—on a basis that reflects the direction we want to see, that reflects the involvement of all parties and the involvement of members in different kinds of positions who are considering that.
I wanted to make some comments with respect to the Standing Orders on the issue of emergency debates as well. There is a provision for members to bring forward requests for emergency debate, and then the Speaker makes those decisions.
Perhaps we could provide greater clarity on what circumstances meet the requirements for such emergency debate, but we also had a situation in the House on Tuesday where I wanted to bring forward a request for emergency debate on an important question on Syria. Basically, because of concurrence motions and other motions that were brought forward, there was no opportunity to bring forward that request for an emergency debate. The discussion of motions went right up until question period. I raised a point of order on this but the Speaker's interpretation of Standing Order 52 in conjunction with Standing Order 30 was that it automatically reverts to government orders after question period on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Therefore, if concurrence motions or other aspects of routine proceedings take you all the way to question period, then a request for emergency debate disappears.
Emergency debates are supposed to be just that, emergency debates. They are supposed to reflect emergent situations, so it is a problem when members of Parliament are not able to make those requests for emergency debate. The way the Standing Orders are written gives preference to the introduction of government bills, because if routine proceedings have proceeded past the introduction of government bills, then you automatically revert to government orders after three o'clock on Tuesdays and Thursdays. But if you haven't yet gotten to the introduction of government bills, you can still proceed with the introduction of government bills after three o'clock, at which point it automatically reverts to government orders. Already within the Standing Orders you sort of have this preferencing of the introduction of government bills over the introduction of private members' bills, just in the way they are set up.
These are aspects of our Standing Orders where I would say yes, we can have reform or improvement or modernization, however you want to see it. But I would see that reform moving in a direction that empowers members, and in the case of the particular situation I'm talking about, with respect to emergency debates. We could do a better job of clarifying in the Standing Orders the circumstances for emergency and take-note debates, because we have these foreign policy crises, like what's happening in Syria with the terrible chemical weapons attack, the response by the United States, and then the ensuing questions back and forth of the engagement of different powers with each other and how those tensions are escalating. I believe it is so important for our system of responsible government and for the strength of our institutions that, when we are confronted with major foreign policy crises, we have an emergency debate or a take-note debate about them in the House of Commons.
There often isn't legislation that directly involves these instances. What's happening in Syria isn't something on which all of a sudden we are going to pass legislation, but it is the kind of thing where members should be standing up in the House of Commons and discussing what they believe. It's an important exercise in terms of the health of our democracy, in terms of showing the world that in Canada, even major decisions on foreign policy issues in the midst of a crisis are made through deliberation in the House of Commons. It also helps inform the government, and it forces the government to justify whatever they are doing in some way in the House of Commons.
It is striking—for members who have looked at World War II history—how engaged the House of Commons was, and how important House of Commons debate was, that immediately on becoming Prime Minister, and in the midst of the crisis that evolved in early May 1940, Winston Churchill called the House of Commons.
It was important for him to address the House of Commons. It served as a stark contrast, a way of showing the kind of society we are, that we value our parliamentary institutions.
Yet in the midst of all that has been going on, we haven't had a debate on Syria—not recently, not in response to recent events. In particular, we've had debates about Canadian military deployment in response to Daesh, but we have not, broadly speaking, had a debate about the Canadian response to the civil war in Syria yet this Parliament. I think we should. That's why I put in the request for an emergency debate, likely one that we will now not have an opportunity to move forward with because we didn't have routine proceedings today. Then tomorrow, of course, the granting of an emergency debate would take us till midnight on Holy Thursday, which would create all kinds of other potential issues since most members are probably already planning to go back to their ridings, if they haven't already.
We'll miss that opportunity, but it's an opportunity that shouldn't be missed because this is a critical issue. I moved in the House to have unanimous consent to allow us to revert to a request for emergency debate. Unfortunately, that unanimous consent was denied. By whom? Who knows? It was denied, but I don't think this speaks to the need to reform the process around emergency debates. Ideally, it should be almost automatic that when something of the magnitude that happened in Syria happens, there is a debate that takes place in the House of Commons. That should be part of who we are, a nation that debates these issues when they come up and has members of Parliament engaged in that conversation.
One other thing about the Standing Orders that I think is often missed is that we have speaking lists. Every member knows this: that when they wish to speak they have that discussion with some staffers within their party who provide their name as part of a speaking list. There are presumed speaking spots. There's a presumed speaking rotation among different parties. The impact of it is that so-called minor parties—non-recognized parties, I should say—like the Bloc and the Greens, are not on that list. Generally speaking, their only ability to participate in debate is through questions and comments, or if other members are prepared to share those spots with them.
There's no provision in the Standing Orders for speaking lists. The Standing Orders are very clear about prescribing a completely different model. The same goes for question period, for statements by members, and also for debates. The way they are supposed to work is that, similar to what we do during questions and comments, members stand up. Whoever stands first is called upon by the Speaker, and then that person proceeds to give a speech.
We can see, perhaps, the value of some degree of coordination. However, by imposing party lists, the effect of the current system is that it introduces a substantial difference between members of recognized and members of non-recognized parties. That may be a surprise to some people when you consider the fact that all of us are elected members of Parliament, elected here by Canadians to serve our constituencies.
A change to the way that party lists operate would make sense, at least not to have that dramatic dissonance between what the Standing Orders say and what happens in practice. It's a pretty striking dissonance. In fact, oftentimes what happens is that a member might stand up, usually because they're trying to get the attention of the Speaker for questions and comments, but then the Speaker will say “Resuming debate”, and then call on a member who at that moment is sitting down.
He will ignore members who are standing up and call on a member who is sitting down. That has become our practice, informally, but that is not what the Standing Orders say and, of course, the very wise and accomplished former Speaker Scheer said in the last Parliament that the practice of using lists doesn't in any way change the Standing Orders. The Standing Orders still are that, during statements by members, during question period, or during speeches, it can happen that an individual member can stand up, seek to get the eye of the Speaker, be called on by the Speaker, pose a question, make a statement, or give a speech. These are aspects of our Standing Orders that can be discussed. Perhaps it would be logical to discuss changes to the Standing Orders that would, in some sense, recognize the informal practice while introducing limits to that informal practice that actually protect the rights of members and acknowledge that oftentimes the Speaker will refer to a list, but they won't always refer to a list, or that perhaps there should be certain points in time when they do not use a list.
To recognize that reality but prescribe cases in which it would not apply would go a long way to providing a greater level of protection for individual members. Again, these are changes to the Standing Orders that would be worth discussing and would have the potential to strengthen, or at least protect, the role of the private member in this process.
The use of speakers lists, as well, can have the effect of reducing the engagement that members have in debates that are happening. It allows members to show up two minutes before their speech, give the speech, and then leave; whereas, if in order to speak, you need to get the attention of the Speaker, you'd have to be in the House for a longer period of time. You have to be there standing up to get the Speaker's attention, trying to get his or her attention, and maybe you have to try to do that a few times before you actually get the Speaker's attention. With the lists in place, you don't have to do that, but without lists, or at least with some modification, you would perhaps have more engagement by members in terms of listening to speeches and making remarks that align with that kind of idealized deliberative model that I talked about at the beginning in which there is a back-and-forth, not just a reading into the record of a pre-set message.
Mr. Chair, I think Mr. Simms wants to make a brief comment, which I'm okay with.
