44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 12, 2023 10:00AM
- May/12/23 10:27:01 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my first language is neither English nor French. I had my education in English. When I was in university 36 years back, I joined a friendship course to study the French language. Although I did not study the language much, I met the love of my life there, and we are still married.
One good thing I have noticed is that a lot of my friends here in Canada are sending their children to francophone schools so that their kids have the knowledge of both English and French as they are educated.
There is a bit of apprehension among the anglophone community in Quebec. What assurances can she give to that particular community?
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/12/23 1:38:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak to Motion No. 79, sponsored by the member for Elmwood—Transcona, which proposes a permanent change to the Standing Orders respecting confidence motions.
Before I speak to the content of the proposal contained in Motion No. 79, I would like to discuss some important principles that should guide our work when contemplating changes to the Standing Orders, especially when the changes would be permanent changes to the rules of the House. There is a long-standing tradition of the House in considering changes to our Standing Orders. This tradition includes two important principles. The first is that any change or suite of changes should benefit from a thorough study by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The second is that any change to the rules that govern our deliberations should be done on a consensual basis.
The importance of having changes to the Standing Orders considered by the procedure and House affairs committee seems to be self-evident to most members of the House. These are our rules; they guide all the work we conduct in this place, and any change must be well understood by all members of the House. As a result, the procedure and House affairs committee plays an important role in studying the Standing Orders as they are, as well as proposed changes before they can be considered by the whole House.
In fact, Standing Order 51, chapter VII, which deals with the special debates that the House make take up and is the subject of the proposed amendment contained in Motion No. 79, provides a mechanism that requires the House to study the Standing Orders at the beginning of each Parliament. Standing Order 51 provides that the government, through a minister, must designate an order of the day for the consideration of a motion to take note of the Standing Orders and procedures of the House, which has precedence over all other business. The debate on the designated day is then permanently referred to the procedure and House affairs committee for study. Having these debates permanently referred to the procedure and House affairs committee allows the committee to take up studies over the course of the Parliament to review and consider changes to the Standing Orders.
The purpose of Standing Order 51 is to allow members to bring forward ideas on changes to the Standing Orders, which can then be studied by the procedure and House affairs committee. During the committee's study of the Standing Orders, the committee can hear from expert witnesses, including the Clerk of the House and other senior procedural clerks, to bring to the attention of the members possible adverse consequences that may result from certain changes. This expert testimony ensures the members of the committee consider changes to our rules by using an evidence-based process. Witnesses may also suggest changes to the proposed standing order changes to ensure consistency and alignment with the Standing Orders and practices of the House.
I believe that the procedure and House affairs committee plays an essential role in reviewing the Standing Orders, and I know the members on that committee take this work very seriously and with a great deal of pride. We must always keep in mind that changes to our Standing Orders affect every member of the House, and we not only need to get it right, but we also need to know and appreciate the long-term consequences of such changes. When we make changes in a majority context, we need to appreciate and understand how these changes will operate in the minority context, and the inverse is just as important.
I would now like to turn my attention, and that of the members, to Motion No. 79. The member for Elmwood—Transcona has selected, as his item of Private Members' Business, Motion No. 79, on confidence motions. The motion would create a new scheme in the “Special Debates” chapter in the Standing Orders dealing with confidence motions.
The preamble of Motion No. 79 states, in part (a), that “(i) it is a prerogative of the Crown to prorogue or dissolve Parliament at its pleasure“, and that “(iv) the confidence convention has never been clearly codified and this has sometimes led to confusion among members and the general public as to the nature and significance of certain votes”.
I would like to spend part of my remarks on the Crown's prerogatives. Page 43 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice states:
An essential feature of parliamentary government is that the Prime Minister and the Cabinet are responsible to, or must answer to, the House of Commons for their actions and must enjoy the support and the confidence of a majority of the Members of that Chamber to remain in office. This is commonly referred to as the confidence convention. This complex constitutional subject, a matter of tradition that is not written into any statute or Standing Order of the House....
Members can see that royal prerogatives are not found in any statute or in the Standing Orders. There is, however, one reference to confidence in the Standing Orders, that is, in Standing Order 6, in relation to the election of the Speaker. Precedents are clear that this provision is unnecessary and outdated, since the House itself elects the Speaker of the House, and the executive no longer plays any formal role in the election of the Speaker.
House of Commons Procedure and Practice, at page 43, goes on to articulate the point that confidence is not a matter of parliamentary procedure. It says, “What constitutes a question of confidence in the government varies with the circumstances. Confidence is not a matter of parliamentary procedure, nor is it something on which the Speaker can be asked to rule.”
There was a time when there were references in the Standing Orders to motions of non-confidence in relation to the consideration of supply. Page 44 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice sets out how the Standing Orders were modified in this regard and when these changes were removed:
When the Standing Orders respecting supply were amended in 1968, it was specified that, in each of the three supply periods, the opposition could designate not more than two of the motions proposed on allotted days as motions of non-confidence in the government. This was the first time the notion of confidence found expression in the Standing Orders. This rule was modified provisionally in March 1975 to remove the non-confidence qualification; the motions would still be brought to a vote but the vote would not automatically be considered an expression of confidence in the government. The provisional Standing Orders lapsed at the beginning of the following session and the term found its way back into the 1977 version of the Standing Orders. No further changes were made until June 1985, when the Standing Orders were again modified to remove the non-confidence provision with regard to supply.
For 43 years, there have been no operative Standing Orders that deal with confidence. There is a good reason for this. Since many Crown prerogatives have been superseded by statutes, there are still royal prerogatives that are not found in statutes, including but not limited to foreign affairs and treaty making, and the powers to prorogue or dissolve Parliament.
Now that I have addressed the notion of the Crown's prerogatives in relation to the prerogatives to prorogue or dissolve Parliament, I would like to speak of the mechanics of how Motion No. 79, if adopted, would operate.
I have not made up my mind about whether I will support this motion or oppose it. I will say, however, that I think this motion would benefit from study at the procedure and House affairs committee. The committee could really dig into the interplay between the role of the Standing Orders and the Crown prerogatives, and whether the scheme that is proposed in Motion No. 79 is acceptable in the context of our rules, given the informal nature of non-confidence motions in the Standing Orders.
Finally, I do not think that two one-hour debates are sufficient to fully understand the implications this motion would have on the procedures and practices of this House. That said, I will continue to have an open mind about the proposal because I have great respect for my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona and the views of other members who will speak in debate on this motion.
1430 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
