SoVote

Hon. Mark Holland (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/2/22 3:39:20 p.m.
Watch

moved: That this House take note of the Standing Orders and the procedure of the House and its committees.

19 words

Jun/2/22 3:39:20 p.m.
Watch

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded division, Government Orders will be extended by 11 minutes.

21 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/2/22 3:39:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I can honestly say that when I first came in this morning, this is what I had anticipated talking about. Every election cycle, members are afforded the opportunity to express some of their thoughts on what would make this chamber more functional. Ultimately, from my perspective as a parliamentarian first and foremost, I am very interested in the rules of the chamber and what takes place in our standing committees. Even toward the tail end of the debate we had prior to question period, it was noticed that a couple of members were already starting to talk about standing order changes, and I was quite pleased. A couple of the Conservative members talked about unanimous consent motions, and UC motions are a good place for me to start. What we have seen over the years is a growing attitude of acceptance in the sense that we bring something after question period and ask for unanimous consent. It was not that long ago, maybe a week or so, when I was provided a list of UC motion requests. There were five or six or seven UC motions that were going to be proposed. As a parliamentarian, I think it takes away from the process. We have to appreciate that a number of members, for example, will have the good fortune of having their names drawn to bring forward resolutions, bills or motions during the hour for Private Members' Business. We will often see heritage day designations or other important issues brought forward by a particular member. In many ways, I think unanimous consent motions can undermine the importance of Private Members' Business. In many cases, UC motions will ultimately be used at the last minute or because something occurred that morning: possibly a member saw something on a news flash that is brought to the chamber, with the thinking that no one could vote against it, and a UC motion is brought forward. For many members, it is somewhat of a disadvantage because they are not made aware of the content and no caucus discussions take place. When I have talked to members from different political entities in the chamber, there seems to be a general feeling that we need to change that standing order to better reflect what would be acceptable. I appreciated the statements earlier. The question that I had for members and that we have seen in recent weeks is to give a clear indication, whether that rule ultimately changes or not, to elevate or amplify the important role that speakers have with respect to unanimous consent motions. They have the authority to look at what is being proposed. In essence, if there is a feeling that it is not going to happen, that it is a last-minute thing or there have not been any real consultations, they can refer it back to the House indirectly or directly as opposed to entertaining the motion. I really believe it is one of the things that takes away from the individual member. Individual members have a responsibility to have at least a basic understanding of what is being asked of them. How can they have that understanding if it is brought up at the end of question period and they are expected to be quiet on it? I say that knowing that many members feel the same way I do on the issue. I see a thumbs-up and I appreciate that. When I think of rule changes and standing orders, I know a number of members who will follow me will share a personal feeling or thought in terms of how a rule could be changed that would be to the betterment of the chamber. I would really encourage members, not as a partisan but as someone who cares about how this chamber functions and how we can improve upon our rules. One of the things, for example, that I have always been an advocate for is the idea of a dual chamber, but my attitudes toward a dual chamber somewhat changed when I heard other members ask if we really wanted to have a second chamber. There is a main chamber and then a secondary chamber. All the good stuff happens in the main chamber and the other stuff happens in the new chamber: the other stuff as opposed to bad stuff. The point is that we would have a secondary chamber. Another idea came out of it. The idea was instead of having a dual chamber, why not designate Friday as a debate day? In that, members could take any item that they wanted that was in second reading, whether it was a private member's bill or a government piece of legislation, and notify the Speaker on the Wednesday prior to say they would like to speak to such-and-such a bill. That initiates Friday as being a debate day. There would be no need to have a dual chamber. There is only one chamber. We can talk about major changes to rules such as that, or we can talk about what I believe is a fairly straightforward rule change. How many inside this chamber would oppose the House looking at dress codes? I, for one, believe that a member should be able to wear anything he or she wants when making a member's statement, S. O. 31. If I want to come all dressed up in my Winnipeg Jets or my favourite football team uniform, without a jacket and without a tie, and be boastful so I can clip it and post it on Facebook as a big fan of my home team, I want to be able to do that. Some members are able to do that, but males cannot do that. There are some inequities within our dress code. Having it modernized or updated would be good. The real judges are the constituents we represent. I would like to think the prestige of the chamber would dictate that people would dress appropriately. That is one of the rules that is fairly widely accepted. Then we might have some Standing Order rules that are pretty much straightforward. Every day I stand and say, “Madam Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand”. If I do not get to reporting my questions in time, because of let us say a concurrence motion or some sort of delay, then a minister will have to stand. What about if it were closer to the top of the Order Paper, like tabling of documents? It is a pretty straightforward request. It does not take anything away from government or opposition. It just allows for something to get done. As to the idea of the Prime Minister's question period, I think there is a great deal of merit in it. Whether it is the Prime Minister or a premier, when I was sitting for many years in opposition, it was nice to know that there was a day designated when there was an opportunity we members were afforded. Today, I am in government. Who knows where I will be 10 years from now? I might not even be a parliamentarian. There is something to be said about asking a question directly to the premier or directly to the Prime Minister. I make reference to premiers because when I was in the Manitoba Legislature, when we did a major overhaul, we looked at what Ottawa was doing. Ottawa has an important role that goes beyond the rules of this chamber. I know that first-hand: Provinces will look at it. Maybe in a question, I will give a specific example of that. We have an important role, and hopefully we will be able to take advantage of it.

1299 words

All Topics

The Speaker

Jun/2/22 3:39:20 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to Standing Order 51(1), a motion that this House take note of the Standing Orders and the procedure of the House and its committees is now deemed to have been moved.

33 words

Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC)

Jun/2/22 3:49:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to perhaps suggest this to the member in talking about Private Members' Business. It is unfortunate that some members who have served in this House for perhaps a decade never get an opportunity to table a private member's bill and take it through the entire process. I will bring up the experience of the former interim leader of the Conservative Party, former minister Rona Ambrose, who was able to have her private member's bill passed by this House only at the very end of the last 18 months in her term. I wonder if the member will consider this idea. Would he approve of having twice the number of hours devoted to Private Members' Business and of changing Private Members' Business so that it is dealt with in the same manner as Government Orders, which means that a member will make a speech and then have a question-and-comment period every single time? It has happened in the past that deputy chairs while they are in the chair confuse what is going on, sometimes because the hours change very quickly. It would be a consistent way of always dealing with it. Right now, Private Members' Business is kind of dealt with as a very long 10-minute S. O. 31.

217 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/2/22 3:50:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think the member has raised an excellent point. The whole concept of debate on Fridays or of having Friday as a debate day would mean that I could choose any bill, whether government or Private Members' Business, and I could say to the Speaker on the Wednesday, “I would like to talk about private member's bill XYZ.” Then I can stand up in the same process, either with the 10-minute speech or the five-minute-question-and-answer period. The real issue for me, more than anything else, if I could leave a lasting impression, is that we have gone through this on a number of occasions, yet we have never really seen the rule change. What does it take for us to actually change the rules of the House of Commons? I want to keep a very open mind to this. I do not approach it from a government perspective; I want us to treat it from a parliamentarian perspective—

169 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/2/22 3:51:26 p.m.
Watch

We have to give opportunities for other questions.

8 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Jun/2/22 3:51:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think we have a number of rules to review today. I would like to ask my colleague from Winnipeg North about prorogation, a topic we have often talked about together, and about this amendment that could help prevent this tool from being misused. The 2020 prorogation had huge consequences. Some committees, which had been urgently recalled in the middle of a pandemic, were studying reports that ended up being wiped from the agenda when Parliament was prorogued. I experienced this at the Standing Committee on Status of Women. Petitions can also get lost, since the slate is wiped clean. Does my colleague think it is important to limit prorogation powers and to prevent governments, in particular minority ones, from abusing this power?

125 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/2/22 3:52:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think the most important thing I can see is that, as I indicated before, I am approaching this whole idea of changes to standing rules as a parliamentarian, first and foremost, as someone who has been in opposition for over 20 years and now as a member of the government. For me personally, I would like to say that everything is on the table. The idea is that we need to be able to come up with thoughts and ideas that will modernize our rules so that we can actually share them with other jurisdictions. I cannot emphasize how much potential Canada has, not only within our provinces but, I would suggest, around the world in terms of the leadership role that we can play in ensuring a better and healthier democracy. That is why I am committed to doing it, not as a Liberal member of Parliament but as a parliamentarian, first and foremost.

158 words

Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP)

Jun/2/22 3:53:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think it is incredibly important to always have these opportunities to talk about the Standing Orders, because they are the rules on how we guide ourselves in this place and how we are transparent in the process to Canadians. In my riding, I have definitely heard from a lot of Canadians who are feeling a lot of cynicism about our democratic process. They see these discussions and they do not feel it is meaningful debate. I am just wondering if the member could reflect on something I have reflected on. At the beginning of COVID, of course, we had a basic question period time in which a member had five minutes to have that debate back and forth. I found that under that system, there was actually meaningful discussion between the questioner and the minister. I am wondering if that is something we should explore instead of continuing with of the current process of question period, which is very adversarial.

163 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/2/22 3:54:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think that idea has a great deal of merit. I witnessed it first-hand, as all of us did. It proved to be fairly effective. The key thing there was a quick five-minute question that would entail, let us say, a two-minute answer. There are some things that we have to try to overcome, but absolutely, it has merit. The issue for me is, quite simply, how do we make it happen? We can talk about it, but we have to somehow try to make these changes happen.

93 words

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, CPC)

Jun/2/22 3:54:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as part of the debate on the Standing Orders, which takes place once in every Parliament pursuant to Standing Order 51(1), I will today be making a suggestion as to how to address the growing misuse of unanimous consent motions, or, more accurately, the growing number of disingenuous requests to seek the unanimous consent of the House by members who know that no such assent will actually be happening. I will give an outline of the problem momentarily, but first I want to state that it is my view that the solution to the problem lies not in changing the Standing Orders but rather in the Speaker taking the initiative to determine more precisely what the will of the House is with regard to any particular request for unanimous consent prior to, rather than after, permitting the member who is requesting the consent to present to the House the content of the motion for which unanimous consent is being sought. Let me start with a caveat. The process of seeking and frequently of granting the unanimous consent of all members is an important mechanism that is applied quite literally on a daily basis, and sometimes hourly, in order to bypass the time-consuming formalities of debate and voting on matters when we are all in agreement. To select a few examples from a very long list of useful applications, unanimous consent is a useful tool in such things as allowing a member to request a correction to Hansard; allowing the House to see the clock, as we like to say, at a later time than it truly is in order to advance the time at which we can adjourn for the evening; making changes to the membership of the procedure and House affairs committee, for which the consent of the House is required; and concurring in committee reports when these are supported by a broad consensus. The seeking and granting of unanimous consent is also beneficial when one member believes there may be universal consent to a substantive or policy-related motion and, before rising in the House, has first sought out behind the scenes the support of the House leaders of the various parties, and only then presents the agreed-to motion in the House. When prior consent has been sought, the reading of the motion in the House is a final step confirming that the motion has the support of every single MP then in attendance, including every independent MP and also any MPs who might on that occasion be choosing to act independently of their own party's House leader. Much good can be done via policy-oriented motions that are approved in such a manner. I am, for example, particularly proud of the motion that I proposed, which was, following behind-the-scenes negotiations, adopted by unanimous consent on October 24, 2002. This motion, which called on the prime minister to request the release by China of a dozen Falun Gong practitioners, enabled Jean Chrétien to make this request more effectively than he could have done, and in the end, all of the prisoners were eventually released and came to Canada, where they have been model citizens. Now let me turn to the misuse of requests for unanimous consent. Members will frequently rise in this place, particularly in the hour just after question period, when the media are most likely to be present in the gallery, and will request the unanimous consent of the House for motions that have not been consented to in advance by the House leaders of the recognized parties. Sometimes this has happened after a failed attempt to win this support and sometimes it happens when no meaningful attempt at all has been made at consultation, and certainly with too little time for the House leaders to consult with the members of the caucuses on whose behalf they speak. Here is how this works. A member will rise and typically, although not universally, give a preamble that without quite passing the point at which the member would be regarded as misleading the House—which is of course a severe offence, with real consequences—gives the false impression that the right kind of consultation has taken place. The preamble typically goes like this: “Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion.” Because the Speaker cannot be sure that the member is stretching the truth, the whole House therefore is compelled to listen to the member giving a policy statement at a time when other business was scheduled for discussion. As the text of the motion becomes clear to the whole House, other members will sometimes call out their opposition to the motion, and only at that point is the Speaker empowered to interrupt and silence the MP who moved the motion. The various chair occupants are clearly frustrated by this. Here is what the Deputy Speaker said two weeks ago on May 16. As some members called out “no”, the Deputy Speaker rose and said, “I am already hearing some nays”, and there was no consent. Then later the Deputy Speaker added: I want to make one comment on this.... Unanimous consent motions are being abused in the House of Commons. ... I urge each and every member of the House of Commons to use Statements by Members to get their points across rather than using unanimous consent motions as they are being used today. If the Speaker was frustrated on that day, I can only imagine what he must have felt on May 3, when, starting at 3:15 in the afternoon, a series of 11 requests for unanimous consent were presented and rejected by various MPs, which wasted a considerable amount of time. Finally, on that day, the Deputy Speaker rose and expressed his frustration at the fact that prior consent was being implied when none had actually been achieved and encouraged the respective House leaders to discuss the subject at their weekly in camera meeting later that afternoon. Based on what we have seen since May 3, it seems safe to assume that the House leaders have not been able to resolve the matter internally, so now let me suggest a solution that could be implemented unilaterally by the Speaker, a solution that would augment the Speaker’s ability to carry out his or her vital role of serving as the most immediate or proximate vehicle by which the House can express its will. It would work like this. Number one, a member rises and begins the usual formulaic statement of “Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion.” Number two, rather than allowing the member to proceed further, the Speaker would at this point interrupt and say, “Is it the case that the hon. member has gained the consent of the House leaders of all recognized parties to the exact wording that the member is about to propose?” Number three, at that point, any member who has actually won this support could truthfully say yes and simply carry on, as at present. However, number four, any member who has not yet won the support of all House leaders would need to say no, at which point the Speaker would state, “In that case, I encourage the member to seek the consent and to return to the House when the support of the House leaders has been achieved.” The Speaker would then simply move on to other business. Number five, of course, is that in theory the member could lie and claim the consent of the House leaders had been achieved, but this would be an unambiguous attempt to mislead the House, and the penalties for so doing are so severe and so immediate that no sane member would attempt this tactic. Even an insane member would do it only once. Members could also, I suppose, attempt to dodge the Speaker’s question by waffling and not quite saying yes or no, but this too will fail as long as the Speaker stops them sooner or later by stating, “It is not the practice in this House for requests for unanimous consent on substantive motions to proceed unless the mover first clearly states that he or she has received the prior consent of the House leaders of all recognized parties.” The key point here is to prevent the member from reading out the substance of the motion unless the member has truthfully stated that the triggering condition has been met. Once it is clear that the ability to read out an out-of-order policy statement has been lost, I predict two things will happen. One is that most such attempts will simply stop. The second is that in order to avoid being interrupted by the inevitable question from the Speaker, members who actually do have the required level of support from the House leaders will learn to say something along these lines: “Madam Speaker, I rise to seek the unanimous consent of the House to the following motion, which has been agreed to, in the following words, and in both official languages, by the House leaders of all recognized parties”, or something like that. Let me now state an important caveat. For this process to work, and also to not hinder the appropriate use of motions to seek unanimous consent, it would need to remain possible for any member to continue to rise, as at present, to seek the unanimous consent of the House on a purely procedural matter, such as seeing the clock, correcting a factual error in Hansard and so on. Such interventions are easily distinguished from attempts to gain the consent of the House to a policy statement, so there is no need to make any change to how the Speaker responds when a procedural matter is raised by a member. It is also impossible, in practice, to start by pretending to raise a procedural matter and then switch over to a request for unanimous consent on a motion regarding a substantive policy issue without triggering the formula I proposed. I look forward to answering questions on this proposal.

1743 words

Hon. Bardish Chagger (Waterloo, Lib.)

Jun/2/22 4:04:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be able to ask our colleague across the way his thoughts on some of the comments that were shared earlier in regard to increasing the amount of debate, whether it be in the way of a dual chamber or of having Fridays as debate days, to ensure more members can share the diversity of the perspectives of their constituents, considering this is the House of Commons. I would love to hear his thoughts on that.

82 words

Mr. Scott Reid

Jun/2/22 4:04:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do think more debate is helpful. The great struggle we have here is between the desire to have fuller debates with more potential for meaningful exchange and the fact that this takes time. We are constantly time-starved here. There are a number of different possibilities. I am not sure I want to recommend one or even suggest that only one is the right thing. The issue of a dual chamber, a second debating chamber, as they have in the U.K. and Australia, might make sense if the House thinks so, but let us say we went down that avenue. I would still say that having longer sitting hours is a reasonable thing to consider. One thing that the member did not suggest but that I think is reasonable is sitting more weeks a year. We sit 26 weeks a year. There are 52 weeks in a year, which means that there are 26 additional weeks. If we look back at our history, we will see that we regularly sat in the summer, and as recently as the first year of the pandemic, we did so again. It is not the end of the world, especially now that hybrid sittings exist. This is another option that could add something substantial, and it is probably the easiest of the various options to fit into the system we now have.

232 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Jun/2/22 4:06:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I really liked my colleague's last point about requests for unanimous consent. Would it not be less complicated to simply tell the Chair, “I hope to get unanimous consent for the following motion”, and then proceed with the motion?

44 words

Mr. Scott Reid

Jun/2/22 4:06:35 p.m.
Watch

I do not think so, Madam Speaker. The difference between our proposals is that mine would give the Speaker the power to stop the member before they share an opinion and move a motion. If the proposed motion does not have the consent of the House leaders, it will have no chance of being unanimously adopted in the House.

59 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Jun/2/22 4:07:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I so enjoy my hon. colleague from Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston. He is a true champion of democracy in this place. To look further at this question of unanimous consent motions, which are not just used to waste time in this place, I find they have been constructed carefully by some parties, and then immediately there is a set of emails asking for funds to be donated because these awful people in Parliament refuse to accept this wonderful unanimous consent motion. I want to ask the member to consider the role of an MP such as me in a party that is not one of the recognized parties. It is unanimous consent and we have the right to say no. Some parties in this place fail to ask ahead of time, and then I am forced to say that I did not even hear what it was and that I cannot agree to it unless I see it. Another unanimous consent situation, which is now regularly denied, is with regard to routine tributes and non-controversial matters. As the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, and on behalf of the Green Party, I ask for, and for 11 years got, unanimous consent to speak to things like the death of my friend Alexa McDonough, and then I am denied. I have not been allowed unanimous consent once since the last election to speak in this place on the ritualized, non-controversial issues. How would the member propose to handle those?

253 words

Mr. Scott Reid

Jun/2/22 4:08:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first of all, I did not know that the hon. member was denied the ability to speak on the passing of Alexa McDonough. That is a real shame, in and of itself. Alexa McDonough was a great Canadian. I think the answer to this would be something like this. On the issue of what constitutes a recognized party, the number is settled at 12. I know that my colleague would say it should be set at a different level, and that is a reasonable item to discuss. I think the idea of simply trying to deal with things behind the scenes in advance makes sense. Then we do not waste the House's time. We also do not facilitate the production of a motion that is intended to fail, for fundraising purposes. However, I have to tell members that the mysteries of online fundraising and how to resolve the issues involved with that are well beyond my pay grade, rest assured.

163 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Jun/2/22 4:09:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, wherever life has led me, there have been times when we have had to get together to discuss approaches, rules, things we wanted to change about the operations of an organization or business. It is healthy to do so. However, there are certain phrases I have heard and had difficulty understanding, with the most frequent being the excuse that “it has always been done this way”. If this had been the standard response of human beings over the course of millennia, we would still be living in caves and wearing animal skins, if anything at all. Asking questions about how things are working, looking for potential improvements, suggesting improvements and implementing them are stages in a healthy process. I am therefore pleased that Standing Order 51 lets the House start that process. I used the word “start” quite deliberately. I will come back to that in the third part of my speech. During the Bloc Québécois's opposition day on May 10, several members of the House criticized us for using an opposition day to discuss the prayer. Some of them said it was frivolous. However, when a subject provokes heated debate in the House, it signals that this subject is important to the members. How can a subject that is so important to people be considered frivolous? I wonder about that. These same individuals suggested that we bring up the matter of the prayer on the day dedicated to discussing Standing Order 51. That is what I am doing. My first suggestion is to amend Standing Orders 30(1) and 30(2) in chapter IV. My suggestion for Standing Order 30(1) is that the Speaker set aside a moment of silence for personal reflection, respecting each member's beliefs, every day at the meeting of the House before any business is entered upon. Since Standing Order 30(2) provides that the business of the House shall commence after the prayer, it would instead say that it shall commence after a moment of reflection. This is a minor change. Each member will be able to follow their conscience, beliefs and faith. I am talking about respecting everyone present by not imposing a prayer that may not be consistent with their faith or convictions. It is also a way of demonstrating to the public that, regardless of one's faith and beliefs, the House and its representatives work for everyone, not just those who feel comfortable with a particular religion. As it stands now, the prayer clearly refers to a Christian God and suggests Anglicanism in particular. During this moment of reflection, members may speak silently to whichever god or spiritual leader they wish, or to themselves, for that matter. Do the concepts of omnipotence and omniscience shared by many religions not imply that expressions of faith can be heard even if they are not spoken aloud? The second item I would like to draw to my colleagues' attention is Standing Order 32(7). This section concerns the tabling of a document outlining the reasons for a prorogation. The problem with this section is that the government has to explain the prorogation after it has been applied, no more than 20 sitting days after the return of the House. In my opinion, that makes no sense and it encourages political abuse. It is political abuse to use prorogation when debates are getting longer and the government is in hot water over certain issues. The government has a responsibility to find common ground with the other parties and reach a consensus that represents the will of all Canadians, not just the ideologies of a single party. Has anyone ever calculated the costs associated with prorogation? What is the cost of the bills that die on the Order Paper? It is enormous. Taxpayers have to pay for that. Important bills often get delayed year after year, election after election, prorogation after prorogation. If we could avoid the delays caused by prorogation, that would be a big step forward. How many hours did we spend in the House and in committee debating issues like WE Charity and COVID-19 spending? Prorogation killed off all those debates. As a result, despite the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars spent on salaries for MPs, technicians, interpreters, clerks, officials and others, we did not get an answer or any follow‑up on these issues. I propose that at least three days, although the exact number of days can be determined later, before the prorogation of the House is announced, a minister of the Crown be required to table a document listing the reasons for the prorogation, explaining the reasons and demonstrating the efforts made by the government to avoid prorogation, and that no more than five hours of debate be allotted for discussing said document. My last suggestion is about Standing Order 51 itself. I would like to make this suggestion because, as I said in my introduction, Standing Order 51 gives us an opportunity to come together to reflect and discuss changes and improvements we would like to see to the Standing Orders. As it stands, I see a flaw. We spend a whole day or thereabouts discussing something, but we do not really get any feedback on the decisions made by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs concerning the suggestions we make. In short, we get excited about the possibility of improving the procedures and making them more efficient. We prepare speeches to express our thoughts so that they are well understood by our colleagues, but there is no feedback on our suggestions. This aspect of the process makes no sense. Ask any worker, in any environment, what frustrates them most about their workplace, and they may very well say that it is when they make a suggestion that goes unheeded or when they are turned away without any explanation. They are told no, because that is the way it is, that is the way it has always been done, and that is the way it will stay. It is frustrating. That is exactly what is happening in the House with our proposals for Standing Order 51. That is why, in my introduction, I referred to a process being started, but not completed. We start the process without finishing it, without concluding it, without closing the loop. Discussions on the Standing Orders are essential for improving and advancing the practices of the House and its committees, but they are very expensive. If we just add up the annual salaries of the 20 or so members who will be speaking or asking questions, the total comes to over $700,000. That figure does not include the salaries of the clerks and all the staff, such as the interpreters and information technicians, or the pay that members get for any additional responsibilities they may have. If we do not get any feedback on our suggestions, how can the costs of this critical debate on the procedures be justified? Here is my suggestion. A fourth section should be added as follows: not more than 45 sitting days after the day designated for the House to take note of the Standing Orders and procedure of the House and its committees, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs shall report to the House the decisions made, including justifications as to the suggestions made by members on said designated day. Let us ensure our actions are meaningful, logical and effective. That is why I am proposing this amendment. I would like to conclude my speech with this thought. Opposition for opposition's sake is pointless. Parliamentary obstruction is rarely justified. These two practices are costly and a real waste of time, money and talent, the talents and skills of everyone in the House and in committee. The opposition's role is not to oppose for the sake of opposing but to make constructive suggestions that ensure tax dollars are used wisely. That is where I am coming from with today's proposals, and I hope that everyone will take them into consideration and that we can all see the results of this consultation.

1380 words

Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC)

Jun/2/22 4:19:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member for Beauport—Limoilou offered lots of suggestions for changes to the Standing Orders that could be codified in the House. I think we should not be too quick to change the rules of the House. It is very difficult to go back to a previous version that may have been better. Sometimes people try to change things without knowing for sure that it will make the work of the House easier. I would like to ask my colleague what she thinks of making it so that any change to the Standing Orders must be done by unanimous consent of the members of Parliament, because these are the ground rules that all members and all parties will have to live with.

125 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 80