Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 21st, 2017

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

I haven't yet discussed the whips and House leaders. I suspect I may not get to that tonight, but hopefully I'll have the opportunity to return to it at some point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

There's always tomorrow.

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

We can always hope.

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

We can always hope.

I want to get back to this discussion paper by Mr. Robert Stanfield that's been raised. In it he talks about some of the challenges, some of the concerns, of backbenchers. Again, it's coming from the perspective of party leadership; he never served as a backbencher himself but he was acknowledging the challenge of dealing with a caucus, dealing with backbenchers and that doing so is practically a full-time job. And that's where we begin our discussion about Frank McKenna, for example, and situations in which there was very little opposition. Here I look at past Canadian parliaments. The current Parliament has a relatively large majority—nothing rivalling the Mulroney or Diefenbaker majorities, but certainly a large caucus that has to be acknowledged, that has to be dealt with, that has to be encouraged in some ways to participate as part of the government caucus—and the opposition caucus as well. Opposition party leaders have a duty to their own caucus to ensure that things operate efficiently on their side of things.

Looking through some of the commentary and discussion that Mr. Stanfield presents, he talks a little bit about the family, about a parliamentarian's family and the challenge that has for the execution of an MP's duties. He talks about that influences the effectiveness of an MP and makes the following point:

I have known long-time parliamentarians who have expressed very deep regret that their children have grown up without getting to know them.

And he makes a suggestion:

At the very least, legislatures should make generous travel provisions for their members and spouses. I think they should also give some help towards a second home. It does not have to be a castle but it might provide some tangible assistance in helping a member of the legislature keep in touch, not only with his spouse but with his children. That is not an easy thing to do even with help, but I think it is a very important aspect for the peace of mind of a member.

Certainly that's an acknowledgement of some of the changes that have taken place since that was written. We do have a temporary secondary residence allowance. We do have travel points for family members. I think it's a generous system. I do not begrudge any of that. I think it's very generous and I appreciate the support we are given. It does allow us to spend more time with our families than we might otherwise have been able to do without these provisions.

I do appreciate that and I think Mr. Christopherson in the previous intervention noted one of the challenges with the way it's set up, the way it's reported in terms of family members and actually acts as a hindrance to members bringing family members to Ottawa because it's then reported publicly. It artificially increases an MP's travel budget—especially those who come from farther way—which is then publicly reported.

I know that on my part, if I were to drive back and forth to Ottawa, which I often do, it doesn't cost me a travel point for my family members. They all go in the same vehicle. It's one travel point, and I get reimbursed for mileage. It doesn't publicly show as an added expense beyond the relatively small expense that I'm reimbursed for as a travel claim.

For a member from elsewhere in Canada who has to fly his family members—Mr. Bagnell, for example, and you too, Mr. Chair—I I suspect that the tickets are rather expensive Air Canada, First Air, or Northern Air ones that get reimbursed. That would publicly show for any members of your family who may come with you as well. So it does act, I would say, as an unintended hindrance to families.

I think that's one area that would be worthwhile to reconsider. I think there are ways that such travel could be reported, perhaps collectively or by province or by region or by caucus, rather than by individual member, which I do think acts as a deterrent to some members.

There are a few other things that I find interesting in Mr. Stanfield's suggestions. He talked a little bit about the conflicted role that we often find ourselves in as parliamentarians in serving both in this place in Ottawa but also in our ridings, and that tension and back and forth that we have to deal with.

We really have two jobs, two positions, or roles of service: first, here in this House, undertaking our parliamentary functions; and second, in our ridings, performing the service function, the community function, in terms both of case work and working with constituents. We also have the public function: attending events, bringing greetings to community events, and supporting community events. There's a back and forth that we're constantly having to deal with.

I think it goes a step further. Mr. Stanfield doesn't discuss this, but I think it's relevant: the tension in the way we undertake our parliamentary duties here.

Many of us try to reflect the views of our constituents, and that is certainly our role, our job. It's tough often to determine where our constituents stand on a given matter. I try as best I can to solicit feedback from my constituents, whether through social media—Facebook or Twitter—or through householders and ten percenters, trying to get feedback so that I know where my constituents stand on an issue and can report accordingly.

But it's a challenge. It's a challenge for us to report to our constituents, to reflect their views here in this place, when we can't always be entirely sure where they stand. That's often why we end up taking the cues from our party, from our whips, to determine where we stand on a given matter.

From time to time this committee has heard references to Sir Edmund Burke, a great British thinker whom I've read a little bit, but there is no question that Mr. Stanfield also cites him. He starts with this:

Perhaps I could just conclude with a few words about attitudes of members towards their profession. For one thing I have always believed that Edmund Burke was right when he said, in the eighteenth century, that a member of parliament is a representative of his constituents but that he should exercise his own judgment as to what is in the public interest even though he may differ to some extent on a particular question. On the other hand, it is quite possible for a member of Parliament to get so far out of step from public opinion that a sense of alienation develops between constituents and members, and between the people of a province or the people of the country, and their legislature or parliament. For example, during the last decade here in Ottawa, the official languages bill was not universally understood or supported across the country. Many members of parliament supported that bill at the time, knowing that if a poll were taken, the majority of their constituents were against it, at least until it was further explained to them.

I think we often find this situation in Parliament in our discussions on any number of matters, and often on serious questions of conscience that our House has debated over the years. Capital punishment is probably one of them. I'm sure if we were to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

[Inaudible--Editor]...lost the election after saying that.

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

Yes, he certainly did, and I think that's probably a wise cautionary tale for us as parliamentarians.

Look at different issues. Certainly, being out of step with public opinion and with our constituents is often to our detriment. We found that in the past, on any number of social issues. Capital punishment is one that would probably apply.

Certainly, we've gone several decades now with capital punishment officially outlawed in Canada. We went for a period of time, a decade, when it was temporarily banned, but then officially banned in the 1980s.

Even to this day, we see public opinion polling that shows that the public does have a degree of support for capital punishment. In a lot of ways, as a Parliament we can often find ourselves out of step with where the Canadian public is. It's not to say that the public won't eventually catch up with us; they often do. It's just a matter of time before we get there. We see that often in different matters.

Some members may have read different articles by a gentleman by the name of Rainer Knopff, a political scientist who often wrote together with Ian Brodie, whom we know around this place from his service as chief of staff to the former Prime Minister.

They wrote on that a little bit, in the context of the Supreme Court and Parliament's reaction to it, suggesting that Parliament and the Supreme Court often get ahead of where public opinion is on a certain matter without giving time for the public to think of the matter and to have it percolate within the public sphere. Often we get ahead of ourselves when we undertake certain matters, rightly or wrongly, and there's a debate.

That's a suggestion they make on that matter. It certainly goes back to Burke's comments as well, on where we stand on a certain issue and how we reflect our constituents' views.

I make no excuses. I don't deny the fact that I was only elected with 40-some-odd per cent of the vote. I did not have 50-plus per cent, as my friend Mr. Richards had in his constituency.

I recognize, nonetheless, that I have a duty towards 100% of my constituents. As hard as it is sometimes, I have a duty to reflect their views in this place as best as I can, as we discuss important matters. Like Burke before me, we'll wait to see the election results in a few years' time to indicate whether I've been successful in that or not, but certainly it's a consideration to have in mind.

That was a brief discussion of mine in regard to Bob Stanfield's commentary. Now, I want to go a little bit further back and look at an article from 1978. This was prior to some of these debates we've had about the Lefebvre and McGrath committees.

There was an MP by the name of John Reid, who was the MP for Kenora—Rainy River. He delivered a speech at the University of Victoria to a national conference on the legislative process. It was reprinted in the Canadian Parliamentary Review, volume 1, number 1, June 1978. He was a Liberal serving in government at the time. He talked about the responsibilities of legislators, the responsibilities of members of Parliament. He writes that it's a fairly considerable one that penetrates the day-to-day existence of a backbencher. He went on to write:

While some Members come with causes or interests to advance, it is by no means clear that they will be able to participate most effectively in the legislative process. That educative experience, however, is the subject of another paper.

He talked about the legislative process and how MPs can participate in it, and about the committee system. I raise this because we talked about it before.

If we look at all the different reports that come before us and that we've read in the past, committees are often talked about not as a panacea but as a strong opportunity for meaningful discussion, a meaningful opportunity, but also as a source of frustration. We're looking at an older day, an opportunity that existed before many of these changes might have been introduced. He does write about the frustration that members have with committees. He focuses on it.

I know this has been raised by the other side with the estimates processes, as an example. This is going back to what I talked about a little earlier in my brief response to the intervention. This has been an issue with the estimates for many years. There isn't one perfect response. Certainly the efforts that were made in the early 1970s to introduce the deemed principle, in a way, made it easier for the government. That was supported by the opposition at the time. There's no question that it's entirely legitimate because all three major parties of the day supported it. They did go down that road.

I raise this because, as is discussed in this paper and has been discussed elsewhere, the estimates process is a massive challenge. The current parliamentary budget officer has acknowledged some of the problems with it and some of the problems with the that Minister Brison has brought forward as well.

Mr. Reid—I believe John is his first name—talks about the estimates process. He says:

[According to the Standing Orders, the government must bring down its] spending estimates for the year and have them referred to the various Standing Committees by 1 March. The Committees then have to 31 May to deal with them. At the conclusion of the process, an appropriation bill based on these estimates is presented to Parliament in late June, and dealt with. In conjunction with the supply process, the opposition parties have 25 days in the House of Commons, spread throughout the Parliamentary year, but concentrated in May and June. During those days, they choose the topic for consideration. In addition to attacking the government, they can and do advance ideas requiring a legislative solution.

I think we often forget that opposition days, supply days, allotted days, whatever we choose to call them, are linked to the supply process. They are linked to the estimate process. Over a number of years, the process has strayed away, I would say, from using them to deal with government supply and to discuss more generally policies and issues of the day, and motions of varying degrees of consequence in terms of House business. We have gotten away from that, which is not to say that the current discussions aren't valuable. They play a role. Going back to my opening comments, they certainly fulfill Franks' third principle that the government ought to be held to account. Certainly the supply days, the opposition days, whatever you call them, perform that function.

They also perform the function of the supply process. We notice that when we get to the point in the supply process of the final opposition day, the final supply day, when the supply bill is introduced. That's when we'll sit in the committee of the whole for a time. We'll do clause-by-clause of the supply bill. We report it back to the House. We go through the entire legislative process in one evening.

I find it interesting that when we first come to this place, we often think that we know what we're doing. Then we get here and realize that we have an awful lot to learn. Certainly I found that on many occasions.

In this process, typically the Treasury Board critic stands and asks the president of the Treasury Board whether the bill is in its usual form. Now we found out once in the government's early history in office that the bill wasn't in its usual form. We had a challenge with getting that corrected in the other place. At the time, I wondered what the point of this question was. What was the point of it? It didn't seem like a logical question. Why would you ask the Treasury Board president if the bill was in its usual form?

Of course, I found someone who could answer the question for me. In this case, it was John Holtby, a long-time friend of this place, a long-time friend of Parliament whom I would consider one of the foremost experts on Parliament and parliamentary procedure, and a co-editor of Beauchesne's, 6th edition. The way he explained it to me was that Parliament doesn't have a great opportunity to review a supply bill, because it is provided in advance that day. It's passed through all the readings. It's not provided with a great deal of time for discussion or debate, to read through it when it goes through all three readings within a single sitting of the House—frankly, within about 10 minutes' time. The Speaker takes the chair, he leaves the chair. The Deputy Speaker takes the chair of the committee of the whole, and you have the debate. So having the assurance from the President of the Treasury Board in response to his or her critic, depending as the case may be, is an assurance to the House.

We're taking the minister at his word. We're taking the member at his or her word that the bill is in a form that is acceptable and has been in the past. Often the president of the Treasury Board will respond as such, saying that it is in the same form as was passed on such and such a date during the previous supply debate. You take the government at its word. It is a precedent the government undertakes during the supply period. Of course, in the next supply period, we'll have a similar process once again. We look forward to that as well.

We have to link it back to the estimates process. There is no question that there is a need to have a discussion about it, but to simply make changes to the Standing Orders to deal with some of the problems and the accounting methods of the government isn't a plausible solution. It isn't a realistic solution. Treasury Board and the appropriate ministers and their departments ought to first fix the problems in their own departments and their own houses prior to changing the Standing Orders. Simply changing the Standing Orders for the estimates process does nothing to deal with the internal problems in terms of the accounting system the government is currently experiencing and has been experiencing for some time.

I will point out that the estimates allow committees a small peek into the operations of a department. Ms. Kwan has mentioned that the seven-minute opportunity to question the minister isn't sufficient. I think we acknowledge that to get an in-depth analysis, an in-depth line of questioning, in seven minutes is simply not reasonable and doesn't happen. I think we would certainly be open to seeing more in-depth analysis. We can do some of it in committee of the whole, when two departments are allocated a longer time in committee of the whole, but it isn't sufficient.

I happened to be at the government operations committee when Minister Brison testified the one day. One of the proposals he mentioned was that ministers would be made available on two occasions to testify before a parliamentary committee. I found that interesting, because it's putting a limit on the number of times a minister ought to appear. A minister should, in theory, be in a position to attend committee at any time, on numerous occasions, if the need arises. Certainly in the estimates process, I think most committees would welcome the minister for a significant period of time to discuss the department's spending plans and the estimates process.

There are also opportunities throughout the course of our duties here in this House to hear from ministers on matters before the House, on pieces of legislation, on parliamentary business, and on the budget, for that matter. To artificially have a limit of two appearances I think is unfortunate. That was, unfortunately, the method that seemed to be proposed by the minister at the time.

One point Mr. Reid makes in this article is about the public accounts committee. Again, it's John Reid,from Kenora—Rainy River, not Scott Reid, though I'm sure Scott Reid would have plenty to say on this subject as well. We learn things when we come to this place, and I found it interesting that the public accounts committee was, in fact, chaired by an opposition member of Parliament. That's something we learn when we come to this place. There were a couple of other committees as well, but I found it interesting that the public accounts committee was chaired by an opposition MP. Mr. Reid writes in his article:

Public accounts is a committee which works closely with the Auditor General. It has had opportunities to influence legislation as a result of investigations carried out following suggestions in the Auditor General's report. For example, the recent background paper on Crown Corporations resulted as a direct consequence of the Public Accounts Committee's investigation into Atomic Energy Canada.

When we look at different committees, I think the public accounts committee is one of the more unique creatures of this place, because it has great publicity, as we have seen it in the past when the public accounts committee undertakes its studies. We talked a little bit earlier about questions going to chairs of committees and so on.

Again, as I mentioned, I was an avid viewer of parliamentary proceedings as a kid, as a student, and as a university student. I can remember that during the times of discussion leading up to the Gomery report about the sponsorship scandal much of the investigation was being undertaken on it from a political standpoint by the public accounts committee, based on the Auditor General's report at the time. Sheila Fraser was the Auditor General at that time.

One of the techniques employed at the time from an accountability standpoint was that questions were directed from the then leader of the opposition, Stephen Harper, to his own committee chair; at the time, it was John Williams, the MP from Edmonton—St. Albert. It was a tactic used to bring publicity and public interest to the matter by using the chair of the public accounts committee and also using the committee itself. It served as a valuable tool to review government spending and the concerns that the Auditor General raised on a certain matter.

I think the position of the Auditor General is one of utmost importance to our Parliament. Auditors General serve independently of government. They are appointed for a 10-year term and are not typically subject to reappointment, so they do have a great deal of independence when they're undertaking their duties. Over the course of many parliaments, we can see the great influence that, one, the Auditor General has had in undertaking studies, but also, two, we can see the influence that the public accounts committee can have, and I might say positively. The work of the committee can often lead to significant changes in the way we operate—for the better.

When raising an issue, the Auditor General often makes recommendations, and the government has the opportunity to accept them, to decline them, or to make some modifications. When the Auditor General presents presents reports and the committee has an opportunity to review them, we can see changes for the better in the way government operates. That's one important point that I think we need to acknowledge when we're looking at the role of the committee.

In a way, probably all parties, I think, depending on who is in power, dread the Auditor General's report. No one wants to be called on the carpet for potential mismanagement. Regardless of party affiliation, I think we all acknowledge the essential need for the Auditor General in terms of a parliamentary function.

I want to get in a few more points. I see that we're approaching the midnight hour, but I want to talk about one last point from this paper, which Mr. Reid talks about. It has to do with a bit of the discussion that Ms. Duncan and Ms. May had near the beginning about the role of political parties in this whole process.

Mr. Reid writes in his paper:

Of course, one of the most important areas where a backbencher can exercise a legislative function results from his participation as a member of a political party in the development of party policy. In some ways, this can be the most important [work] of a backbencher's legislative outlook. I have not dealt with that aspect of his activities. I have not dealt with the impediments [of] reforming the legislative function which is implicit not so much in the nature of the [party] system itself, but rather from the fact that the floor of the House of Commons, and to a lesser extent in all of its emanations is a [battlefield] between parties and, occasionally, ideas.

We often hear what a panacea we would have if we didn't have political parties, but I think that neglects the role the political parties play in policy development and the policy process. Ms. Duncan talked about the grassroots process that her party has. I know that our political party has our own policy process. We have national conventions every couple of years, where we have the opportunity to meet with party members from every riding across the country and have that discussion on where ought to go on any given matter, which informs our duties as parliamentarians. When we debate things in the House of Commons, we'll often refer to our policy documents, to where our party encouraged us to go in a past policy convention. It gives us the opportunity to see where our grassroots are. Too often, political parties get a bad rap, I think; they get a bad name in terms of a negative perspective.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Yes, Mr. Graham?

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I just want to let you know that the time is now 528 o'clock.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

It's what?

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

It's 528 o'clock on the 21st of March.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

Mr. Nater, is that a good time to stop?

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

Yes. I'll return to my thoughts at a future point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

I have a couple of closing points that are mostly administrative.

Elizabeth May mentioned a point about the bells being for 10 minutes in at Westminster. Just for your interest, one thing they have there is an apartment building for all the MPs. They have bells in the apartment building, so you can go back to your apartment, have your 8-minute bells, and still get to Westminster.

Tomorrow, as you know, in the House of Commons, we have caucus in the morning, and then it's a special day. There's a speech. The only other thing that day is question period, which will end at 4:15. We will reconvene—“unsuspend”—at 4:30, barring anything unusual, 15 minutes after question period finishes.

Then, for Thursday, once again, hopefully we'll have come to some agreement before then, but if we haven't, we will meet from 9 o'clock to 11 o'clock, with the caveat I mentioned earlier. If Bill C-33 comes before Parliament on Thursday—and for any time it does—we'll suspend so that this committee, which that bill is going to come to, can hear that debate.

Last, remember that the buses are running for one half hour from now to take you to the parking lots.

It being 12:02 a.m., we will suspend until 4:30 p.m. tomorrow.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We will reconvene meeting number 55.

We're tentatively scheduled to go until midnight tonight, as per usual. Dinner will be here at roughly six o'clock.

It's national anti-bullying day, so I have lots of pink on, as has our first speaker.

Mr. Simms?

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

When you're ready, Chair. Are you finished with your...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Yes. I've finished my announcements.

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

I have a quick point of order. We have this thing called—I didn't describe it as such, but others did—the Simms plan or the Simms—

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

The protocol—

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

Yes, the protocol. Thank you, Tom. It's the Simms protocol or procedure. As describes many things in my life, it's the Simms something.

Last night, we had a little bit of a shouting match. I apologize, because I added to that. We descended into a mild form of chaos. Some of you were here. I don't recall all of us being here, but I think the way this Simms thing works—this is odd now that I'm talking about it on television—is that we say “point of order”, and we pause for anyone to say, “no, I don't give unanimous consent”. I'm looking to my colleagues....

That's usually how it goes. Last night, there was a little back-and-forth that I think got a bit out of hand, so I just wanted to say that maybe if we're going to use this thing, we should say, “point of order”, then wait, and then do our submission. That way, it would provide a bit of order. It's just a recommendation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay.

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

That's my two cents. Thank you.

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Sorry?

Oh, welcome....

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Yes. I was telling the Bloc that Elizabeth May was here last night and the committee was very generous, in using the Simms procedure, to allow her to make some points. I hope the committee will be equally generous with the Bloc today so that they get some input.

When something comes up in the debate

and if you have something you want to input, just signal. We'll make sure the speaker agrees to let the floor go for a short intervention. That's the way we've been operating. It's been very co-operative.

Mr. Lukiwski.