OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 118 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Monday, September 29, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES September 29, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 118 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 118 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 118 (Version officielle) 147 118 29 09 2014 2014/09/29 11:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 11 a.m. Prayers

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Private Members' Business (1105) [ English ] National Health and Fitness Day Act Mr. John Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, CPC) moved that Bill S-211,

An Act to establish a national day to promote health and fitness for all Canadians , be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill S-211. Second reading He said: Mr. Speaker, rarely in the House one discovers unity around an issue that brings together the people of Canada and their representatives rallied in a common cause.

Occasionally, a bill to which we speak already has such broad support that it has gained sweeping support from coast to coast to coast, and sometimes in this chamber we witness a powerful unstoppable energy unleashed when Canadians unite in common cause to defeat a national adversary. It is a great honour to rise on one of those occasions today as I sponsor Bill S-211,

an act to establish a national day to promote health and fitness for all Canadians, also known as the national health and fitness day act. In the remarks that follow, I will outline the health and health care crises that led to this bill and explain how the bill responds to those needs. I will also pay tribute to some champions of health and fitness, and for those who decide to get involved, suggest some practical ways to do so. We are facing a battle. An implacable adversary is slowly and insidiously killing Canadians and dragging us down as a nation.

I say implacable because unlike a human adversary, there is no person or group to target in making the situation better. The adversary is a pattern of behaviour that has progressively undermined Canadians' level of physical fitness. What is it that I am calling our national adversary? Our national adversary is inactivity. It is costing us and it is killing us. Canada's inactivity problem drives deep. It is rooted in our culture and wedded to the routines we have developed in our schools, our work and our play.

The problem relates to the progress we have made in technology which enables us to communicate by computer seated in the comfort of our homes, of our classrooms and our workplaces. Similarly, screen time, whether in front of a TV, computer or smart phone, has taken our kids off playing fields and put them on chairs instead. Statistics Canada has reported a continuous decline in sports participation which, from 1992 to 2005, went from 45% to 28% among Canadians age 15 and older. That is less than one out of every three Canadian adults who is as active as they should be.

Less than 7% of Canadian children and youth meet the guideline of 60 minutes of activity daily six days per week. Among Canadians age 20 and older, two-thirds do not meet the recommended physical activity levels, that is, to be active at least two and a half hours per week to achieve a health benefit. That is only 20 minutes per day to meet the minimum standards for adults and we are not even doing that. Statistics Canada has delivered more disturbing news. In the period between 1981 and 2009, measured obesity roughly doubled in most age groups for both sexes.

Data from 2009 suggests that approximately one in four Canadian adults age 18 years and over is obese. In 2008 the combined overweight and obese proportion was 62.1%. Nearly two out of three adult Canadians is either overweight or obese. This trend has dramatic implications since children who are overweight are more likely to be overweight as adults. Among other things, studies have shown that adolescents who are overweight have a fourteen-fold increased risk of a heart attack before they turn 50.

Excess weight in childhood is increasingly linked to illnesses once seen only in adults, including type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, abnormal blood fats, abnormal blood clotting, and thickening of the arteries. Psychologically, evidence suggests a positive relationship between physical activity and psychosocial health in employees, including emotional well-being, improved mental health, and reduced depression, anxiety and stress. They have all been associated with regular physical activity as well as reduced symptoms of fatigue, enhanced mood, increased quality of life and life satisfaction.

The support for the bill before us is not related to high-performance athletes, but instead to Canadians who are not necessarily involved in athletics. This is not a sports bill; it is a health and fitness bill. As I biked to work this morning, I was thinking in fact of those Canadian heroes like Terry Fox and my friend Rick Hansen who have shown the world that participation in physical activity is not just for able-bodied people. More and more persons with disabilities—I prefer the term “adaptive athletes”—have made the point really clear.

Look at Jody Mitic, the Canadian veteran who lost his legs in Afghanistan, who runs marathons anyway and is now campaigning to be an Ottawa city councillor along with Matt Fleury, another great champion of health and fitness. Initiatives such as Soldier On and Ottawa's Army Run bring out many of our wounded warriors and others, inspiring with the realization that one does not have to be Wayne Gretzky or Nancy Greene Raine to participate and improve one's health through physical activity. Our declining health and fitness rates are clearly an economic problem, not just a matter of life quality.

The Public Health Agency of Canada has concluded that costs of obesity are estimated to be $7 billion. That is the total cost of the obesity-related diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, and stroke. Members may have heard the quote from Roman times that a healthy mind relates to a healthy body. In addition to direct and indirect health care costs, the quality and productivity of our work in Canada will improve if our people become healthier, if only by decreasing the number of sick days.

Indirect costs of poor health include the value of economic output lost due to illness, injury-related work disability, and premature death. It has been estimated that, on average, compared to an active person an inactive person spends 38% more days in hospital and uses 5.5% more family physician visits, 13% more specialist services, and 12% more nurse visits. The bill that I sponsor today, Bill S-211 , tackles problems that touch every Canadian in terms of our health, our quality of life, and our economy. The bill aims to increase the health of Canadians by increasing our physical participation rates.

Specifically, supporters wish to encourage local governments, non-government organizations, the private sector, and all Canadians to recognize the first Saturday in June as national health and fitness day, or NHFD, a day marked by local, provincial and national events to promote health and fitness. The bill makes particular mention of local governments as they own and operate many of our nation's health and fitness facilities. NHFD supporters want to encourage local governments more aggressively to promote the use of such facilities.

Furthermore, we encourage cities and towns to mark the day with local events and initiatives celebrating and promoting the importance of using local health, recreational, sports and fitness facilities. People around the world know that Canada's mountains, oceans, lakes, forests, parks, and wilderness also offer recreation and fitness opportunities, and we ought to benefit from what we share collectively. The month in which NHFD falls, June, is not only a time of great weather, but is also parks and recreation month, a time in the calendar already set aside to foster heightened appreciation of our outdoor assets.

The bill is an amended version of a private member's bill I introduced in this House previously which had widespread support, but for procedural reasons did not progress. To be clear, NHFD is not a legal holiday; it will not incur costs of lost productivity. In fact, it is not just a day at all. It is about a dramatic change in lifestyle. On a personal level, my wife Donna and my children Shane, Jake, and Meimei have inspired me to promote the bill. Donna is a personal trainer. My children all earned black belts in tae kwon do at an early age and are dedicated athletes.

I am a pretty active person myself, finding that physical activity keeps me healthy, energized, and effective in my public service. With the privilege of representing West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country in B.C., I can say that constituents in the riding I represent are among the most active in the country. Where I live, people love the outdoors and are concerned about the physical inactivity problem Canada is facing. I personally learned much from the people in my community, who have inspired me to promote health and fitness as a gift they give to the rest of our great country.

I bring Bill S-211 forward today in paying special tribute to the wonderful role models for health and fitness who live in the riding I represent. The bill was tabled appropriately by my friend and everyone's athletic icon, Canada's female athlete of the 20th century, Senator Nancy Greene Raine. Senator Greene Raine, who is here today, Nancy to her millions of fans, is a proud British Columbian and an articulate spokeswoman for all Canadians in many areas of public policy, but in promoting health and fitness no one can surpass her.

Demonstrating great leadership, Nancy won unanimous support for Bill S-211 in the Senate. I also thank the Minister of Health and the Minister of State for Sport , who have gone out of their way to support NHFD at every turn. I also want to thank my colleagues across the floor. This bill already enjoys a rare element of enthusiastic cross-party support. Another distinctive aspect of the bill is the fact that it has already been implemented on a broad scale well before it has become law.

Over 155 cities and towns across Canada have proclaimed the day, including Vancouver, Calgary, Ottawa, Halifax, Yellowknife and Pond Inlet. I am especially proud that the earliest adopters included the towns and the cities in the riding I represent: West Vancouver, Whistler, Squamish, Sechelt, Gibsons, Lions Bay, Bowen Island, North Van district and Powell River.

(1110) Led by Premier Christy Clark and the energetic MLA, Michelle Stilwell, last spring B.C. became the first province to endorse NHFD, followed quickly by Yukon as the first territory. On May 30, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities passed a resolution at its annual conference encouraging all member municipalities to proclaim the day, and just two weeks ago, the Union of Quebec Municipalities followed suit. Members would be amazed at the number and influence of non-government organizations that have endorsed the bill and begun to promote its objectives even before it passes.

These include: the Canadian Medical Association; Lisa Ashley and the Canadian Nurses Association; Chris Gray and the Heart and Stroke Foundation; Chris Jones and Physical and Health Education Canada; Bob Elliott and Sport Matters Group; Participaction; Debra Gassewitz and the Sports Information Resource Centre; C. J.

Noble and Canadian Parks and Recreation; Richard Way and Canadian Sport for Life; Trisha Sarker and the Fitness Industry Council of Canada; Arne Elias of Canada Bikes; Canadian Interuniversity Sport; Rob McClure and the Ottawa Bicycle Club; Trans Canada Trail, championed by Laureen Harper, Paul LaBarge and Deborah Apps; and one of our recent supporters, Movember. Additionally, I am grateful to private sector organizations for their support: The Running Room, Canadian Tire and Jumpstart, Kunstadt Sports, Glacier Media, Capital Hill Hotel and Suites, Tractivity, and GoodLife Fitness.

Like most good things in life, the bill comes about due to the efforts of a large team of people over many years. The broad public support for NHFD reflects a unity in this House that began in 2008 during the lead-up to the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games. As a large part of the games was to take

part in the riding I represent, I spent much time with people asking what we could do to ensure a lasting positive legacy from the games. While gold medals were a crowning glory, we wanted something that all Canadians could claim as their own on an ongoing basis. The key tragic event that spurred us on was the untimely death of Tom Hanson, a renowned Canadian Press journalist who died in 2009 while playing pick-up hockey. Tom was a young man, only 41. The Prime Minister took the occasion to remind us that we needed to take care of our health. I had Mr.

Hanson's sad experience in mind along with the Prime Minister's words when I met two great heroes of mine, Pierre Lafontaine and Phil Marsh, who have left an indelible imprint on Canada for their advocacy of health and fitness. Pierre and Phil are the energetic coaches of our parliamentary fitness initiative, which I began in 2009 with the support of the members for Sackville—Eastern Shore and Etobicoke North , each of them from different parties in this House. When I met Pierre in 2009, he was coach of Canada's national swim team.

He continues in his role of promoting national health and fitness now as president of Canadian Interuniversity Sport. Phil Marsh is regional manager of the Running Room in Ottawa, who with his boss, John Stanton, is a major force in promoting fitness for all Canadians. Both Pierre and Phil are great men, generous with their time, who volunteer to coach our MPs and senators in running and swimming, each once a week whenever Parliament is in session.

I have also worked with others to create companion events that have supported NHFD, including Bike Day on the Hill, Bike Day in Canada and National Life Jacket and Swim Day on the Hill. With all that support and all this national enthusiasm, I have to ask the most important question: will a bill like this make any difference to Canada's battle against inactivity? National health and fitness has far-reaching implications, including physical health, mental illness, life expectancy, school performance, national productivity, economic performance, and health care costs.

If we do not change our current patterns, this is the first generation of Canadians who will die at an age younger than our parents. We must change our direction. Bill S-211 will be Parliament's statement that MPs and senators wish to instill in Canadians an awareness of the significant benefits of physical activity, and to encourage our people to get more active. Supporting NHFD is not the whole solution, but it is part of the solution.

I encourage all Canadians to take the field in the battle against inactivity, and to be sure to approach their mayors and councillors if they have not already proclaimed national health and fitness day. I thank colleagues in this House for their support. I welcome them to join me in the parliamentary fitness initiative, for their own health and to demonstrate their commitment to their constituents. I ask that they support Bill S-211 . Canada's health and fitness depends on them. (1115) [ Translation ] Mr. Dany Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for introducing a worthwhile bill, Bill S-211 , which is coming to us from the Senate. The NDP feels it is important to encourage people to engage in physical activity, for all sorts of compelling reasons. This bill is about prevention, in my opinion, but no funding is being requested. Does my Conservative colleague not think that the $36 billion in health care cuts that the government is making at the provinces' expense will limit the financial ability of the provinces and territories to invest in prevention?

When cuts are made to health care budgets, prevention is often the first thing to go, unfortunately. This bill encourages people to exercise and it encourages our partners to invest in prevention. However, health care cuts will limit their ability to focus on prevention. Mr. John Weston : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. I appreciate the support this bill is getting from the opposition benches. This bill does not set any limits.

It is an effort to spark discussions across the country and encourage the municipalities, the provinces and all Canadians to shoulder their collective responsibility to improve health levels in our country. It is clear from the support for this bill that everyone understands this. We need to take immediate action to make Canada the healthiest country in the world. (1120) [ English ] Mr. Arnold Chan (Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, first I want to congratulate my hon. friend from West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country for introducing this bill in the House, and to also thank members of the Senate and Senator Nancy Greene Raine for introducing this important bill in the other place. My question to the hon. member relates to this particular issue, which in many ways follows upon the earlier question.

There were reports from Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne, who by the way is a well-known runner herself, about issuing a directive to her minister of education, as part of her ministry mandate, to encourage young people to have at least 60 minutes of physical activity daily. Would the hon. member like to comment on whether this is an important initiative that should be extended across all provinces, and perhaps something that should be considered by all education ministers across the country? Mr. John Weston : Mr.

Speaker, I have to applaud the premier for demonstrating her devotion to health and fitness, and would certainly invite her to have national health and fitness day proclaimed in Ontario, as it has been done in British Columbia and the Yukon. Furthermore, we need all Canadians to pull together. Although education is a provincial jurisdiction in our country, we as legislators in the House have a role to play, both as role models and in encouraging our provincial counterparts to introduce what was once a national expectation that there be physical education in the classrooms.

We know what pressure our teachers are under. We have certainly seen that profiled in British Columbia in recent weeks with the strike that has just been resolved there. There needs to be more physical activity for students, one way or another. Mr. Mike Wallace (Burlington, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, my question is simple. This bill has had a bit of history. Often bills do not start in the Senate and come here. Why is the history of this bill and how it got here important to its development and today's events? [ Translation ] Mr. John Weston : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to highlight the major contribution of Pierre Lafontaine, whom I met in 2009 on a flight to Vancouver. He was the national swim team's coach. We talked about the lamentable state of Canadians' level of physical activity in general, and we decided that something had to be done. We also talked about how MPs and senators should be role models for everyone. That is how we came up with physical activity initiatives for all parliamentarians. Ever since, people on the Hill have been inspired.

Phil Marsh, the manager of the Ottawa Running Room, got on board with the project and added running to our roster of activities. We now have two permanent, national-calibre volunteer coaches. Every week, a group of parliamentarians energetically takes on the challenge of swimming and running. The snowball effect is taking over. This month, the Union des munipalités du Québec announced its support for national health and fitness day, and things are rolling along. Mr. Dany Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to speak to Bill S-211 .

I rarely agree with what comes from the Senate, but I have to admit that the bill before us today is excellent. Bill S-211 would designate the first Saturday in June as national health and fitness day. The day would be an invitation to organize local events and initiatives to emphasize the importance of choosing a healthy lifestyle, and it would promote local health, recreational, sports and fitness facilities. As my Conservative colleague mentioned in his speech, this day would not be a legal or statutory holiday.

Rather, it is a symbolic day that fits in nicely with Canadian Environment Week, which is the first week of June. Such a day of awareness would serve as an opportunity to encourage Canadians to think about their physical health. As my Conservative colleague mentioned, the health of our young people could be a lot better. Some young people have unhealthy diets. Many young people—the adults of tomorrow—begin their lives in conditions that are less than optimal. Furthermore, inactivity rates are on the rise in Canada.

Of course, all of this can lead to shortened life expectancy, as well as an increase in the number of health problems people have during their lives, especially in old age. This will put additional pressure on our health care system. Given that the federal government plays a very limited role in providing direct health services, it is the provinces and territories that will be hardest hit. In Quebec, a significant portion of the budget goes to health. Over thousands of years of human evolution, we have learned the importance of investing in health.

The saying “an apple a day keeps the doctor away” suggests that prevention plays a crucial role in the collective mindset. The bill fits in nicely with a preventive approach. The NDP supports the bill because it meets our party's health objectives, which include prevention as well as an approach based on the World Health Organization's social determinants of health. As I said earlier when I asked my Conservative colleague a question, this is an excellent bill. I am pleased that there is a consensus on it, or at least I think there is. We will see when it comes time to vote in the House of Commons.

The Conservative government claims to be in favour of prevention and helping Canadians live healthier lives. However, in the past year, there has been a lot of media coverage of the $36 billion in cuts that the federal government is making. The provinces and territories will not have that money to maintain public services. A number of provinces are tempted to adopt a two-tier health care system and offer a smaller range of services. That concerns me. Before becoming a politician, I was a health care professional.

I have always been involved in the community, and I decided to help people by becoming a chiropractor. When I was practising, people with health problems would come to my office. Some had acute health problems, while others had chronic issues. My work as a chiropractor was related to muscles and joints. Other social determinants that affected my patients' health were a lack of physical activity, smoking, alcohol consumption and a poor diet.

(1125) Other health care professionals in Canada and I clearly see that social determinants of health, such as a lack of exercise, are risk factors for a number of reasons. The main one is that people who are not very physically active are more likely to suffer from cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, obesity, high blood pressure, osteoporosis and depression. When we exercise, our brain releases hormones that make us happier, which mitigates anxiety. Exercising is good for a whole host of reasons. It is important that the government promote this day, which is to take place on the first Saturday of June.

However, we need to take a comprehensive and holistic view of prevention. We need to stress the importance of physical activity but also ensure that Canadians are eating right and making healthy choices. The government has been dragging its feet when it comes to food labelling. It proposed a new approach to food labelling, but I am not convinced that that will make it obvious to Canadians what food is good food. As a parliamentarian and a health care professional, because my former profession is still very dear to my heart, my goal is to help Canadians live longer, healthier lives.

The $36 billion in cuts to health care will undermine the prevention programs provided by the provincial and territorial health care services. That is a shame. When governments have to make tough budget choices, they often cut prevention programs, unfortunately. Even though this bill encourages people to exercise more, the government's other measures will undermine prevention programs and people will neglect their health. Let us come back to the bill, since that is what we are actually talking about.

We think that every level of government—the federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments and even community governments—must encourage Canadians to adopt an active lifestyle. A number of measures can encourage people to be more active. For example, we could make it easier to access federal parks and local physical fitness centres and get involved in community sports teams. The government cannot solve all the problems, but if it can be a facilitator, then all the better.

What is more, the NDP believes that the federal government should work with the provinces and territories to ensure that every child can lay the foundation for an active and healthy life. Many schools need breakfast programs because some children arrive at school with an empty stomach, which is not ideal for their bodies or their minds. Still today, in 2014, not every young Canadian is lucky enough to start their day of learning and exercising in the best conditions. If our children do not eat a healthy breakfast, then it is very hard for them to have enough energy to be physically active.

I do not want to generalize because I know that there are difficult choices to be made. However, when I went to school, we had a lot of gym classes. Even though it was not my favourite class, in the end I reaped the benefits of physical activity. Therefore, I encourage everyone who makes decisions about the level of physical activity of children to remember that they need to be active.

(1130) Even though I do not consider myself to be athletic and am not really a cycling enthusiast, as the honorary chairman of the Tour Solidaire I cycled 265 kilometres over three days this summer. It was really tough. However, I was in much better shape after this activity and so I want to keep up the good habit of being more physically active.

(1135) Hon. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, today we are discussing a matter that I believe is very important for all Canadians: our health and what we can do to maintain or improve our health. First of all, I know that this is not possible for everyone because, in some cases, serious illness prevents some people from being as active as others. However, in my opinion, people should do what they can. [ English ] Before us is Bill S-211,

an act to establish a national day to promote health and fitness for all Canadians . I actually prefer the

short title, the national health and fitness day act. While the bill has already been passed in the Senate, it was introduced in the House back in June. I think it was June 16. I know its sponsors hope to have it passed by the end of the year. In that regard, its sponsor in the Senate is Senator Nancy Greene Raine. At the risk of embarrassing her just a tiny bit, I have to mention that I was on the Ski Martock Nancy Greene ski league team when I was 12 years old, which is remarkable, considering she looks younger than I do. I do not know what that is about. Hon. John McKay: It has been downhill ever since. Hon.

Geoff Regan: M. Speaker, it has been downhill ever since, as my colleague says. While the goal of the bill is to make Canada the fittest nation in the world, there are tremendous benefits at all levels. The support that the organizers of the bill have pulled together is truly impressive. That is why this kind of legislation is very easy to get behind and is also something that will, I hope, touch the lives of millions of Canadians. Increased physical activity promotes not only physical health but also mental and emotional health.

I see my colleague, the sponsor of the bill in the House, out running in the mornings. He has kindly invited me to join the group that runs Tuesday morning. We sometimes cross paths. We will see. One of these days I will meet up at the right time with them and join them for one of these runs. What I find is that one of the great benefits is the psychological benefit. People may not believe it, but this job can be stressful at times, and one of the great things about regular exercise is it lowers stress levels and makes people feel better emotionally and mentally. That is important.

For each of us in the country, our health, our outlook on life, our well-being, and our personal performance can all be improved if we ensure that we eat properly and exercise regularly—that is, those of us who are able to do so. Personally, it would be a lot easier if someone had not invented cookies or ice cream, but I digress. As we grow older, maintaining a fit lifestyle becomes even more important. In fact, that is why I was delighted to have about half an hour or so yesterday to do a little kayaking with my wife.

We put our kayak on the car and took it down to the water, to Bedford Basin, which is fortunately only a couple of minutes' drive away. It is salt water. We went for a paddle for a little while, and then we had to get back home because we had to have supper and I had to take off and come to Ottawa. However, it is good to get out to do things, even for these little bits of time, especially when we do them together. We know that many Canadians are living unhealthy lifestyles, which leads not only to the risk of premature death but also to increases in chronic diseases.

It impacts on our quality of life and puts pressure on our health care system. There are things that most of us can do to try to reduce this problem and reduce the cost to our health care system. Those are just some of the reasons that I agreed to second a similar bill that was put forward by my hon. friend, the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country , several years ago. It is also why I am pleased to support this legislation. As many members of the House know, I strongly believe in the benefits of fitness and I do try to practise what I preach in this regard.

In fact, I ran this morning, and I am training right now for the Valley Harvest Half Marathon coming up in the Annapolis Valley of Nova Scotia on Thanksgiving Day weekend.

(1140) I am looking forward to running it with our eldest daughter, Kate. She is busy doing her law articles this year, but she is somehow finding time, not easily, to train for that as well. It can be a challenge. I do not know if I will ever do a marathon, because a marathon takes a lot of time to train for, but we will see. My hon. colleague spoke a moment ago about cycling; I cycle each summer in the MS Bike tour, and I also cycled to work this morning with my colleague. For me it is a pretty short ride, but the bike is great for getting around Ottawa to get groceries or to go for some exercise.

I also run each year in the Blue Nose Marathon 10K, although not the full marathon. This all helps, whether I am on the ice playing hockey or occasionally playing with the MP soccer team and trying not to look like a pylon in either case. Of course, we are all aware here that Bill S-211 , which originated in the other place, would designate the first Saturday in June of each year as national health and fitness day. The goal is to highlight the need to increase the level of fitness in this country and encourage Canadians of all ages to curb our bad habits.

Rates of obesity and lack of physical activity have continued to grow over the past several decades, and that is extremely worrisome. It should be worrisome to all of us. Many Canadians are living unhealthy lifestyles with longer work hours, consuming more and more processed foods, and finding it hard to fit regular exercise into their busy lives. This trend is bad news. The good news is that we can change. We may need a little motivation, but I know we are up to the challenge, because Canada, after all, is a nation of doers.

Sometimes we just need a little incentive, and I think that Bill S-211 seeks to engage communities and Canadians in providing a bit of that incentive. It seeks to engage us in living healthier, more active lives. It builds on the fact that communities across Canada have already expressed support for a national health and fitness day. I am hopeful that more and more will support us in this effort. In fact, it is my understanding that more than 150 Canadian municipalities have already proclaimed some sort of health and fitness day.

In my home province of Nova Scotia, there is a strong commitment to promoting health and fitness, and there is a growing list of communities on board, including the Cape Breton Regional Municipality, Chester, Guysborough, Halifax, Kentville, Middleton, New Glasgow, Port Hawkesbury, Hantsport, Lunenburg, Shelburne, and Stewiacke. I look forward to many more joining that list. Kudos to those communities and to the many more that we expect to follow suit. My caucus colleagues in the Liberal Party have a long history of promoting healthy living.

In 2005, the previous Liberal government invested $300 million over five years to the Public Health Agency of Canada for the integrated strategy of healthy living and chronic disease. One of the key pillars of that investment was promoting health by addressing the conditions leading to unhealthy eating, physical inactivity, and unhealthy weights. To sum up, I am delighted to be speaking in support of the bill. I encourage all of us in this House to get out there and be physically active and lower our stress levels. That might help around here, as a matter of fact.

Who knows what impact that might have in this chamber? I look forward to voting in favour of Bill S-211 . Mr. Mike Wallace (Burlington, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to stand here today and talk about why I support Bill S-211 . I want to challenge my colleague across the way. On the same weekend that he will be running the half marathon, I will be running a full marathon in Moncton. It will be my eighth marathon, and I am trying to do one in every province. I will have Newfoundland and Manitoba left to do after this.

I have done the Bluenose already, so I know the member can do it, and I want to congratulate him on his effort. In the few minutes I have here, I would like to talk about the 10 top reasons that I support Bill S-211 ,

an act to establish a national day to promote health and fitness for all Canadians. It is a coincidence that I am borrowing the top 10 list from talk show host David Letterman, who went to Ball State University in Indiana. My daughter went there on an athletic scholarship, so there is a bit of a connection with respect to health and fitness and stealing his top 10 list. I am excited that this legislation seems to have the full support of all members in the House and that in the near future the first Saturday of every June will be a national day to promote health and fitness for all Canadians.

Let me mention all 10 of the reasons that I support this legislation in case I do not have time to mention them all. First of all, this bill is universal. It affects everyone. Second, the bill aligns with a motion I put forward in the House on obesity, a motion that was unanimously passed. Third, it brings awareness to the problem. Nobody can fix a problem if they do not know that there is one. A day promoting health and fitness would let people know about the problem. It would coordinate efforts to promote health and fitness across municipalities, provinces, and the whole country.

It would help to provide opportunities to promote health and fitness. A national day would provide an opportunity to celebrate the success of those who have made a difference and are making a difference in their own lives and the lives of their families, communities, provinces, and country. As the mover of the motion has said, this is not all about elite or pro athletes, and I will come back to that. As a practical point, health and fitness reduce health care costs, and those costs affect every taxpayer across this country. A national day to promote health and fitness would be a national statement.

It would be about our country and where we are going in this particular policy area. I would like to say a few nice words about the supporters of the motion, both in the other place and in the House, but first I would like to talk about the universality of a national day to promote health and fitness. Health and fitness affects everyone from eight to 80. In my own family, a number of my immediate relatives have lived past 90.

Health and fitness play a significant role in the quality of their life, as well as in the quality of life for young people, middle-aged people, and seniors. significant role in the lives of our youth and seniors. Quality of life has several aspects. Having the financial support to look after oneself is also important, but one area that is absolutely under the control of individuals is their own physical health. They can take advantage of all opportunities available to them to make sure they do what they can to stay as healthy and fit as possible.

As I mentioned, I had a motion in the House on obesity that passed a number of months ago. I used myself as an example. I was elected to the House of Commons eight and a half years ago, and it did not take long for me to gain 40 pounds. On the Hill there are a lot of receptions and other things that go on, and I became a little heavier than I should have.

(1145) As a result, I was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. There is no diabetes in my family, except for maybe my 95-year-old grandmother, and that onset came with age. There is no history of it in my family. It was obvious that physical fitness was one of the aspects that was missing, and proper and healthy eating was another part. I have lost that 40 pounds. I have made a commitment to physical fitness, as I mentioned before. For me, it is running. I do not run because I love it, but because it helps me stay physically fit.

I have a commitment to my family to stay physically fit, so I can be here when I am 96 to see my great-grandchildren. I have a grandmother who had great-great-grandchildren. I am hoping I am going to be one of those. This motion brings awareness to the problem. I had not given it any thought prior to my own personal issues. I had very athletic, very active children. They went to volleyball, track and field, gymnastics, swimming. They were high performers. They worked out, sometimes for two different sports for three or four hours a day.

It was not that physical fitness was not around me, but I never considered it for myself. I did not think about it being a problem until it hit me at home. A national day to promote health and fitness will bring that issue forward, at least on that first Saturday in June. It is an opportunity to make sure that we understand there is a problem, which was very well articulated by the mover of the motion. It would coordinate efforts and allow municipalities, provinces, and the country to have a focus.

We can coordinate promotion and have the opportunity to talk about physical fitness and health on a particular day in the calendar year. It has already happened in a lot of municipalities across this country. I hope it will continue, and that coordinated efforts will help bring that message to a higher level. Hopefully, that message gets through. It does give opportunities to promote what is available to Canadians. It is not all about elite sports. There are lots of activities: walking, hiking, whatever the activity, as long as it is healthy.

In my area of Burlington, there are a tremendous amount of opportunities for a variety of different ways to get involved, to get active. This day will give organizations and individuals an opportunity to promote those opportunities. We should be celebrating success. When communities, individuals, or organizations are doing a great thing on the physical fitness file, that day could be a day where we celebrate their success. I have mentioned that I am one of those who watches pro sports on television. It is not all about being an elite athlete. I cannot outrun my daughter. I cannot outvolleyball them.

I cannot outdo a lot of things they do. I may be a little smarter than them, but do not tell them that. It is not about just sitting on the couch and watching; it is about participation. That is what is important. Being healthy simply reduces health care costs. If people can avoid going to the doctor and to the hospital, it reduces costs. It is not a hard message to understand; it is national in scope.

Finally, I want to thank the two key movers behind this motion: first, the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country —and I hope they change the name of that riding—for that member's efforts to promote a healthy lifestyle here on the Hill and throughout this country, and our national hero, Senator Nancy Greene Raine. She is a role model, and not just for physical fitness, but also for many women across the country. She has brought this bill to the forefront to have this day acclaimed in this country.

(1150) Mr. Mike Sullivan (York South—Weston, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country and Senator Greene Raine for bringing forward this bill to draw attention, once a year, but hopefully every day, to the fact that we need to pay closer attention to our health. To do so, we need to pay closer attention to our level of fitness. I am not a poster child for a person in great physical condition, but I used to be, until my knees gave out in my thirties.

The arthritis in my knees has made it very difficult for me, as it does for many Canadians, to get the level of exercise we need to stay as healthy as we should. This bill, by drawing attention to the issue of fitness, will hopefully draw attention to the problems that many Canadians face in keeping themselves and their children fit. Senator Greene Raine suggested in her speech that kids spend more time than ever in sedentary activities, such as looking at their tablets, phones, and other things, to play non-active games. She is right. How many kids carry their baseball gloves or tennis balls to school anymore?

How many spend their whole summer riding their bikes to frog ponds, parks, and neighbourhood pools? How many actually spend an hour or two every day playing tennis, football, soccer, or a game of tag in their local park? Fewer and fewer kids are doing that. By drawing attention to this fact, perhaps we can find a way to get kids active again. It is those kids who are going to take care of us as we get older. “We need to change” were the words of Senator Greene Raine. Hopefully, this bill will be a catalyst for such change. Sadly, my riding is mostly designated as a “priority” neighbourhood in the city of Toronto.

Almost all of it is now a priority neighbourhood. It is designated based on 15 categories, sections of the city that need special attention. One of those categories is on the health of the residents in the riding. All of Keelesdale-Eglinton West, Rockcliffe-Smythe, Weston-Pellam Park, Weston, Mount Dennis, Rustic, and even Beechborough-Greenbrook, which has $2-million homes in it, are designated priority neighbourhoods by the City of Toronto, as places that need special attention. One of the reasons they need special attention is the health of the constituents, including the children, which is not great.

The social determinants of health are what we in the NDP like to focus on in trying to find ways to improve health, which is what this bill is partly about, through smart approaches to health promotion and physical activity. One of the things the government can do, for example, is to change the nature of the health and fitness tax credit. It is currently not a refundable tax credit, so it has almost no application in much of my riding. People do not have the ability to pay first and then wait for a tax credit that they are not going to get because they pay no taxes anyway.

A single mom on Ontario Works or ODSP has absolutely no use for this tax credit. It is difficult for that person to have access to an organized fitness regime for their children. The other thing in my riding is that as a result of financial pressures on our city, the city is closing the doors and locking away some of the sports facilities so that kids cannot get at them. They used to be able to kick a ball around in the Weston Lions Park soccer field. It now has astroturf and it is locked up tight.

We cannot get in it unless we are part of a league or a team, and, even then, the leagues or teams are very expensive to join. These kids cannot afford it. We have shut them away from much of what they could use to become more fit. The good thing is that being a priority neighbourhood means that recreation and fitness activities in my part of the city are free for many kids. The trouble is that they are only in the recreation centres, and only in the recreation centres in priority neighbourhoods, of which there is only one. We are chasing our own tail.

(1155) As MPs, we can do things to encourage people to be more fit. I ran a “Bike with Mike” day, where we gathered a bunch of people in the community, got on bikes, and road 15 kilometres down to the lake and back. We had a bus for those who could not ride back, but those people were active for at least a day. It showed them a beautiful

section of the riding. There is a bike trail along the Humber River, which runs from the centre of the riding down to the river. I have also encouraged the local tennis facility to share its facility with less privileged kids who cannot afford it. A kids' drop-in centre and training facility, called Frontlines, is going to be given free access and a trainer for some of the kids, starting in the next few weeks. It is a great example of how we can coordinate and get kids active who would not otherwise be able to do it.

In closing, I want to thank the movers of the bill from this House and the other place for bringing attention where attention is necessary to the state of physical fitness. We will perhaps save a few dollars in health care costs in the bargain.

(1200) Mr. Barry Devolin (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I realize I only have about three or four minutes this morning. Some of my colleagues may be surprised to see me on my feet speaking to this motion today. It has been six years since I stood in my place and participated in a debate. Given that I am not reoffering in the next election, this could be the last time that I participate in a debate in this place. I am here today to support my colleague, the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country , on this bill.

I know it has come from Senator Nancy Greene Raine at the Senate, but the principal mover of it over the last several years has been my hon. colleague from the west coast. We often discuss whether people who talk the talk can walk the walk. In this case, I think my colleague from that riding lives the values that are embodied in this bill. My colleague from Burlington, and others this morning, talked about some of the challenges of maintaining health and fitness while we are members of Parliament. It is a challenge.

We are constantly offered free food that is very tasty, and it is easy to get busy and not take care of ourselves. I have also been on the roller coaster. I am not sure that the highs and lows were quite to the extent that the hon. member for Burlington has experienced, but they were along the same vein. It is something that we all need to work at.

I think a collaborative effort whereby the federal government takes leadership and we identify an aspirational goal for our communities, so that municipalities large and small across Canada can come together and make their facilities available on a particular day where we focus on these values, is very important. Statistics around childhood obesity and health are common, and I think we all know those numbers. However, it is a delight to rise in this place today to discuss something we all agree on. That is a rare moment. It is something that I am pleased to participate in.

Therefore, I would encourage all of my colleagues in this place to not only support this motion and vote in favour of it, but to get back to their communities and make it real, both in their own lives and in the lives of their constituents. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : The hon. member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock will indeed have additional time to address the House and debate on this particular question. In fact, he will have seven and a half minutes to do so when the House next resumes debate on the question.

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

Government Orders Business of Supply (1205) [ Translation ] Business of Supply Opposition Motion—Changes to Standing Orders Mr.

Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) Motion moved: That Standing Order 11(2) be replaced with the following: The Speaker or the Chair of Committees of the Whole, after having called the attention of the House, or of the Committee, to the conduct of a Member who persists in irrelevance, or repetition, including during responses to oral questions, may direct the Member to discontinue his or her intervention, and if then the Member still continues to speak, the Speaker shall name the Member or, if in Committee of the Whole, the Chair shall report the Member to the House. He said: Mr.

Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the intelligent and well-spoken member for Louis-Saint-Laurent . She will take the second half of my time, and I have no doubt that her speech will be excellent. We moved this motion today in response to the public's reaction to what happened last week in the House. People from all across the country called in to radio shows, sent emails, and shared their thoughts on television and in newspapers. They were all saying that question period needs to be improved so it can become an answer period too.

All Canadians want is that the government give intelligent and transparent answers when we ask an intelligent question—a question seeking transparency in an area of public administration, such as the questions that the leader of the official opposition asked last week. These answers enhance the debate so that everyone in this great country can understand the direction the government is taking. The answers also give the government a chance to defend the decisions it has made. It does not get any simpler than that.

That is why we are proposing today to amend Standing Order 11(2) to include the answers provided during question period. The NDP is not trying to make a huge change today. We are simply saying that we already have rules about the relevance of debates in this House. As you know, Mr. Speaker, on numerous occasions you have enforced the rules on relevance that already exist for debates in the House, as you have also enforced the rules on the relevance of the questions we ask. The NDP is proud of the fact that we ask relevant and intelligent questions in the House. However, Mr.

Speaker, you also have the right to say whether these questions are relevant. All we are asking and all we want to do is to fix the loophole surrounding the answers to questions during question period and to ensure that the answers are just as relevant as the questions the minister was asked. This is also not a huge change because these practices are already in place in other parliaments around the world. As we know, the speaker in the United Kingdom's legislative chamber has the right to question the relevance of answers.

The level of debate is higher because the questions must be relevant, of course, but so must the answers. On the weekend, like any good New Democrat, I did some research. That is usually what we do: we use research to delve deeper into the subject. I watched several clips from the Australian parliament, and the speaker of the house called the prime minister to order because his response was irrelevant. What we are proposing today already exists in our Standing Orders, as well as in the rules governing other parliaments around the world. What is more, we feel it is a matter of respect.

What we are asking is that the government and this Parliament respect the fine Canadians who have been questioning the standards in recent days. We want the House to support this motion, which is designed to establish guidelines for the answers provided during question period.

(1210) I would like to mention something else that I feel is important. There are fewer than 49 weeks before the election is called. In 2015, on approximately September 12, the writ will be dropped for Canada's 42nd national election. We hope that the NDP will form the government after Canadians across the country cast their votes. It will be up to Canadians to decide, and we will have to respect their decision, just as we respect the fact that recent comments from across this country have been very clear. We need to hear relevant answers to the intelligent questions that are asked in the House.

We need to respect the will of the people of Canada. I would like to take a few moments to mention another worrisome issue. The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons will rise to speak in a few minutes. It is not yet clear whether the Conservatives support this motion. I hope that they will support it. Public opinion is clear. The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons has said that there is plenty of accountability in the House during question period because the ministers are always present to answer questions. Good New Democrats that we are, we did our research over the weekend.

We found that, since the beginning of this sitting of Parliament on September 16, parliamentary secretaries have responded to nearly 50% of the questions asked of ministers during question period. How can we speak of accountable government if parliamentary secretaries answer nearly half of the questions asked of ministers? Parliamentary secretaries are not supposed to be making decisions. They are not accountable to the people. They have no executive power. Ministers are the ones who are accountable. The Prime Minister is accountable. It is up to them to answer the intelligent questions people ask in the House.

Nothing less. It should not be half and half. Ministers should not be answering just one out of every two questions. Ministers should be able to answer every question. From time to time, a parliamentary secretary might answer, but that is happening systematically and it shows a lack of respect for Canadians. [ English ] I was first elected in 2004 with my colleague from Hamilton Centre and was very proud of being elected. My first seat was right over there, in the corner. I had to get a shoehorn to get into it. I remember the first time I asked a question in the House.

I remember standing and thinking that it is a strength of Canadian democracy that I can ask a question and that a minister has to answer. However, I quickly realized, as all rookie MPs do in the House, that the question, yes, is powerful, but until we get to the point where the response has to be equally intelligent and equally relevant, we have not completed what is a fundamental part of Canadian democracy. I represent one of the most diverse ridings in the country, where over 100 languages are spoken and people come from all over the world. They come to Canada because they believe in our democratic system.

Even people in my riding who are strong Canadians, proud Canadians, new Canadians, many of them believe that question period should be improved. They believe that Canadians should be treated with the respect they deserve. They believe that intelligent questions asked on this side of the House merit equally intelligent and thoughtful answers from that side of the House. Transparency requires that when any opposition member or government member asks a thoughtful question, the government's answer should be as transparent and complete as possible. It is not an idle dream.

This is the basis on which our country developed. These are the parliamentary traditions, which came from other countries, that have helped to broaden and deepen, hopefully, the debate in the House. Sometimes we reach the level that Canadians expect of us. One of them was just last week when the leader of the official opposition spoke very passionately on Iraq here in the House of Commons. That was a high moment for so many Canadians.

(1215) However, we also have low moments when answers do not correspond to the intelligent questions that are asked. That is why we are offering the motion today. We want to make question period a question and answer period so that all Canadians can benefit from transparent, thoughtful answers to thoughtful questions asked in the House. We hope we get the support of every member of the House. Mr. Bob Dechert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech quite intently and I have read the motion, but it seems rather one-sided to me.

It does not say anything about questions from the opposition member or any member during question period. It only talks about responses. It seems to me that we have all seen lots of irrelevance here on both sides. We will often see the same question asked six or more times by members of the opposition. They continually read the same talking point over and over again. I wonder why the member chose not to include questions and responses in the motion in terms of relevance. Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Speaker, it is because you, as Speaker, already enforce the rule of relevance on questions.

The member has been in the House long enough to understand that. The first day I stood as opposition House leader there were a couple of our questions that the Speaker chose to disqualify. We certainly raised them in points of order afterward, but the Speaker already has that power. This is what is completely dysfunctional. The questions are thoughtful.

They have to be relevant, have to be pertinent, but as we heard from some columnists as far as some answers are concerned, I am quoting Michael Den Tandt who said, with the reasoning of last week: ...it now becomes acceptable for a government MP to say anything at all in Question Period. [A member from the government] could, when confronted with an opposition question, begin chanting in ancient Greek. He could speak in Sanskrit, or in tongues; he could say “Lalalalalalalala” while plugging his ears, the way kids do. He could read his grocery list.

He could recite the ageless “To be or not to be” soliloquy from Hamlet. He could do anything he wants. That is disrespectful. That is why we want to have intelligent answers to intelligent questions. That is all we are— The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : Questions and comments, the hon. member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor. Mr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I promise I will not put forth any soliloquy for the member to mull over, but I do respect his speech. I think there were a lot of pertinent points.

Good research being the exclusive domain of the NDP, however, I take issue with. Nonetheless, I do appreciate his speech. We both were elected in 2004. I will launch into some of the main points he talked about in my own speech, but I have a quick question concerning what we regularly call S.O. 31s, or members' statements. Does he not feel also that members' statements, which take place only 15 minutes of the day, also constitute what I consider is an egregious error in the House by making them partisan attacks? Mr. Peter Julian : Mr.

Speaker, I congratulate the member on our 10th anniversary of the class of 2004. I believe the Speaker has dealt with these issues in the past. We have had a number of points of order around members' declarations. What the member states is true, about it being too partisan. There has been some improvement in that. There is still a ways to go. The biggest hole right now in our Standing Orders is the hole that says it does not matter what the answer is. The question has to be relevant. Debate has to be relevant. Even members' statements have to be relevant, but an answer can be whatever it wants.

That is why we are offering what is a modest contribution. It is only half of a line, but it gives the Speaker the power to say: that is not a relevant answer, that is repetition. That will improve the aura of this place, improve the tone of debate, and it will improve above all the transparency of the government. It is a modest contribution that will make things work better here in Ottawa. That is what we are all about. (1220) [ Translation ] Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, the member across the way, the Conservative member, said that the same question was sometimes asked six times in a row. [ English ] Is it because the government is not answering the question? [ Translation ] Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Speaker, the fact is that we never ask exactly the same question. I should point out that we noticed the exact same intervention three times last week. If the member opposite were to listen closely, he would see that questions about complex and complicated issues might be asked from several different angles.

As the official opposition, our role is precisely to ask questions like that to get an answer. After the next election, when the Conservative Party falls to third place and the NDP is in government answering intelligent questions, I hope that the Conservatives will ask intelligent questions. It would be so nice to have that kind of exchange between two parties in the House. Ms. Alexandrine Latendresse (Louis-Saint-Laurent, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for allowing me to participate in this debate.

In my opinion, the motion moved is extremely important if we want to give Canadians some hope and restore their confidence in our democratic system, especially during question period. We have decided to use our opposition day to discuss one of my favourite subjects, that is the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. I am very pleased to be a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which gives me the opportunity to study the Standing Orders in more depth. Ultimately, the Standing Orders of the House of Commons are the foundation of democracy and Parliament.

In my opinion, it is important to be able to make changes directly, that is in the Standing Orders, so that we can improve the system. Our current goal is to give the Speaker the authority to apply the relevance rules to oral question period. As my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster just explained, this rule already exists and applies primarily to debates in the House of Commons. For example, if I am supposed o debate a bill and I start talking abut whales in the Great Lakes, the Speaker has the right and the power to call me to order by stating that my comments are not related to the matter at hand.

What an MP talks about must be relevant to the subject being debated. No one questions the authority of the Speaker to call to order a member who is speaking about something completely different, because this is a simple and basic principle. The rule applies to debates in the House and committee meetings. The chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs does an excellent job. I have seen him call to order MPs from all parties many times when their speeches were not really pertinent. This is not about partisanship.

When an MP gives a speech that is not relevant or that is repetitive, the committee chair has the authority to call him or her to order so that they focus on the subject at hand. Given that the Speaker of the House of Commons represents the entire democratic institution of Parliament, it is really important that he or she be able to apply the rule during question period. We all know what prompted today's debate. Basically, it comes as a result of an exchange that we all witnessed last week.

Indeed, last Tuesday, the Leader of the Opposition asked some very specific questions about precise aspects of Canada's military involvement in Iraq. One of the responses was not even a semblance of an attempt to answer the question. There was not even any suggestion in the response that the parliamentary secretary had any desire to answer the question. In the end, the answer given was completely absurd and had nothing to do with the question. At that moment, for many Canadians, political commentators and people who follow Canadian politics, this crossed the line.

For me personally, I think it is important to draw a very clear line. Of course, we know that the government's responses will not always be what the opposition wants to hear. The role of the opposition is to question the government and hold it to account. We will not always be satisfied with the answers we get, but there needs to be a limit. When it comes to relevance there must be a line we cannot cross if we do not want Canadians to start thinking there is no point in following Canadian politics because what we do here is nothing but a ridiculous spectacle.

I think the motion simply aims to draw a clear line to say that if the absurdity and irrelevance go too far, it will be up to the Speaker, the keeper of our democracy, to call the member to order. That is what happens when the person speaking does not stay on topic during debates in the House, during committee meetings and within other current institutions.

(1225) Members must be called to order when what they are saying does not even come close to an answer. Government members must provide relevant answers. We are not asking that they provide answers that satisfy the opposition, but they have to respond to the question that has been asked. This seems so simple to me that I have to wonder why we need to spend a whole day debating this issue. It is really too bad that it has come to this. As a young woman who has been participating in the debates in the House since being elected in 2011, I must admit that it is sometimes very difficult to attend question period.

I am not an aggressive person and I do not like to yell. When I realized that I was in the House of Commons to work with all of my elected colleagues in deciding the future of our country and then I saw people yelling at each other like second-grade children, it was a rude awakening. I think that there are many other steps we need to take before we have a more respectful parliament. In this regard, it would not be a bad thing if we were able to make some improvements to question period today.

There are many very interesting people who would do a great job in Parliament but who may have decided not to get involved when they saw the tone of question period, the insults being hurled and the yelling that goes on. As my colleague pointed out, this could also completely discourage some people from participating in democracy in the simplest way possible, namely by voting. By making this small change today, we could show Canadians that we want to improve our system. This is not the first time that the NDP has moved motions or proposed small but effective solutions or changes.

Two years ago, on an opposition day, I participated in a fairly similar debate on closure motions, since the government was breaking records in the use of this measure. It was a similar discussion because we wanted to give the power to the Speaker. We are not saying that closure motions are always a bad thing. We understand that there may be urgent reasons that would justify their use. However, why not give our Speaker that power, since he is the keeper of the House?

Then, since he would be the one responsible for assessing the situation, he could decide on the relevance of the reasons given to justify the use of a closure motion. He could refuse, on the basis that the reasons were insufficient or that too many members wanted to speak, for example. This is the only place where members can debate bills, and it is our duty to do so. We thought this excellent suggestion could be useful, but it was not passed. We made several other suggestions. For example, we suggested that omnibus bills be prohibited.

They make no sense, because they sometimes amend 100 different acts in one fell swoop. This does not help Canadians regain their trust in and their respect for our democracy, which we have been losing in recent years. We could also change the rules with respect to prorogation. It is the same principle. We could reform so many aspects of our parliamentary system to greatly improve our debates, to help us do our jobs and to help us better represent our ridings without the side show that is question period, during which members yell at each other without giving any kind of answer.

(1230) If I rose in the House today and started talking about any old thing in my speech, it would be in your power, Mr. Speaker, to stop me. I simply think it makes sense to apply this rule to question period. I sincerely hope that we will have the support of all members for this motion. [ English ] Mr. Mike Wallace (Burlington, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to follow-up. As chair of a committee, we have orders of the day. We know exactly what is going to be discussed. In the House of Commons, we have orders of the day. It is in writing, what is going to be discussed.

It makes sense that the Speaker, or the chair, is able to rule someone out of order if they are not relevant to what is listed. Is the member advocating, based on that logic, that all questions to the cabinet and the Prime Minister would be in writing, 24 hours in advance, so that answers can be prepared? People need to know that there is about 30 seconds to ask a question and about 35 seconds to respond. I think this place would operate better if everything was in writing. Speakers could then, in my view, rule whether an answer was relevant or not, if the questions were given in advance.

Is the NDP advocating for questions to be given in advance? [ Translation ] Ms. Alexandrine Latendresse : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Burlington for his question. I think that it is quite clear, as my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster explained earlier, that currently, if questions are not relevant, for example, if a member asks a question about the status of the whales in the Great Lakes, which has nothing to do with the government, the Speaker has the right to stop that member. During oral question period, the Speaker has the right to cut off a question that is not relevant.

I therefore do not see why we would have to provide our questions in advance to be sure that the government is able to answer them. I would add that we already have a system for written questions in our Parliament. This has been heavily criticized in recent years because even when there are written questions we do not manage to get answers that make any sense. Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I absolutely agree with today's motion.

I want to thank the official opposition for giving us the opportunity to talk about something so vital to respect for Parliament. It is clear that the goal of having a respectful Parliament, as my colleague mentioned, is important. In the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, there is a

section on oral questions. Standing Order 37(1) states: Questions on matters of urgency may, at the time specified in Standing Order 30(5), be addressed orally to Ministers of the Crown, provided however that, if in the opinion of the Speaker a question is not urgent, he or she may direct that it be placed on the Order Paper . I mention that because I think that ties in with the power that the Speaker currently has and does not traditionally or habitually use. The Speaker has the power to stop questions; why not answers as well?

(1235) Ms. Alexandrine Latendresse : Mr. Speaker, I would like to sincerely thank the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands . She has been advocating for a more civil Parliament from day one. I am very pleased to have her support today. She got to the heart of the problem. We are aware that many of the Standing Orders are not always enforced by the Speaker at this time. We understand that, and we clearly understood the Speaker's response last week.

That is precisely why today we want to ask that this rule, which already exists, be enforced so that it does not become one of the many rules not really enforced by the Speaker. We do not want people to be able to continue answering when they have clearly crossed the threshold of absurdity. Responses need to be more tangible and concrete. [ English ] Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, today's debate is on the opposition motion, sponsored by my NDP counterpart, the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster .

He suggests that the House change Standing Order 11(2) in respect to responses given to oral questions. That is not in respect to questions, merely in respect to responses. Question period is fundamental to our system of parliamentary government. It is democracy in action. Canada's approach to the parliamentary questioning of the government makes the House of Commons a leader in the world for accountability. Simply put, there is no similar forum in the world as openly accountable as Canada's question period.

Every single day, when the House of Commons sits, the prime minister and ministers are held to account for their policies, the decisions that they make and the actions of their departments. For 45 minutes, the opposition can ask any question on any subject, without any forewarning, without any notice at all. Question period is also a key forum for providing members of Parliament and the public with information about the government's plans and priorities. That is unlike, for example, in the U.K., a country that has played a fundamental role in our own country's parliamentary evolution.

Here, ministers are not given the benefit of a formal prior notice of the questions they may be asked. I know perhaps once a week a minister might get a warning from a member opposite, but the norm is no notice at all. Instead, ministers must come to question period every day prepared only with the sound knowledge of all the workings and policies of the departments for which they are responsible, ready to answer any and all questions, those foreseen and those unexpected. The very nature of Canada's question period ensures that the debates are always topical and relevant.

We have even seen an issue arise outside the House during question period and asked at that very moment. In the United Kingdom, for example, it is different. In Britain, members of parliament often have to give up to two weeks' written notice of the question they plan to ask a minister in question time. In the U.K., each sitting day, but never Fridays, as we have here on Fridays, only some ministers are scheduled to answer questions. This, of course, significantly limits the range of subjects on which questions can be asked on any given day to just a minority of the full range of government responsibilities.

The prime minister answers questions only one day each week and most other ministers even less frequently. The minister then arrives in the chamber of the House of Commons in the U.K. supplied with a prepared answer to a question that is often outdated. Supplementaries must be tightly relevant to the question put on notice. [ Translation ] In Canada, however, questions cover a broad range of subjects and departments, every day, without warning. The Prime Minister and ministers must be ready.

The issues of concern to Canadians change quickly, and the questions put to the Prime Minister and cabinet members change just as quickly. [ English ] Furthermore, if a member is not satisfied with the answer to an oral question, he or she can pursue the question at greater length during the adjournment proceedings, which we all affectionately call the “late show”.

I have yet to have anyone point to any country with as much accountability as our question period here in Canada. [ Translation ] Our neighbours to the south have no question period that allows legislators to hold the president and his cabinet accountable. There is no forum to hold the administration and Congress directly accountable. (1240) [ English ] In the United States, there is no process at all like our question period, at any time, for the president and his cabinet to be held accountable by legislators. I next want to turn to the actual wording of the motion before us.

It states: That Standing Order 11(2) be replaced with the following: The Speaker or the Chair of Committees of the Whole, after having called the attention of the House, or of the Committee, to the conduct of a Member who persists in irrelevance, or repetition, including during responses to oral questions, may direct the Member to discontinue his or her intervention.... This change, as I pointed out, would affect responses to oral questions but it would not touch the actual questions. This is yet another greatly cynical, one-sided proposal for the NDP.

It wants to improve Parliament insofar as it helps the NDP, but not insofar as it would help the government, for example, to have more information on which to provide those answers. “Do as I say not as I do” has been the watchword for the New Democrats throughout this Parliament and here it makes yet another appearance. Apparently, they do not want to be subject to the same rules that they want to see applied to others. The Leader of the Opposition would prefer to make question period a one-way street.

He wants the rules changed to keep him from facing any tough questions or cold facts in the House about his own party's operations or policies. In reality, he wants to avoid facing any basic facts in the House, since he wants to ban repetition of answers. The facts will not change simply because an individual asks the same question over and over again. If people watching this debate think that what is proposed is a simple fix, well, it is not. Let me quote a distinguished former speaker, Speaker Milliken, the individual who had the longest tenure in that big chair you are sitting on, Mr. Speaker.

On enforcing the concept that the NDP is proposing, Mr. Milliken told the Ottawa Citizen : There’s nothing a speaker can do about that. ...what constitutes an answer? There’d be constant argument about it. In fact, there would be points of order raised interminably at the end of every question period.

There has been a lot of recent commentary related to what the change is, and I will come back to the substance of today's motion in a bit, but why the change is being proposed is somewhat obscured by a recent event. [ Translation ] What people really need to understand about the NDP leader's motion is that it is an oversensitive reaction to efforts to hold the New Democratic Party and the Leader of the Opposition accountable on certain issues.

The Leader of the Opposition wants the rules changed so that he will not have to answer hard questions or have the whole truth be known here in the House of Commons. [ English ] The Leader of the Opposition does not want to answer for the NDP misuse of House resources on inappropriate mail-outs. The Leader of the Opposition does not want to answer for the NDP inappropriate use of taxpayers' dollars in setting up unauthorized satellite offices, which, curiously enough, just happened to be at the same place that partisan NDP work was taking place.

New Democrats have been caught breaking the rules and abusing taxpayers' dollars, but most regrettably, they do not want to be held to account or for anyone to be even reminded of it, all of which is witnessed— Mr. David Christopherson: You're the government. An hon. member: Maybe you should keep your voice down. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : Order, please. The hon. government House leader has the floor.

Members will know, and one member has recognized, that other members are to listen to the presentation that is before the House, or if they have other commentary with their colleagues, they may wish to take that to the respective lobbies. Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Outremont also must not want to be reminded that for almost two decades, he kept knowledge of bribe attempts to himself. The Leader of the Opposition does not want to explain to Canadians his risky high-tax schemes, like his $21-billion carbon tax that would hurt Canada's economy and kill Canadian jobs.

Maybe it is that he does not want anyone to know about his employment insurance plan that would cost Canadians nearly $8 billion, or a 30% hike in EI premiums paid by hard-working Canadians. However, I am not alone in being struck by this stark contrast between what the New Democrats proposed and how they actually behave. Let me quote from Martin Patriquin, of Maclean's magazine, from his appearance on CBC on Friday afternoon. He said that the Leader of the Opposition “...knows very well [that] being disingenuous in the House and deflecting questions.

The guy practically invented it when he worked here in Quebec...it is an interesting switch of roles”. That is the take of a seasoned political observer in Quebec, where the hon. member for Outremont served in the legislature for over a decade. Today we are going to hear a lot said by the New Democrats that everyone should be supporting this motion today because of the apology tendered in the House on Friday by my hon. friend, the member for Oak Ridges—Markham . However, that is one apology more than we have ever gotten from the leader of the NDP.

We have yet to have an apology for the NDP's use of House resources for its mailings. What is more, we have likewise yet to have an apology for the NDP's use of House resources for satellite offices. It is interesting that in the discussion of those resources, we have had efforts by the NDP to pin it on the Clerk of the House of Commons and House staff. There was no apology after that. There were other occasions. I remember when the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margaret's was the subject of a bit of an episode with the member for Outremont . There was no “I am sorry” back then, none at all.

In fact, in the incident we are talking about right now, the member for Outremont, in this House, in that very same question period, said that the Speaker was biased, which is highly inappropriate and highly inaccurate. Do we see any apology for that now? Up to this point, there has been no apology whatsoever. In fact, I can look to an exchange of my own. When I came across the House and we exchanged words, using somewhat inappropriate language, I apologized to this House for that inappropriate language. I invited my friend to apologize for having used the exact same inappropriate parliamentary words.

Did any apology ever come? No. It is not surprising. It is a two-way street. In fact, seized with his own hyperbole, the member called the finance minister a racist this past spring. There was no apology for that. Meanwhile, his fellow Quebec provincial politician, Yves Duhaime, was on the receiving end of some defamatory comments by the Leader of the Opposition , then an opposition MNA, including some startling four-letter names, which I could never repeat in this chamber. Mr. Duhaime had to take his grievances to trial in the Superior Court of Quebec for vindication through judgment and some $95,000 in damages.

The only way he will ever apologize for anything he does that is inappropriate is if one actually gets him in front of a judge and gets the judge to referee it and settle the dispute. I hope that perhaps sometime today we will get that apology to the Speaker for the inappropriate comments the Leader of the Opposition made about him last Tuesday. That is not the first time he has shown a distrust of an institution that does not do as he pleases. In April 2013, the Leader of the Opposition slammed the Supreme Court of Canada, the highest court in the land.

Back then, he said: The Supreme Court has already indicated they are going to carry out their own probe, but it's a little bit like when a complaint is made against a professional's conduct. You can't have the professional investigate themselves. With the conclusion in hand, he was not deterred from impugning motives when he said: You won't find something you don't ask for.... It's a clear indication that the Supreme Court had no intention all along of ever dealing with this issue seriously. Is this an insight into how the New Democrats would govern?

If the Leader of the Opposition is trying to change the rules to protect himself from hearing critical questions and uncomfortable facts in opposition, we can imagine what he would do to change the rules to protect himself if he were in government. In fact, Mr. Milliken, whom I quoted earlier, told the Ottawa Citizen that he was “surprised” that the Leader of the Opposition would be raising this topic.

(1245) To wrap up, the motion put forward by the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster is flawed. It is based on motivations one is bound to question, and it is just the latest example of the “do as I say not as I do” approach of the New Democratic Party. In closing, I move: Motion That this question be now put.

(1250) Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, for anyone who thought, with the outrage that came back from Canadians from coast to coast to coast after the profound disrespect by the Conservative government in the House of Commons, or after the apology on Friday, or after the government actually was trying to answer questions in the House, that this government was actually turning over a new leaf, I think any thought of that nature has now been exposed as just idle thinking. Obviously, the Conservative government does not intend to, in any way, be respectful to the Canadian population.

The Conservatives do not intend to actually respond to what Canadians want to see, which is thoughtful questions, of course, and occasionally answers that are actually relevant to the questions that are asked. There is so much wrong with what the government House leader just said, I do not know where start. He has been the government House leader for a long time. The pretense that somehow relevance does not apply to questions is absolutely absurd, and quite frankly, he should be ashamed of himself for even saying that in the House.

He knows that questions are routinely ruled out of order by the Speaker because they are not relevant to public administration. Putting that aside, which was the only reason he really gave for opposing this motion, what the government House leader has just said is that the Conservative government is doubling down. We will have even more absurd and irrelevant answers in the weeks to come. Government members should be ashamed of themselves. Will the government House leader now confirm that the Conservatives will now double down and be even more disrespectful to Canadians in question periods to come? Hon.

Peter Van Loan : Mr. Speaker, we will continue to come to this House of Commons, which has the firmest, and as I indicated, the strongest accountability mechanism of any legislature in the world, to answer questions every day without notice. We will do so in a respectful fashion as fully as we can, more respectful, I might add, than some of the questions we hear from the opposition. I think of questions occasionally from the member for Timmins—James Bay or his seatmate, who often in their questions seem to have

preambles that are not government business but rather are lengthy strings of perhaps ad hominem attacks, personal attacks, or smears. That is not our approach. We will not be doing that. We will be answering questions, and we will also be putting policy debates to this House. This is where policy debates should occur. This is where differences in perspectives should occur, and just because one does not like it when we answer with a policy perspective in a policy debate, it should not mean that one can shut down the possibility of doing that, which is what the opposition would like. Mr.

Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, my question pertains to the debate itself. I will leave the other comments about the question being put. The hon. House leader mentioned in the beginning of his speech, and it was also mentioned by the member for Burlington , the concept of supplying the question before the question is to be answered, which is a practice in other Westminster jurisdictions. At what point did the Conservatives advocate that when they were in opposition? Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr.

Speaker, I should make it quite clear that I am not advocating that as an approach here. I think our forum for accountability is good. However, in answering, evaluating, and debating, we should realize where we sit on the ladder of accountability compared with other jurisdictions and do not require this. It would add a different measure. Everyone should understand clearly that when they are hearing questions being asked in the U.K. parliament and seeing them on television, in most cases, those members have notice in advance. In fact, the current Speaker in Britain, Mr.

Bercow, who has attracted a lot of controversy, was asked what his greatest change was in increasing accountability in Parliament. He said that it was the restoration of something called the “urgent question” whereby a member can write a letter to the Speaker that morning to say that a new subject has just broken and the member would like permission to ask a question on that urgent subject that day. The Speaker then decides if it is appropriate and gives notice to whoever the minister is for the subject of the question to be raised to please come to the House to answer questions on it.

That notice, on the same day, of the questions that are going to be asked is regarded as a radical approach and a step toward accountability in the U.K. Here we have it on every subject, on every issue, every day. We come here and do not know what we are going to face, and we have to get up and answer. We have to know our facts and be prepared to deal with any question—

(1255) The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : Questions and comments, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I do not think I am alone in feeling a fair degree of shock in the approach taken by the hon. government House leader in his response to an opposition day motion. I am afraid, as much as I could agree with him about partisanship on the part of the official opposition on many matters, that I do not see that as the primary motive here.

Turning the response to a suggestion about how we govern ourselves in question period to produce more respect in the House by once again using it as a partisan platform to attack the official opposition was disappointing. I had expected more, not moving that the question now be put to further reduce our opportunities to discuss this critical matter, taken in the interest of Canadians, in a non-partisan way. I do not include all the other backbenchers, because, as the hon. member for Edmonton—St.

Albert has pointed out in his new book and as I point out in my book, this place is about holding the Privy Council, the executive, to account. That is responsible government. What we have is really bad high school theatre masquerading as Parliament. To put an end to that, we should hold ourselves to account and not heckle. We should hold ourselves to account and ask respectful questions, and we should hold the executive to account by expecting responsible, respectful, factual answers.

That is not too much to hope for, but the government House leader has once again shown that his party wants to keep us in the gutter. Hon. Peter Van Loan : On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, I would say that in the time I have been in the House, the one thing I have noticed most of all is that the tone of question period is set by the questions. Almost always, the tone of question period is set by the questions. I know certainly that when I have answered them, I have always answered in kind to the tone of the question that was asked.

That is something all should reflect on when there is a motion before the House that is very one-sided and only seeks to affect what the government can do. I will provide an example. Suppose there was a question, as we have had, on the government's policy on its recent EI job credit. It is a legitimate question to debate the alternatives. Is the opposition now saying suddenly that the government should not in response compare our policy with the policy, practice, or record of another party and what it did on the same issue in government? Is it saying that this kind of debate is no longer to be allowed?

That is what this would do. They are saying that question period is only there for the government to lie prone while opposition members jump at the gun and beat it. Government would no longer be allowed to respond with the record, statements, or positions of the other side. In fact, debate would no longer be debate. Debate would merely be an attack by the opposition, with no opportunity for the government to respond with comparisons of policies, track records, or approaches.

Then we will be spending every day after question period with lengthy points of order debating whether what I said was responsive or was debate on something else to do with their separate policy on the same file and whether it was on topic or not on topic. We could see that this place would grind to a halt. Debate should be debate. It should be free-ranging. People should be able to have an exchange of views and not a one-sided exchange. [ Translation ] Ms. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to know whether the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons understands that we are talking about the relevance of answers to questions in terms of the subject that was being discussed. We are not talking about the quality of the answer. If I ask a question about X, the minister, the Prime Minister or the leader can certainly stand up and thank me for my interest in the subject and say that, unfortunately, he does not have the information with him to answer me, but that he would be pleased to provide it, or he could invite me to meet with him to talk about it.

That would be enough for the Speaker to consider the answer to be relevant. We are not talking about submitting written questions in advance; we are just talking about relevance. If I ask about potatoes, the answer should be about potatoes. If I ask about bananas, the answer should be about bananas. It is as simple as that. As to the quality of the answer, the Speaker would intervene only if it were off topic and way out in left field. That is what we are talking about, not the quality of the content. The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons seems to have taken this in another direction entirely.

We are just talking about the relevance of the answer to the question that was asked. (1300) [ English ] Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr. Speaker, I will use a simple example to illustrate the problem posed in this change of rules. If the opposition were to ask a question about supply management and free trade, under its rules, we would be barred from saying that the NDP has a history of opposing free trade agreements, as we saw with NAFTA. Of course, the question was not about NAFTA; it was about supply management.

They are going to say that is unreasonable, but then they are going to get up and argue it on a point of order in front of the Speaker, or we are going to argue it on a point of order in front of the Speaker, and so it will go with every question. What they want is an environment that is very simple: they would get to ask whatever question they want on any subject without notice, and we would be forced to play in that very narrow kind of arena. We cannot talk about their past history on the same kinds of subjects, similar issues in the past, because they are not asking about the past; they are asking about today.

We cannot ask about their track record. If they want to ask questions about ethics, we cannot point out their hypocrisy; that would be inappropriate, but guess what? They do not want question period to be about debate. They want it to be about a one-sided free hand to punch the government while the government has its hands tied behind its back. Mr. David Christopherson : That's what question period is. Hon. Peter Van Loan : That is not what it should be. It should allow for a free and frank exchange. I heard him say that's what he said it should be. Mr. David Christopherson : It is. Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr.

Speaker, my friend from Hamilton thinks it should be a one-sided pummelling with the government with its hands tied behind its back. That is not what it should be. It should allow for a reasonable dialogue and exchange of views. Mr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise in the House and debate this motion for several reasons. I have been here since 2004 and I have heard the debate go back and forth. I have also sat through question period in all its grandeur and not so much grandeur.

I have said before and I will say it again that I have always considered question period to be one of the most expensive dinner theatres ever run in this country. An hon. member: Bad dinner theatre. Mr. Scott Simms: Mr. Speaker, is bad dinner theatre at the best of times, but I cannot say that without taking some of the responsibility. Having been here for 10 years I have asked a few questions myself, theatrics included in some cases. I have even gone to members on the other side to let them know what it is I am going to ask. I did that because it allowed them time to prepare an answer to give me.

These were specific questions about things which the minister might not have been briefed upon. I was never compelled to do that and the other side was never compelled to give me a straightforward answer. In turn, we were never compelled to ask something specific to a specific minister. Even when we did at times go after a specific minister, another minister would pop up in place of the other minister. We would ask one minister and another minister would respond. It was like a constant game of whack-a-mole that just never ended.

One of the reasons we do that and continue to get away with it is that nothing has really been codified. For the most part, after looking at the research that we have done, most of it is simply by convention, by practices of the past. Past Speakers have made rulings as to how they thought question period should be handled, and by extension, other parts of debate which do not have relevance. Let us take ourselves out of question period and talk about orders of the day, private members' business and so on, but especially orders of the day when we are arguing government bills.

The Conservatives more often than not rise on a point of order to complain about the relevance of a particular speech being given by the Liberals, the NDP, or even the Green Party for that matter. I find it ironic that we find ourselves in the situation where relevance is not accepted as the norm in the House by the government when it complains so much that relevance does matter. The convention that I spoke of earlier was laid down by Speaker Bosley, Speaker Jerome and Speaker Milliken.

I will get to some of those in a few moments, but there is one Speaker I want to quote from primarily and that is Speaker Jerome. In addition to making some of these rulings back in the mid-1970s, he also wrote a book. Chronologically, it was in 1964 when there was actual codification about how question period should operate. O'Brien and Bosc's House of Commons Procedure and Practice outlines how the evolution of question period came about. We now have television and the press gallery, which has been around for quite some time. Question period talks about the relevant issues of the day.

That is why it gets most of the attention. People go to school or work in the morning and they read the headlines, and the headlines invariably show up in question period as pertaining to government administration. Rules have been put forth by Speakers indicating how we have to operate when it comes to question period. Most have to do with relevance, is it an issue of government administration or not. Peter Milliken talked about that earlier in his book of decisions, but I will get to that in a moment.

(1305) I want to quote Speaker Jerome, who made a statement in the House affecting the conduct of question period. He established that asking oral questions is “a right, not a privilege, of the members”. He established several things by going back to previous decisions. He talked about how, if we look at it, there are not a lot of rules. As far as timing goes, we ask a question that is 30 seconds long, and the answer is 35 seconds. The only rule laid out in the House about how that operates is not the amount of seconds for a question, but the fact that there is a 45-minute block in and around the proceedings.

We look at that, and Speakers have judged accordingly on issues that come up in the House and whether they have relevance or not as pertaining to the question, but not pertaining to the answer. Speaker Milliken famously said that it is question period, not answer period. I wrote down some of the ground rules that were put down. Speaker Bosley, in 1986, also quoted Speaker Jerome in many instances.

Here are some of the issues that he put out there as to how we should behave in question period: “ask a question; be brief; seek information; ask a question that is within the administrative responsibility of the government”, which is mostly when the Speaker intervenes about a particular question and whether it has relevance. At that point the Speaker usually goes on to the next questioner without the minister's or parliamentary secretary's response. A question should not seek an opinion, legal or otherwise. Speaker Bosley also pointed out that maybe it should be hypothetical.

God knows that when we get 35 seconds to speak, we tend to use it in the

preamble leading up to the question that we want to ask, and which we want voters to hear. A question should not seek information that is secretive in its nature, such as cabinet proceedings or advice given to the crown by law officers. We stay away from that as well. A question should not refer to proceedings in the Senate. We do not get into that. We do not refer to the Governor General. These are the factors that really encapsulate the spirit of what question period is supposed to be, despite the lack of rules around it.

What we are doing here today with Standing Order 11(2) is we are trying to codify some of the behaviour. Therein is a fundamental shift. The House leader for the New Democrats talked about it being a small change. I am not sure if I totally agree with that. What we would do here is codify within the Standing Orders how we should behave in question period and what that answer should entail. It would do two things. It would codify behaviour and it would bring answers into the point of question period.

We use examples from the United Kingdom, as well as other jurisdictions, such as Australia, which have similar Westminster systems. However, in every case, if they act differently than we do, it is primarily because of the Speakers themselves. The Speaker has been the one proactive in saying, “I am sorry, but according to convention, members should not behave that way”. Even if it does not pertain to convention or past practices, maybe we should start curbing our behaviour in certain matters. Being more proactive in the role of the Speaker has been the modus operandi of change regarding question period.

It has also been argued that television has contributed to less than positive developments within the House. Of course, CPAC and the general media have access to what we are doing here in the House. We see the cameras here. They are on all the time when we are in session, and of course, the theatrics start to take over. This is where, as I have said before, we have now become the most expensive dinner theatre in the country, and not necessarily good theatre either, but that is a personal performance issue.

If we want to ask a question that pertains to our constituents, we should ask it regardless of codifying rules or convention that has been practised in the past. The answers should also be as respectful as the question which came in, but that is sorely lacking right now. This was evidenced last week, a few weeks ago, and even into the spring through some of the activities of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister , notwithstanding his apology.

(1310) I thought the apology he brought forward in this House was a sincere one. The fact that he was not sticking to the subject caused him a lot of stress. I will leave it at that, because I do not want to speak on his behalf. The member has a seat here, and he can do so himself. The lesson here is that it is okay for members to think outside of the box, but I do not think it is okay to think outside of the warehouse. The reason is that in doing so, we completely wipe out any proactive measure in this House that allows the House to be accountable. Imagine the concept of being accountable.

Therein lies the reason we are debating this issue today. This is why I will be voting for this motion, because it is a step in the right direction, one that is proactive and that could be worked upon. If it is a small measure, as the New Democrats say, then so be it; however, we are going in the right direction. That is why I have also talked about Standing Order 31, statements in the House. Personally, I think statements by members should be just that. If a prominent person in a member's riding has passed away, it deserves a mention in the House.

If someone is having an anniversary, it deserves a mention in the House. As far as I am concerned, everybody in my riding should be mentioned in this House. I understand time is of the essence, but, my goodness, that would be a great thing to do. Instead, the statements have become these 30-second negative ads toward the other party. I have said many times that when many of the Conservative members read their S. O. 31s, they leave out one very important point at the end, which says, “I am the Prime Minister and I approve this ad.” That is the only thing that is missing.

Let us not lose sight of the fact that we are all in this together. If the behaviour from the other side is something that a member is not impressed with, then, my God, it is about time we started practising what we preach. That is for all of us to do. Earlier this spring we talked about expenses and transparency. The Liberal Party decided to be proactive and not to wait for something to come toward us that would force us into a corner. We knew it was right and we did it, and now everybody is doing it—at least, I think so. Well, we are almost there.

Nonetheless, behaviour has a way of trending and has a way of influencing others to behave in the best way and, dare I say it, in a manner that is accountable to the average Canadian, as this House was meant to be. I have referred to Speaker Jerome and Speaker Bosley. Now I would like to turn to Speaker Milliken . There are no restraints on content, which is what Speaker Milliken talked about. He is right in that sense. I could get up right now and talk about muppets, puppets, and other things with no relevance whatsoever to what is happening in the country, unless one is into puppets.

We expect the government to answer about relevant situations, but not about the exact issue that I bring up if it is not relevant to the debate in this country. This is where I say we have to practise what we preach. I like to think that many of us do. I do not want to accuse any member in particular, or any party in particular, of taking the rules and stretching them to absolute absurdity. I have seen that in this House, and practised by all. Unfortunately, I have seen it practised by the government recently to a point where it is almost as though the government thinks nobody is watching.

I like to think people are, whether it is here or on camera. I mentioned Standing Order 31s being the same sort of thing, personal attacks. I want to quote Speaker Milliken in a decision on December 14, 2010, about an issue regarding personal attacks, as he said something rather pertinent: The proceedings of the House are based on a long-standing tradition of respect for the integrity of all Members. Thus, the use of offensive, provocative or threatening language in the House is strictly forbidden. Personal attacks, insults and obscenities are not in order. That pertained to personal attacks.

(1315) What this does, which is very important, is that it also extends that respect to other members, given the subject matter, given the fact that we have to respond in kind to the issue at hand. I believe some members in the official opposition brought this up earlier and jokingly said that if it is not an answer to my direct question, at least stay within the ballpark when it comes to the issue itself. The House leader brought up a situation with free trade, saying we did not support NAFTA, so what about this other free trade agreement, or supply management?

I may not like the answer, but at least it ties into the subject matter to the point where it is somewhat acceptable. What is not acceptable is what occurs when I have a grievance with the government. Let us remember that we have only 45 minutes of the day. When I have a grievance with the government and state what it is, the response is “No, I have a grievance with you.” The government responds that it has a grievance with the other party. There is no linkage to the issue that was brought up in the beginning, none whatsoever. We need to stay within the context of the House.

Otherwise, it is an absolute waste of money. It truly becomes the most expensive dinner theatre ever produced in this country, and as my hon. colleague from Ontario would say, it is not even good theatre. Those are personal attacks. This is from daily proceedings on March 27, 2001. We talked about what could be asked. The Speaker's response was: —In

summary, when recognized in Question Period, a Member should—ask a question that is within the administrative responsibility of the government or the individual Minister addressed. What this issue came from was the administrative responsibility of the government and questions ruled out of order because they were not directed toward that. The issue at the time was about taking trips abroad to further one's education as a member, which is fine; that is what we do here.

However, the trip was paid for by someone else externally, not the government, so therefore the Speaker ruled the question was not admissible because it was not related to the administration of the government. Oddly enough, the precursor to the Conservatives at the time, the Canadian Alliance party, argued that it was part of relevance because it was the behaviour of a particular person. Again, if the Conservatives felt that question period was a farce at the time, why practise now what they thought was totally wrong? Why would they now practise what they preached against?

Not that much time has passed in 14 years that we do not remember that some of the people who are currently in the House vehemently argued for relevance in question period of the day's happenings. Everything was talked about as the answer, yet it was not codified. I suspect if we do not do something soon, this dinner theatre will become the theatre of the absurd in the most profound way, and 45 minutes of the day will be completely and utterly wasted on the Canadian public that pays for this charade. However, I pledge to the House, like many others, that we need to practise what we preach.

It is time for us to look at question period and codify this. It is time for us to look at the decisions handed down by people such as Speaker Milliken, or Speaker Jerome in the 1970s, who wrote about this issue quite a bit. Speaker Bosley as well accentuated in a very profound manner what question period is and is not, in the spirit of allowing Canadians to see the House of Commons the way it should be: accountable and, for goodness' sake, effective.

(1320) Hon. Judy Sgro : Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order to address some comments I made in an

article published this morning. I am concerned that these comments may leave people with the impression that I was questioning the neutrality or the authority of the Speaker. I wish to assure the House that this was not my intention. Please accept my apologies, Mr. Speaker. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : I appreciate the clarification and the hon. member's bringing it to the House quickly. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst. Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I do not know if my colleague from Newfoundland and Labrador agrees with me that what the House leader of the Conservative Party was concerned the most with today is that he wants to be able to raise questions. If that is the case, he should switch over to the opposition, because as far as I am concerned, the mandate of Parliament is for the opposition. When I was visiting different parliaments in the world, they said that parliaments are for the opposition, because the government has the majority and the power. Parliament is there for debate and to ask questions of the government.

However, that is not what I heard from the leader of the government this morning. Rather, he is worried that he cannot ask questions of the opposition. In that case, he does not know his role. The government's role in a democracy is for the opposition to be able to question the government. That is what it is all about. It is a question period, and the answers come from the government. That is why the government is worried. It wants to play a political role in Parliament instead of answering questions from the opposition.

Does the member agree with me that the problem with the government today is that it wants to control everything? It does not like questions being raised. All Canadians know that. People are talking about it throughout Canada. Does he agree with me, yes or no? Mr. Scott Simms : Mr. Speaker, if I said no, the member would be shocked. Yes, I do agree with him, and on many levels.

The Speaker can challenge me as to whether this is relevant or not, but if I want to make a call to find out about a particular individual in my riding with respect to, for example, a fishing licence, I used to be able to call a mid-level bureaucrat and get answers right away. I am not talking about anything political; I just want the answers with respect to this constituent. I am that person's direct representative and I have the right to do so. However, the bureaucrat cannot answer the question because I have to call the minister's office for the sake of efficiency.

Quite frankly, I think what the Conservatives are trying to do is funnel the message toward them. I do not know if they want to find out what would be in question period the next day or whether I am trying score political points or so on. They can even listen to the conversation if they want, and they would know that my intentions are sincere. Coming back to the relevant matter, question period is about the opposition. It traditionally always has been and it always will be. Even when I first came in here as part of the government, there were a lot of questions that came up.

I was sitting on the government backbench. I did not like the questions, but I certainly liked and appreciated the fact that question period existed. Now it almost seems as though the fact that question period exists is sacrosanct to fundamental elements of democracy. Where does it go when we reach that low point?

(1325) Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member on his speech and his mention of theatre. As an amateur actor, he is absolutely right. Sometimes that is exactly what question period looks like. It is another way of getting messages across. The member has been here as long as I have, and on many days after question period, we see members who feel that they have been wronged during question period. They think that their point was not made in debate or that someone made a point about them that they did not think was fair.

They stand on a point of order, and the Speaker has to remind them that it is a matter of debate and not a point of order in order to correct the record. A problem I see with this change to the Standing Orders is that there would now be a direct standing order to stand on a point of order to say, “Mr. Speaker, sometime during period someone said something about me in a question that wasn't exactly what I'd like to hear and, as it is relevant, I would like to have it corrected.” It would go back and forth, and we would have a whole

section after question period that would be another level of theatre. Therefore, I ask the member this: does he truly believe that what he would like to see happen is that we codify the theatre after the theatre? Mr. Scott Simms : After all I have said, Mr. Speaker, that was a pretty relevant and direct question. I appreciate the hon. member for doing that. I share some of his concerns. I truly do. I speak honestly; I speak openly. I am sure that the frequency of points of order f