a war when things are torn down and governments are brought to their knees and they're in complete disarray and dysfunction. I asked whether that's what we need to do here, whether we need to get to the point that we are having to build the country up from scratch, to improve our rules. I really feel that this is where we're headed.
In the case of Scotland, I thought we learned some great things that their Parliament has implemented in order to be more efficient. One is electronic voting. They thought it was quite humorous that we couldn't get past that debate in our Parliament. Oftentimes, people think those are the simple things on which we would be able to agree.
I definitely have no hope that we'll be able to agree on this one, and this issue is even simple. Having had conversations, I know that people in this committee feel strongly that spending the extra time standing up is more important than being efficient in getting through more votes and more legislation and getting through the changes that people want to see happen. People want to see governments move, and in this place government does not move. All that happens is endless debate.
I am one who likes debate. I was on the debate team when I was in university and high school. I love a good debate. I love listening to a good debate, but what I realize is happening in the House is definitely not productive debate. At times we are just speaking in silos, not speaking to each other, and not engaging in conversation back and forth; it's just to fill a time slot. Someone has agreed that we're going to spend a certain number of days talking about an issue, and the passion is lost. People are not necessarily passionate; they're just talking their talking points, and I know it happens on all sides.
We need to improve this situation. We need to have Parliament be a place in which we are engaging our citizens. People look to us for fresh ideas and ways in which our government and citizens can move forward in our country.
People all around the world look to Canada as a progressive place. I definitely have felt a little embarrassed. When we had the Austrian officials here today, and when we had the Scottish officials here, I think that they chuckled a bit, thinking that we're still stuck in these old times and just can't get out of them. We can't seem to come into the 20th century, as my colleague David Graham put it.
That was quite funny, David, when you said that.