SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 214

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 15, 2023 10:00AM
  • Jun/15/23 6:44:22 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question and for sharing his perspective with us. This is a very important point. To this point, generally speaking, permanent changes to the Standing Orders of this chamber have been done on a consensual basis, involving support among all the parties of the House. There have been exceptions to that rule, but they were rare. I think the government is setting a dangerous precedent here in proposing this change without the consent of the second-largest party in this place, the official opposition. I think it is a very dangerous precedent that does not bode well for future changes to this place. For that reason, I do not think the change should be made permanent. I think that there would be a consensus among all recognized parties in the House to have hybrid Parliament go on but to have a sunset clause, where it would expire at the end of this Parliament.
161 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/15/23 7:43:04 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to take the hon. member a few years back in time. When he was in the House in 2017, the Liberal government had a majority. The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons wanted to change the Standing Orders so that, for example, the House would no longer sit on Fridays. The Bloc Québécois was in favour. The Liberal government House leader in 2017 said that it would not happen because there was not unanimous support. She had the support of some opposition parties, but she did not have unanimous support. In order to change the Standing Orders, the way the House operates is that unanimous consent is required. She backed down, and it did not happen. We now have a government that says that it is going to change the rules with a simple majority, which sets a precedent. What does the hon. member think about that?
159 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border