There's lots to say.
My point is this. Going back to our fisheries committee, I came on as a fisheries critic in September, and I'd heard lots of stuff about the fisheries committee and whether there was a lot getting done or whether there was a lot of disorganization. I'm not saying it was my entrance that caused it to be far more effective, but I can tell you that our fisheries committee has done some incredible work over the last six months, partly because we have a great working relationship. We trust—there's that word, “trust”—that we're all there for the right reasons, to make sure that we're looking after the communities that depend on fisheries for their living, looking after our waterways and our oceans, and protecting our fish habitat.
At this point, I want to give kudos to Mr. Simms in terms of standing up in the House, talking from the heart and saying he did get a chance to see this in advance, which then led to him tabling a paper. Again, I don't agree that these were Ms. Chagger's words; far be it. However, it's interesting that her comments are that the more time she spends in this House, the more she feels it needs modernizing.
I spend a lot of time in the House during debate. Outside of QP and maybe the odd time where she comes in and says something, I haven't seen Ms. Chagger in the House. With respect to her comments about the more time she spends at that, maybe it was a general term. I would never be as bold, being a new member of Parliament, as to think that I know it all and that I have all the answers, nor would I be as bold, as a new member of Parliament, as to think that I would put forth a paper thinking I'm going to revolutionize this place and make things better for all involved. Again, this goes back to the trust and perhaps that there is an ulterior motive; maybe there's something behind what we're talking about.
I talked about Ms. Sahota's comments and I really do appreciate the feedback that she has given. I think it is important that we have this dialogue. We're not always going to agree, but if we can have this respectful dialogue, it's so important.
I'm going to go back to another comment that was made the previous night that we were here: it is easy to play the game.
I'm a coach. I've coached junior and major midget hockey teams. My major midget team won the provincial championship in 2008. Just last week, nine years later to the date, they again won the provincial championship. They're hosting the 2017 Telus Cup, the national midget championship, in Prince George, which I think is great.
Mr. Chair, you were leaning in to talk about relevance. I promise you there's relevance to this. I bring this back because we can all play the game when we know the rules to the game. It's not for one side to arbitrarily change the rules. The Standing Orders are the rules of the game, governing how we move forward. The Standing Orders state very clearly how the government is to move forward in governing the House or governing our country, but they also provide the framework for how the opposition holds the government to task. That's really what our job is. Our job is not to always agree, but to hold the government's feet to the fire.
If the government chooses to come in and be heavy-handed, if it doesn't like the way things are going, which we've seen over time—again, going back to kids—it's like, if I don't like the way you're playing, I'm going to go back, grab all my toys, and go to a different sandbox; I'm going to change the rules of the game.
I don't know if you've ever played shinny, parking lot football, or baseball. If there's a side whose players are making up rules as they go, sooner or later someone's going to get mad, correct? That's kind of where we're at, and it is really tough to build trust when you continually see things shifting. I think it's fair when all sides know the rules and know how to play by them.
I want to go back to another comment that was made the other night. It deals specifically with the shortened workweek. I think Ms. Sahota mentioned it as well. We all know that our jobs are 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Our constituents work 40, 60, or 80 hours a week. I talked a bit about my travel. Here's my issue with Fridays off, or a shortened workweek. I already travel first thing in the morning on Fridays, but very often, as we've seen, I'll travel in the afternoon on Fridays, so I get back into British Columbia at 1:30 in the morning on Saturdays. I spend all day Saturday in the riding, wherever it is. I mentioned before that I've travelled 1,700 kilometres, round trip, for one meeting. I'm not complaining. I just take that as part of my job. Then I'm on the plane on Sundays at 5 a.m. to come back.
That's important to note, because for those of us who actually have to travel long distances to get here, if we were to have a Friday off or a shorter sitting week, now all of a sudden it's a Thursday I'm looking at. Is it Thursday morning that I leave? Really, then I'm sitting in the House for three days. Is it Thursday night? That would make little difference to me. Again, this isn't about me. If we're talking about shorter sitting weeks, I go back to the comment I made earlier. Our constituents elected us to work and represent them. They know our job is here in Ottawa. Our job is also back in the riding. I knew exactly what I was getting myself into when I signed up. I don't see using that as an excuse.
I think the wording was that our job is to be at the hockey rinks, the baseball fields, the soccer fields, and the events. I am already there, even though I have probably one of the craziest schedules. I should ask the Chair what his travel schedule is, because I think his might rival mine. My travel day is 12 to 15 hours. That is not a complaint. It's just what I live with.
I have learned that I have to find efficiencies within my personal life. Even in my own office, we are continually looking at better ways to serve our constituents. That means that, when I am in the riding for any length of time, like next week and the week after, there are things we can do more efficiently. We get one riding week a month if we're not doing committee travel or other parliamentary association travel. That allows us the opportunity to connect with our constituents.
There is new technology. I know some members of Parliament have been experimenting with video conferencing in their offices back in their ridings. Unfortunately, I wasn't one of the ones picked to do that. There are things we can do differently as a House that can still connect us to our ridings.
I'll use an example. Ms. Sahota said that we don't start our work day until 10:00 a.m. on Fridays. Again, I'm going to differ from that. I'm in my office usually at 6:00 a.m., no later than 7:00 a.m. I try to beat our colleague Jim Eglinski in. There's always a battle to get the parking spot that he has. We have busy days. There are things we have to do. I take that as a given. That is part of being a member of Parliament.
When the House rises, if I don't have House duty, I'm back in my office in the afternoon. I'm not a big event person, so I don't usually find myself at one of the 30 or 40 daily events that take place in the evenings. You're not going to find me there; I'm usually in my office and making calls back to my riding. Frankly, I find this a benefit. That time change is a huge benefit for us on the west coast. I go back into my office and I'm able to make calls to my constituents for another three or four hours. I normally don't leave my office until quite late. There are usually a couple of other people there. I know our colleague Mr. Robert-Falcon Ouellette is here, and I think he usually stays until 2:00 a.m. I'm not that crazy, Mr. Chair; not to say that he's crazy—