Filomena Tassi

[Business of the House, May 3rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, there has been discussion among the parties and I believe you will find consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, when the House proceeds to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions scheduled to take place immediately before the time provided for private members' business today, the first vote to be taken up be the motion on the question of privilege (denial of access of members to the parliamentary precinct raised on March 22, 2017).

[Privilege, May 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, consultations among parties have taken place, and if you seek it I believe that you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, in relation to the Question of Privilege (denial of access of Members to the Parliamentary Precinct raised on March 22, 2017), at 5:30 p.m. today or when no member rises to speak, the questions on the sub-amendment and the amendment be deemed adopted and the question on the motion as amended be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until immediately before the time provided for Private Members' Business on Wednesday, May 3, 2017.

[Privilege, May 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned right and wrong. This is day seven. We have been discussing this for seven days in the House and essentially we have agreement. I know on the Liberal side all Liberal caucus members agree and I think all members in the House agree that unfettered access for MPs is extremely important.

Second, we all agree that this matter is to go to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. That is the normal procedure. Everybody is in agreement with that, because we know this is an important matter. As has been mentioned, this is not the first time this has happened. We need to hear witnesses and look at this in more depth so we can come up with solutions to make our best effort to correct this situation so that MPs have access to this place.

In light of that, we have spent seven days on something that we all agree on. We are all in agreement. Some members have even said every MP should have the opportunity to speak, which, in effect, would be five and a half weeks of speaking about something that we all agree on, but right now the reality is seven days. We are talking about something that we all agree on. Is that right? Is that a respectful use of the House's time? Is that a respectful use of taxpayers' dollars? They are paying our salaries to be here. We are all in agreement on something and all we are trying to do is send it to PROC. We have spent seven days on this and opposition members are upset because they think we should spend more days on something we all agree with that has the same end result.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say.

[Privilege, May 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, referring to new members being surprised, I actually am surprised. I am surprised by the antics of the other side of the House over this issue.

Let us just summarize what is happening here. We are all in agreement that unfettered access for members of Parliament is critical. It is first and foremost. We have speaking about this for seven days. What we are speaking about is having this move to PROC. I believe everybody in the House agrees on that. There is not more time to talk about this. We are on day seven of that. We are all in agreement that PROC is the place to study this. That is what we want to have happen.

It is not the first time this has happened. Over the past few years, this has happened on a number of occasions. PROC is the place where we can have the in-depth study take place. We can call witnesses. In the past, witnesses have been called in from various departments: the RCMP, the Sergeant-at-Arms, the Clerk. That is the place to have this discussion.

In the interests of time, why will the member not agree that now is the time to send this to PROC so we can do what we need to do?

[Privilege, May 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her passion, particularly with the question of ensuring that all members of Parliament have unfettered access to this place.

I would like to remind everyone in the House that this is day seven of this debate and this is not the first time this issue has arisen. As I have said, over the past number of years this issue has arisen on a few occasions.

Is it not time now to have this matter studied at PROC?

As a new member of PROC, there was some mention of the chair. We have just come through three weeks of a filibuster in PROC and I cannot think of a chair or witnessed a chair who is more attentive and dedicated than the chair of PROC. PROC would willingly take this on and investigate this important matter.

Would the member not agree that in light of the fact that this has happened repeatedly in this place, is it not time now, after seven days, for further investigation and that a wholesome and full investigation take place at PROC?

[Privilege, May 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the hon. member, there was some wandering there from the question at hand, but perhaps that is what happens when they talk to a question of privilege for seven days.

The point I would like to make is this. We all agree that we can clearly do better, and this is really a balance of the security—and I want to acknowledge the amazing security personnel we have here on the Hill who work very hard to keep us safe; we appreciate that and we want to thank them for their good work—and at the same time ensuring members get to the House safely in a timely manner, as security wants. Clearly, we can do better at that because I know that over the past couple of years this issue has taken place. This is not new to a Liberal government. This has happened a number of times in this place over the past couple of years.

Would the member not agree that what we want to do is to move this question to PROC, so that PROC can study this at an in-depth level, bring witnesses, and have questions at hand, so that we can do better at this? Would the member not support that PROC is the place to continue this debate so that we get to a resolution where security personnel continue to do their job and members get to be here on time and in a timely manner?

[Privilege, May 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for his comments. He is always well-researched and articulate, and I commend him for that.

However, when we are representing what other parties are putting forward, it is very important that our representation be very accurate. That is the part I want to get to today in my question for the hon. member. It is the issue of misrepresenting what this side of the House and our Liberal members on the other side are trying to put forward here, and I would like to acknowledge our Liberal members on the other side.

First, unfettered access is critical. I have spoken in the House about this. It is very important. We have to ensure that all members have unfettered access. This is not a new problem. This is not a problem that has happened just since the Liberals have been in government; it has happened over the past years. In 2012, a discussion came up with respect to three people. In 2014, the issue came up again. This is an ongoing debate, so the first thing I would ask is if the hon. member would acknowledge that we, the Liberals on this side of the House, agree that unfettered access is extremely important.

Second, everyone on PROC wants to study this issue. That was clearly stated at PROC. Any representation to the contrary is simply a misrepresentation and inaccurate.

Could the hon. member please clarify those two items for the House?

[Committees of the House, April 3rd, 2017]

Madam Speaker, there are a number of things the member has raised.

Let me first say that, unfortunately, debate cannot take place when the bells are ringing, and that occupies a lot of time. We are talking about 30 minutes for the bells. Second, with respect to the Prime Minister answering questions, the whole point of this motion is to have a discussion to determine how we can efficiently use our time.

The third thing I want to say is this. I said this to my constituents, whose doors I knocked on. When some of my constituents found out I was a politician, they wanted to throw me off the porch. Why? It is because they wanted us to do better in this place. That is why. The commitment I made to them was that I would work hard so that the time we have in this place is totally and completely used to best serve them and their needs. That is what brought me here, and that is why I stand in this House today.

[Committees of the House, April 3rd, 2017]

Madam Speaker, on the first point about the Prime Minister, I would say that I am proud of our Prime Minister for going across the country for open mics. Those open mics are not supplementary. They are in addition to what the Prime Minister does in this House. They are in addition to the questions he is being asked and is responding to in this House.

With our proposal, we are looking at how everyone in this House can ask questions of the Prime Minister or how backbenchers can present questions to him. He wants to answer those questions. He does a brilliant job of answering questions. This is about more accountability not only of the Prime Minister but also of cabinet ministers. That is what we want to embark upon. That is the discussion we want to have.

With respect to the second issue, we want to start this discussion. We will not come up with recommendations until we have had a robust discussion. If the filibuster continues until the end of June, then of course, the date has to be extended. We are committed to ensuring that we make evidence-based decisions on the great information we are going to receive at committee.

[Committees of the House, April 3rd, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Brampton North.

I came to this place to serve. I have had two previous occupations. I served as a lawyer for six years, and following that, I had the privilege of serving as a chaplain to a community for 20 years. I love the idea of serving. I felt that there were greater challenges ahead of me, and I wanted to use my gifts to the best of my ability. That is really what brought me to this place.

I know it sounds idealistic, but that is exactly why I stand in this place today. It is really to serve. I do not say that to brag. I know there are many members in this House who have come to this place for the same reason. Those members and I share the belief that we do not need any credit because we get our fulfillment in seeing the difference that we can make for Canadians.

I have to admit that there are parts of this job that take me out of my comfort zone. When I first came to this House and stood up in the House to speak, it was not something that I would say I was immediately comfortable with, but the greater interest for me is serving the people who put me here, and so, I have become accustomed to it, and I stand up when I know that I am standing up for the right thing.

I need to stand up today as a member of the procedure and House affairs committee. I am happy that I have this opportunity. I am honoured to have this opportunity, because I want Canadians to know about what the government is putting forward.

There is no question that everyone in this House works hard. Although I have been involved in politics all my life working in the background, I have never truly known and appreciated how hard members work. However, the topic today is not about working harder. It is not about that at all. We all work hard. It is about how to work better. The analogy I think of is a mouse on a treadmill, working hard, running on that treadmill, going all day long, not really going anywhere but working hard at it. That is not what we want.

We want our efforts to be used so that we can serve Canadians to the best of our ability. That is what we are trying to do with the motion. What we are trying to do is get a discussion going about how we can better serve Canadians. Let us be more efficient. Let us do it better. I think we all share that. However, we have to get to the discussion before we can embark on the ideas of how to get there.

Let me give an example of committee work. This was new to me. What happens in the House currently is we are called to committees. We go to those committees where very important work is done. It is probably the most important work. Witnesses come to those committees to testify. Those witnesses are flying in from all over the country to testify. With all due respect, it is the taxpayers who are paying for the witnesses to get here, but that is money well spent. To get those witnesses in front of committees is money that is very well spent.

I will tell the House what is not well done. The bells ring and all of a sudden we jump up from committee. We jump into shuttle buses. We come over here. It is a 30-minute bell. Thirty minutes pass, and then we get up and vote. We are lucky if we get back to committee. Usually we do not get back to the committee. What happens? All those people who came to present at the committee go home. They fly home. That time cannot be made up.

We have to do better. Those witnesses want to give testimony. We want to hear their testimony. How are we going to do that? We are going to do that by having this discussion, which everyone in this House can contribute to.

I want to read from the discussion paper, because it is very important we set straight a lot of the things that are being misconstrued.

Let me start with Friday. One of the members mentioned that there was nothing in the paper about Friday. Let me read from the government House leader 's discussion paper what it says about Friday:

Should Friday sittings be reapportioned, it would be important to reallocate any lost time to the remaining four days, including time lost for Question Period and Private Members’ Business. This could be accomplished by having the House meet earlier on certain days. Alternatively, if Friday sittings are retained they should look like any other sitting day...

What does that mean? That means a full day.

I am going to tell the House something about my own experience and I am speaking completely honestly. I want Canadians at home to know. If I need a rest because I am exhausted, I am better here on Friday. Why? Because I put in a half day here and the rest of the day I travel home. That travel home is a rest for me. However, if I am not here on Friday, I leave here late Thursday night. I am getting home late on Thursday night and Friday morning at 7 o'clock I am at my constituency office. Friday is the day we currently sit. It is one or the other. We either make Friday a full day or we do what is in the discussion paper, and that is reapportion the hours.

This discussion paper is the start of the discussion, not the end. This business of ramming through legislation is not the way it is. This is a discussion. This is where we start.

Let me go to electronic voting, which is in the discussion paper too. There has been talk about it for 32 years. We are not saying that it is going to happen. We are asking to have a discussion on it. Why is a discussion timely? Because the West Block is being reconstructed. Therefore, if we are to have electronic voting, it might be a good idea to have the discussion now in order to accommodate it so we can follow through with electronic voting. This is not a done deal. Nothing has been decided. It is to be talked about.

Let me move to the House calendar. Everybody is talking about the Liberals wanting to make life easier, that they want to work less. If we want to work less, then why do we say in this discussion paper “having the House sit earlier in January”, which is more days, “later in June”, which is more days, not less, “and earlier in September”. We are talking about what to do to get the work done, to follow through on our commitments to get legislation passed. How do we use the time in the House more effectively?

Let me now talk about time allocation, which has been mentioned in the House many times. In the 41st Parliament, time allocation was used 100 times. Do members know the time that took for time allocation votes? It was used 100 times. If that happened now, it would 338 x 100 x an hour for each time, or whatever it would take. Is that the best use of our time?

The British House of Commons has used programming motions to allocate time. Some have said that this is a terrible thing. The British House has made it permanent now and the opposition, which first was against it, is now in favour of it.

I have a hard time listening to this question. The suggestion is that we want to limit the Prime Minister's questions. We have a Prime Minister who goes across the country answering questions from Canadians at an open mic. This is not about less accountability but rather about more. This is about giving more time in addition to the questions that the Prime Minister already answers.

To be honest, I am tired of it. This is about using our time to the best of our ability. This is about using taxpayer money, taxpayers who are paying our salaries. This is about better serving them.

I am going to suggest a fourth option for the hon. member who had three options, and that is to approve the motion that we put through at PROC.