I have tried to refer to as few notes as possible in the House. Forgive me for the times in Parliament early on, when I was brand new to my role and I could not speak without notes present before me. I had to read them. Now I don't need them as much. I hope I've shown that today. As much as possible, I've tried not to read. I hear members of my caucus laughing here, because they know I can't keep things short. I've done better, I think, than has my colleague Mr. Genuis, who I pick on quite often. He is one of those stellar new members who do speak off-the-cuff quite often, and who are able to engage in constructive, effective debates, to speak of principles and not personalities, and to make a point on government legislation when we have a fundamental disagreement, and when we cannot support the government but we're willing to let the government proceed with the business it has put before the House.
What we don't want to see, though, is for that to be taken away through the Standing Orders. Where will the Kevin Lamoureuxs of the world go? Where will the Garnett Genuises of the world go? Where will I go if you don't allow me an opportunity, occasionally, to extensively debate an issue?
I serve on the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. I know that at times I have tested the patience of the chair when I've asked for just a little bit more time to make a point, or I have not looked in the chair's direction and just kept speaking as loudly as I possibly could to make a point. I do that only when I have to make a point, and then I step away and I allow the proceedings to continue.
My worry is that through these potential—again, they're all potential changes, because there's so little in the original motion that was tabled. There are just themes, really, and we don't know where the work on the themes proposed in the government document could go. That's why our amendment is so all-encompassing. It covers the Standing Orders. It covers provisional standing orders. It covers new standing orders that might be created, the sessional orders, and the special orders to create or revise a usual practice of the House.
I know that Canadians have really started to take an interest. We've seen more media pickup, and we've seen interviews on this particular issue. Canadians do care about their Parliament, which is fantastic. They do care what happens on the floor of the House of Commons. That was probably one of the great surprises I had when I came here. I thought nobody watched CPAC. I was surprised by the number of people who send me notes while I'm speaking, saying I made a good point or saying I made a terrible point, sometimes demanding that I resign, to which I usually reply that I have no such intention but that I take their passion and ardour for a particular issue under advisement, and in the fullness of time I'll consider it.
I've been surprised by how many people actually take an interest in what we do. This “inside baseball” dugout we're in right now, people have paid attention to. We've posted many videos. I just want to mention some of the comments I got: “Wtg...keep up the fight”; “Way to go! Thank you for the great work!”; “Glad it will be televised!!! Do not give up!!! You are our Voice!!!”; and “So proud of you both”, which was talking about me and Mr. John Nater, who was here before, who increasingly lets his voice be heard, through points of order in the House, to clarify through a point of privilege or a point or order. We should expect no less from a member who has so much parliamentary knowledge and is still a rookie of 2015, who will make an enormous contribution to this House.
It says here, from Liz, “We the people will not be shut out... We need to keep the debate going... Government needs to be accountable to the people of Canada.” This is another commentary, “It is arrogant and divisive to make changes without considering the MPs in all parties.” It says, “None of them actually answer any questions. Not only that but those behind the PM just nod and wave nod and wave. Shameful.” It goes on like that.
People do watch these debates. I'm sure there are people now who have watched this televised debate on CPAC, and I thank Mr. Simms for allowing us this opportunity to move it here. I think being able to expound on it has been of great benefit, and I hope people at home haven't thought that I have delayed it unnecessarily. I hope they think I've contributed something. I've added references. Hopefully, the analysts on the committee will be able to look at it, review it, and consider it.
I've found substantive speeches by former parliamentarians, some of whom are still alive today, and they add substantive thought to this. I think there's an opportunity to bring them back as former parliamentarians who could give advice to this committee on what should or should not be done to the House of Commons rules and procedures, the Standing Orders.
Another commentator, Pia, says, “Keep on them Tom. We all have to write letters of support. Please everyone write!” Another one says, “Good work! Canadians deserve the respect of their government. Accountability is a large part of the process. Thank you for keeping this in check.” Again, there are many other comments people have made, such as, “Keep up the good work. Hurrah.” They're paying attention.
Again, I was surprised by how many people actually paid attention at 3 a.m. They were engaged and listening actively when Mr. Christopherson was here and debating substantively his issues on principle, the principle of the matter of not proceeding with changes to the House rules without the unanimous agreement of all parties represented on this committee. I think it is absolutely fundamental to have this amendment pass and to have all of us agree that we can work together and co-operate.
I've mentioned the issue of trust and confidence. I want to mention here other comments that I have received from constituents, 92 of them, from just a few days ago. One says, “Liberals want the next step...for us to be ruled by” a different system “fight...don't let them pass this...motion”. Another one says, “Yes as a Conservative I'm very interested. I'm also very concerned about Canada. I feel like we live in a police state these days.” I think that's going way too far, but she's entitled to her opinion. Another says, “I feel the govt is incompetent” and she says she honestly thinks Trudeau is completely wrong. That's her opinion on the matter.
These are from Canadians posting on our Facebook account who are saying that they fundamentally disagree with the direction the government is taking by directing this committee to potentially strip the opposition of all the powers they currently enjoy. I think that is very serious for parliamentarians from all parties to consider.
I have other comments here from the former interim leader of the Wildrose Party back home in Alberta, “Darn spell check. Keep up the good work, Tom and Garnett. Canadians are behind you.” Another person says, “We definitely are paying attention.” Another adds, “Exactly what I said...he runs Canada like his own dictatorship.” Again, I think it's going too far when we use language like that, but they're entitled to their opinions. I do think it's going too far, but what are Canadians at home supposed to think?
You're trying to move forward a motion that would constrain this committee's study. On a specific day, we have to report back. On June 2 we have to be done. It takes two weeks to write a report. It has taken the foreign affairs committee almost three months to write a report. I would think that the Standing Orders deserve all the time necessary to consider every word, every proposed change, every amendment, and every modification, because they are so substantial. They would change how I do my work on other committees. I substitute on the Standing Committee on Health at times. It will substantively change the way they do their work. The joint standing committees will also be substantively changed.
I don't think we can do this too lightly. I think you should take all the time you need, but I also think you should pass this amendment to show good faith with the opposition parties here that you do want to work with us. We want to work with you on tweaks, amendments, and modifications to the Standing Orders. If you don't pass this amendment and you leave this as it is, in this format here, this is a reckless motion. This is reckless. This is going too far. This is changing the rules without including all of us in the debate.
We don't know what you'll agree to do at the end of the day. Your perspectives matter too. Potentially, as government caucus members, you may fully agree with the government's intentions. Perhaps you are working extremely hard on joining the cabinet. Kudos to you; you've found a purpose.
That is not the purpose of Parliament. It's not to convert parliamentarians into ministers. It is to raise great political leaders. It's to make us better at debating. It's to make us better at considering and better at listening. Being here has made me a better listener to my kids, to my wife, to my constituents. I spend a lot of time listening in my constituency office.