Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 21st, 2017

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Yes, Parliament is supreme. I don't believe the discussion paper is stating anywhere, from my reading of it, that the Liberals know what's best. It doesn't matter what side of the aisle they come from if they're good ideas, but we can't even have a discussion at this point to figure out whether some of those ideas are good or not. I'm not even going to say whether some of them are good ideas or not, because that's a discussion we have to all engage in.

Of course I have some preference toward some of them, and some of them I may not. I think as a committee, a lot of times colleagues bring up some really valid points and sometimes they can shape the way we think or feel about it, but that only happens once we engage in that substantive discussion and once we have witnesses to give us the facts and give us some studies. I don't want to just be going off of my emotions. My emotions may lead me one way. I want to hear from witnesses. I want to hear from experts. I want to hear from them what works and what doesn't work. It doesn't really matter where my emotions lie, because as parliamentarians, we have to look at that, consider where the evidence is, and then consider how we feel. We have to weigh the two. It can't just be all about our emotional plea and what we want.

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

May I get in on the Simms thing?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Under Simms model, go ahead Mr. Simms.

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

I'm not sure what it is, but I'm attached to it for the rest of this session anyway, but thank you for that.

I'll go specifically to what you said, because I think that's the spirit of what we're doing here: to go back and forth on the specific questions or comments.

There are two things. Number one, yes, Parliament is supreme, but I don't think that precludes us from trying to modernize it in a way that is widely encompassed. To me, there's a restrictive order by which you set up a motion. I'll give you an example. Ms. Sahota brought up the McGrath report, and Mr. Christopherson brings it up quite a bit. Everyone talks about how lovely it was in the sense that it was a consensual report. It received unanimity, by which all the recommendations went through. But I have right here the motion that set up that particular study, and this motion does not require unanimity whatsoever.

Let me give another example. Mr. Scott Reid changed the Standing Orders in a private member's motion several years ago, which I voted for. It was on the election of the Speaker. Instead of doing an election each round, it was a preferential ballot. He didn't ask for unanimous consent, not once. Now, I didn't fault him for that. Forty-one per cent of members of Parliament voted against him on his motion, but the majority ruled on that and I think we have an effective rule.

Going back to your second point, the discussion paper, I wouldn't describe it as all-knowing, and I've already admitted to this right now. Scott Reid, the same person, has talked quite a bit but spoke a lot of sense to a lot of things. He questioned our discussion paper and the initiative for the Speaker to take omnibus legislation and divide it. Now does the Speaker have the role by which to do that? In some cases, the Speaker may not. She or he may not have that ability to do it. I was listening to that, thinking to myself that he's got something there. He might be right. Therefore, that part of the discussion paper should be questioned and should be challenged. It inspired me to do the motion, but that discussion paper also challenged me to challenge it.

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

Yes.

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

That's essentially what we're getting to.

Thank you for allowing me to intervene.

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

It's your model.

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

That's very sweet of you to say.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

The next speaker is Mr. Doherty.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the members of the committee who have been sitting and having this discussion. Really, that's what it is.

I sat through last week's, a few nights and a few days. I thought the debate was healthy. I thought it was good. I was pleasantly surprised at the give-and-take, the feedback, and the dialogue that went back and forth. I think that's what I said that night. That's what Canadians expect to see from their parliamentarians.

There's been a lot of talk over the last week about parliamentary privilege and freedom of speech. I will start off by saying, Mr. Chair, and to all of the members on the committee, that I am not a procedure or a policy nerd. There is nothing wrong with that. I will defer to all of my colleagues that have spent the time to go through O'Brien and Bosc in every detail. Moreover, I'd like to speak from the heart. I think that is very important.

There are things in here that I want to mention. Forgive me, Mr. Chair, if it's been said before, but I want to bring up a couple of things.

Under parliamentary privilege we have freedom of speech, freedom from arrest in civil actions, exemption from jury duty, and there are more privileges listed on page 61 of O'Brien and Bosc, in chapter 3, “Privileges and Immunities”. Again there are people who can debate this far better than I can. I want to make mention of this because I think we lose sight of this over the course of our service to our communities and our country. I was looking at a document earlier which was talking about parliamentary privilege. Parliamentary privilege means the privileged few. The reality is, though, that parliamentary privilege specifically with freedom of speech is described as this:

The privileges of the Commons are designed to safeguard the rights of each and every elector. For example, the privilege of freedom of speech is secured to the Members not for their personal benefit, but to enable them to discharge their functions of representing their constituents without fear of civil or criminal prosecution.

Further on it says, “When a constituency has returned a candidate, it is the electors' right that this chosen representative”—that he or she has the privilege—“should be protected from any kind of improper pressure....”

The privilege essentially belongs to the House as a whole. With respect to the House as a whole, on page 27 of O'Brien and Bosc, the House is defined as the “House of Commons, or lower house, is the elected assembly of the Parliament of Canada”. Going back to that, we are elected. The 338 members of Parliament are elected to be the voices of Canadians. Far be it from us that we know it all.

I appreciate that we have new members of Parliament who are here and think that they know best, but I'm going to tell you this, Mr. Chair. I've only been here for 18 months. I think that's what it is. October 19, 2015 is when I was elected. Far be it from me to tell others how we're going to do things differently or better.

This whole thing goes back to trust.

I will differ from our colleague, Ms. Sahota, who said the reason we're here involves the whole thing about consensus, that we can't get consensus to get something through and are retaliating. That is something that was mentioned earlier. I'll talk to it soon.

I throw this out, as I think I did the other night. The real issue surrounding where we are today and tonight and all the other measures that have been going on over the last three weeks are about trust, plain and simple, and trust has been broken. I think trust has been broken between opposition and our government and the government and the people. I'll go on to describe at length how that happens.

I'm not going to make quotations such as some of our colleagues who are more well-read and more learned than I am have done. I'm going to start off with a quotation that some of you may know.

I have four kids. Hopefully they're not listening to this debate. All of them are in their twenties. We have Jordan, Joshua, Kaitlyn, and Kassi. I don't have any grandkids as yet, and while I'm not prepared to be called a grandfather, I am prepared to be a grandfather.

I've listened to many of the things that are being said over the last while, and it brings me back to this quotation: “Today I shall behave as if this is the day I will be remembered.” Who said that? It was Dr. Seuss, in one of the great books and as one of the great people who are out there who have impacted people's lives in all walks of life. I think there are common quotations and common things that we can learn from the simplest of places—you know, sometimes the words, “out of the mouths of babes”....

I'm reminded of this, because I think we should all always remember—and I'm just as guilty as others—first, why we are here, and second, whom we are here to represent. If we use those as our guiding principles, we will do no wrong.

I'm going to start by going into some of the comments that our colleague Ms. Sahota made. I think she made some valid points, but I think there are things that should be said. I mentioned that we're not here so much on the issue of consensus, that the issue is trust. Trust starts with us right here, rebuilding trust.

I'm going to throw this right back at you as a great example. The other night, last week, we were here until the wee hours, and over and over again, I believe you said that the buses would be waiting for us. Well, Mr. Chair, I'm here to tell you that the buses weren't waiting for us when we got out there. I'm not blaming you for that at all; I'm just saying—

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

I've taken the buses every time. Did you miss it?

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

They weren't there.

I'm just being facetious, actually. These are from my speaking points that were supposed to be for the very next day.

I trusted that the bus was going to be there, but it wasn't—

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Seriously, this is important. It's on the record.

They might have taken someone to the parking lot, but they came back, because when I went out, I think Ruby and I had to wait for a while for the bus.

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

They weren't there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

It had taken someone to the parking lot, but they did come back, so they had service for the half-hour that they guarantee after the meeting.

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

It's not an issue, Mr. Chair. I was just being facetious.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay. I'm sorry.

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

I was talking about trust and we went down that path, but I appreciate that. I think Mr. Simms and I actually walked. I think it was Mr. Simms' comment that we should bring that up first thing the next morning: where were the buses? That was me deflecting to Mr. Simms.

The other part I wanted to bring up, right from the beginning, was that the comment was made about bringing our family to the House. With all the votes that are taking place, it can really be disruptive in terms of our visits. Far be it from parliamentary business or votes to actually disrupt a visit. However, I need to remind us—I think my colleague, Mr. Schmale mentioned it—that this whole issue and the whole discussion we are having today, the filibuster—I think that is a very strong word for what's going on because a filibuster should be around the clock and we're not ceding the floor until.... I think this is very collegial actually. We wouldn't be here today, doing what we're doing, if the government acted in good faith and if we could actually trust what was being said regarding the discussion paper. I'll get to that point as we move forward.

I want to talk about our family. I think I mentioned this before and I think Ms. Sahota talked about it. I fully appreciate that we have new members of Parliament of all ages, from all walks of life, and all at different stages in terms of their family growth. I have the benefit of having, as I mentioned, four incredible children. The youngest will be 23 and our oldest will be 29 this year, so I guess our routines are set.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

I have two.

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

You have two? Do you have grandkids?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

I hope not because mine are five and eight.

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

Your kids are five and eight?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Yes.

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

Wow. I am sorry for saying that with any astonishment. I obviously started very young.

Mr. Chair, I think that there are things that we need to do, personally, to make sure that we're managing things better. I don't think it is on us, or on Parliament as a whole, to work around our schedule. I've always said this and I still maintain it. We can never let our personal life interfere with our work life. It is incumbent on all of us to be better managers of our work life. As I said last week, I'm probably one of the worst ones at that. I spent the better part of 10 years, up to 280 days, overseas. There are things that I wish I could do better. I'm trying to do that and this role has actually allowed me to be better at doing things. As I said, I go back every weekend. We try to have family dinners.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Were you with the military overseas?