Evidence of meeting #55 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was opposition.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK
So you're saying that even if the committee decided to recommend that we engage in that study, we would be prevented from doing so unless we had a reference from the House.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
No, I don't think we would be.... I'll check, but at the moment I don't think we would be prevented from doing so. It's academic at the moment, because we're in the middle of something else.
Go ahead, Mr. Nater.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Further to that, I believe the mandate of the committee has the authority to review the Standing Orders. I'm not sure that the mandate of the committee includes privilege without it first being referenced by the House. I would suspect that it would be out of order.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
We'll get the clerk to check that.
The clerk can't give any more clarification right now. We'll just take it under advisement.
We're continuing with meeting number 55. Our next speaker on the list is Mr. Graham.
Mr. Graham, you're on.
4:05 p.m.
Voices
Hear, hear!
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Sadly, my decoder ring was defective, and it made Mr. Christopherson disappear.
4:05 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I don't expect to speak too long, probably 15 minutes or so. I want to tell you that because I am somebody who likes predictability.
Unlike many of my colleagues, I pride myself on brevity. I once joked to some of our colleagues that in order to fix this place, all we really need to do is change the name from “Parliament” to “accomplishment”, so that our founding principle is achievement.
Yesterday we saw the Prime Minister take every question that was directed to the government. Yes, we can keep doing the Prime Minister's question period, or PMQ by practice. It's an idea we committed to in our platform. Having a Wednesday PMQ does not preclude this or any future prime minister from coming to any or every other day of the week. Not only does it ensure that the leaders can ask the prime minister questions but it helps to ensure greater accountability. I think it is a great idea. I have long been a Parliament watcher, and watching the U.K.'s PMQ has always been fascinating to me. I don't know if they still do it, but CPAC used to carry PMQ when there was less happening here.
I would like to have a conversation about whether and how to go about this long term. This is meant to be a conversation with all of you about, for example, whether or not PMQ needs to be in the Standing Orders or simply by convention, and whether we should do it by practice or by rule. I don't think anyone here would disagree with the statement that no brand of sweater vest would have made Stephen Harper comfortable taking a full hour of questions in the House. Also, it is only by convention that a PM and cabinet even have seats in the House. There's nothing stopping Kevin O'Leary, say, from simply not bothering to seek a seat for himself or appoint MPs to his cabinet, were he ever to become leader and PM. He could just go ahead and do that.
That is the point. We are actually managing to have a substantive conversation on the main motion we have been debating here, minus the witnesses. It's a conversation we want. The minister's discussion paper was a contribution to that conversation already in progress through the Standing Order 51 debate, and through the original study we had in this place. We've hashed out a wide variety of topics by way of filibuster instead of by way of study, and I certainly appreciate the comments and ideas from my colleagues of all stripes. It's been endlessly fascinating and often entertaining.
It's difficult to have consensus when what I hear in private conversations from my opposition colleagues differs so completely from what I hear in public from my opposition colleagues. Many want the same things we do but they want us to wear it. Why not? They win both ways. But fixing this place shouldn't be about winning, it should be about fixing this place.
I'm still very much unclear as to why the filibuster is at this point in the process. To me it seems premature. That we need to establish ground rules that differ from the norm is a spurious argument. The often-cited McGrath report did not require UC to move forward at this point in the process. That they achieved consensus came out of the conversation. For here, we are being asked to achieve conversation through a consensus.
The Chrétien model the opposition House leader cited in yesterday's letter is an interesting example, but it is the exception, not the rule. Moreover, it produced a subcommittee called SMIP—a great name—the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons, which produced six reports across the 37th Parliament, 1st and 2nd sessions.
Not to overly “counterbuster”, a term I claim coinage credit on in conversations with my colleagues, I want to go over what changes those reports recommended in the Standing Orders, leaving out stuff like the request in the first report that the Speaker, after consultation with the House leaders, table in the House simplified requirements for petitions, including the prayer for relief. That did not have any direct impact on the rules.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Filomena Tassi Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON
I've heard what the member has said from across the way. I'd like to give oral notice of the following motion: that the committee examine the subject matter of the question of privilege, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(a), raised by the member for Milton, regarding the free movement of members within the parliamentary precinct.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
The first report in the 1st session of the 37th Parliament from the SMIP committee recommended a whole lot of changes that we're all used to today in the process. I'll go through each one of them. It's in the Standing Orders.
The first report said that the candidates for Speaker should be permitted to speak prior to the vote for the speakership—very rational—and that the minister introducing a government bill be permitted to speak to the bill being introduced by way of the introduction of government bills rubric in routine proceedings; that unanswered order paper questions, if requested, be referred to committee after 45 days, a requirement that did not previously exist; that adjournment proceedings, what we now call late shows, be created; that the day be extended by the amount of time it takes us to vote when a deferred recorded division takes place immediately following oral questions. We have all seen that, when the Speaker says after a vote, “It is my duty to inform the House that the time for government orders has been extended by eight minutes.” The report also said that a 30-minute Q and A be added to the time allocation process—
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
Sorry, David, but just going on the past model that we'd been using before, are you open to a few friendly questions? You'd get the floor back later.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I'd be fine with it, but would it be okay if I get through my list?
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
I just didn't want you to go all the way through and then the speaker would change. If you know that I have a few questions for you, and if we could, through the chair...using the kind of “Simms model”, as I'll put it.
4:05 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
If you're okay with it, please continue.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I'm fine with it. I've taken advantage of it, so I can't complain about it.
Shall I continue?
Jamie, you're good if I carry on?
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
All right.
I'm almost halfway through the list, and there weren't that many changes—
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I can't quite do that, although, if I go a little bit slower, maybe....