44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 2, 2022 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, I am troubled in this debate, although there has been unanimous support for Bill C-14. I think we have responded positively right across all party lines to the concerns of our Quebec colleagues that the voice of Quebec would be reduced within this place.
Obviously, we support the idea of measures to protect Quebec's number of seats in the House.
At the same time, as someone who was elected in 2011 when we had 308 MPs here, I have a larger concern. We are now at 338. Do we constantly expand the number of members of Parliament we have? In the U.K., they have 650-some MPs. Is it really better representation for our constituents that as the population expands, there are more voices? Does that not dilute the voice of each riding if we have more MPs? In a chamber of 650, very few people out of the whole number get to contribute to the debate.
I would rather see, and I put this to the hon. member, fair voting in this country through proportional representation and through limiting the constant growth in the number of MPs. In other words, in the concept of representation by population, we actually may not have better democracy, compared to actually fixing our voting system to have real democracy.
221 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for clarification. Today's procedures are little different.
Is the Bloc Québécois MPs' goal to have a vote right away or another day, with or without debate?
I just want clarification as to the procedure for what the Bloc Québécois is asking for at this point.
61 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I think that we have made an effort here, step by step, and I am concerned. I have no problem with the idea. In fact, we voted in favour of protecting the number of members from Quebec.
However, the idea of having percentage representation is based on another principle entirely. It is not the same thing as in Bill C-14. I think that this involves the Constitution.
We debated for an entire day, as the hon. member pointed out. However, the principle proposed in today’s motion is different. We have not had a chance to review it and discuss it.
I think I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North. He is right when he says that this involves the Constitution.
127 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his speech and especially for having once again raised the issue of our current voting system. I, too, was a member of the Special Committee on Electoral Reform.
I was particularly amused to hear the hon. member recall the weird survey the government did, called “vox populi”. It turned out that even when it tried to torque the questions to get the answers it wanted, the survey was never clear, because no one ever had a chance to just mark down “I want proportional representation.” It was very twisted. We did find out that 70% of Canadians who did the survey said they would rather see a lot of smaller parties work together, even if it takes longer, to come to decisions in a co-operative fashion by consensus. Our system here is way too adversarial and way too partisan, and it is not necessary.
Can the hon. member imagine a time when we can get rid of the perverse voting system we have here? We have been promised it over and over again by the Liberals, but it was snatched away from us.
201 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have a question for the member for Kingston and the Islands, but I will point out for the member for Calgary Centre that we could have heard a pin drop in here. People were in rapt attention as the member for Kingston and the Islands spoke.
To pursue the question that the member alluded to in referring to losing time in this place and not getting to bills in debate, I am not pointing the finger at anyone in particular, because I am in the unique position of being able to say “a plague on all their houses” when things go awry in this place.
However—and I have made this point before—I would like the member for Kingston and the Islands to comment on what he thinks of the proposition that we would do better to follow our own rules, which say that no member can give a speech that is written. Ironically, it is even against our rules to use a lectern, although they are routinely handed out by the pages when people ask for them.
If we did not ignore the rule against written speeches, it would not be possible for the party backrooms to say to each other that they are not sure how many members they are going to put up on bill whatever. It might be that everybody wants to speak. Well, everybody does not want to speak, but everybody can be put forward like cannon fodder in a pointless partisan battle in here, instead of actually discussing bills.
In the Palace of Westminster, from which our rules derive, no member can stand up and read a speech. As a result, the people who speak to bills understand them thoroughly and can speak without notes.
299 words
All Topics
- 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 3:22:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point order.
On my point of order, I do seek clarification. As I understand the rules, it is completely forbidden for a member to say what only the Speaker has the right to say, such as “We recognize in the gallery so-and-so, the premier of such-and-such,” but I want clarification that when I reference the school group, I am not recognizing people in the gallery in any way that violates our rules, as I understand the rules.
If I am incorrect, I would like to know.
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/22 3:23:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I merely want to understand the rules. I have read the rules, I know the rules and I am not challenging your ruling. I am asking for clarity. That is all.
40 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/22 4:23:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou.
I would just like to ask her if she is aware of the suggestions made by Hugo Cyr, a professor at the the Université du Québec à Montréal's department of legal sciences, on the issues of prorogation.
He made the suggestion, which I support, of holding a mandatory vote in the House of Commons before a Prime Minister requests a prorogation.
77 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/22 4:40:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, given what we have seen today, we may need a new standing order addition to Standing Order 51 to say that a minimum amount of debate is needed so we all have a chance to contribute to a discussion on standing orders when another more important issue intervenes, as some party takes the time of the House on something else. That is a new thought because we really only have this one chance in every parliamentary session to talk about our Standing Orders, and they are so important. I am limited to 10 minutes, but I could easily talk on this matter for some considerably longer time.
I want to start with some ideas that came to us on the parliamentary Special Committee on Electoral Reform. We had some of the country's best and most thoughtful political scientists speak to us, and I am going to take some presentations that are not on the matter of our voting system, although clearly parliamentary democracy would be improved if we had a more co-operative consensus-based approach, such as occurred in New Zealand when it got rid of first past the post and moved to mixed member proportional. I know from colleagues who are members of Parliament in New Zealand that consensus and co-operation became much more the rule of the day, with much less hyperpartisanship, and Parliament works better.
I want to point to some recommendations that came from professor Hugo Cyr with the Université du Québec à Montréal and professor emeritus Peter Russell from the University of Toronto. One was from Professor Cyr. It may strike people as an unnecessary change to our standing orders, but it is important. We are a parliamentary democracy in the Westminster tradition, which means we do not elect a prime minister. A lot of people get confused on this point, including some people running to lead another party.
It is important to think about Professor Cyr's recommendation, which is that after an election, between electing the Speaker and the Speech from the Throne, this Parliament would elect the prime minister, because all of us elected to this place are, in theory, equal. The prime minister is first among equals. It is a foregone conclusion who becomes prime minister once the seat count of the parties is known, but that does not mean it is not worthwhile to educate all of us on this point every now and then by electing a prime minister from among our own number.
The second point that Professor Cyr made, which is more substantive, is that there should be no prorogation by any prime minister, and the way that Professor Cyr put it was, “To amend the Standing Orders so that asking for Parliament to be prorogued or dissolved would not be possible without first obtaining the approval of the House of Commons. If a prime minister were to do so, that would result automatically in a loss of confidence and the Governor General would not be bound by the prime minister's advice requesting an early dissolution or prorogation without first obtaining the approval of the House of Commons.”
There was another proposal that I think is very important. This is one of the only parliaments in the world where there is no time limit for when we must convene following an election. Professor Peter Russell suggested, as well as Professor Cyr, that right now, in theory, a prime minister, after an election, could wait a year or two and not convene parliament. There is no rule. Almost every other democracy in the world puts in a time limit, whether it is eight weeks or whatever. That is a change to the Standing Orders that would be welcome.
There is also a suggestion that is quite significant, and I know that the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona is an advocate for this one as well. It is that we go forward with constructive non-confidence votes. This is described by Professor Russell in his testimony. Some parliaments, such as in Germany, Spain and Sweden, permit only a constructive non-confidence vote. He goes on to say:
A constructive non-confidence vote is one that names an alternative prime minister. When a constructive non-confidence vote passes, it both defeats the incumbent government and indicates how a new, viable minority government can be formed without calling an election. This practice underlines the principle that in a parliamentary democracy the people elect a parliament...not a government.
These are very significant changes suggested by the best and brightest in our country, who happen to have shared their time with the Special Committee on Electoral Reform.
I would like to suggest another thing that would really make a big difference, and that would be if we enforce the rules we had. The Standing—
817 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/22 4:45:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the suggestion I would have is that we enforce our own rules. That would include that, during question period, only the Speaker decides who seeks the floor.
I have a quote from our former Speaker in a ruling. The hon. member went from being Speaker to being leader of the Conservative Party. In response to a request from the late Mark Warawa that his rights had been violated, the Speaker ruled, “The right to seek the floor at any time is the right of each individual member of Parliament and is not dependent on any other member of Parliament.” He further said, “If members want to be recognized, they will have to actively demonstrate that they wish to participate. They have to rise in their places and seek the floor.”
We are the only country in all Westminster parliamentary democracy countries, the only country in the Commonwealth, where a Speaker has surrendered the fundamental right and duty of a Speaker to recognize the member who will then have the floor.
It was an accident of history. It was because Jeanne Sauvé, when she was Speaker, said she could not see members in the far corners. She asked for the party whips to do her a personal favour and provide a list. This has now become custom and tradition, but it is still not part of our rules. While it is not part of our rules, we should take some time to discuss it in the review of the Standing Orders at PROC and ask what they do in the U.K.
I asked and I found out. In the U.K., any member who is going to ask a question the next day provides a letter to the Speaker in advance showing the question they want to ask. The Speaker then identifies that member so they are not all at the same time looking for the floor when the Prime Minister is answering questions.
It works well. It would make a fundamental improvement in this place in terms of decorum and the functioning of the place. Someone, as a rising politician, wants to curry favour with someone else who controls their life. If the Speaker has no influence at all on whether someone gets their TV time during question period, it is easy to ignore what the Speaker says. The person who controls one's life is the party whip, because they put the names on a piece of paper.
The importance of the question we have to ask about the work we are doing, as parliamentarians, is that the power shifts entirely to backroom political parties and away from the Speaker, who controls this place in every other Parliament around the world except here. We need to show deference to the Speaker and deference to Speaker's authority, and pay attention to the Standing Orders, which say we are not to interrupt another member while speaking and we are not to speak disrespectfully of any other member in this place.
They are broken daily as rules. I lament this very often because I think it brings this Parliament, democracy and all of us into disrepute. The public looks at what we are doing. Earlier today, a whole school group left this place and I think it was because the proceedings were so unruly. It is not what any school teacher would allow in a classroom.
Before I run out of time, I also want to speak to another aspect of our rules, which is not to give written speeches. That is against our rules. The substantive difference would be when the House leaders are considering how much time we need for a bill. If a bill is unanimously supported in this place, we do not need to debate it forever.
Whether a bill is controversial or not, if every House leader had to think about who in the ranks of their team has the capacity to stand and speak on a particular matter of policy without a set, prepared speech to read, the number of potential speakers would drop quite a bit.
This place has allowed a trend where political parties control far too much of what goes on here. If a party whip knows they do not have that many people who could stand and speak to a policy, they are going to pick the people who have studied it and who care about it. That is an important rule that we ignore on a routine basis.
What they do in the U.K., and which would be a change to our Standing Orders, is the Speaker recognizes someone to give a speech and they have potentially 40 minutes or more. They can pause and yield the floor to another member of their own party, and then it becomes interactive. It becomes quite interesting. The person who is holding the floor sits down and says they yield the floor to their hon. colleague. Then the person who is asking the question gets an interactive opportunity for discussion. The debates are much more interesting. I also commend that to be considered by PROC when it looks at our Standing Orders.
868 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/22 4:51:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the work-life balance problem is almost insoluble because the country is so large, but I am also looking at the carbon content of our work in this place. I call it the Fort McMurray work schedule, by the way. It would be three weeks on, three weeks off, but when we are here, we would extend the number of days we are sitting. We would sit a full five-day week and half a day on Saturday, because we would make good use of the time. Then, when we are back in our ridings for three weeks, with very little adjustment, I think the local chamber of commerce, the local Rotary Club and the local service organizations would know not to plan an event when they know the member cannot come, and they would pick one of those stretches when the member is physically there.
It would reduce the amount of wear and tear on each of us. It is not perfect for everyone, but I do think it would be a good solution and reduce the monetary costs of our travel to the taxpayer and the amount of carbon.
193 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/22 4:53:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is exactly how it takes place. We should be more familiar. We do not want to be, in every respect, parroting what happens in the U.K. Particularly, it is important for us to have desks. We know that, with 650 members of Parliament in the Palace of Westminster, they cannot all fit in the room all at once.
However, in this instance, in debates, it is about yielding the floor to a colleague and entering into a discussion, to be able to have a more respectful and reflective exchange in a context that is built around the notion that every member in the place is not reading a speech and is well informed on the topic. These debates are very interesting and engaging and they advance the understanding of issues.
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/22 4:55:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, a mandatory rule that we sit for four years and find ways to work together is not really consistent with the principles of Westminster parliamentary democracy, but I do think a way around it is this notion of a constructive non-confidence vote. If there is a clear sense that the Prime Minister or the ruling party has lost the confidence and we are an assembly of parties in a minority situation, the constructive non-confidence vote, which Professor Russell spoke of and which I quoted as evidence, would be to say that we are now proposing a different person. The name of a new prime minister would be part of the constructive non-confidence motion and it would not drive us straight to an election.
I do think we—
133 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
