SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 330

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 12, 2024 02:00PM
Context: House Hansard - 330 - Jun/12/24
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, CPC)
  • Jun/12/24 6:05:48 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, in my opening remarks I observed that the purpose of Motion No. 109 was “to ensure that no future government would be able to amend the Standing Orders without the consent of all recognized parties.” The mechanism laid out in the motion and the proposed additions to the standing order that are contained in the motion is to ensure that debate would continue as long as there is a meaningful body of individuals opposed to whatever change to the Standing Orders is being proposed. This would ensure that debate would simply continue ad infinitum unless a consensus is sought. This does not translate into meaning unanimous consent is required. In practice, it would mean that all-party consent is required. Let me turn away from the rationale for doing this and toward a discussion of how I think the process ought to proceed. There is a role model for this: a change to the Standing Orders that I proposed back in 2015 for changing how the Speaker is elected. Formerly, the Speaker was elected through what is known as an exhaustive vote. There would be multiple candidates. If no candidate secured a majority on a vote, we would have a second vote. We kept on doing this until we eliminated all the candidates. I proposed changing this to a preferential ballot, but I did not propose simply that the House vote on my motion. I said instead to send it off to the procedure and House affairs committee, where expert witnesses could be brought in to look at the preferential balloting system used in a number of other jurisdictions, most notably in Britain in their elections of speakers, both in the House of Lords and in the House of Commons. That is what we did. As such, the same language is incorporated into the motion proposed here. I just want to read it. Ignoring all the substantive content, the procedure part of the motion reads as follows: That...it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to undertake a study on the advisability of amending the Standing Orders as follows: The substantive part of the motion follows, of course, and then the last part of the motion says: [that] the committee report its findings to the House no later than 75 sitting days following the adoption of this motion. Assuming that the motion is approved at some point the next time we vote on Private Members' Business next week, it would be reasonable to assume that we would have this matter back before the House for a final vote on a report from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in February. Let me say what that committee report would probably look like. I am now holding in my hands the procedure and House affairs committee's report from the 41st Parliament, its 21st report. I will read what is said here. I would anticipate something like this being said again. The report said: The Election of the Speaker is a matter for all Members to decide. The Committee does not oppose nor endorse motion M-489...and feels that the entire membership of the House of Commons should have the opportunity to vote on whether or not to change the Standing Orders in the manner suggested by M-489. In order to accomplish this purpose of having a vote in the House, the Committee recommends that Standing Order 4 be amended as follows: There is then the substance of the motion. That was respectfully submitted by the chair of the committee. I think the same process would allow us to act now as we did then. We took an issue that could have been treated in a partisan manner. Maybe this is not a matter of concern, because it sounds like all parties support this, but that process allowed for it to be dealt with by means, essentially, of free votes of all the party caucuses in a manner that normally is not dealt with this way. There was actually a free vote in the House. Every single party in the House actually wound up dividing, with some members for and some against. A majority was in favour. I think that was a really proper way of handling changes to the Standing Orders. I do hope it happens again. I guess I will get to say this again, but I do hope there will be a recorded vote on this, as opposed to seeking some other form of consent to the motion when we deal with this.
768 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 330 - Jun/12/24
Mr. Scott Reid
  • Jun/12/24 6:13:03 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.
7 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border