Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 21st, 2017

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

I was in aviation.

I took a lot of time. My role with aviation was actually to promote Canada on the world stage, as well as to promote the groups with which I was working. I worked very closely with provincial governments, as well as industry groups, and I had a lot of fun. I got to see some incredible sights and I got to do things that most people would only ever read about or see on the Internet. I feel very fortunate, and it has given me a different perspective.

There are things that I would definitely do better. I'll stand up and say that I chose my career over family oftentimes, my obligation to the companies for which I worked. I think I could do better at that. I have spoken about this in the House, so it's on the public record: I hearken to the time that my brother-in-law was discovered deceased as I was loading my suitcases into the back of my car. I was scheduled to speak in Kuala Lumpur, and at a time when I should have been there with my family, I chose my obligation to the people in my occupation. I hugged my wife and got into the car, got on the plane, and went and spoke at the conference. These are things that we can't get back.

My point is that we must do everything in our own power to be better at what we do and how we manage our life.

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

Better is always possible, buddy.

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

Better is always possible. It is not on all of Parliament to be better and to make things different, it is on us. I say that because of the comment that was made that if we don't modernize, we're not going to see more reasonable people such as Ms. Sahota or we're never going to break that glass ceiling.

I always want to look for role models for my three daughters. I know I've mentioned this already, but I have three incredibly strong, very strong-willed daughters, and I always look for positive role models. I want them to be leaders. To me, it doesn't necessarily have to be a female role model; it has to be leadership role models. I don't want to make things easier for them; I want them to earn what they do. What we should be doing is creating the environment in which they can be successful.

I'll bring this back to one of my daughters, since we're going down this path. I have an adult daughter who is challenged. Her name is Kaitlyn. We have never treated her any differently. We have never made excuses for her. She doesn't know she is any different. She still has the same expectations as all our kids. She has to do the chores, grudgingly, as all my kids do. She has to do the things she needs to do to be successful. She goes out to work and she is one of the best employees. Let me tell you, every day I am so proud of her. She will live with us for the rest of her life. She gets up and trudges through the snow or she gets a ride from us or takes the bus, but she is punctual. She has done some incredible things. She could be sitting here today and you would never know that there is a disability there. She is smart as a whip in terms of working on a computer and the things she can do, but the issue is that there are things she will never be able to do. We know this. It took a long time for us, as parents, to come to terms with that.

My oldest daughter, my first born, may not ever get married, may not ever have kids. Our challenge was this—and I get teared up with this. As parents, it's not our job to make lives easier for our kids, but it's our job to teach them the ways to be successful. It's our job to guard them against people who are trying to bring them down and attack them and do those things.

I use that as a preface to this point where we talk about the gender balance and breaking that glass ceiling. I sometimes take offence at that. It's not because I don't believe we need to do everything in our power to make sure we have strong women, more women in politics. I'm going to give you the same answer I gave when I was asked at the time: there are strong women who are out there who would make incredible members of Parliament. I'm surrounded by them. We have women MPs in this House who are incredible people. My colleagues who are right here; I'm continually amazed at our members of Parliament, our female members of Parliament who have broken that glass ceiling, Mr. Chair, without the need of being propped up.

I don't want any of my kids or anybody else's kids to say they were given a pass to get into this. We have some incredible people on all sides who are strong fighters. I apologize, Mr. Speaker, because I've gone down the path here where.... I wanted to make a comment on this because Ms. Sahota said that if we don't change this, if we don't modernize this, we're not going to see more reasonable people come through those doors, and we're never going to break the glass ceiling.

I think there are other things we can do rather than take away debate or ram things down under the guise of modernizing. If that's truly what their idea is, then perhaps they should have said something, because I don't believe that was actually mentioned in the discussion paper, but I'll get back to that in a moment.

The other comment that was made was that the discussion paper was to ensure that every member's role was important. Mr. Chair, I would hazard that every member's role is already important. It's important that we keep the voice of our electors who chose us to come to Parliament and be that voice, not Ottawa's voice in our riding but the other way around.

She mentioned also that we don't want to see things change. I think that's wrong. Again, that's an incorrect statement. It's not that we don't want to see things change. I think, as my colleague mentioned earlier, it's not about not wanting to see things change.

An alternate fact that's thrown out there is that the Conservatives or the NDP members are afraid of change and that we are putting up the guard because we don't want to see anything change. That is not the truth, Mr. Chair. The reality is that there are things that should be done, but negotiations or discussions should be a two-way street.

I always bring this back to dealing with my kids or dealing with hockey players, because I'm a coach as well. I've coached sports for ever and a day. If I told my kids that they couldn't do something, they would skirt the issue and go to their mom to see if they could get something done that way. There is that trust issue there. We always told our kids that no means no. My wife and I have to be a team on this.

The reality of how we got here today is that the government members decided they were going to put forth a discussion paper. They didn't put it forth to the opposition for a true discussion. They tabled it through the media, “Let's have a discussion through the media.” There was no respect in that. Respect is earned; it's not just given. If it were truly a discussion paper, it wouldn't have been done through a presser and then, three hours later, through a motion put forth at a committee to review this.

Mr. Chair, I'm sure you can understand how that would get things up in arms and make us have a bit of mistrust, but it goes a little further back. Let's talk about how we can diminish trust. I'll go back to the conversation we had that night. Mr. Badawey said, “How come we can't just have this discussion?” It was a great question.

I think I answered with two things. Number one was trust. We can't trust that what is being said is going to actually be followed through and that we will actually have a discussion. Again, you shouldn't have to negotiate or discuss through the media. I think that was one of the things that were brought up. This all started with the presser and with issuing it through the committee. Another comment that was made was that it's all about winning and losing. I would disagree with that wholeheartedly. I think where we're at today is that we are all fighting for the voices of our electors.

It was also mentioned that we have gotten nothing done in the three weeks. Mr. Chair, to our colleagues on the committee and those who are sitting in, I would say that we have done quite a bit. We have defended democracy. We have stood up for changes. We have done exactly what those who elected us have asked us to do—to defend their voices, to make sure their voices aren't silenced. I think it's so important, as we move forward, to remember what got us here today. It was trust.

I went away, Mr. Chair, and I looked at how we got to this point. I was doing some research, if you will. There are so many different ways to diminish trust.

We all know that lying is probably the number one behaviour that diminishes trust. It also tops the list of what people say when they think that trust has been betrayed. There are things we can do, however, that do not involve lying; we don't need to deceive or manipulate to diminish trust, but can do it with simple, ordinary, everyday behaviours. I think it's important that we recognize that every government, every member of Parliament, every person wants to be perceived as trustworthy. I think again, to address Ms. Sahota's comments, that we all want to be able to work back and forth in a trusting environment. We want to operate with trust, such that if the government says they're going to do something, we can trust they're going to do it; yet we've seen that it hasn't happened on other occasions.

Often, we are blind to the impact of our own actions; we operate with an impaired self-awareness, if you will. We can diminish trust without even knowing it, if we blatantly believe that we know best.

I want to go back to the comment that was made earlier on about this discussion paper. Following media reports on the discussion paper that was tabled, the House leader said the more time she spends in this House, the more she feels its need for modernization. Well, I'm going to go back to my earliest comment; that far be it from a newbie who has spent 18 months in the House....

I don't know whether you've seen it or not, but often, even when it's not my House duty, I sit in and listen to the debates. I do truthfully want to hear all sides of the debate. I have suggestions. I think there are things we can do better, but I'm not quite sure that the term for them would be “modernizing”. I would not be so bold as to author a paper. I'm not quite sure that.... While she takes credit for authoring this paper, I would be interested to know that, for somebody...unless she has studied parliamentary procedure in a.... I'm sitting here not knowing what her background is, but I'm not quite sure that she studied parliamentary procedure in her former life. Perhaps this is something she may have had just sitting in the wings, so that at the time she was elected she could come in and—hallelujah—modernize Parliament.

It baffles me. She has a pretty weighty role, being a House leader, to have actually had time to author something like this. I know my schedule, in terms of the committees I sit on and the issues we deal with, and with our constituents. I've done some pretty incredible things, I would think, as a new member of Parliament. I have tabled four private members' bills, one through very collaborative efforts and with all-party support.

I'm very happy to see that my Bill C-211 was voted on at second reading and passed unanimously. I think we sent a strong message to our brave men and women who put uniforms on every day to serve our country and our communities and who are suffering from PTSD or mental heath injuries. I would challenge the government that it's been three weeks now since we all voted unanimously, and we need to get it to committee so that we can move this project forward, because we've done nothing, with the exception of actually creating more hope.

My point is this: that while there might be some good things in this paper—and far be it from me to pick at some of this stuff, and I'm not going to call her a liar, Mr. Chair, and far be it from me to say that—I can't honestly believe that these are actually her words that she has put onto paper here.

On that note, I do appreciate Mr. Simms' comments in the House last week or the week before where he talked about the time lag in seeing this. He admitted that he actually saw it beforehand. We've done a lot of work with Mr. Simms on our fisheries committee. He is chair of our fisheries committee, and I enjoy him and his self-deprecating humour.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

There's lots of it, too.

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

There's lots of material.

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

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—

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I think I am crazy, Todd.

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

I do see it quite—

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

You have to say the truth, Todd, always the truth.

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

I was not saying that you were crazy. I was just saying that your schedule is crazy. I do want to give compliments to a lot of members of Parliament who work long hours here.

Again, I'm not quite sure that taking a shorter day or a shorter workweek sends the right message. It is about optics. It is about logistics. If we automatically say that we are going to sit Monday to Thursday, and take those Fridays as constituency days, I'd like to know how they propose.... Are we sitting longer in the mornings? I have no problem; I'm in my office anyway. I just don't know how we would make that up because, for somebody who travels to the west coast...

And Mr. Chair, I assumed that I had one of the craziest travel schedules, but how long is your travel day?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Well, to come here for this meeting, I left on Sunday at 4:30. I was on a plane, and I didn't get here until I walked in on Monday morning, so that means I didn't sleep on Sunday night at all, and because I was in economy, there was no breakfast or dinner, so I didn't have any breakfast. I think I went 40 hours this week without any sleep.

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

That's my point. A shorter workweek or a shorter sitting week wouldn't help you or me or those on the west coast who have to travel great distances. Maybe we're going take an extra day to try to get home, which means that we're only here for three days. What message does that send back to our constituents? Are there things that we can do to sit longer during the week, in terms of starting the House earlier and staying later? I'm one of the ones who says that, look, if we need to be here 24 hours a day, we need to be here, and I'm okay. I don't have kids here.

I think it would be sending the wrong message if we said we were going to do a shortened week. I believe that firmly. My constituents in Cariboo—Prince George elected me, and here are the things that I was elected on. They wanted to know that I was going to go to Ottawa and be a strong voice of Cariboo in Ottawa and not be Ottawa's voice in Cariboo. I think I've done that. I've tried to follow through with that. The other part was that they wanted to make sure their member of Parliament was visible and present. I have to tell you, Mr. Chair, the comments that I have gotten back, over the last 18 months.... And I'll be the first to say, we can always do things better.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Better is always possible.

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

Mr. Chair, there is nobody in this House who can put greater pressure on us to be better and serve our constituents better than me. I'm always challenging our team, saying that we have to be able to maximize things a little bit better, whatever we're doing. The comments I'm getting, however, are that they've never seen their member of Parliament more and have never heard from their member of Parliament more. That's not to say anything negative about my predecessor, who was here for 22 years and who, I would say, represented our region very well.

It is to say, though, that there are various ways of doing things without actually impacting others. I use video messaging to wish constituents happy birthday. If I can't attend an event, I send greetings via video. I make sure that we reach out, as I said, Monday to Friday, if I'm able to. I call constituents after the House rises. I do things a little bit differently. I schedule conference calls earlier in the morning for those who are beyond eastern standard time. I make sure that we're maximizing our time in the House or in our office.

We were represented for a long time by a great member of Parliament, and he did some incredible things for our region. We are not doing things better per se; we're doing things differently.

The whole point of this is that it's incumbent upon all of us, I think, to find ways in which we can be more effective in our own offices. We can talk about best practices among ourselves: “How's this working out for you?” I love our committee travel and the stuff that we do, because we actually get the chance, non-adversarially.... When you're travelling with somebody, you truly get to know the person.

We were just on a 15- or 17-hour flight. Far be it from me to sneak into the bathroom as soon as we board and get into my Lulus and my t-shirt, that's what I travel in, on long distances—

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

As a point of clarification, Mr. Chair, could I please know what a Lulu is? If Mr. Doherty would be so kind—

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

They are my travel clothes, and Mr. Schmale can tell you, probably, that you don't want to see me in my Lulus.

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

Thank you.

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

There is relevance. What I'm saying, Mr. Chair, is that there are things we can do away from the House, when we're having conversations with our friends about discovering best practices, and I think they're really important. When I have a conversation with Scott or some of our other colleagues talking about how they deal with such and such an issue, there is so much that we can learn from.

One thing I don't know that we've had yet, outside the interventions of Mr. Reid, perhaps Mr. Simms, Mr. Masse, who has been on the list here—I don't know whether he has been able to speak yet.... Mr. Christopherson spoke, and I listened intently to his very animated, very long, but very well thought-out speech. There are things we can learn from those who came before us, and I think that is very important.

I'm looking around the table. Apart from Mr. Simms, Mr. Masse, Mr. Reid, and you, Mr. Chair, I don't know whether there's really much parliamentary history at this table.

The value we have collectively as Parliament is that those who came before us, that which has worked...and not deciding that we know best. I think that's what we've seen with this discussion paper. It's not really a discussion paper; I think it's actually a plan to move some things forward dressed up as a discussion paper. As much as they'd like to say it's a discussion paper, I don't think it truly is a discussion paper.

I'm going to go back to trust, Mr. Chair, because this is the reason we're here. We've seen many things over the last while. I'll tell you that I'm not here to defend things that were done before. I'm a new member of Parliament. I don't have the privilege of having been part of the last Parliament, but I can tell you what I've seen in the last while.

I'm going to go back to May 17 of last year, when things weren't moving well, or it wasn't felt that they were moving well. We saw a motion, motion six, put forward by the government. The way it was done was very heavy-handed. I really think it was at that point that things went sideways. Some would argue, probably some even in my own team, that they went sideways even long before that. I think motion six was one where the term “draconian” was used.

I'm not a parliamentary history buff, so I can't say with any certainty that this has never been done before, but I believe words were used such as that “it has never been done in parliamentary history” that motion six was levied. It was all about taking away any of the perceived powers the opposition have. What they were going to do, if the government didn't like the way things were going, was just ram it down our throats.

Essentially what we saw was a very angry Mr. Trudeau, who didn't like the way things were going, and so he was going to show us. Whatever happened—I think it was called “elbowgate”.... Anyway, there was much ado about nothing, but the point of the matter was that the government decided they were going to deliver motion six, which was going to take away any of the powers or perceived powers that the opposition had. They were going to show us that if we were not going to follow their rules, they were just arbitrarily going to deliver them and impose them on us.

Mr. Chair, I was right there when the whole whatever happened, and I was asked to speak the very next day about what I saw and about intent and what have you. I guess my comments were these: that it was not for us to describe what the intent was. How would we know the intent of the person who committed the actions at the time. I'm not a mind reader. It's not for me to explain; it really is for the person who did it to explain their intent.

I think we saw a number of things from that point forward that really have led us to question this government's integrity in some things. That's not to paint all of our members of Parliament on that side with the same brush. We have some incredible members of Parliament there.

I'll go back to this. I don't think that Ms. Chagger actually authored this paper. I think this is coming from other places, and I think the actions we're seeing out of the PMO are what is leading people to mistrust it. We're even seeing it in the media, where much was being said about our previous government. The one thing the media said, however, was that at least with Prime Minister Harper you knew where you stood.

Forgive me, I can't remember the exact quote, but it was the one thing that remains true: “the Liberals are not to be trusted”. Those are not my words, Mr. Chair; that comment is from the media, which for the most part have been very kind to the government. It could be argued that they are very, very kind.

Even the people in the media, who have in the past while been very favourable, are asking what is going on. They're even questioning this as well, so it's not just the opposition. I would think that probably the majority of Canadians don't even know what we're debating, but the media are actually taking notice of some of the things that are going on.

One of the news clippings I have says that Mr. Trudeau's legacy will be that of arrogance. It speaks to the other point that I wanted to cover. What we're seeing, in terms of this discussion paper, of motion six, and of some of the actions that we see every day, is that there is a real contempt for the House and the opposition. There isn't respect.

I can't say how things were when I wasn't here—I think that will be spoken to as we move forward—so I hope you don't fault me on that. I will be the first person to stand up and say, when we were wrong, that we were wrong. I think that's very important. What we've seen out of at least the PMO, however, is that there's a real contempt for the opposition. Whether it's motion six or this discussion paper, Mr. Chair, “This is how it's going to be.”

I guarantee that this is more or less the way it was discussed: “Listen, we know that the media are on our side—they love us—so what we're going to do....”

This is probably the way the workings went: “I know what we're going to do.” They had all the people huddled together and they said, “Listen, we're going to get their goat. How about this? We're going to call a presser, and because we're all about reforming things and getting things better, we're going to issue this paper. We're going to get the public on side with this, and then the opposition is not going to have any say, because we're just going to kind of ram it through.”

It fell short, it backfired, for the first time, because the media are not as silly as we think they are; they're very smart and learned people. They can see straight through this. I think that this is the kind of backlash we're seeing. It speaks to the overall theme in the House, which then leaks into these discussions in the committee.

You know, Mr. Chair, if you and I were riding on a bus, and you told me that the sky was blue and it looked as if we were going to get showers later in the afternoon, I'd believe you.

If all of a sudden we come through the doors and you tell me that the sky is blue, I'm automatically going to say that, no, it's black. We don't have that trust. We've broken that trust. Somehow, whatever it is, we've broken that trust. I'm going to tell you this, Mr. Chair, with complete sincerity. People are probably going to laugh at this. I'm very proud to be a member of the Conservative caucus, but I'm probably one of the most non-partisan people you'll see when we're away from this House.

See, I told you people would laugh.

When I was elected by the good people of Cariboo—Prince George, what an incredible honour that was. Some people even brought up to me why they didn't vote for me, but I told them it was okay. Whether they voted for me or not, I represent the entire riding. Whether they vote for Liberal, the NDP—shame—or the others, I represent all people. I represent everyone. The media was saying, wow, the national result wasn't what you.... How's it going to be? What are you going to do? Now you're going to be in opposition; oh, heaven forbid.

While I was disappointed at the national result, I was looking forward because I think, if you talk to anybody I worked with in the past, you'd see that the best work we do is when we can find a common ground—whether it's in aviation or other areas. It's not about winning or losing. I think in a healthy relationship—I've been married for a long time—there's a give and take, and we have to recognize that.

The government has a job to do. Opposition has a job to do as well. I came here bright-eyed, very altruistic, and I said I'm going to do everything in my power to build those bridges, to work collaboratively. I had the background for my bill C-211 already built. I knew what I needed to do. I was disappointed, but I saw this as an opportunity.

I think a lot of our new colleagues were the same. We brought energy, and we all said the same thing, probably like that puppy dog. That's the great thing about puppies and dogs. Somebody said you could lock them in the back of your truck for an hour and then when you come back, they're still wagging their tails, happy to see you. I have a great black Lab that I don't get to see as much as I would love to, but that's my choice. I tell you this, Mr. Chair: every time I arrive back, it's as if he knows when I'm coming in. They probably wind him up for me just before I get in. He is so happy to see me, and he's raring to go.

It's probably how we were. The senior members of our caucuses probably saw us as being these bright-eyed and puppy-dog type of people. We were very eager to try to make new friends, even though it was across party lines.

Let me tell you this. I don't think we would be able to do what we've done with my Bill C-211 if we didn't have the kind of attitude that we would work very closely with others from across the floor. We've seen other government members who had private members' bills that have moved forward. The member from Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Mr. McKinnon, I believe put forward a great bill. I think that sends hope to Canadians that we are able to work together.

My point, going back to it, is that I've become a little bit frustrated. If I can say it, I think the Prime Minister let me down, and let us down, with his actions that day, May 17 last year, and the subsequent actions that went forward. I expected better. I think Canadians expected better. I think, indeed, that those in your own government, in your own caucus, although they might not say anything publicly, would privately say they expected better.

Indeed, I've had conversations with members from all parties. Privately I think they were very forthcoming with some of their comments about some of the promises made during the campaign that were subsequently broken once you got into office. I remember one member actually saying, “I essentially lied, on the doorsteps, to my constituents, because I believed this was something we were actually going to do and be able to follow through on.” They bought in. I think Canadians, for the most part—as we saw, 39%—bought into the change Mr. Trudeau was putting forth.

That brings me back to another comment I wanted to make. Governing is hard. It requires a plan, but it also requires that the person delivering the plan, if there is a plan, or the person who's in charge—I think we all agree that regardless of where we are, there always should be somebody in charge—not rule with emotion. There should be principled leadership and a plan. I think Canadians also want to see that there's a plan. We haven't seen that. We've seen a lot of big things, but no real plan.

I think what we're seeing in some of the scrambly manoeuvres, the reshuffle, the new House leader, and the moving things around is that while they campaigned on having a plan, there really was no plan. Maybe even, Mr. Chair, if I can boldly pronounce.... I don't think they expected to be elected. They thought, this is what we're going to say, and we'll see if people actually buy it. When it got closer, perhaps they were like, “ Holy crap. I think we're actually going to be elected. How are we going to do this? Don't worry about it. Budgets balance themselves, right?”

We've kind of proven now that this doesn't happen. We've made some promises to Canadians from coast to coast to coast, and we have done some big things, but we're spending beyond our means. I think that's the challenge. What we're seeing right now, perhaps with the PMO, is that they are scrambling. There's no plan, so they are ruling by emotion.

Again, going back to this paper. I doubt very much that Ms. Chagger actually had anything to do with it. Perhaps she was in the room when some ideas were being put out. I don't know. I'm just putting words in people's mouths. I'm just speaking from the heart. That's all I know how to do.

Let me take you back, if I can, because it does have relevance, Mr. Chair. I never debated prior to being elected. I can argue like the best of them with my wife. I always lose, which is okay. I always lose with my kids as well.

We had a debate. I thought I was very prepared. I had every document on every issue that was going to come up, and I was very prepared. I was ready to go, kind of like right here. We got to the venue where the debate was, and no papers were allowed. You were not allowed to have any supporting documents with you. You were on your own.

I'm not ashamed to say that I bombed miserably. As a matter of fact, the next day I was waiting for feedback—this was one of the biggest debates—from my campaign, and I knew the feedback already. As I said earlier, I'm my worst critic, so I was waiting for it. I was waiting for the feedback to say, “This where you went wrong; this is what you should have said”, all this stuff. It never came. The next day, as you and others here are probably aware, Mr. Chair, from your own ridings, we had debates. Every riding had tons of debates. The very next day I had three debates from one end of my riding to the next. I needed the feedback. I wanted to know where I went wrong.

My campaign manager, who I had been feverishly texting, never got back to me. He finally got back to me on October 9, 2015, which happened to be my birthday, at about one o'clock. It was just before I was about to leave for the third debate that day, and he came in with a sticky note and he slammed this on the desk. That's it, and he turned and walked away. That sticky note said, “Speak from the heart because if you speak from the heart you can never go wrong.”

I think others from the other side have mentioned a few times that it's important we don't get caught up in “he said, she said” and “winning versus losing.” We have to speak from the heart. All I know how to do is just tell them how it is. Whether we like it or not, that's how we do it in the Cariboo.

You know, the Cariboo is a great place. It is unbelievable. I'm very proud to be from the Cariboo. Mr. Chair, it is a place where we look you in the eye, we ask you how you're doing, and we mean it. We say, “Bless you” when you sneeze. We say, “Gesundheit”. We open doors for people. I have some incredible constituents. I worked a lifetime overseas, as I mentioned earlier, representing my region all over the world. I got a little feisty when we would be in a boardroom somewhere across the country, and somebody would ask where I was from, and I told them, and they kind of wrinkled their nose asking, “How is that working out for you?” I'll tell you, we have salt of the earth people. We have hard-working pioneer folks in the Cariboo.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Todd, I just want to say that's what we really love about you. You're so hard-working. We know you are all hard-working. You're passionate about what you do. That's good.

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

I'm not talking about myself, but I appreciate my colleague for recognizing my hard work. I was talking about my constituents. I'd rather talk about them than myself because we have some incredible people there, Mr. Chair. You know it is really, for us, why we're fighting. This is why we're doing what we're doing. The comment was made earlier on that we're doing nothing. I think I've said that I would vehemently reject that comment. We are defending the voices of our electors, of all Canadians, and I think it's important that we're doing the work that we're doing today.

I have lots of notes, Mr. Chair. I want to talk about being a new member of Parliament. I had the incredible opportunity to work overseas. I mentioned before about representing our region on the world stage. I think the greatest honour that I've ever had in my life, aside from being called a dad, a father, or “faud”—I don't know why they call me “faud”, my daughter calls me “faud”—is serving the constituents of Cariboo—Prince George and, indeed, all of Canada.

Even before I was elected I wore a pin, whether it was a maple leaf or the little plastic doodad flags that always turn around upside down just at the wrong time, and when you get a picture taken, the flag is upside down. It's terrible.

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

It happens to all of us.

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

We have to do something different. I wear this type, because it doesn't turn around as easily.

My road to being elected wasn't an easy one. I've done many things. I would say the nomination battle was probably more vicious than QP. It's probably the ugliest part of being elected, and I'm not a mean person by any means.

I didn't get into politics to ruin anybody. I didn't get into politics to hurt people, and the people are hurt most in things like nominations, or even being elected, from social media, and how vicious it can be that way. I want to talk about that a little bit later as well, but the nomination process was one that really made me doubt whether I was doing the right thing. That was not so much because of our desire to serve, it was really about what we were putting our families through.

We always have to remember that first and foremost, people, whether they are on our side of the House or on the other side of the House, whether it be somebody who is running against us in a nomination or in a campaign, are somebody's mom, somebody's dad, somebody's brother or sister or cousin. The things that are done and said are oftentimes very hurtful. If I were going to put forth anything, there would be things we could do differently, and that could probably start with me as well. I'm probably just as much to blame, but I try not to be mean-spirited. I will tell you this unequivocally, if I am taking you to task or holding your feet to the fire, it's not frivolous. It is with merit, and there is reason to it.

I'm also not somebody who just stands and reads something for the sake of reading it, as was mentioned earlier on. There was mention of truth versus half-truths. When you stand in a court of law to argue over a piece of legislation, a civil issue, or a criminal issue, you are supposed to speak the truth. I would hazard that when we are in the House, we should be speaking the truth as well, and I would like to think that is done. When we stand, or when I stand, it is based on truth not half-truths, unlike what was mentioned earlier.

I'm going to get back to the election. I was nominated in December 2014. I started my campaign for the nomination in August 2014, won the nomination in December, and then kind of pushed through. That was the longest campaign, because, really for me, when the writ dropped, it was the whole cumulative part, so from August 2014 to October 2015.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Relevance?

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

There is relevance to this, Mr. Chair. The beauty of Parliament is that there is no cookie-cutter approach. We are all elected from our 338 ridings to be the voices of our constituents in Ottawa, and not the other way around, and we all come with diverse backgrounds. That is incredibly important. As I said earlier, I don't know Ms. Chagger's background in terms of this paper. If she actually went to school and studied parliamentary procedure, and had this sitting on a bookshelf waiting for the time she was elected, I will be the first to apologize to her.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

According to Wikipedia, she went to the University of Waterloo.