44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 2, 2022 10:00AM
- Jun/2/22 10:12:16 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in response to your ruling, I will take your advice. By unanimous consent, I seek that notwithstanding any standing order, a question to the spokesperson for the Board of Internal Economy may be raised during the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order 38, and a spokesperson for the board who is not a minister of the Crown or a parliamentary secretary may give the response during those proceedings.
69 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/22 10:21:44 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities entitled “Railway Safety and the Effects of Railway Operations on the Surrounding Communities in which they Operate”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
61 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, why does the hon. member want to prevent this House from debating the Standing Orders on the one day per Parliament set aside for doing precisely that?
29 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this member speaks an awful lot in the House and I rarely enjoy what he has to say, but I have to say that the one time in every Parliament when we get a chance to speak on the Standing Orders is when that member is the most important. That is when that member speaks very intelligently and has an awful lot to say.
During his speech earlier, he had an awful lot of suggestions that I personally would love to have been hearing in a discussion on the Standing Orders. However, we are not there, because by watching how the Conservatives do it every day, the Bloc Québécois has figured out a way to delay the business of the House.
That member should take this up with the members of the Bloc.
139 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/22 2:20:24 p.m.
- Watch
Before continuing, while I have your attention, I just want to remind everyone that Standing Order 31 statements are 60 seconds. I know we have let it go a little longer, but now it is getting to the point where it is kind of dragging on. I know they are very important, and I do not want to have to cut anyone off. Practice hard and practice to make it under 60 seconds. This is a request.
77 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/22 3:19:32 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my point of order relates to Standing Order 16 and Standing Order 18, and we will, at some point today, be discussing them. However, it grieved me to see a whole class of kids, probably grades three and four, from Oakville, Ontario, be subjected to the violations of those standing orders in a very raucous, rude, I suppose we would have to say on all sides, heckling and yelling back and forth.
I ask members to please, now that we are back in person in this place, consider the examples we set for school children who visit this place.
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/22 4:20:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the suggestions being made. Part of my concern is that, and I have sat on PROC before and have gone through this process, at times it can be somewhat discouraging. It tends to always want to go for the low fruit and so forth, yet there seems to be a strong desire from members of all sides of the House to try to see rules actually pass.
I would like to get the member's thoughts with respect to this. If we were to pass a rule or make major changes to the Standing Orders, would she agree with the principle of a sunset clause, or if they were to take effect after the next election? Does she see any way in which we can ease the minds of members with respect to how we could ultimately implement significant rule changes?
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/22 4:40:05 p.m.
- Watch
It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship; the hon. member for Kitchener Centre, Seniors; the hon. member for North Okanagan—Shuswap, Taxation.
54 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/22 4:51:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague and I often compare notes regarding the Standing Orders. One area that the member did not touch on, which we looked at when we sat on the electoral reform committee, is work-life balance. If I remember correctly, she had suggested that perhaps we would sit three weeks in a row, then maybe have three weeks back in our riding, and then three weeks in a row here. Could the member elaborate a bit on the calendar? She did not mention that in her speech and I would like to give her an opportunity to do so.
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
