Debates of April 3rd, 2017

Procedure and House Affairs

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my friend is just as good in 10 minutes as he is in 10 hours at getting a point across.

We are having a discussion about the process here. I think what the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is missing is that the process is important and that defining the process up front is important.

The government says that we should trust its good will, but we have seen on so many different files, whether it was with Motion No. 6 or the electoral reform issue, that the government wants to move unilaterally to do things that are to its advantage. We see it in the text of the discussion paper. All of the changes that are up for discussion are things that would be to the government's advantage.

It wants to move unilaterally if it can get away with it. What the opposition has said at PROC and elsewhere is that we cannot let them get away with moving unilaterally. This is precisely why we cannot assume good faith, since the government has shown bad faith in this process and in so many other cases. We need to have that assurance up front. If the government wants to work with the opposition to have this discussion, then it should pass the amendment and give us the assurance that we are actually going to work collaboratively. Once that is clearly defined in the motion, then we can move forward.

Would the member agree with that?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment my friend for the outstanding job he has done at PROC. He is not a member but has subbed in. He pushed close to six hours of continuous filibustering. As someone who has done that sort of thing, it is not easy. He did an excellent job.

The hon. member is new to this place but he understands that when we work together, we can produce. He has pointed out that it is impossible for us to get to that point while the government remains in its stubborn power grab mode. I concur with him totally, and I again thank him for the work he has done.

I ask the government to stop reflecting only its talking points and to start listening. The process that we are in now is not the one the very same government used a year go that gave us something positive. All we are asking for is the assurance that the process will be the same and that the only things that will be included in the next PROC report, like this one, are by all-party agreement. That is all that is being asked, yet somehow the government believes it is going to convince the media and the Canadian public that retaining the right to ram something through and expecting the opposition to just merrily start having discussions is a responsible, respected approach, when it is in complete violation with the approach it used before, which we complimented. How much more do we have to spell this out?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Waterloo.

Some issues interest me more than others. Today I had the chance to talk about the budget, which is of great importance for all Canadians, but for me personally, I love the debate about the Standing Orders and the way in which the House and its standing committees function.

I do not say that lightly. I was first elected in 1988, and I had the privilege of serving the residents of Inkster back then. Sharon Carstairs was the leader of the Liberal Party in Manitoba and she appointed me as party whip. That was back in 1988. Ever since then, I have always been a part of what one would classify as the House leadership team. I have been involved in discussions and negotiations on a wide spectrum of issues, in particular issues pertaining to the Standing Orders.

I have had the opportunity to sit down with Gary Filmon, a Progressive Conservative premier, and his designated individuals responsible to change Standing Orders. I have had the opportunity to sit down with Gary Doer, an NDP premier, and his designated individuals. I have even had the opportunity to speak to individuals inside this place with respect to the government under Stephen Harper, the former government House leader, and the designated individuals.

I like to think that I come to the table with a great deal of opposition experience especially. Most of my years in office have been on the opposition benches. I have spent over 20 years on the opposition benches.

I am very comfortable with this document, and I truly believe there are many members across the way who would be very comfortable with the document if we had this discussion.

I would also emphasize that at the end of the day, I believe, as this Prime Minister has clearly indicated, that there is a need for us to modernize the Canadian Parliament. I have been thinking that for years, and I am ever so grateful that we finally have a Prime Minister who wants to see that happen. We have a government House leader who has taken the initiative very seriously, and through her efforts has developed a discussion paper that is meant for the procedure and House affairs committee to sit down and have some dialogue on, and ensure that we can call some witnesses so we can hear from other parliamentary associations and from different levels of government.

Provinces do a lot of wonderful things. I for one think that we made some positive changes in the Manitoba legislature. When we were looking at changing the rules, we looked at Ottawa and the types of things that Ottawa did that maybe we could incorporate. There is a great deal of interest, especially from certain people or stakeholders, as to how Parliament actually functions, and the roles that both opposition and government members have in making it work.

I am very much familiar with filibusters. I have participated in them in the past and there is always a chance that I might be participating in them in the future. I understand the need for the government get its legislation through, not only when I have been on the government benches. In fact, if members across the way will read Hansard, when the Conservative government House leader would stand up and bring in time allocation at that record pace, when I stood up during the question and answer session, I would defend the government's ability to use time allocation.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Not often.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

But the point is I did, Mr. Speaker, because I recognize there is an obligation of the government to look at ways in which it can get its legislative agenda through.

We already have different situations, whether it be on private members' bills, opposition days, the government's budget, or the throne speech, where there are limits that are put into place. I would like to see that discussion take place at PROC. I would like to hear what others have to say. There are other parliamentary jurisdictions that have demonstrated that it can be more efficient.

We had members talk about the benefits of electronic voting. There is an alternative to standing up on every vote. I have had literally hundreds and hundreds of votes over the last number of years here. One stand-up vote takes roughly eight to 10 minutes, depending on who is calling it. Is that the best use of time, the hundreds of hours that we spend on standing in our place to vote, when in fact we could potentially push a button inside the chamber? I understand that there is even wiring that would allow that. If we want to see more debate on legislation, under the rules being proposed through the discussion paper, there is the potential to have even more debate on legislation. As opposed to focusing strictly on the negatives, I would suggest that members would be well served to get a better appreciation of what is in the discussion paper.

As I indicated, I have sat down with different levels of government, negotiating changes to the Standing Orders. Not once in those negotiations did I ever say I would not participate unless I have a guarantee that it passes by unanimous consent. There is no way they would have agreed to that. At least, I do not believe they would have agreed to it. I never used that as a strategy. I was open to the government and whoever was driving the need for change. I argue that it is because the former government did not make it a high priority and this government has made it a priority. There are members on all sides of the House who love to debate and talk about the rules and who want to look at ways that we can improve the system.

They talk about the prime minister's hour. Not one Liberal member of Parliament has suggested that the prime minister only be here once a day. That is not the intent. I like the idea of having a prime minister's hour. Not all members of this place can be a leader of a political party on the other side of the bench, or have the privilege of having the first series of questions, let us say, the first nine questions. Typically and historically, the prime minister answers the first nine, 10, 15 questions. After that, that is it. What about those members who are asking the 25th question? I like the idea of members knowing that on such and such a day, if they stand up, even if they are question number 20 or 25, they are going to get the opportunity to have the prime minister answer their question. I see that as a positive thing. That is not a negative. No one on this side is advocating that the prime minister should work only one day a week inside the House of Commons. That is not what is happening here.

I want to refer to the Fridays, because I want to emphasize, and I have said it before, as the member of Parliament for Winnipeg North, I genuinely believe that I work seven days a week. Some days are more hours than other days, but I go to events on Sundays, and do all sorts of things every day of the week. I would challenge members to think about how we could better serve our constituency by looking at the way we do our work here in Ottawa.

There are opportunities that would enable us to provide a better service to our constituents. The Friday is an excellent example. Today, it is a half day. If we were to shift those hours to a Tuesday and a Thursday, then we could be in our ridings on the Friday. I have missed many events in my riding on Fridays because I have to be here. It is such a privilege to be here. However, if it means that we could have a more productive day on a Tuesday and a Thursday and not have to work the half day here in Ottawa, if I could be in my constituency office meeting with people or going to an event, I would think my constituents would rather that I am there and servicing them. It does not mean that there would be fewer sitting hours in the House of Commons. Anyone who tries to give that impression is wrong.

Most importantly, when we talk about these changes, what we should be talking about is exactly what the government House leader has afforded the Standing Committee on Procedures and House Affairs to do.

The government House leader did a phenomenal job in putting the discussion paper together. She has put it before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and is asking the committee to call in some witnesses. Let us hear what some of those witnesses have to say. A good, quality debate could be had. If the opposition sees merit in that, which I truly hope it will, we should take advantage of the opportunity and get engaged in making this a more modern Parliament.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, nobody is going to believe that my friend from Winnipeg North is selflessly trying to improve the Standing Orders for the good of all when the discussion paper put forward clearly contains exclusive provisions that work to the interests of the government and when Liberals refuse to accept an amendment that would require unanimous agreement.

We could have these discussions in a framework in which we agree, but the member should understand, with respect to Fridays, for example, that by reducing the number of days of sitting, the government would reduce those opportunities to hold it accountable. Even if we added the extra minutes or hours to days Monday through Thursday, the fact is that we would be reducing important opportunities on specific days for members of Parliament to challenge the government about the issues of the day. This is just one example of many examples in the discussion paper, which the Liberals know, which we know, and which we know they know work to the advantage of the government.

Liberals saying that they are going to selflessly do it all themselves for the interests of others argument clearly does not hold water for anyone who is watching this debate. Why does the government not agree to work with all parties, to have that discussion in a way that actually includes all voices. Then we can talk about things that would actually improve the Standing Orders, but still remain fair and facilitate honest and genuine discourse back and forth?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would welcome a back-and-forth question and answer in which there would be specific examples. I truly believe there is no government wins and opposition loses in the discussion paper. The member just referenced taking away Fridays. Let me use the example of question period. There would be one less day of question period. That time could be allocated to question period on other days, which would mean there would be more opportunity for the backbenchers to ask questions. On one special day of the week, the Prime Minister would answer all questions. He would also be here on other days, but it would provide the backbenchers, the ones who do not get up as often as they could because of the demands of the day, the opportunity to ask questions. That is more accountability.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, for anybody watching, we have to separate the sincerity from the disingenuousness here.

The member for Winnipeg North said that having one day a week for the Prime Minister would subject the Prime Minister to questioning for the entire 45 minutes and that would be great, but there is nothing to stop the Prime Minister from answering every question in question period now. The Prime Minister could stand every day in the House and answer all the questions five days a week if the Liberals were really interested in accountability.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North said that the Liberals wanted to make this place run more efficiently and legislation needed to be passed. The government has the tool of time allocation now, but it wants to build into the rules an automatic way to limit opposition input in legislation without the Liberals wearing it, without the government having to publicly and transparently show Canadians that it is bringing in time allocation. Make no mistake, this is not about transparency, goodwill, and making this place work better. It is about the government trying to use the rules to seize the advantage.

My question for the hon. member is this. If he has such powerful arguments for why these are such common sense, modernizing innovations, why does he not trust that all members of the House could agree on that before moving forward?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the member's assessment. I would encourage the member to go through the discussion paper.

He said that the Prime Minister could answer all the questions he wanted today. If we based it on that, there would be all sorts of rule changes that are currently in place. The rules allow for members of Parliament to get a better sense of what is going to be happening. For example, on a Wednesday or Tuesday, members know that in the first 35 or 40 questions, or whatever the number is, they will be able to put their questions directly to the Prime Minister. That is a significant gain. We should have that discussion and at the end of the day, we will have a more modern Parliament. The reason the government House leader brought this forward was for us to get into that discussion.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I will let the House know that earlier in the day there were not as many people rising for questions and comments. That has changed a bit now. With the greater interest in questions and comments, we will try to limit interventions a little more than we did earlier in the day. It will be no more than one minute, both for the person posing the question or comment and for the member responding.

Resuming debate, the hon. government House leader.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the motion before the House to concur in the 11th report of the procedure and House affairs committee and our government's desire to modernize the House of Commons. We have put forward some ideas on how to improve this place to make it more accountable, more effective, and more transparent. I would like to make one thing clear. We want to hear from all parties and all MPs. We welcome a discussion on this matter. It would be good for this place and it would build on the work done on the 11th report.

In direct response to the Harper government's approach to this place, in the last campaign we spoke to Canadians about giving them more of a voice in Ottawa. Our goal is to make it a better place for members of Parliament to do their jobs and represent their constituents.

The discussion paper touches on three broad themes: What is the best way to manage time in the House of Commons? What is the best way to manage debate of legislation and motions? What is the best way to manage the work of committees?

Let me discuss some of the ideas in the discussion paper.

First is question period. We promised in the last election to reform question period so that all members, including the Prime Minister, are held to greater account. We said we would introduce a prime minister's question period to improve that level of direct accountability.

The discussion paper suggests that the British model of the prime minister's question period is one possible way of implementing this change to complement our current practices. We would like to look at a made-in-Canada approach. People have been saying for years they would like to improve question period, but again, let me make it clear: Liberal members will not be recommending that the Prime Minister only appear in question period once per week. The prime minister's question period would be in addition to the current practice of appearing on other days of the week. We are committed to more accountability in question period, not less.

Another idea that has drawn attention is Friday sittings. The House of Commons sits for fewer hours than normal on that day, four and a half hours. There are no votes in the House of Commons that day on the content of a bill, and committees do not sit on that day.

One idea worth exploring is reallocating the hours and questions on Friday to the other sitting days. The change would give MPs a chance to spend time in their communities on that weekday, meeting with their constituents and addressing their needs directly. Alternatively, we could perhaps make Friday a full day so that we could have committee time, and so forth. Regardless, for MPs Friday would continue to be a workday. The difference is that their focus on that day could be working in their ridings, being accountable to their constituents. It could become a constituency day.

Reallocating Friday sittings would not mean any less time in Parliament for MPs. The four and a half hours from that day could be redistributed to the other four days of the week. There would be more time for debate on those other days, and time could be added to the daily question period from Monday through Thursday as well. This could be easily accomplished, for instance, by having the House open at 9 a.m. instead of 10 a.m. on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Most Canadians start their workday at 9 a.m. or earlier; why should the House not start at 9 a.m. as well?

Another idea is whether we should consider electronic voting for members of Parliament. MPs spend a lot of time voting in the House of Commons, standing when their name is called. The discussion paper suggests members consider a more efficient method, electronic voting. With this method of voting, MPs could have more time to get work done outside the chamber. The result of the vote would presumably be instant, and Canadians would have an immediate record of how their MP voted.

This suggestion is not new. A parliamentary committee recommended electronic voting in a 1985 report on House of Commons reform. That was 32 years ago, before the Internet changed our lives.

We live in an information age. Let us adapt and bring this institution into the 21st century. Let us think about truly modernizing how we spend our time here and take a good look at electronic voting as an option. With the moving of the chamber to the West Block, why not explore a pilot project and give it a try?

The discussion paper says that MPs could consider changing the calendar of their sittings so that the House sits earlier in January, and/or later in June, and/or earlier in September. The paper suggests that more flexibility is needed in how often the House sits, so that if an urgent matter is before the Commons, MPs could spend more time debating it, potentially by sitting longer on a given day or beyond the planned adjournment.

It is important that MPs from all sides of the House have a meaningful role in the legislative process. There are different ways to accomplish that goal. One suggestion in the discussion paper is to add more time for private members' business each week. That means more opportunity for the House of Commons to debate private members' bills and motions that MPs put forward.

These are both ideas we think MPs on both sides of the aisle would want to explore further. I encourage us to do so.

Our government has pledged not to improperly prorogue Parliament to avoid difficult political circumstances, something that was done in the past. The previous government prorogued Parliament to avoid a confidence vote. To guard against the improper use of prorogation, one idea would be to require the government to table a document early in the following session that explains why Parliament was prorogued. The report would automatically be studied by a House of Commons committee. That is a suggestion which makes sense and I believe we should look at it.

I believe we have an opportunity to have a meaningful debate, recognizing that every member, every party has a role to play.

These are just some of the ideas in the discussion paper. We are genuinely hoping for a review of these ideas by our parliamentary colleagues. I am encouraging all members to start that discussion.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today the government House leader said that she had had meaningful discussion with her counterparts. As one of her counterparts in the House of Commons, I believe that a meaningful discussion is when one party says something and then follows through and actually does that. To this point, we have not had those meaningful discussions.

We want to approach any further discussions with the government House leader in good faith, with the expectation that the government will fix the mess that it has created. It can fix it by publicly committing that any changes to the Standing Orders will only occur if there is full agreement in this House. Until that commitment is made, any future discussions will be in vain and we as opposition will continue to use every tool that we have in order to ensure that the government does not remove our rights to hold it to account.

I want to give the government House leader another opportunity. We have asked it time and time again. It is a very simple solution, and if she can answer this, we could then go on and start to discuss all of the various ideas, how we could possibly look at them, which ones we could agree on, and which could be pilot projects. There is a host of ideas to talk about.

Will she agree, like precedent has set, that the government will not move ahead unless it has agreement from the opposition parties?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been clear from the beginning that I want to work with all members of Parliament and I want to work with all parties.

Today's conversation has shown many times that the government's approach to working better, more collaboratively with other MPs and other parties has resulted in some members stating that we have not advanced enough legislation. That is the price we pay when we work collaboratively. We will continue to do so.

In the campaign we committed to making changes to this place in direct response to the previous government's approach of using time allocation more than was needed and of not wanting to work with other parties. That is an approach we are not going to take. We will continue to work with all members and all parties in this House.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government House leader why she moved away from the approach of her predecessor who, as I mentioned in my remarks earlier, on January 28 of last year came into the committee, mentioned that his mandate was to work with House leaders to make the House of Commons more family friendly, and asked us to entertain that debate and discussion, which we did, with the understanding that the only things that would be in the report would be items that we agreed on. That led to this multiple-page report being here, and that we are all in support of.

Why did the government House leader abandon what was a proven, positive way to bring us all together, and instead head down this road that has led us to this ridiculous place?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we were all elected to this place to have meaningful discussions, to have tough conversations. The discussion paper that I released actually builds off of the report that the member referred to. I believe there are more conversations to have.

In the campaign, we made commitments to Canadians that we would modernize this place. In the discussion paper, I have suggested other ideas. That is not the be-all and end-all, by any means. I have made suggestions from multiple areas to allow us to have that conversation, to encourage us to have that conversation.

I know the member has been in this place for a long time. His experience and knowledge are more than welcome. I look forward to having meaningful conversation. I believe that we can have meaningfully productive conversation, and that is not what is taking place right now.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. government House leader will know that I have put forward my ideas in response to her ideas. I look forward to the chance to work on them.

The difficulty here, which is an obvious obstacle, and I do not think all of the fault lies on one side of the House or the other, is that we need a process that ensures that all parties are comfortable with and support any changes to our House rules. Otherwise, the changes that are made now could be sweeping, and could always benefit a government party. What goes around comes around. I urge the government House leader to reconsider and ensure that changes are arrived at through a process that includes all parties in this place.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for actually sharing her response to the discussion paper. It allowed me to see her perspectives on different ideas. To see someone in this place debating and discussing those ideas, to share a different perspective, is exactly the kind of perspective that I believe is needed for this debate to take place.

It is important that we modernize this place to bring it into the 21st century. It is important that we do that to ensure that more people consider elected office. Therefore, I appreciate the work that the member has provided me. I have just received that report today, and I can assure this House that I will be reading it.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say it is a pleasure to rise to be part of this debate today, but obviously, given the heavy-handed attempts of the government to try to ram through changes that would make it less accountable, I cannot say it is a pleasure. It is something I have to do, something we all have to do, to try to stand up for the rights of Canadians to make sure the government is held accountable. I am proud to do that, but I certainly wish I did not have to be doing it, because the government should not be taking this heavy-handed approach in trying to ram through the types of changes it is trying to ram through.

The government would obviously eliminate some of the accountability that is built into the measures put in place in the House by ensuring the prime minister only has to be, essentially, held accountable by Canadians for 25 hours in the entire year, by making sure there are less days members have to be here in the House of Commons to be held accountable, and by taking away some of the ability of the opposition parties to draw the attention of Canadians to important issues so the government can be held accountable by Canadians.

That is really why I am standing up today. I am doing everything I can and I know my colleagues across the opposition benches are as well. This is one of those rare moments when we see all the opposition parties standing united. That means something, because we are standing up for democracy. We are standing up for Canadians and their right to hold the government accountable through their members of Parliament whom they have elected. That is something too fundamental for us not to stand up and fight for all the way.

I listened to the government House leader give a speech that tried to deflect away from a lot of these things.

Before I get to that, Mr. Speaker, I will mention that I will be sharing my time with the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. I cannot forget to let you know that.

The government House leader talked and used a lot of time to try to deflect away from the real issues here. She tried to claim that somehow this was going to make things more accountable, that somehow they really wanted to have this discussion, which no one seems to have heard is actually happening. The Liberals have had all kinds of time to have a discussion, but there does not seem to be one. They only want to have a discussion when they can be sure they are going to get their way. If they cannot have their way, they do not want to even start the discussion.

That is where we are. The opposition parties are saying these kinds of changes have always been done with the unanimous consent of the parties. That is to ensure that changes are not being made to simply benefit the party in power, which is what the government is very clearly trying to do. I think the Liberals are hoping and expecting that maybe Canadians will not pay attention to this. Maybe they think Canadians will not be smart enough to realize what they are trying to do. However, Canadians are not stupid, and they will not stand for this kind of garbage that we are seeing from the government. They will not stand for this kind of heavy-handed approach. They will not stand for a government that is trying everything it can to be held less accountable. They will not stand for a prime minister who refuses to answer questions of Canadians in the House of Commons.

As proof of that, I would like to just spend a little time reading some emails. Being a member of the committee that is looking at these changes, I have received hundreds, into the thousands, of emails over the last 10 days or so. I know Liberal members of the committee have been sent these as well, because I can see they are copied on a lot of these. In fact, it is usually me being copied on some of the ones being sent to them.

I hope this is something government members are listening to. I see the government members are having a conversation over there. Maybe they can have a conversation among themselves. It would be time they had a conversation with the opposition parties about actually getting down to work in trying to ensure that the changes being made are not being made by them and them alone to benefit them and them alone. It is time they actually benefit Canadians. They need to learn that. They need to listen, because this is Canadians speaking, and I am going to share their words with those Liberals right now and hope they will actually do some listening.

I will start out with some of the comments I have received here.

The first is from someone named Marilyn Raible. She says, “As a Canadian citizen and a taxpayer, it is with total disgust to hear the Liberal Party once again is trying to sneak something past the people of Canada that once again would only benefit the Liberals. All of those elected and now sitting in Parliament must be accountable to the Canadian people and the democratic principles. You were put in these positions to work for and represent the Canadian people and Canada as a whole.”

She goes on to say, “As a democracy, we have the right to have elected officials sit in Parliament from Monday to Friday and debate and scrutinize bills for the good of the people. The Liberal Party has no right in shutting down Parliament on Fridays and permanently limiting debate or scrutiny on their bills. Men went to war to fight for these freedoms that we experience in this great country of Canada. This is what democracy is all about, the freedom to speak up and debate and to work for the good of the Canadian people. I say no to shutting down Parliament on Fridays and no to limiting debate on bills.”

I have one from Hugh Freeman, who says, “This is in respect to the committee that you are currently participating in concerning the debating of the rules of the House of Commons. Be advised that I disagree with the formation of, the terms of reference of, and the timing of this to put it in conflict with the coincidental budget hearing, with the apparent purpose of trying to hide your committee from the Canadian public. I also disagree with the PM trying to shirk his own responsibility by trying to no longer attend Friday House sittings and have advised him separately of that.” The Prime Minister is hearing about this, too. He continues, “Although it seems clear that the intent was to hide this committee hearing behind budget matters, be assured the public has indeed noticed your nefarious behaviour and will endeavour to ensure you pay a price for this at the polls.”

I have read a couple of emails so members can get a sense of the pattern here, and I will read some others as well, but I think what we are hearing is Canadians saying, “We won't be fooled. We are not stupid. We see what this government is trying to do. We see they're trying to benefit themselves and themselves alone. We see that they're trying to make sure they're not held accountable. We see they're trying to avoid question period so that opposition members, on behalf of Canadians, can ensure they're held accountable.”

People are using words like “nefarious”. I can read a number of comments in here that refer to the Prime Minister as a dictator. Those are the kinds of comments Canadians are making, because they are so upset about what is being done here. They see it as akin to those kind of things. When people are seeing it and speaking about it in such strong terms, that means something. That means Canadians are seeing what is going on here. They understand what the government is trying to do and they are upset and they will not tolerate it. They are making threats even to the point of saying that the Liberals will pay the price for this at the polls.

Liberal backbenchers will see no benefit from this, because the Prime Minister is the one who is going to benefit in that he will not have to be held accountable. I hope some of those backbenchers are saying, “You know what, Mr. Prime Minister? My constituents won't stand for this and I can tell you I'm going to pay a price for this at the polls. I don't think it's acceptable and it's also not right.” I hope they speak up, maybe when they go to their caucus meeting on Wednesday, and let the Prime Minister know that this is completely and utterly unacceptable and it will not be tolerated by the Canadian people. Maybe some of them will have the guts to tell the Prime Minister that.

I will continue with some other emails. There are so many of them it is hard to choose which ones to read. I will read this one from Corey Smith. It is addressed to the Liberal members of the committee, and says, “Please stop the proposed changes to Parliament. I encourage you to keep the ability for debate and accountability available to both members of your own party and the opposition. I encourage you to encourage the Prime Minister to show up to work and be accountable more than one day a week. I understand the need to get home to your ridings, but working a half day on Fridays is not too much to expect. I personally work five to six days per week. I understand that you work long hours. I worked road construction. Often we worked until dark Mondays to Thursdays and we would finish early on Fridays to allow for travel, but not before noon. Is this a case where the Prime Minister is not capable of answering questions due to lack of experience and this is a good way for him to avoid this? Would you have allowed this from Mr. Harper? If things are getting to be too much for Prime Minister Trudeau, Parliament can be prorogued. This has happened. However, debate and accountability should never permanently be removed through limitations of this nature. Show how much you love Canada and stop this. You may be in the opposition in the future wishing you had the ability to debate and hold people accountable. It would be a shame if it is lost.”

There are hundreds more emails like these where people are telling the Liberal government that they will not stand for this, that they will not tolerate this, and it is time that the Prime Minister understood that he cannot just do whatever he wants. He has to be accountable to this House of Commons and accountable to the Canadian people. I can say that as the opposition, we will ensure that he does exactly that.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go to questions and comments, and for the general information of all members, even when another member of Parliament or a minister is included when a member is citing a text from some other source, we still urge hon. members to switch up that name either to the name of the riding or the title, in this case, even if it is something the member is citing for the record in the House.

Questions and comments, the hon. government House leader.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, I know that we want many Canadians to pay attention to the important work that is done in this place, but it is not always the case. However, in the last campaign, I recall knocking on doors, and two words came up time and time again. Those two words were “time allocation”. That is something the previous government used time and time again to limit and restrict debate. It was a tool that was used many a time.

I recognize that it is an available tool, and if the member is so inclined to want meaningful debate, to want more meaningful debate, could the member please explain why the previous government used time allocation, in historic amounts, to limit and restrict debate when his party was on the government side of the House?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I did not realize I had done what you referred to. In all the other cases, I was trying to insert titles, but my apologies.

I listened to the so-called question from the government House leader, and I was saddened to listen to the deflection tactic being used. One of the changes the Liberals are trying to make is to basically be able to proactively time allocate on things and be able to say that they will dispense with the whole idea of pretending they will allow debate. They will just tell us right off the bat that they will not allow any debate. That is one of the changes they are proposing.

They are also proposing eliminating, basically, any ability for the opposition to debate things in committees. Essentially, that is what they are trying to do. They are trying to ensure that the Prime Minister only has to be here one day a week to be held accountable by Canadians. They are trying to have one less day a week of question period, where they have to be held accountable to Canadians.

I hear these deflection tactics. At the end of the day, this is really all about ensuring that they do not have to be held accountable to Canadians. That is what they want to do. Canadians are not stupid. They understand what the Liberals are trying to do, and they will not accept it. They will not tolerate it, so they might as well give up the ghost right now and start being held accountable, as they should be.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the more I listen to this debate, the more I realize that the government's proposals are a solution in search of a problem.

I do not know what is not working well here. We have committees that are well functioning. We have a House of Commons that is working well. The tools are all there.

We all know that the government has a majority, and when it really wants to, it can use that majority to win the vote at the end of the day. The only real currency the opposition has, on the other hand, is time. It is up to both sides to use those powers in a responsible manner. If the opposition is wasting time, the government has the tool of time allocation. If the government, on the other hand, is using its time allocation too much, we, as the opposition, can use certain techniques to slow it down but not stop it entirely.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague what problem he thinks is being addressed by the government's action. What does he think the government's motivation really is?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the problem the Liberals are trying to solve is that they have a Prime Minister who does not want to be held accountable. He probably cannot really answer the questions. If I read through these emails, it is very clear, in the theme of these things, that everyone in Canada sees that the Prime Minister is not capable of answering questions, and he does not want to have to do that. He does not want to be held accountable.

The member is correct that the way things function here now works really well. When we have a majority government, at the end of the day, the Liberals will almost certainly always be able to put through whatever legislation they seek to put through, but the tool the opposition has at its disposal is to make sure Canadians are aware of what is occurring.

Often what a government can try to do, much like what the government is trying to do in this case right now, is push something through, ram it through, so quickly that Canadians do not have a chance to become aware of it. The opposition members have these tools at their disposal to create debate about something to make sure that Canadians are aware of it. They can then make a judgment about whether they think this is something appropriate for the government to do. The government is trying to remove and eliminate those tools so Canadians will never have put in the light of day what it is trying to do. Therefore, it will avoid being held accountable, and that is not acceptable.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join the debate in this chamber. I started to make some points on this issue at committee, but I just did not have enough time there to get to a lot of the things that I wanted to say. Therefore, I appreciate the opportunity to continue that dialogue here in the chamber.

It is interesting how much this issue has galvanized the interest of Canadians. Even before I started participating in the work of the committee, I was receiving correspondence on all kinds of different channels from Canadians who are interested in this issue. Who would have thought that Canadians would be so seized with the activities of the procedure and House affairs committee here in Ottawa? Canadians take the strength of our institutions very seriously. They take the integrity of those institutions seriously. They take the process by which we see developments and changes to those institutions very seriously, because there is something very insidious being talked about and being intended by the government.

The Liberals use nice-sounding weasel words like “modernization” and “having a conversation”, but it is actually very clear what they mean in every case. On this side of the House, we are very willing to have a conversation in a collaborative way about how the Standing Orders might be changed collaboratively going forward. No set group of Standing Orders is perfect and I am sure we can always learn from the experience and look for opportunities to improve them. However, there is a difference between that collective process of evolution that we can undertake together where we work on possible improvements and what is being proposed by the government, which is nothing short of a Standing Orders revolution, where the Liberals come in independently as the government and decide what they would like the Standing Orders to say. It is their concept of what constitutes modernization and they are going to impose that on the House.

Government members plead, “No, this is not our intent. We are not going to necessarily do it unilaterally. We just want to leave open the possibility to do it unilaterally.” As long as the government members leave that possibility open, surely members of the opposition cannot trust their good faith. Why do the Liberals not just take that option off the table, the option of unilateral action, of revolutionary changes to the Standing Orders, and instead say they are going to do this in an evolutionary way where members put forward different ideas but ultimately have to agree on the next steps we take forward? That would be a productive way of gradually improving our institution.

We hear members of the government say, “Let us just get on to the discussion on the substance. We want to have a discussion about these issues.” It is interesting that this actually parallels the conversation we had during the electoral reform debate. Members of the government said not to worry about the issue of a referendum but to just get on to talking about electoral systems, because, in fact, what they wanted was to push their preferred system. What I think the Liberals realized as that process went through was that Canadians were paying attention to what the Liberals were trying to do, that Canadians cared about the process by which these decisions were made, and they wanted to know that there was going to be a fair process established up front before proceeding to have the discussion. It is great to have the discussion, but they have to define a fair process up front.

What we saw with the electoral reform discussion was that in response to that public pressure, eventually the government realized that it was not going to be able to get away with it unilaterally, so it dropped it and decided it was not going to do anything. That is probably where we are going to end up eventually with respect to the Standing Orders, but it is unfortunate that the government members have yet to learn this lesson. They still want to make a unilateral change that reflects their concept of what the Standing Orders should be rather than work with the House in a constructive way to evolve those going forward.

Frankly, I am very interested in having a conversation about possible changes to the Standing Orders. We had a take-note debate in the House of Commons about those issues. I put forward some specific ideas about changes that could be made to the Standing Orders. Those might be changes that are shared by some members of the government. They might be changes that some members within my own party do not agree on. That was an opportunity to put forward ideas, to have that conversation, and to move that forward in a constructive way.

The framework that we thought we could work under was one in which the procedure and House affairs committee would study these prospective changes, work on them, and look for ways of moving them forward. It would be a more genuine, gradual process of moving forward, not a kind of unilateral process of the government House leader or the Prime Minister or some staffer in the PMO deciding, “No, this is what we want to do.”

The Liberals plead with us to accept their good faith, but when we look at what is in the discussion paper, these are all things that work to the advantage of the government.

It is interesting going through the discussion paper. I read it and spoke about it in detail at committee on what the government House leader was putting forward. The government always uses its human shield, the young family, the family friendliness of it. That is always the Liberals go-to for trying to make changes to the House of Commons that works to their political advantage.

I take exception to this as a member of Parliament with a young family, always very seized with these questions of how we balance the needs of our families with the needs of the work we do. Let us remember, as other members have pointed out, this is not unique to members of Parliament. All Canadians deal with this in different forms. Many people in my constituency have to travel for work as well, whether they work in the energy sector or perhaps the military. This is not just unique to members of Parliament.

I put forward some ideas of things that we could actually do that would not be about the political interests of the government but would actually help young families. The Liberals talk about having fewer days but more extended hours. However, extended hours is a real problem for people with young families. If we are sitting for very long days four days a week, that makes it much more difficult for members to have time to talk on the phone or to meet in person with members of their family. That creates some new additional challenges for families.

The elimination of Friday sittings is really about taking away a day on which the government would have to be accountable. Even if we add those extra minutes to question period at other times of the day, we know, and the Liberals know, that if Friday sittings are taken away that is one less day on which the government has to stand and answer questions which could appear on that day's news. There are only four days instead of five days on which we get to ask the government questions, which then can appear as part of the broader discourse.

The Liberals are using young families as their human shield for this change they want to make, which is in their interests, when we could have a real constructive discussion about ways to move forward. One of the suggestions I put forward was reducing the number of days on which votes could take place, continuing to have the same number of days for discussion, debate, and questions, but maybe having one additional day on which votes did not take place. That would provide an additional level of flexibility but would in no way slow down the existing legislative process.

If we work together in a constructive, collaborative way in which we establish ground rules from the start, we could have some of these ideas given a full airing. These are things that I mentioned when we debated the Standing Orders earlier.

Let us talk about some of the so-called reforms to question period that the Liberals want to make. I think Canadians are interested in discussions about potential changes to question period, but one the suggestions put forward is that we make better use of late shows in particular as a vehicle for more substantive exchanges. Perhaps we could require that ministers make themselves available to be scheduled for a late show exchange rather than parliamentary secretaries. That is an opportunity where the minister responsible for a given file has to answer, in long form, specific questions that members of Parliament have. This idea would enhance accountability.

What the government has proposed in its reforms are not some of the changes that were put forward in a private member's bill by my friend from Wellington—Halton Hills on question period reform, which would have involved an expectation that ministers actually answer the questions. That is not in the discussion paper. We see the government only putting forward changes that work to its interests. It is obvious what the Liberals are doing.

Another example is what the Liberals are doing on time allocation. Their proposal entails time allocation effectively being automatic, that on every bill, the Liberals would be allocating the time. This is different. They would not only be allocating the time in the House, but they would also be allocating the amount of time at committees. Therefore, committees would no longer be the masters of their own domain and would not have the flexibility. This is really concerning.

What if in the context of the study of a bill a committee doing its job suddenly realizes there is a significant issue that it was not aware of before and it needs to dig deeper into that to ensure it understands what is going on, so it needs more time. The government wants to completely take away that flexibility. It would be really good for the government, but it would not be good for this institution, it would not be good for the important role that the opposition has, and it would not be good for Canadians. We need to have the proper amount of time to debate legislation.

Let us agree to support a unanimous decision-making process where we can make changes collaboratively that are in the interests of Canadians and the institution. Let us do it that way, not in a unilateral way that the government wants. Let us agree to do it in that way and then we can start moving forward.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I hear the NDP and the Conservatives talk about the need to only change the Standing Orders through unanimity. This has not always happened in the past. It has not happened in the case of the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston. He is a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. In a previous Parliament, he used a private member's motion to force a vote in the House of Commons to amend the Standing Orders with respect to how we elect our Speaker. Was there consensus? No, there was no consensus. Actually, over 42% of the members voted against that motion. Is this the threshold for consensus?

Let us also look to the NDP. The member for Burnaby South used his time allocation business motion in private members' business to change the Standing Orders to implement an e-petition scheme. Was there consensus to that change? No. Actually, over 49% of the members in this House voted against that proposal. How can this member, knowing that members of this House have passed changes to our current and past Standing Orders without unanimity, square this with a demand for unanimity this time around?