Yes, it is time to move forward.
I know that there was an issue of trust brought up previously, and I did mention at that time, too, that trust goes both ways. If everyone was coming to this issue from a genuine spot and every member of Parliament was perhaps able to submit their idea, such as the debate we did on the Standing Orders previously, we can learn from that debate. That is what this committee was tasked to do. We have a study on the Standing Orders that this committee is engaged in.
This would be the perfect place for us to come up with other solutions to the Standing Orders, those proposed by our colleagues and others that we come up with here at this committee, and even those suggested by the government. There's nothing wrong with that, as long as they're good ideas. If they're bad ideas, we can talk about that too, but there's nothing wrong with the ideas being put out there for us to talk about, because they're ideas that the government is interested in implementing. That's putting yourself out there.
It could have been approached in a different way. Let's say that the government or the House leader had never mentioned some ideas in a discussion paper for you to talk about. We could have just gone on our way. We had made that start, but what's wrong with having inside knowledge or a bit of an idea of what things interest them? They might not be things that we agree on at this committee. It happens all the time in other committees as well. Legislation is sent to committees. There are amendments made at committees. That's the work that committees do. In legislation, you know what the intent is, what the government wants to do.
Similarly, this isn't even legislation. It's just a discussion paper for us to get things started. I think it's a good discussion to have. I really feel that yesterday I had another wake-up call. Had I chosen to bring my family up here, that would have been the wrong choice for me, at least. What would be the point? Even if you have them up here for a day for an event, things can get crazy and it's hard. How do you find child care with five minutes' notice? If you're doing something and you think, it's six o'clock or seven o'clock, and you have something planned, how do you do that? That's not easy for people to do who don't have the supports that parliamentarians may have traditionally had. That's not to say I don't have a lot of support. I wouldn't be here without it, but I just had the realization yesterday again that it's very difficult when you find yourself in that position.
I want to serve. I want to do a good job. I've been sent here to vote, so I understand that we need to be in the House for votes and we need to be performing our roles on committees. Do we need to be doing that 24 hours a day on committee if we're just spinning our wheels and we're not getting to anything productive? I don't know if Canadians necessarily see that as a good use of their taxpayer dollars. What they want to see us do is progress. Whether it's the rules of procedure, whether it's legislation that they voted for, or whether it's the brilliant studies that committees do, they want to see us put those studies out and put those recommendations to the government to see if they'll act on those recommendations or not. That is our job as parliamentarians here, and I'd really like to get back to work and do our job.
There's no guarantee that any of these things will happen. I know there's some fear that these things will be implemented. They could be implemented anyway. What's the harm in discussing those ideas here in committees that have been created for that very purpose, to discuss ideas and to make recommendations? The fact that we have some direction, some ideas about what things the House leader might be thinking about, is a good thing. It gives us some focus, but there's nothing stopping us from including a slew of other things that the opposition thinks need to be done.
I know that the opposition benches and everyone wants to recruit new young Canadians to run for their parties and to be parliamentarians, as do we.
I understand that a lot of times people have said, “Let's not talk about Fridays. What's the big deal? You can trade them off. You can do this or you can do that.” It's true. As one of my colleagues said before as well, I do that often. I trade them off so I can be in my constituency office on Fridays. That last Friday when we were up here, I had to cancel about 20 appointments, and boy were people angry, because they think that you're not working when you're not able to meet with them, whether it's an immigration matter, a CRA concern, or whatever it is that they need their services for.
They want to be able to meet face to face with their MP. Sure, I can try doing it, and I do—I moved all those meetings to Saturday, and then I had my events and other commitments Saturday and Sunday. We all do that, and we are willing to do that, but should we have to always carry on that way? Should we not be able to meet with our constituents once a week? Should they have to wait two or three weeks before they can get a hold of us?
I think that's important work, and I think the work that we do here is important as well. We should continue to do it, and I don't think we should sacrifice any of the hours. There are a lot of things that can be done to move the hours around, and there are a lot of ideas. Even if those aren't the best ideas, and even if we feel, at the end of the day, that we must have those four hours that we spend on Friday and there is no other way for this Parliament to move forward on that recommendation or that idea, that's fine as well. Let's have that honest conversation.
I know that this is probably not going to convince anyone on the opposition benches, to have that conversation at this time, because everyone is so wrapped up in winning and losing in this Parliament, not what's right or what's wrong. I've noticed that sometimes parliamentarians are also scared to do what's right, because they learn after a while that it may not be in their best interest, necessarily. Sometimes you try to do something good for people and it might come back to bite you. You never know. After a while, you start getting standoffish. You don't want your name on this, that, or the other thing because you may be called out for having stood up to somebody and said, “No, I think this is a good idea, even though it came from another party” or “I think this is a good idea, even though it came from a group that may not be commonly recognized. I'm going to be their voice, and I will take a stance and talk about these issues, whether it's in this committee or another.” For the most part I think we do a really good job working together. I'd like to see that continue, and I'd like us to put aside the partisan issues.
I don't think this is a Liberal issue or a partisan issue. It's an issue of how we make this House work better for all of us, and as a result of that, how we work better for Canadians. Those changes can allow us to do so much more. Many countries have been able to do it. It shouldn't be politicized, and I don't think it is. I don't think it would fundamentally change everything about how we function in this House. I think we can do good work and still have some tweaks here and there when it comes to our Standing Orders, have some changes made—a bit more than what we were able to agree on last time. Last time in our interim report we were able to come out with only four recommendations. It was a little disheartening to know that we had had so many great witnesses and so many interesting ideas that came before us—such as the idea of a parallel chamber, which was a really new idea that a lot of us did not have much knowledge about—but at the end of the day, we spent most of our time talking about buses and things that were already being done and implemented.
The House of Commons has already taken the initiative to provide members with a nanny service that they can call up and pay for on an hourly basis. I think that was a great initiative. I haven't been able to make use of it yet, but we were told by officials that it was already under way. Lo and behold, that was one of the recommendations. It's a great job that the administration is taking action on that. We approve as a committee. I just wonder whether, if they hadn't taken that initiative and started that program, this committee itself would have ever been able to come up with such a recommendation.
I'm very skeptical. I don't think we would have been able to. We would have politicized it. We would have said, “Wow, what does that sound like to the Canadian people?” We wouldn't have talked about the issue as it needs to be. I think sometimes people are playing to their base, or constituents, or to how they feel, rather than just being true to themselves about what we're really discussing and laying the facts out on both sides.
There's a lot of talk about everyone wanting a free day. No one wants a free day. People want to work for the people in their community. Nobody is looking for a day off. No one here has a day off. Very rarely does anyone take a vacation. If anything, I work a lot less here than I do in my riding. Here, I'm able to get away with sitting in a room day in and day out. Today is our anniversary. For three weeks, we've done almost nothing. Would I get away with that in my riding? There's not a chance.
In a way, it's sometimes a break to come to Parliament. Because things move so slowly, we get the opportunity to have some time to think about issues while we're sitting in the House. Maybe we're not as engaged in debate as we all should be if the debate were formulated in such a way that we would have that back and forth discussion, but that's not what this House has become.
As a child growing up, I watched question period, and it was riveting. It's very interesting when you're watching it on TV. Then when you get in there and you see what's happening day in and day out—you can't even hear each other, and the yelling and the screaming—it's not so riveting anymore. When people come to see it live, they're probably not too impressed either. But I was always impressed with it on TV. I think that was something a little different about me. I enjoyed that back and forth fighting to some degree.
Coming from a background as a lawyer, I definitely thought debate was one thing.... You have to make arguments based on facts. You have to make arguments based on proof and evidence; otherwise, the judge will call you on it. You can't just go into a courtroom and make emotional arguments.
That's been definitely a big change. People ask how a life in law prepares you for life as a parliamentarian. While there are a lot of good skills you bring from a life in practising law—not that I spent a very long time practising law, but I hope to continue that one day—it's extremely different. You get a lot of good skills from it, but it's very different.
You're not focused on a point and refuting that point. Maybe every now and then a good parliamentarian does that. I think most people think it doesn't matter what the issue is, they just want to talk about it in a way that pulls at someone's heartstrings, or they can make some kind of emotional appeal out of it, rather than an argument based on numbers, facts, and some research, which is what a judge would hold them to. It's a good standard, I believe. I don't think it's necessarily a high standard. When you're debating, you should be talking about issues you can prove to be true, on both sides. Usually you can find that in any debate. You can find valid arguments on any side.
I definitely find that here in the House we occupy a lot of airtime not necessarily talking about facts, figures, and valid arguments, but sometimes working on people's emotions. I think we can do better, and the Standing Orders are a start.