Evidence of meeting #55 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was questions.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Thank you.
I let a little bit of discussion go back and forth because I felt it was necessary, but let's try to keep it through the chair from now on.
Madam Redman, please.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
Karen Redman Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess I have some of the same areas of lack of clarity.
Has anyone done the statistics on how many independent questions have been asked on a weekly basis up to this date in the current Parliament?
11:25 a.m.
Clerk of the House
I think on average there have been two, and more rarely three.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
Karen Redman Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
Rather than projecting on something hypothetical, what happened when the Conservatives were down to two members? What was the rotation at that time?
11:25 a.m.
Clerk of the House
Because of the nature of the situation, I'm a little reluctant to speculate as to what would happen just based on numbers. I think at the time there were discussions because the Conservative Party was one of the founding parties in the country, etc. That was more of a deciding factor than the formula. I don't believe that either Mr. Charest or Madam Wayne were treated as independents per se--if that helps.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
Karen Redman Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
So if we were to adopt this, we would go from all or any independents in the House having the opportunity to ask two questions per week, down to only one a week. Whatever that rotation was or who those people were would be up to the Speaker, in his discretion with those independent members, who would all be treated as individuals, as opposed to any kind of collective.
11:25 a.m.
Clerk of the House
That's right. It seems to me that the difficulty perceived with the way the Speaker is handling it now--and this is a precedent that he himself has been respecting--is that he's considering them as a collective of independents, if you will. That would not be possible under this proposed standing order.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
Karen Redman Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
I guess we're recognizing this because the Library of Parliament document shows that we have had as many as 17 over time. So there could be the scenario where we're looking at 17 parliamentarians all vying for one spot--not just a handful of people.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
Karen Redman Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
On Standing Order 31.1(2), I'll feed you back what I heard you explain to Mr. Lukiwski's question. That basically sets aside any recognized party, whether it's the Rhinoceros Party or whatever, as not being viewed as independent. So even if there were two or three of them, they would be dealt with as an entity.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
Karen Redman Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
That negotiation would happen in the normal way through the whips and House leaders.
11:25 a.m.
Clerk of the House
Yes. I also suspect, from the way I read this, the Speaker would also be allowed to view them as a collective.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
Karen Redman Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
So by having fewer than 12 members, a party would lack research moneys and any recognition it would get by reaching that threshold.
11:30 a.m.
Clerk of the House
As I recall, the unrecognized parties that don't reach that threshold are not actually.... Obviously there are discussions that go on with their colleagues from recognized parties, but I don't think they figure in the actual divvying up of the number of slots in question period in formal negotiations. Those formal negotiations, as I understand it, take place between the recognized parties, and this collective would still be under the wing of the Speaker.
Again, going back in history, we were talking about the two Conservatives, when Mr. Charest and Mrs. Wayne were sitting. The circumstances might be different and negotiations might want to take different things into consideration. Ordinarily it's the recognized parties that are part of the formal negotiations, and those outside that kind of fend for themselves.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
Karen Redman Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
From experience, there are vigorous negotiations and debates that go on amongst recognized parties. I think that would be jealously guarded and be the purview of recognized parties.
This in no way affects anything other than their opportunity to ask questions in the House. They wouldn't get SO 31s.
11:30 a.m.
Clerk of the House
The SO 31 is dealt with by the second draft standing order.
11:30 a.m.
Bloc
Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
It's the first one. The second one is the question.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
Karen Redman Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
It would have no impact on their ability to participate in standing committees.
11:30 a.m.
Clerk of the House
That would be governed by the usual rules that exist. They're not usually members of standing committees, as you know, because that's again a purview jealously guarded by the recognized parties.