SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 304

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 29, 2024 11:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 304 - Apr/29/24
Mr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC)
  • Apr/29/24 12:15:51 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in strong support of Motion No. 109, which was introduced by my colleague, the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston. The motion would instruct the procedure and House affairs committee to undertake a study with respect to a series of proposed amendments to the Standing Orders that would, taken together, have the effect of preventing any government from unilaterally amending the Standing Orders without all-party consent. Therefore, consistent with that, the motion would instruct the procedure and House affairs committee to consider prohibiting the use of closure and other time limitation procedures. It would take away the ability of the government to use the hammer of closure to ram through changes to the Standing Orders. The motion reflects what has become a convention, as our Standing Orders have been evolving since 1867, and of course, in some instances, they go back centuries to the British House of Commons. The convention has been that a government ought not amend the Standing Orders absent all-party support. As a general rule, there has been an effort to reach consensus. We have seen a significant evolution in our Standing Orders. One such example was in the mid-1980s. At the time, there was a general view that Parliament was not in step with the times and that there needed to be a series of steps taken to modernize Parliament. Upon being elected in 1984, Prime Minister Mulroney appointed James McGrath, the then member for St. John's East, to chair an all-party parliamentary committee that looked at parliamentary reform. The mandate of that committee included reviewing the Standing Orders. Out of the McGrath report came multiple recommendations for amendments to the Standing Orders, all of which were adopted, including one of the most significant, which was the election of the Speaker of the House of Commons. Up until that time, the election was a mere formality based upon the appointment or recommendation of the Prime Minister. My point is that there is an instance where members from all parties worked collaboratively, undertook a thorough study and came back with recommendations, and based upon that consensus, the Standing Orders were amended. It is true that convention has not always been consistently applied. There have been, up until the election of the current government, rare instances where governments have invoked closure. My colleague from Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston noted that it happened prior to the election of the Liberal government on three occasions: in 1913, 1969 and 1991. It is very rare. Since the election of the Liberals, what was a rare instance of not respecting the convention has become the practice of the Liberals. They have run roughshod over the House and have, on multiple occasions, either sought to ram through or have, in fact, rammed through changes to the Standing Orders, underscoring the need and timeliness of the motion.
486 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 304 - Apr/29/24
Mr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC)
  • Apr/29/24 3:34:32 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by Canadians urging Parliament to pass Bill S-281, or Brian's bill, named in honour of the late Brian Ilesic, who was brutally murdered by a co-worker at the University of Alberta. The petitioners are calling, more specifically, for Parliament to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, such that convicted murderers would not be able to apply for parole year after year after serving their minimum sentence and would only be able to apply at the time of their automatic review.
93 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border