SoVote

Jun/2/22 3:22:43 p.m.
Watch

Once again, we are back to square one, talking about how members cannot do indirectly what they cannot directly, and referencing someone, as far as I can tell, is doing that. I do not want to start having an argument here, but I think we will go to the hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, and then if there is still an argument afterward, we will come back.

71 words

Mr. Dan Albas

Jun/2/22 3:23:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I just wanted to stand up and say I respect you as the Chair and expect you to maintain the rules of this place and to make rulings when people are out of line.

44 words

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

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

The Speaker

Jun/2/22 3:23:34 p.m.
Watch

That is a fair question. I will go back, review them and make sure I come back with an answer for the hon. member.

24 words

The Speaker

Jun/2/22 3:24:06 p.m.
Watch

It being 3:25, pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 31, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. Call in the members.

48 words

Deferred

The Speaker

Jun/2/22 3:36:38 p.m.
Watch

I declare the motion carried.

5 words

All Topics

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

Jun/2/22 3:36:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, let me just start by saying, on behalf of Her Majesty's loyal opposition—

17 words

The Speaker

Jun/2/22 3:36:46 p.m.
Watch

I want everyone to hear the question. Order, order. The hon. opposition House leader, please.

15 words

Noise/conversations/heckling, interrupting Member speaking

Mr. John Brassard

Jun/2/22 3:36:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, let me again start by saying, on behalf of Her Majesty's loyal opposition and our leader, the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar, just how happy we are to have you back in the seat. We are thankful for the great doctors in northern Ontario for looking after you so well. Unfortunately, we did not have a House leaders' meeting on Tuesday, so that brings up the importance of today's Thursday question about the calendar for the next week. I wonder if the hon. government House leader could advise the House and all Canadians what the business of the House will be over the next week.

110 words

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

Jun/2/22 3:37:36 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, let me join my colleague opposite in welcoming you in your return to the role of Speaker. It is wonderful to see you there. I almost cannot see you because of the monument. I guess it is an homage to Fenway Park. It is our own green monster that has been constructed in this chamber. I can kind of see your head over it. It is wonderful to see you back in this place and in such fine form and good health. Welcome back. Tomorrow morning, we will begin debate on Bill C-19, the budget legislation, which was reported back to the House from the finance committee yesterday. I want to take the opportunity to thank all members for their hard work on getting it back so quickly. Tomorrow afternoon, we will commence second reading debate of Bill C-21, the firearms legislation. Our priorities for next week will be report stage and third reading of the budget bill, and Bill C-5 regarding mandatory minimum sentences. Finally, I would like to inform the House that Tuesday, June 7 shall be an allotted day.

187 words

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

The Speaker

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

SoVote

House Hansard - 80