Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 21st, 2017

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

I wanted to add and support what Jenny is saying. It also is offensive to the principles of Westminster parliamentary democracy, because the concept of responsible government is that every member of Parliament in the House is there to hold the government to account, whether they're backbench members of the government party or not. This goes back to some of our deeper traditions.

That's one of the reasons that it's even more offensive that we have these lobbed questions, because whether in the 41st Parliament when it was backbench Conservatives or in this Parliament when it's backbench Liberals, the job—which of course people have forgotten over time—of every member of Parliament is to hold the government accountable.

It was such a strong rule that in the past if backbench members of the government party were promoted to cabinet, their job had changed so fundamentally that they were expected to stand down and run again in a by-election. This isn't about crossing the floor; this is about going from Liberal backbencher to Liberal cabinet minister, because the job was seen, until that ascension to power, to be representing constituents on holding the government to account, so it's doubly offensive.

I'm sorry for interrupting you, Jenny.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

That was mentioned at a previous meeting.

Go ahead, Jenny.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I'll say this. In that instance, the NDP member who was asked the question was the vice-chair of a committee, and often in this House we don't know what goes on in committees and what's happening there, and that information was shared for all members of the House about what was going on at that committee. In fact, the answer was useful to me, and I suspect it was useful to other members as well, and it wasn't a message-box answer, unlike what the government consistently does.

Just think about this for a minute. If Mr. Simms takes offence to that one question the NDP member answered, imagine in every single question period since I've been here, and since I suppose the beginning of time maybe, what that is like for all the Liberal members who get up to ask those lobbed questions repeatedly. Just imagine what that's like. If we're going to talk about reform, maybe there's a way to reform that. That would be a useful conversation.

I also want to make a comment about question period preparation. I get what Ms. May is saying in terms of preparation and all of that. I would venture to say this. In preparing for question period, I think it is important to prepare from this point of view: that you need to be thoughtful about what you're going to ask and how you're going to ask those questions, and you need to make it within the 30-second rule. I actually write all my questions, and I have to time them to make sure they fit into those 30 seconds; otherwise, I get cut off.

In the provincial legislature, there is some leeway. You don't abuse your time and get up and drone on for days with questions; you sort of ask your question within a time frame. If you go over by five or 10 seconds, the Speaker will allow you to finish, but you don't get cut off. Here, you actually get cut off, and you might have just needed three seconds to finish what you were saying, and you don't get that. I live in fear that I'm going to get cut off, to be honest with you. For that purpose, I have to practise it to time it to make sure I don't get cut off.

Sometimes we do go off script and that's how it goes as well. However, in terms of reforming question period, I would certainly welcome the opportunity to take a look at how we do that.

Lastly, Mr. Chair, I want to mention asking a question in French. I want to acknowledge that I'm not a bilingual speaker. I don't speak French fluently. I have grade 11 French, and I'm trying to polish it, and hopefully I'm getting there, but I'll say it is important to ask a question in French, because you need to acknowledge the bilingual speakers.

I have constituents who say to me that they need information in French, and so I work really hard. For example, on my website I translate my material so that people can have that information in French. I think we need to acknowledge the importance of bilingualism in this country.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Go ahead, Mr. Simms.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

What I meant earlier by my intervention was not to be snarky. I will say this: I think you're right. I think that we don't get enough questions from our own party to another member of the party. Ms. Kwan mentioned that there was one Liberal asking another Liberal a question, which was kind of a set-up. All parties do this. If you were in government, you'd be doing the same thing. It's a practice that's been going on for so long now.

Let me get to my point, which is the fact that you're right. If you look at every other Westminster system, there are so many backbenchers in the Conservative party, in government, that they ask pointed, nasty questions. We saw it; I saw it a few weeks ago; Ms. May saw the same thing, and it is healthy. Let's take a look at what Michael Chong proposed, which is an idea worth entertaining at this committee. That is to say, you take the power from the whips, because ultimately, when we talk about parties asking other parties questions and set-ups, I don't like them any more than anybody else, and I'm in government. I did it when I came in, in 2004. My question to Ms. Kwan is, are you now saying you want to take that power away from the whips, so the members can ask just by standing up?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I thank the member, Mr. Simms, for his clarification with respect to the lobbed questions, and maybe it would be very interesting for him to bring that back to his House leader and to the government side with regard to reforming question period. I would love to have a discussion about taking away lobbed questions and put it on the table for real discussion.

In terms of the whip system, that applies for all the different parties, right? If we're to reform question period, we should take a look at it and see how it works. If this proposal is for real, on the table, for the government to say that they will now yield that time for lobbed questions from the government side and give it to the opposition for additional questions, I would love to have that debate. We can talk about what aspects we can entertain within those changes. That would be my personal opinion, Mr. Chair.

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

I just wanted to add, on this very point, that we don't need to change the Standing Orders; we need to draw attention to the reality that there is a great fiction operating out there. I relayed the story in my presentation to this committee and to the government House leader, of the example of Mark Warawa, the member for Langley. I don't know how many of you remember the 41st Parliament—Blake was here and Scott was here. Remember, Mark Warawa was denied by his whip the right to make an S.O. 31. He was very brave, and he stood up and said, “My right to free speech was curtailed by my whip who, just seconds before I was to take the floor for an S.O. 31, said I couldn't make it.”

In that complaint to Speaker Andrew Scheer, Scheer's response was that Mark Warawa was not deprived of his right to free speech because he failed to try to stand up and get the speaker's eye. According to our standing rules, there is no list from the whip. According to the standing rules, the speaker is—according to the fiction as handed down to us in the ruling from Andrew Scheer that day—just waiting to see someone stand up and catch his eye, and that person will be recognized and it has nothing to do with the list. As I mentioned, the list is the result of a very strange turn of fate in which Speaker Sauvé asked the whips to give her a list because she had trouble seeing the MPs.

To reform question period and make it more useful, all we have to do—and perhaps this committee could offer guidance—is recognize that this is not a change to the Standing Orders, but it is by tradition. The more we observe it and bow down to it, the more concretized it becomes that the whip controls who gets up to ask a question, and that individual members of Parliament may also be asked by their parties to practise this.

I also agree with Jenny that the 30-second rule doesn't make a lot of sense. There could be a little more latitude there. I put a timer in front of me because I'm incapable of writing out a question and practising it. It makes me go crazy so I just speak off the cuff, but I watch a little clock. Really, 30 seconds is something we live in fear of.

Why should we have this nonsense that there is, somehow, a control by the whips? That doesn't exist in our rules.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Waugh.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

I would like to say, Mr. Chair, that the lob questions for government happen all the time. Now the opposition is asking questions amongst themselves. Daniel Blaikie, the other day, for the NDP, asked a question and then answered it himself. Blake did the same thing. Ron Liepert asked Blake a question a couple of weeks ago. There are ways around it. We're all finding ways around it. As much as we talk about the lob questions, in opposition we have our issues, too. We've seen it here with the NDP—Blaikie asking himself a question and then answering it.

Then there was Ron Liepert on our side asking Blake the question. The camera and the mikes didn't hook up very well for you, Blake. We caught everyone off guard. That's a situation we need to deal with when we discuss question period.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay, Mr. Nater.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and I enjoyed the intervention.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

We're back on the federal program.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Yes, we have a couple of broadcasters here.

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

I feel like John just keeps interrupting discussions with the speech here.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

It's like going to a fight and a hockey game breaks out.

Whenever I hear about a lob question, I always think that every time the member from Huron—Bruce asks a question, it's a Lobb question. His name is Ben Lobb. That's a little play on words.

don't think we want to discount the value of a question to a committee chair. I know, Mr. Chair, you did receive questions a couple of weeks ago, and I think they were relevant to the work of the committee. As I think Ms. Kwan pointed out, we do have work that goes on in the committee. I think there are times where questions to committee chairs are relevant.

Perhaps a matter for future discussion might be reviewing the practice of the other place immediately following the most recent election. Many of the questions that were being asked during their question period were to committee chairs, because there was no leader of the government in the Senate at the time, in the other place. By necessity, the questions went to committee chairs. That's a perfectly acceptable practice, and I think there is some value to having those questions to chairs of committee.

Beauchesne's talked about that a little bit. I don't have Beauchesne's in front of me now. I believe it's chapter 10 or chapter 12 where they talk about the legitimate right to ask private members who are chairs questions during question period. I think there is an opportunity to have a legitimate discussion, and we can have a debate about lob questions as well.

I think that is a worthwhile debate. There's also the situation where you're legitimately seeking information from a committee chair. I think there's a great value to be had in that. From time to time, we have seen a minister or a parliamentary secretary answer a question that may have been directed to a committee chair. If we're legitimately looking for information on the work of a committee, it would certainly fall to the chair of that committee to answer.

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

I thought the one about the vice-chair a couple of weeks ago was quite an intelligent answer.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

It wasn't Shakespearian.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

You just reminded me of an item for our agenda that came up today.

I set out the schedule for the rest of the week, but if Bill C-33 does come before Parliament this week, because that bill is coming to our committee, I'm going to suspend during that discussion in the Commons so we can all be there to hear whatever they're talking about. I say this just so people know. It might be on Thursday.

Sorry to interrupt you.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you, Chair. I appreciate the clarification. It will be important when that bill comes forward.

Actually, I want to touch on what was brought up about question period prep. I don't have a lot of experience with that. I am a new MP. I think I've asked three questions during question period, so I'm certainly not the person to discuss that.

To Ms. Kwan's point, I think there is an important discussion there. When we speak in the House, we often do so, or at least I do, with some degree of nervousness. I don't know how many times my wife and my kids have heard me deliver the same speech 16 times before I have actually given it in the House or at a Rotary Club event. I like to practise.

There's a joke, a story, I think it was Jack Benny who coined it. Sean Murphy, from our lobby staff, was recounting it not too long ago. It's about the boy who was on the street in New York and asked a passerby how to get to Carnegie Hall. The man replied, “Practise, practise, practise.” It makes me think of the House and question period. Practise, practise, practise when given the opportunity.

This goes to our Standing Orders, actually. The House provides live-action practice for a lot of parliamentarians in certain ways. We may not feel comfortable delivering a 20-minute commentary or a 20-minute speech as new MPs, but those of us who are on House duty often find that the House gets rather deserted from time to time, and there are opportunities for questions and comments. There's a short minute or maybe a minute and a half, depending on the leniency of the Speaker, to ask a question or make a comment on a speech by a colleague. It gives you the opportunity to practise speaking in the House and to adjust your acoustics levels, how loudly or how softly you speak. I sometimes have trouble hearing, so it's a good opportunity to hear my voice in the House and modulate it accordingly. I think it's unfortunate, sometimes, when MPs don't take the opportunity to speak in the House in these situations during speeches by colleagues. We have a five- or 10-minute question-and-comment period you can certainly take afterwards as well.

Going back to the four functions of Parliament, I was talking about the third function Professor Franks speaks about, and that is holding government to account. We've talked fairly extensively now and had some great commentary on question period. Again, we could probably have weeks of committee hearings on question period itself, but there are other opportunities as well. One is the concept of time. Time in Parliament is a very valuable resource. We know how long we sit. We know when we adjourn. We know when we proceed to certain items in the government's daily agenda. Using time to an opposition's advantage is certainly a valuable tool in terms of holding government to account. I know that the Canadian Study of Parliament Group recently held a conference here in Ottawa on the use of time in Parliament. Unfortunately, it was during a constituency week, which made it difficult for parliamentarians to attend. I'm told it was nonetheless a very interesting conference on this concept.

Last Friday, for better or worse, time as a concept was employed by members of the House to debate a point of order, which resulted in government orders not being called that day. Again, it was a tool the opposition had at its disposal to move forward an issue.

The third tool available to an opposition to hold the government to account is through the work committees do. I would say this in a positive light as well. The committees have great power to undertake in-depth reviews of matters, as this committee has done in the past and as all committees do.

I sit on the official languages committee, which is a bit out of my comfort zone, being an anglophone who learned French through school and through immersion opportunities. It gives me the opportunity to look at issues from a bit of a different perspective.

I know that my regular committee and all committees undertake good work. There is an opportunity for a committee, even with a government majority, to undertake an in-depth review, and if needed, to make amendments to government legislation. That's a powerful tool.

I know different members have talked about standing committees and have made suggestions for reform of standing committees. The discussion paper certainly talks about committees. We want to be careful that we don't go on a path that would render a standing committee without the ability to hold the government to account, to have a meaningful debate, and potentially bring forward amendments to a government direction.

Then there is certainly the concept of holding the government to account more generally. That's through the research and the information side of things, ensuring that MP offices are properly staffed and have the resources and tools available to us, whether it's through the Library of Parliament or research offices. That again can be a discussion in itself. Looking at the U.K. system and the way it finances its research offices is a fascinating discussion. Each major party has a significant budget to do that. I know our opposition leader's office has a budget as well.

There are also matters that are outside the purview of the House itself. Certainly those things we cannot control. We cannot control them through the Standing Orders. We cannot control them through business of the House or using the media. I acknowledge the role that the media play in terms of the functions of the opposition, whether it's the official opposition, third party, or independents as well. Perhaps we should look at the individual members of the government caucus as well.

So those are the first three we've touched on so far.

I'll read the fourth:

...fourth, to make an alternative government, that is, to enable the opposition to present its case to the public and become a credible choice to replace the party in power.

Elections happen. There will be, at times, changes in government. We certainly experienced that in 2015. The Liberals experienced that in the 2006 election. Then prime minister Mulroney experienced that all too powerfully when he allowed Madam Campbell to run in the 1993 election, and we saw that change. Governments happen. Oppositions happen. Elections happen.

We need to ensure that the opposition is not prevented from meaningfully contributing to debate and from presenting itself as the government-in-waiting. To the NDP's credit, its former caucus in the previous Parliament presented itself in that manner. We could debate the effectiveness of that, but I think the members certainly made a very strong case to the people that they were the government-in-waiting, and that's certainly what Mr. Mulcair presented to the Canadian people. Of course, elections happen and we go from there.

We need to make sure that we have these four functions working together at all times, or working at the same time; perhaps not working together, but having those four functions available. If we don't have that, that's where we get into a situation where things change and things break down. I think if we don't look at these four functions in tandem with reviewing these changes to the Standing Orders, we're going to find ourselves in great trouble.

I know Mr. Simms was talking about the power of the whip earlier. I'm just going to give a bit of a spoiler alert. I will be talking a bit a little later about the power of the whip, the role of the whip, and the role of House leader. I just wanted to put that there so that Mr. Simms can wait with bated breath when—

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

We are in suspense.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I wasn't going to cite from this initially, but Ms. May did make reference to the Fathers of Confederation sitting over us and keeping a watchful eye upon us as we deliberate in this chamber. This is actually our opposition caucus room as well, so we have the Fathers of Confederation looking over us as we deliberate in caucus. Typically we do have the Vimy Ridge portrait on the other end. That's currently on loan to the War Museum, I believe, for the—

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

I noticed it was gone, yes. It seemed like a most inopportune time to have it gone. Now it makes more sense.

Maybe we should keep listening; there's always some good information from Mr. Nater.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I believe that's in tribute to the Conservative shipbuilding strategy. I'm not entirely sure.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

There is relevance here, Mr. Chair. At least I think there's relevance referring to the Fathers of Confederation. I've been lucky enough over my life to be the inheritor of books. I'm certainly a lover of books. When I was in grade 8, I was at an auction sale and I bought 20 years' worth of Ontario Hansard from the former Ontario speaker. My parents thought I was crazy at the time.