You're already there? You have more experience than I do, Mr. Simms.
I took the opportunity to respond to her and to say that I was going to vote against it, knowing full well that this individual could then tell me something less than kind. She said, “Thank you for confirming why I didn't vote for you, and I won't vote for you in the future.”
I always say that's okay, that I want to earn their vote. If I don't earn their vote, it's okay for them to vote against me. It's okay to disagree with me. I've said that to people at their doors. I've said not to vote for me if they were thinking that I would do something for them. I've told them to ask me some questions and we would see if we agreed on certain general issues or the issues that they particularly care about, whatever those are. Whether those are gun rights or gun control, social issues or fiscal issues, ask me the question, and I'll try to do my best to respond.
I know that many politicians have the gift of gab and are able to not answer a question. I think many members of cabinet and those working hard to join it are working hard on raising their skill level in not answering the question or answering it but not completely. I think part of being an effective parliamentarian is to understand when to answer a question and how to answer a question with politeness, with ability, and, at times, with kindness towards the person asking you. I don't think we should be impugning each other's characters, either in the House or outside the House. I try not to do that. I'm not perfect, and I fail at times in doing it, and people remonstrate with me for doing so.
One thing I'll mention before going into another article, the one I mentioned at the beginning, is that again during today's question period the House leader made certain comments about Fridays, about how they're only half days and we could reallocate those hours. Typically in a question period, we have 40 questions asked. That's about 200 a week. There used to be more questions asked. In one of the old Debates issues I saw a Diefenbaker debate, where they were discussing this issue of the Standing Orders and how many questions were asked per week. They were being asked something like 300 to 400 questions a week, which is much more substantive.
I've explained my experience with the Alberta legislature, where you had a question and then a supplementary. You could have up to two supplementary questions on the same subject. They were a way for a member to raise an issue and then dig a little deeper. You were forced to ask questions related to the subject. We sort of do that today. You can see that the questions are set up in such a way that they follow each other as well as possible. At least within the context of the political caucus, the party that a person sits in, that's coordinated. If we were to take away 40 questions, those would have to be added to other days, hopefully. I hope most members would agree.
I also think it's important for the Prime Minister to be there to answer the questions, because it's the only time when we can ask him a direct question and expect an answer. Whether it's direct or indirect is beside the point; we have an opportunity to ask him. We have 45 minutes for the opposition parties to ask questions and to hear from the Prime Minister.
Those are the chances we get to ask the head of the government what he or she thinks about a particular policy issue or to ask about behaviour, integrity, or government policy. It's a chance to discuss that. I would hope that whatever we do with Fridays—I know that Friday is being mentioned, but you could do it to a Wednesday, a Monday, or any day—we always ensure that those opportunities to keep a government accountable are there, because there will also be fewer days for members of the government caucus to raise a question in the House, which they may choose to do.
I'll just remind members of the government caucus that once you stand to ask a question and are recognized by the Speaker, you can ask whatever you want. You have that freedom. Just because you had a question in mind and you agreed to a question earlier doesn't mean that you have to go through with it. Courage, my friends, courage.
I do the same thing on my side. I write my own questions. That's probably different too. I have very specific things I want to ask and I propose them. I do ask them when I have them.
I'm not a frequent asker of questions. It's not that I don't have material; it's just that I find other places to do my work, such as the debates here at committees and just the general debates in the House of Commons. I'm not as prolific as the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan or the member for Winnipeg North. They count their words; they don't weigh them. It's the inverse of how the Yiddish proverb goes.
I find opportunities here to contribute on behalf of my constituents, and I am worried that the rule changes we could make will constrain me in the type of work that I can do and like to do in this place.
I've talked about the demotivation of parliamentarians. The number one reason people leave a workplace—and not just Parliament, but any workplace and any organization—is that they can't tell how their activities and what they do on a day-to-day basis relate to the overall goals of the organization. I think that is important to keep in mind. It's not about bad supervisors, although they play a really big role. Once you become disenchanted with your workplace, you will not want to proceed.
Without the amendment, I think you will disenchant some of us. In some cases you may be happy about that. You may be pleased that some members won't run again in the next election, but I think it would be an especially great loss for this Parliament to lose experienced members.
I see the chair wants to...?