44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 2, 2022 10:00AM
- Jun/2/22 3:54:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as part of the debate on the Standing Orders, which takes place once in every Parliament pursuant to Standing Order 51(1), I will today be making a suggestion as to how to address the growing misuse of unanimous consent motions, or, more accurately, the growing number of disingenuous requests to seek the unanimous consent of the House by members who know that no such assent will actually be happening.
I will give an outline of the problem momentarily, but first I want to state that it is my view that the solution to the problem lies not in changing the Standing Orders but rather in the Speaker taking the initiative to determine more precisely what the will of the House is with regard to any particular request for unanimous consent prior to, rather than after, permitting the member who is requesting the consent to present to the House the content of the motion for which unanimous consent is being sought.
Let me start with a caveat. The process of seeking and frequently of granting the unanimous consent of all members is an important mechanism that is applied quite literally on a daily basis, and sometimes hourly, in order to bypass the time-consuming formalities of debate and voting on matters when we are all in agreement.
To select a few examples from a very long list of useful applications, unanimous consent is a useful tool in such things as allowing a member to request a correction to Hansard; allowing the House to see the clock, as we like to say, at a later time than it truly is in order to advance the time at which we can adjourn for the evening; making changes to the membership of the procedure and House affairs committee, for which the consent of the House is required; and concurring in committee reports when these are supported by a broad consensus.
The seeking and granting of unanimous consent is also beneficial when one member believes there may be universal consent to a substantive or policy-related motion and, before rising in the House, has first sought out behind the scenes the support of the House leaders of the various parties, and only then presents the agreed-to motion in the House. When prior consent has been sought, the reading of the motion in the House is a final step confirming that the motion has the support of every single MP then in attendance, including every independent MP and also any MPs who might on that occasion be choosing to act independently of their own party's House leader.
Much good can be done via policy-oriented motions that are approved in such a manner. I am, for example, particularly proud of the motion that I proposed, which was, following behind-the-scenes negotiations, adopted by unanimous consent on October 24, 2002. This motion, which called on the prime minister to request the release by China of a dozen Falun Gong practitioners, enabled Jean Chrétien to make this request more effectively than he could have done, and in the end, all of the prisoners were eventually released and came to Canada, where they have been model citizens.
Now let me turn to the misuse of requests for unanimous consent. Members will frequently rise in this place, particularly in the hour just after question period, when the media are most likely to be present in the gallery, and will request the unanimous consent of the House for motions that have not been consented to in advance by the House leaders of the recognized parties. Sometimes this has happened after a failed attempt to win this support and sometimes it happens when no meaningful attempt at all has been made at consultation, and certainly with too little time for the House leaders to consult with the members of the caucuses on whose behalf they speak.
Here is how this works. A member will rise and typically, although not universally, give a preamble that without quite passing the point at which the member would be regarded as misleading the House—which is of course a severe offence, with real consequences—gives the false impression that the right kind of consultation has taken place. The preamble typically goes like this: “Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion.”
Because the Speaker cannot be sure that the member is stretching the truth, the whole House therefore is compelled to listen to the member giving a policy statement at a time when other business was scheduled for discussion. As the text of the motion becomes clear to the whole House, other members will sometimes call out their opposition to the motion, and only at that point is the Speaker empowered to interrupt and silence the MP who moved the motion.
The various chair occupants are clearly frustrated by this. Here is what the Deputy Speaker said two weeks ago on May 16. As some members called out “no”, the Deputy Speaker rose and said, “I am already hearing some nays”, and there was no consent. Then later the Deputy Speaker added:
I want to make one comment on this....
Unanimous consent motions are being abused in the House of Commons. ... I urge each and every member of the House of Commons to use Statements by Members to get their points across rather than using unanimous consent motions as they are being used today.
If the Speaker was frustrated on that day, I can only imagine what he must have felt on May 3, when, starting at 3:15 in the afternoon, a series of 11 requests for unanimous consent were presented and rejected by various MPs, which wasted a considerable amount of time. Finally, on that day, the Deputy Speaker rose and expressed his frustration at the fact that prior consent was being implied when none had actually been achieved and encouraged the respective House leaders to discuss the subject at their weekly in camera meeting later that afternoon.
Based on what we have seen since May 3, it seems safe to assume that the House leaders have not been able to resolve the matter internally, so now let me suggest a solution that could be implemented unilaterally by the Speaker, a solution that would augment the Speaker’s ability to carry out his or her vital role of serving as the most immediate or proximate vehicle by which the House can express its will.
It would work like this. Number one, a member rises and begins the usual formulaic statement of “Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion.”
Number two, rather than allowing the member to proceed further, the Speaker would at this point interrupt and say, “Is it the case that the hon. member has gained the consent of the House leaders of all recognized parties to the exact wording that the member is about to propose?”
Number three, at that point, any member who has actually won this support could truthfully say yes and simply carry on, as at present. However, number four, any member who has not yet won the support of all House leaders would need to say no, at which point the Speaker would state, “In that case, I encourage the member to seek the consent and to return to the House when the support of the House leaders has been achieved.” The Speaker would then simply move on to other business.
Number five, of course, is that in theory the member could lie and claim the consent of the House leaders had been achieved, but this would be an unambiguous attempt to mislead the House, and the penalties for so doing are so severe and so immediate that no sane member would attempt this tactic. Even an insane member would do it only once.
Members could also, I suppose, attempt to dodge the Speaker’s question by waffling and not quite saying yes or no, but this too will fail as long as the Speaker stops them sooner or later by stating, “It is not the practice in this House for requests for unanimous consent on substantive motions to proceed unless the mover first clearly states that he or she has received the prior consent of the House leaders of all recognized parties.”
The key point here is to prevent the member from reading out the substance of the motion unless the member has truthfully stated that the triggering condition has been met.
Once it is clear that the ability to read out an out-of-order policy statement has been lost, I predict two things will happen. One is that most such attempts will simply stop. The second is that in order to avoid being interrupted by the inevitable question from the Speaker, members who actually do have the required level of support from the House leaders will learn to say something along these lines: “Madam Speaker, I rise to seek the unanimous consent of the House to the following motion, which has been agreed to, in the following words, and in both official languages, by the House leaders of all recognized parties”, or something like that.
Let me now state an important caveat. For this process to work, and also to not hinder the appropriate use of motions to seek unanimous consent, it would need to remain possible for any member to continue to rise, as at present, to seek the unanimous consent of the House on a purely procedural matter, such as seeing the clock, correcting a factual error in Hansard and so on. Such interventions are easily distinguished from attempts to gain the consent of the House to a policy statement, so there is no need to make any change to how the Speaker responds when a procedural matter is raised by a member. It is also impossible, in practice, to start by pretending to raise a procedural matter and then switch over to a request for unanimous consent on a motion regarding a substantive policy issue without triggering the formula I proposed.
I look forward to answering questions on this proposal.
1743 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 4:40:31 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
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
