Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 5th, 2007

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I agree with the idea of changing the Standing Orders. When Mr. Guimond — and I think you will agree with me — brought up the issue of the independent members, it was not to remove from the Speaker the discretionary power of determining the number of independents who are entitled to rise in the House during the course of a week. One person cannot be allowed all of the questions decided upon by the Speaker. If the Speaker has decided to allow two questions from independent members during the course of a week and the member chooses to not put his or her question, the other person does not get to put the two questions. I simply wish to have the assurance that this is what we are discussing here.

What I am rather hearing is that there was one single question per week and if the member took the question this week and that the following week she took it again, then the other member would not be entitled to one. I do not agree with that. The Speaker allows more than one question per week to independent members.

In the previous government, there was the Bloc member, there were two independents, Ghislain Lebel and Madam Venne. If they each wished to rise and put a question during the week, they were entitled to do so. That is not the problem; the problem is rather when there are three or four independent members and only one person gets all of the questions allowed the independents. That is what Michel brought up.

I simply wish to know if that is what you think the Standing Orders say.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

The Speaker is fair. During the course of the second week, he will have to balance things out. But, if on the Monday it is the same person who asks for a question and the other does not want to relinquish his question... The independent member might be in the House on the Tuesday, the Wednesday, the Thursday or the Friday. Ms. Thibault is using the ability the Standing Orders provide her.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Chairman, the problem was not...

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Monsieur Godin.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

The problem was not that she was asking a second question the following week, but that she was asking two questions in the same week. The following week was another week.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

The same thing happened again the following week. She once again, the following week, asked two questions.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

No...

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Order, please.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

All of this must be clear, Mr. Chairman. We are getting mixed messages.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

No, I agree. No, I'm going to allow you to do that, but I'd rather have it so the microphones are on so all members can participate in understanding what you're talking about. So perhaps you could address the chair, and if Monsieur Guimond wants to respond, I certainly am going to allow him that opportunity.

Right now it's to you, Monsieur Godin.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

If there are three or four independent members in the House, the Speaker has the discretionary authority to allow them to ask two questions each week. I do not want to take this privilege away from the Speaker, in the Standing Orders. It is then up to him to decide, among the independents, who will be allowed to ask the questions, but we are saying that any one member will not be able to ask two questions.

The Speaker could authorize Ms. Thibault to ask a question on the Monday, and again on the following Monday, if he so desires. That is not my concern: that is up to the Speaker to decide. However, the member would not be able to ask two questions during the same week. That is what the Standing Orders should establish. And I believe that we have agreed on that.

We are not going to start asking the Speaker if he has examined the list to see who came first and telling him that he can allow a member to ask a question on the Monday, but that given that the other member did not ask to be recognized, he or she will have to wait until the Thursday. Independent members have the right to ask two questions. But they will not have two questions in one and the same week. We have agreed on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Okay, I think we have the point on that.

Do our witnesses want to respond to that? I know Monsieur Guimond has the answer for Mr. Godin, so if that's acceptable to everybody, Monsieur Guimond, please go ahead and respond.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

I have discussed this with the Speaker. He is taking things day by day. On the Monday, he looks to see which independent MP has put forward a question. He slates it in at the end of the Oral Question Period at 2:59 p.m. If it is the member who asked to put a question, he will grant him or her leave to do so. The following day, he goes through the same exercise. As a matter of fact, he repeats the exercise three times. When the other two members do not ask questions, then it is the same member who is allowed a question.

The Speaker told me that if we change the Standing Orders so as to give him a framework in order for him to be able to allow independent members to put one oral question and make one statement per week, then he would respect the Standing Orders, but he would retain his privilege to balance things out between independent members.

Therefore, if he has recognized Mr. Godin as an independent member during the week of September 17, then the following week, if Mr. Godin once again wishes to ask a question and another independent member also wishes to put a question, he would be free to tell Mr. Godin that, since he granted him the floor the previous week, he will this time recognize another independent member. But if the other member never asks to be allowed to put a question, then he will once again recognize Mr. Godin the second, third, and fourth week.

The Speaker wants to have a framework. According to what you are saying, Yvon, if there are 17 independent members, each one of them will want to be recognized. Perhaps you will in the end lose your opportunity to ask questions, as a fourth party. You should give serious thought to this matter.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

At 2:59 p.m.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

It will perhaps always be at 2:59 p.m., or perhaps at 2:58 p.m., for independent members wishing to put questions. That is not at all the spirit, when a second independent member wishes to rise one week to ask a question. If you have decided to not rise this week and another member who is there decides to rise, the following week, you will rise and you will put your question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Okay, colleagues--

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Chairman, I had the floor. I wanted to know if, in the present system, at least two questions per week were granted to independent members, be there 17, 28, 2 or 3 of them. I believe that such is the case.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Please.

[Audrey O'Brien]

Mr. Chairman, yes, independent members are entitled to ask more than one question per week. As I was saying earlier, this is based upon the Speaker's calculations in determining how many questions or statements, from a purely mathematical point of view, should be allowed independent members.

In his Standing Orders amendment proposal, Mr. Guimond is suggesting that there be one question only per week for the independent members. Mr. Godin is describing another system whereby the Speaker can recognize an independent member only once during the course of the week.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Let me make sure everybody understands that Mr. Guimond has changed the wording of the motion--just so that everybody has it, Mr. Godin. We've changed it already, but we're recommending that this be only once a week.

Does everybody have a copy of this motion, with the wording down?

I want to read it, and then we're going to go to Mr. Owen: “Only once a week, pursuant to Standing Order 31, the Speaker may recognize an independent member.” The second part there is: “For the purposes of Standing Order 31.1(1), members of political parties not officially recognized in the House are not considered independent Members.”

For the most part, the wording is identical with respect to questions in question period. For section 37(1.1)(a): “Only once a week, pursuant to Standing Order 37(1), the Speaker may recognize an independent Member.” Again, the wording for proposed Standing Order 37(1.1)(b) is as you have it in front of you.

I just wanted to bring us up to date, because the discussion is carrying on.

I have Mr. Owen and I have Monsieur Guimond, but I appear to be recognizing you as need be, because this is your motion. Let's try to keep it to Mr. Owen, Monsieur Proulx, and then Madame Picard.

Mr. Owen, please.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you.

First of all, let me apologize for not knowing the scope of the other standing orders, because they may clarify what is unclear to me at this point. Even with the changes to each of the motions, it's not clear to me, the way it's worded, whether it means each independent member only once a week may be recognized or that only one independent member per week may be recognized. That's the first question.

Second, I wouldn't want Standing Orders 31.1(2) and 37(1.1)(b) to be interpreted to mean that members of a political party, even though it wasn't officially recognized, would have even fewer rights than an independent to ask questions. I think I heard that the Speaker will work out some formula that's fair.

Does it say that anywhere? I think this is capable of being misconstrued to mean that you have fewer rights as a member of an unrecognized party than you have as an independent. It's really just a matter of interpretation.

[Audrey O'Brien]

My understanding, Mr. Chairman, speaking through you, is that it is...I forget the phrasing Mr. Owen used in his first question, but basically it is one of however many independents.

[An hon member]

Only one?

[Audrey O'Brien]

It's only one of however many independents.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Through you, Mr. Chair, are you saying that's the intention of this? I understand that to be the intention of it as well.

So my question is, is it capable of being misinterpreted when you read, “may recognize an independent”?