SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 330

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 12, 2024 02:00PM
Context: House Hansard - 330 - Jun/12/24
Mr. Chris Bittle (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.)
  • Jun/12/24 4:26:38 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.
18 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 330 - Jun/12/24
Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)
  • Jun/12/24 5:57:10 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion moved by the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston. I enjoyed listening to him speak in support of his motion. When we look at the motion from a broader perspective, we see that it seeks to codify what has been done for decades, in other words, to systematically seek consensus when changing the rules of procedure of the House and, therefore, the rules that govern how we govern ourselves as a body. This consensus, which has been the custom and tradition for decades, was hard-won through many battles. My colleague pointed that out, and I found it interesting. He referred in particular to the period from 1834 to 1837-38, to the Patriots and the battles they fought to win the famous system of checks and balances, to ensure that all members of the House have a role to play without being relegated to the position of mere advisers, for example, and that we never experience any kind of tyranny of the majority. My colleague reminded us that the gains we enjoy today have come at the cost of many battles. Unfortunately, if we are debating this motion, if it needed to be moved, it is because we recently witnessed some major violations to this consensus which is so important. We saw this last year when, under closure, the rules of the House were changed significantly through the creation of the virtual Parliament. I was surprised to hear the member for Winnipeg North, in his speech on Motion No. 109, brag that the creation of the virtual Parliament was an important change, the likes of which had not been seen in decades, even a hundred years. He practically bragged about having done so under closure, which showed the ingenuity with which the government changes the rules without consensus. It is precisely for this type of situation that we need a remedy like Motion No. 109. While I am on my feet I would like to correct some of the statements that were made during the first hour of debate. The member for Winnipeg North said that gag orders, in other words closure or time allocation motions, are essential, that they speed up the legislative agenda for government bills, while private members' bills are already scheduled, in a way. We know when they will be debated. A certain number of hours are allocated. This motion is not intended to banish all closure or time allocation motions. We could have that discussion, but that is not the purpose of motion No. 109. Motion No. 109 strictly concerns changes to procedure and seeks to prevent us from making such changes under a gag order, forcing all of us instead to actually seek some form of consensus. I also heard the member for Winnipeg North and the member for New Westminster—Burnaby say that the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois members were a bit hypocritical by using remote voting to vote against the virtual Parliament project. In doing so, these members, both Liberal and NDP, are failing to see the forest for the trees precisely because, if we had had the opportunity to debate these procedural amendments, we might have reached a consensus focused exclusively on voting through the app, and not necessarily on the broader issue of the virtual Parliament. It is possible to be in favour of voting through the app without systematically being in favour of all the measures of the virtual Parliament, especially because they do not use the same resources. For example, interpretation is not needed for voting. We know that the hybrid Parliament is generating a lot more need for interpretation and the use of accommodation. That in itself is a concern and we should have debated it, but we were caught with only 11 hours of debate on that, without the possibility for amendments, because the government had used closure. Motion No. 109 seeks to correct the government's ability to become a sort of tyranny of the majority when it comes to changing rules as critical as the ones that govern us. When closure is invoked on a bill, its impact is not the same. The reason for closure also matters. Closure during consideration of a bill can generally be aimed at protecting a certain segment of the population and our communities. Generally, it concerns values that are specific to each party and over which we might disagree, whereas the rules of procedure in the House are our rules of the game. The member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston gave a perfect example. He suggested imagining any sport, such as tennis, hockey, badminton or volleyball. If one of the two sides or teams could unilaterally change the rules in the middle of the game, would that be fair? That would make absolutely no sense. That is precisely what the motion seeks to correct, so that no one can decide more or less unilaterally how we govern ourselves. Perhaps the goal is also to prevent this kind of vicious circle in which the government changes the procedure under closure in order to give itself more power, so that it can later change the procedure even more and ultimately take away any power the opposition parties have that is necessary to hold the government to account. Unfortunately, this motion will not undo what was done in the past. It will not change the fact that the government invoked closure to fundamentally change the rules of procedure in the House, for example, to create a virtual Parliament. However, at the very least, this motion will serve as a sort of guarantee for the future. That is what is good about this motion. The way this motion works is also good. We do not want a majority to be able to change the ground rules. What the member is proposing is that we do not vote on the motion in the House right away. The motion seeks to send the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs so that we can hear from enough experts, fully debate the issue and then send the motion back to the House. In its wording, the motion lays out what should be done. For all of these reasons, I sincerely thank the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston. I know that he is passionate about procedure. I also know that he is a staunch defender of the basic rules of democracy that govern us. That being said, I look forward to seeing how members will vote. I can already guarantee that the Bloc Québécois will support the motion for many reasons, including because of what happened last year. I am looking forward to seeing how the Conservative members vote on this. In a way, they may be tying their own hands, given that they could form the government in the not-too-distant future. One does not need to be Nostradamus to know that. Maybe they would be tying the hands of their own government. It will be interesting to see what happens. In any event, the substance of the motion perfectly reflects the democratic will that should govern how we do things in the House. For these reasons, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the motion.
1240 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border