House of Commons Hansard #83 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was orders.

Topics

Standing Orders and ProcedureOrders of the Day

12:20 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

The hon. parliamentary secretary has three minutes remaining for his comments.

Standing Orders and ProcedureOrders of the Day

12:20 p.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, just before statements by members, I was talking about time allocation and refuting the allegations of the opposition that we were using them indiscriminately. In fact, what is happening is that the opposition NDP is purposely trying to delay debate to force our government into using time allocation so it can then make the claim, unfounded of course but make the claim nonetheless, that we are undemocratic in trying to stifle debate. In other words, it is simply trying to run up the score. We all know its strategy but we absolutely reject it.

I want to turn my attention in my last few moments to other matters that will seize the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs when it comes to the examination of Standing Orders. The member for Westmount—Ville-Marie had already stated that he would like to see an examination of question period and how we currently adopt the policy and the Standing Order regarding question period. That is a fair comment. It is something we should examine because it was in the last Parliament that we had a private member's bill that made many useful suggestions and many, frankly, that engaged a lot of parliamentarians on some fundamental changes that he felt would improve question period. I look forward to that study.

I also want to point out to members of this place that I have been approached by many of our members who also have suggested that we look at trying to alter or change the Standing Orders that would make it more family friendly, in other words, something that would accommodate members who have small children, male or female, and have to care for a family member. That is a very useful suggestion for examination. I look forward to that discussion as well. It may involve looking at the times we have question period allocated in the Standing Orders.

I am simply saying that since the Standing Orders are the rules that govern the House, the guidelines that inform all members how to perform their duties in the House, it is a critically important duty for those of us on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to take this task of the examination of the Standing Orders extremely seriously. I know the Standing Orders have existed for many years, in some cases hundreds of years, without change. I understand the sensitivity among those who suggest we tread very carefully when suggesting any changes to the Standing Orders. I understand their sensitivities and I implore all members of the procedure and House affairs committee to work with me on making changes that will modernize and improve the functioning of this place and for the betterment of all parliamentarians.

Standing Orders and ProcedureOrders of the Day

12:25 p.m.

NDP

Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet NDP Hochelaga, QC

Madam Speaker, my Conservative colleague is accusing us of wilfully, as he said, delaying passage of a bill. Unless he has a crystal ball, how can he know this even before debate gets underway, because a time allocation motion is sometimes presented before the debate starts?

Standing Orders and ProcedureOrders of the Day

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Madam Speaker, I am not making any accusations; I am just pointing out the obvious. I have given one example of Bill S-5, which was unduly delayed by the NDP opposition. I have many more, but I will just give one because I know we have a limited amount of time here, and that is Bill C-11, the copyright modernization act.

We brought the bill in the same form that it was presented in the last Parliament, which had the bill before committee. When we reintroduced it in this Parliament, after 75 speeches, the NDP opposition still refused to send it to committee. Those members still said that they had more people wanting to speak to it. The ironic thing is they said, at the same time, that they thought the bill needed amendments. Well the committee is the place to make amendments, yet they refused to send it. They forced us into time allocation so then they could turn around and say that the government was being anti-democratic.

The strategy of the NDP is clear. We understand that. I think all Canadians understand it by now as well.

Standing Orders and ProcedureOrders of the Day

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE

Madam Speaker, I would be interested in hearing the parliamentary secretary's views with respect to in camera meetings at committee.

I am the vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, one of the committees that most often conducts its business in camera. In fact, 31% of its meetings so far in this Parliament have been in camera. It is one thing to put a meeting in camera as a result of a formal vote. It is another to have the chairman circulate an agenda in advance of the meeting, without consultation with the committee co-chairs, which declares that a portion of the meeting will be in camera and then repeatedly rejects a request for a formal motion for it to be put in camera. Essentially, the committee goes in camera by edict.

The member for Westmount—Ville-Marie has given some very constructive suggestions with respect to when in camera meetings of committees are appropriate. I would be most interested in hearing from the parliamentary secretary on this topic.

Standing Orders and ProcedureOrders of the Day

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Madam Speaker, it is quite clear. Traditions of Parliament for over 100 years have dictated that committees are the masters of their own agenda and business. It is simply unacceptable, in my view, for Parliament, whether it be the Speaker or any other force within Parliament, to dictate to any committee how it should conduct its business. That is a fundamental part of our democratic process. Committees must determine how they wish to conduct their own business. That is the way it has always been, and for good reason, and it should remain the same.

Standing Orders and ProcedureOrders of the Day

12:25 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Madam Speaker, I have made quite a study of the Standing Orders since I became elected and it is useful for all members to become familiar with the fact that we do not need to change the rules in relation to question period to create a civil conversation. We merely need to respect the rules we have, which require no interruption of members when they are on their feet and no statements that are offensive to any member.

Will the hon. member join with me in a practice that I call zero tolerance for heckling? He may have noticed my practice on this point, that I not only do not heckle, I will not continue to speak when I am heckled.

Standing Orders and ProcedureOrders of the Day

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Madam Speaker, what I do agree with is the fact that there needs to be increased decorum and civility in the House. Mr. Layton, when he was still with us, made a point when this Parliament first opened shortly after the election to suggest that the New Democratic Party would improve the civility and decorum of the House by not heckling. We agreed with that. Unfortunately, there was one party in the House that did not agree with that, and still does not, and that is the Liberal Party.

I would suggest for my hon. colleague, who sits very near the Liberals, that perhaps she could encourage them to improve the civility and perhaps she could improve the overall decorum of the House by having them refrain from heckling. If they did, I am sure both the official opposition and the government would gladly comply.

Standing Orders and ProcedureOrders of the Day

12:30 p.m.

NDP

Kennedy Stewart NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about amending the Standing Orders. This is a golden opportunity to look at how we do the business of democracy in the House. Hopefully we can lower barriers and broaden participation and really use this opportunity to open the doors for Canadians just a bit wider.

In terms of amending the Standing Orders, I would first like to call attention to Standing Order 36 concerning petitions. Plummetting voter turnout and plunging levels of social capital means governments have to do all they can to improve participation in politics. One way for the public to provide input with respect to the business of Parliament is through petitions.

On this side of the House, we have called for large-scale reforms, such as electoral reform and abolishing the Senate. We also feel smaller changes made to business such as the Standing Orders could make a big difference in the lives of Canadians and how they interact with Parliament.

Today I proudly stood with three members of the Quebec caucus and announced an initiative to change the petitioning process, and I would like to outline that to the House.

Petitioning has a long parliamentary process. We really need to bring the petitioning practice in the House in to the 21st century. The current process is cumbersome and presents little payoff for constituents. Canadians wishing to present petitions use paper copies to gather signatures and present them to parliamentarians. Once 25 signatures have been gathered, the government must reply in 45 days.

The proposition we announced today is really two-fold. First, Canadians should have the ability to sign a petition electronically. This would not only improve access, but it would also allow us to more accurately gauge who has signed a petition. This is already being practised in the province of Quebec and in the U.K. parliament. We suggest that process be brought here.

More important, to bring us right in to the 21st century, we suggest that if a petition contains 50,000 signatures, the issue raised by the petitioners should be discussed in the House for one hour. This would be somewhat like private members' bills. It would allow debate in the House for an hour. This would give some strength to backbenchers, while taking a bit of power away from the partisan politics that seem to grip the House at times. It would also give citizens more of a say in their own governance.

My colleagues and I are working to secure cross-party support on this issue. We hope that the e-petition initiative becomes law.

In addition, I would like to call the House's attention to the excellent work we have also done concerning petitions in the House. Canadians living outside of Canada should be allowed access to petitions. Currently, petitions are limited by residency. An individual has to live in the country to sign a petition. We would like the committee to look at how Canadians living outside Canada could access petitions. E-petitions would perhaps facilitate this a little more.

I would like to move to another issue that we would like attended to concerning the Standing Orders. Standing Order 35(2) states “Upon presentation of a report accompanied by supplementary or dissenting opinions” the presenter also has a chance to explain the supplementary or dissenting opinion. We think this part of the Standing Orders could be revised to allow a representative of a party to make a statement for each dissenting opinion. At present, only a member of the official opposition can present on behalf of all of the dissenting opinion submissions. This works well for us now but this should be looked at again.

We also have another problem with this section. If the official opposition somehow supports the government, the third and fourth parties are left with no voice. We believe that if the third or fourth party objects and submits a dissenting opinion, there should be a mechanism in place that would allow those parties to have a chance to express a dissenting or supplementary opinion.

I also draw the House's attention to Standing Order 4(8)(a) which deals with the election of the Speaker of the House of Commons by secret ballot. There is a technical glitch where in the event of a tie two names are dropped off the list. For example, if a race included three candidates, and the first place candidate secured 40% of the vote, while the second and third candidates received 30% of the votes, the bottom two candidates would be eliminated from the race. Then the Speaker would be elected with 40% of the vote. We think this could perhaps be amended to prevent this kind of odd situation occurring where a Speaker is selected with just 40% of the vote.

I will move now to Standing Order 67.1(1)(a), which states:

When a motion has been proposed pursuant to Standing Order 57 or 78(3), there shall be a period of not more than thirty minutes during which time Members may put brief questions to the Minister responsible for the item...

We suggest that perhaps this 30 minutes question or comment period should be about the government's decision to use time allocation and closure on the bill at that stage and less about the merits of the bill itself. By allowing the minister to talk about the bill itself, we get distracted from the issue of closure. Amending the Standing Order to force the House leader to be the one answering the questions could, again, help us work through this issue.

I will now move to Standing Order 32(2), which states:

A Minister of the Crown, or a Parliamentary Secretary acting on behalf of a Minister, may, in his or her place in the House, state that he or she proposes to lay upon the Table of the House, any report or other paper dealing with a matter coming within the administrative responsibilities of the government, and, thereupon, the same shall be deemed for all purposes to have been laid before the House.

There has been a push in recent years to allow large documents to be tabled electronically and not in paper format. One example for this is the 2010-11 reports on plans or priorities, the blue books for each government department or agency. Those were not printed. They were available in electronic format only. We might want to look at this issue and see if it is actually working. We may want to see if, for example, all House business should be printed on paper, weighing for example the cost of printing and the effects on the environment.

Finally, I would draw attention to Standing Order 153. It states:

—shall make available to each Member...a list of the reports or other periodical statements...placing under the name of each officer or corporation a list of reports or returns required to be made...

Perhaps we should modernize the Standing Orders to be practical. It could be written, for example, as “The Law Clerk of the House shall make available to each member, in printed and electronic form”. Again, this is a chance to modernize how we present documents in the House, to weigh and to consider whether paper and electronic form, or perhaps both, are the way to move forward in making this information known to members and the public.

The priority for me in this list is to really consider the notion of opening petitions to the public and to allow the public better access to the House by guaranteeing a one hour debate for any electronic petition that receives over 50,000 signatures.

Standing Orders and ProcedureOrders of the Day

12:40 p.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, my colleague made a number of points, some of which I found very interesting, and I look forward to the discussion on these items at the procedure and House affairs committee. I have a couple of comments in response to some of his direct suggestions.

While the e-petition idea is interesting, I would point out that this could also be abused very easily. In this day and age it would not be very difficult to get 50,000 signatures on any petition, whether it be partisan or something that is extremely relevant to Canadians. I note with interest that the NDP may have up to 100,000 members signed prior to its upcoming leadership convention. I say that because it would then be very easy to have all members sign up and any time the NDP wanted to create a petition for debate, it could get 50,000 signatures online very easily. The result would be that the hour of debate would use up valuable House time. I think we have to consider that very carefully.

I do find it interesting, and frankly on first blush I tend to agree with the member's comments on the Speaker elections. If it happened that there were only three candidates left on the ballot, two were tied and they both had to drop off, with the remaining candidate receiving less than 50% of the votes of the House, that would be a bit of a problem. I think we should examine that very carefully.

I appreciate the comments and suggestions. Hopefully, there will be many more of them from all parties that are forwarded to the procedure and House affairs committee for examination. I look forward to a very interesting series of discussions. I am quite sure that from time to time we will agree and from time to time we will agree to disagree. Nonetheless, I do believe that the Standing Orders as we now have them should be modernized.

Standing Orders and ProcedureOrders of the Day

12:40 p.m.

NDP

Kennedy Stewart NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC

Madam Speaker, when my wife Jeanette Ashe, who is a political scientist, first brought the e-petitions notion to my attention, we started to do quite a lot of research on it. First and foremost, we went to the United Kingdom to look at this. It had a very long study, about five years, on e-petitions. The very concerns the member has brought up were raised. In fact, under a Conservative government, the U.K. decided to go forward with this notion and has found it to be very successful. It has found secure ways for the e-petitioning system. What it found was that it actually allows more accuracy in identifying signatures. In fact, to date, in the year this has been operating, it has only had about 11 petitions that have actually come forward.

In concern for the hour being taken away from House business, we propose that hour be added to what the House currently does so as not to disrupt proceedings.

Since we have started to talk about this motion this week, we have had considerable support from the public, all in electronic form so far.

Standing Orders and ProcedureOrders of the Day

12:40 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, one of the rules that we do need to revisit is the one on time allocation. I understand the government's argument, but I do not agree with it. What I do believe is that we need to establish something that guarantees a minimum number of hours for debate before a government is allowed to bring in time allocation. There are some pieces of legislation brought forward, such as the wheat board legislation, the back to work legislation, and other pieces of legislation, on which I believe members of the House should at least be afforded the opportunity to speak. The only way we can do that is to ensure there are a minimum number of hours for debate.

Standing Orders and ProcedureOrders of the Day

12:40 p.m.

NDP

Kennedy Stewart NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC

Madam Speaker, I am a bit disturbed that we have hit a record in terms of closure in the House and that the government is limiting debate. I do not think that we have abused our privileges on this side of the House, but I think the government has made commitments to the public to rush through a number of pieces of legislation in the first 100 days. I think that is what is causing that type of action.

I agree with the member that sometimes the customs affect the rules and the rules affect the customs. If this practice is going to continue, perhaps we should look at some guarantees in terms of the length of debate. This is where Canadians get to hear the tos and fros about specific legislation, and it is an important part of the parliamentary process to protect.

Standing Orders and ProcedureOrders of the Day

12:45 p.m.

Conservative

Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to discuss the Standing Orders. We have already heard many good suggestions today that warrant further discussion at the procedure and House affairs committee.

I will bring forward a couple of new suggestions in my presentation, suggestions which I also plan to raise as we serve on that committee. The suggestions which I will bring forward have one simple goal, and that is to make this House run more efficiently.

Before I do that, I want to take note that preparing for this debate only affirmed for me the importance of having this discussion and actually trying to simplify the Standing Orders, because a read through the Standing Orders is very painful and difficult.

Therefore, it is appropriate for me to preface my comments with some thanks. First, your office, Madam Speaker, and the office of the Clerk play an invaluable role to the functioning of this Parliament. Hon. members can only make sense of some of the complicated rules and the maze of procedures with the help of the clerks and analysts, and that does not just apply to this House, but for me as a member of Parliament serving on a committee, I cannot say enough about how much I appreciate, and we appreciate, the work of the clerks who serve there, the work of the analysts and much of the research that is done to help us do an effective job as parliamentarians. My thanks to each of them for that.

I also want to offer thanks to those Canadians who are watching this debate today, if there are three or four, and who might read Hansard.

While the Standing Orders are complicated, they do set the rules of the game for this House and they are vitally important. For that reason, I also want to thank journalists who are following the proceedings of the House who face the challenge of making sense of all of these procedures for their audiences.

To begin with, there are many small alterations to the rules that could make a big difference to the efficient operation of this House and the convenience of its members. Often it is a simple matter of how the order of certain proceedings are presented in the Standing Orders or our order of operations, if you will.

For example, prior to 2001, the order of business for routine proceedings was arranged in such a way that the rubric “Statements by Ministers” came before the rubric, “Introduction of Government Bills”. If the government wanted to make a ministerial statement on a bill that it had just introduced and wanted to do so in the House, it would have to wait until the next day, since it was against the rules to divulge the contents of a bill before it was introduced in the House of Commons.

In 2001, the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons looked into this. The committee's suggestion was to re-order routine proceedings to allow for the introduction of government bills prior to statements by ministers, a sensible little change that opened up a positive opportunity to members of this House.

We now have a similar situation with respect to the process for bills based on ways and means motions. Before taxation legislation can be read a first time, a notice of ways and means motion must first be tabled in the House by a minister of the Crown. The minister, usually on the same day the motion is tabled, makes a request to the Speaker that an order of the day be designated for consideration of the motion on a subsequent day. Waiting the next day to vote on something that was just tabled makes perfect sense. That day allows members an opportunity to review legislation before they are called to vote on it.

After a ways and means motion is adopted, it stands as an order of the House to bring in a bill or bills based on the provisions of that motion. It is at this stage where I believe we can improve the efficiency of the procedure relating to the introduction of taxation legislation.

Our current difficulty is that on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, introduction of government bills comes before government orders. Ways and means motions can only be moved during government orders, so if we vote on a ways and means motion on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, we cannot introduce the bill based on that ways and means motion until the following sitting day. Depending on where we are on the calendar, the delay could be days, weeks, or even months, and I believe this delay serves no benefit.

While the ways and means motion contains the tax measures in the bill, there are other components associated with the proposal that may be contained in the legislation. In these cases members do not get the whole picture on the same day the ways and means motion was adopted.

In our current rules, there are two days of the week where we could vote on a ways and means motion and introduce the tax bill on the same day: Mondays and Fridays.

I do not want to speak for all the party whips in the House, but as deputy whip for the government, I can honestly say that voting on Mondays at 10:00 or on Fridays is not ideal. I am not suggesting a privileged process for bills based on a ways and means motion. The 48-hour notice required before a bill can be introduced would continue to apply to all bills. What I do want is the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to examine the peculiarity of an additional delay to introduce bills based on ways and means motions on some days of the week but not others.

It should be noted that the timing for the introduction of bills that are not based on ways and means motions, whether they be government bills or private members' bills, is the same for each sitting day of the week.

Here we have an opportunity whereby altering the order of business, as was done with ministerial statements and the introduction of government bills in 2001, could increase the efficiency of the House by 60%. As I said in my opening comments, the primary reason to examine the Standing Orders is to improve the efficiency of the House of Commons. In this case, our efficiency and effectiveness would improve by making what is now possible on only two days of the week possible on all five days of the week. In this case, we may not want to move routine proceedings or government orders on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, but we could achieve the same result by simply allowing one proceeding to follow another proceeding, which is not currently allowed under our rules.

My suggestion to the procedure and House affairs committee would be to come up with a proposal that following the adoption of a ways and means motion would allow a bill based thereon to be introduced and made public immediately. If the current rules allow these bills to be introduced on the same day following the adoption of a ways and means motion on Mondays and Fridays, there is no reason not to extend that same convenience and efficiency to Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays.

That is my first idea.

My next suggestion deals with the continuance of committee memberships. Currently in the Standing Orders the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is charged with being a striking committee which presents a report to the House outlining the memberships of standing and standing joint committees. When this report is adopted by the House, a notice of meeting is sent so that the business of the committee can begin with the election of a chair.

Standing Order 104(1) stipulates that this is done at the beginning of each session of Parliament, which is entirely reasonable. However, it also requires that the same procedure happen again after each Labour Day. Unlike the situation at the start of a session at this time, after each Labour Day committees already will be in operation. The only result of this requirement is a needless interruption of committee business. It is not clear to me how it helps the committees to fulfill their mandate from the House to have their work interrupted in this way.

The procedure and House affairs committee has the ability to change memberships at any time without being required to do so at a particular point in the calendar. It only makes sense to maintain the current practice at the start of each session, but eliminate the requirement to do it after each Labour Day. This is just one example of some relatively small changes that I believe the procedure and House affairs committee should consider in its deliberations.

I am looking forward to our committee's review as we work to make this House more efficient and modernize our Standing Orders.

Standing Orders and ProcedureOrders of the Day

12:50 p.m.

NDP

Alexandrine Latendresse NDP Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his speech. I have a few quick questions for him.

He spoke a great deal about ways and means motions. Recently, there were a few problems with Bill C-317, which was rejected because no ways and means motion had been moved beforehand. The Speaker of the House invoked Standing Order 92.1 to give the hon. member a chance to reintroduce his bill. Since he was at the top of the list of MPs with a private member's bill to introduce, Standing Orders 94(1)(a) et 94(2)(a) prevented him from switching his bill, as usually it takes 48 hours.

I think all these provisions should be reviewed by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. This creates an imbroglio, and I think it is important for these provisions to be addressed.

I would like to know whether the hon. member for Kitchener Centre agrees with me.

Standing Orders and ProcedureOrders of the Day

12:55 p.m.

Conservative

Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON

Madam Speaker, we do have a good working relationship at the procedure and House affairs committee. It is one of the committees of this House that really works in a non-partisan way for the advantage of the House of Commons and for the efficiency of the House. However, it is important that we do study.

One of the NDP members commented that the reason we are doing this review is that things are not working. Any level of government, whether a school board or a municipal or provincial or federal government, has the obligation to review its procedures. If we think these procedures are good for all time, it certainly negates our need to be here.

However, as it relates to the question the member raised, I would point out that she was talking about private members' bills but I was speaking about ways and means motions, which obviously relate to government bills. My position is simply that we should have equal treatment of that system all five days of the week, not have it available for two days only, Mondays and Fridays, but on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays be hobbled by the necessity of leaving that for another potential sitting, which could be one day, two days or a number of weeks later.

Standing Orders and ProcedureOrders of the Day

12:55 p.m.

NDP

Alexandrine Latendresse NDP Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

Madam Speaker, I have another question for my colleague with regard to Senate bills. Currently, under Standing Order 86.2(2), Senate bills take precedence over other bills. Should this not be changed? We could take a look at the possibilities. For example, we could study two bills in a row for an hour each, as we saw yesterday. Could we not look at various options with regard to Senate bills?

Standing Orders and ProcedureOrders of the Day

12:55 p.m.

Conservative

Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON

Madam Speaker, these are the kinds of suggestions that are important to get on the table today and throughout the course of our study at the procedures and House affairs committee. All of us here know that as private members we have the option to introduce one private member's bill per session. Generally speaking, if a member is in the early party of the draw, he or she will have the opportunity to do that. In addition, we also have the opportunity to sponsor one of the bills coming from the Senate.

I am more than happy to discuss how that procedure is currently mandated, with a view to possibly amending it in a way that would still make it possible for those bills to get here without their necessarily always taking precedence over some of the important legislation that private members in this House have already put on the table.

Standing Orders and ProcedureOrders of the Day

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, informally and formally in committees in the past in Manitoba, I know that provincial legislatures often look to what is happening in Ottawa in the Standing Orders for help in changing some of the rules that they are looking at. What I want to suggest to the member is that when members reflect on the rules in the Standing Orders here in the House of Commons, they should be aware of the fact that many other jurisdictions, not only provincial but also Commonwealth countries overseas, do reflect on the rules we currently have and the ways we change them.

I would ask the member to comment on that. Does he take that into consideration when the committee is making decisions?

Standing Orders and ProcedureOrders of the Day

12:55 p.m.

Conservative

Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON

Madam Speaker, it is obvious that we need to see our leadership role, the visionary role the House of Commons plays across our country, as extremely important. That is one of the reasons why some of the initiatives have come forward in the last number of days in the House, as they relate to private members' legislation. It is simply a matter of a leadership role.

However, I am sure my hon. colleague would agree that there are situations where there are no similarities. We just had a question earlier about the Senate and the Senate bills. Obviously, provincial houses do not have that issue to deal with.

This party, on our side, is very committed to modernizing the Standing Orders so they reflect modern reality. We have already indicated that we would welcome input from members on all sides of the House, and we have committed to doing an in-depth study of this at the procedures and House affairs committee. We are not going to hobble consideration of this to just a couple of meetings but are going to give it as much time as we need to get it right. It is important that we get it right because this will help to improve the efficiency of this place.

We have been sent here to get work done on behalf of Canadians, and too often I hear, and I am sure my colleague hears as well, that things seem to move so slowly here. Like the one case I used as an example, if we could improve our efficiency by 60%, that would be fantastic.

Standing Orders and ProcedureOrders of the Day

1 p.m.

NDP

Charmaine Borg NDP Terrebonne—Blainville, QC

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to rise in this debate, as I am particularly concerned about the lack of people interested in politics, especially our youth. I am delighted, therefore, to be able to discuss changes to the Standing Orders which, believe me, will improve this political institution.

The first issue for the committee’s consideration should be Standing Order 37(1) concerning question period. This period is intended to be an opportunity for members to ask questions of ministers, who then respond, although my colleagues will agree that we have not got many answers to our questions recently. I consider this to be a serious problem. We should find ways of improving the situation. There could be provisions and even protocols with which the Speaker would have to comply to ensure that ministers answer questions asked by the opposition. This is how we can hold the government to account. It is very important that when members ask questions of ministers, they be required to answer them. Another option for consideration would be to set aside a day for the Prime Minister, during which he would be required to answer questions.

The next rule that warrants consideration is Standing Order 45(3) concerning the length of time the bells are sounded to call in the members. In January, members said that they wanted the bells to be sounded on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays for 30 minutes rather than 15 minutes, given that members are in committee and it takes them longer to return to the House. This is already something that the House adopts unanimously in January of every year. The change should therefore be written into the Standing Orders, so that it becomes the rule and not the exception.

We would like to ask the committee to review Standing Order 108(3)(a). It would be very beneficial to formalize the process in which the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs studies and reports to the House on the kinds of debates we are having today. It is important to have these debates, which take place in each parliament, but it would be beneficial if we could implement a system whereby the committee assessed the debates from previous years so that what is debated here is not lost. That could be productive for our political institution and for the committee that reviews these issues.

The next change that we are proposing concerns Standing Order 44.1(1) regarding paired members. According to this Standing Order, members are entitled to be paired with other members who intend to be absent on the same day. In the past, however, the government has paired with the Bloc Québécois, which perhaps voted along similar lines. The Standing Order stipulates that the person with whom the member is paired shall vote in the opposite manner, so that they cancel each other out. It is important to review this practice to ensure that it is indeed being followed, because this has not always been the case in the past. It is important that neutrality is maintained.

On the same issue, but relating to Standing Order 44.1(2), we would also like the committee to consider the possibility of including the time or the individual vote in the register of paired members. According to the Standing Orders, members must be paired for the entire day. We would like the committee to consider the possibility of members being paired for one vote at a time. Alternatively, the provision stipulating that members must be paired for the entire day could be completely scrapped.

Regarding Standing Order 156(2), the opposition realizes that the Speaker often reports administrative changes to bills to the House. However, it is not certain whether the Speaker does this systematically. We would therefore like the committee to consider the possibility of implementing a system to ensure that each administrative change made to a bill is reported to the House. Every member would therefore be informed of any changes made to a bill, especially those of an administrative nature.

I would like to raise a final point today. There is one particular Standing Order that is somewhat strange and truly anachronistic in the 21st century. Standing order 158(2) states that “No stranger who has been committed, by Order of the House, to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, shall be released from such custody until he or she has paid a fee of four dollars to the Sergeant-at-Arms.”

Members will agreed that $4 is not a huge sum that would make a stranger to the House of Commons think twice before entering. This Standing Order should be modernized. Perhaps there should be a requirement for the payment of an amount of money more appropriate to the 21st century, or perhaps this Standing Order could be scrapped entirely.

In closing, it was a great pleasure for me to be here and to take part in the discussion to improve our Standing Orders here in the House and to restore confidence in our democratic system.

Standing Orders and ProcedureOrders of the Day

1:05 p.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, I should start by saying that we are in agreement with at least one of the member's suggestions, the final one on the archaic $4 fine for a stranger in the House who has to be removed. For those who are watching or listening, this refers to a situation where anyone, whether on the floor of the House or in the gallery, has been found to be in misconduct of the House and has to be removed by the Sergeant at Arms. The current Standing Order says that in addition to their being removed from the House, that person would have to pay a fine of $4. I am not exactly sure when that Standing Order was written, but it clearly was a number of years ago. We also believe that the fine should be increased. Whether the amount should be $100 or more is up for discussion, but I certainly assure my hon. colleague that we have noted that Standing Order as well.

I want to talk about question period and Standing Order 37(1).

I would point out to the hon. member that my colleague on the government side from Wellington—Halton Hills had a motion last year on possible changes to question period that was being examined by the procedure and house affairs committee. I think we will get into that again, but one of the difficulties I saw in our first examination of that bill was referenced by my hon. colleague, the requirement that ministers always be present to answer questions posed of them. That is not always possible. Sometimes ministers like my hard-working colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, are out of the country representing Canada.

There may be some issues and questions that the members opposite might have when a minister is absent, and so it would be unfortunate if we restricted members to only asking questions of a minister when he or she were present. I believe that would impair the ability of the government to deal with emergency situations. It would also impair the ability of the opposition to ask questions of the government if the minister--

Standing Orders and ProcedureOrders of the Day

1:05 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

Order. I would like to give the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville an opportunity to respond.

Standing Orders and ProcedureOrders of the Day

1:05 p.m.

NDP

Charmaine Borg NDP Terrebonne—Blainville, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

The debate really will be productive if we decide to discuss how to reform question period. I am pleased to note that the government members and members from the other parties are prepared to discuss potential improvements to question period. Personally, I understand that ministers are busy and that they cannot always be present, as we all have commitments in our ridings. I think that all of these questions can be considered, and I hope that the committee does so.

Standing Orders and ProcedureOrders of the Day

1:10 p.m.

NDP

Alexandrine Latendresse NDP Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke about question period.

Standing Order 31 refers to statements by members, which immediately precedes question period. However, over recent months and weeks, the statements have become increasingly partisan.

Will my colleague agree to having the committee also consider Standing Order 31, so as to find a way of making statements less partisan, thereby giving members the opportunity to talk about events in their ridings that are of common interest to the House? This would greatly lessen the personal attacks observed recently in this House.