Evidence of meeting #135 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was orders.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
I appreciate that.
Mr. Reid, I know that you talked earlier about what's on the naughty list. I don't know if the word “nerd” is unparliamentary, but since it's self-professed on the part of members I'm going to let it slide.
Ms. Gaudreau, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
What will remain with me in fact is, among other things, a comment. For me, for a substantial regulation, it's necessary that it be a free vote. At the same time, it makes me wonder about something. Honestly, every legislator….
When you look at what's happening elsewhere in the world, they're all free votes. I hope the MPs here are really okay with partisan votes, because otherwise, people watching us are going to tell us that's why there's cynicism towards politics.
Of course, I welcome a free vote. I also want it to be consensual. I even dare to hope that we could go even further and keep parliamentary tactics and strategies, but in a slightly more….
I went through a 44-hour parliamentary filibuster. That was really something. Going through what we're going through makes no sense to the people who need us.
That was my comment. If you want to respond, you have one minute.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
All right.
I don't have any comments to make about the processes that are going on right now in Parliament, in the House.
On the question of free votes, some people think that in the Parliament of Canada, all votes are forced votes, that votes are absolutely under the control of the respective parties and that MPs serve only to do whatever is asked of them. I don't think that's the reality.
In a Parliament under the Westminster model, parties have positions determined by conventions. For example, if there's a vote on the budget and the financial package and you're part of the political party that forms the government, you'll vote in favour of those measures. If you're in opposition, on the other hand, you'll vote against them. That's part of our system.
Private members' bills make room for individual ideas. I think free voting in this place is a very important part of our political system here.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I know I'm running out of time, but I appreciate my colleague speaking French.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Absolutely. Thank you, Ms. Gaudreau.
Ms. Mathyssen, I rolled over your 20 seconds from before, so you will have two minutes and 50 seconds.
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Wow. Fancy that.
I just want to double-check something, because I'm not sure. Are we going to be hearing from the House administration on this piece of legislation as well?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Currently, that is not scheduled. Of course, the committee can make its own determination on that, Ms. Mathyssen.
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Okay. I would suggest that, although I wanted to hear from Mr. Reid about the consultations he did, or maybe didn't do, on that with the House administration.
What were the overall feelings, or were there any suggestions that they provided?
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
The wording of the motion changed from.... In my head, it looked a lot simpler than it wound up being.
When you're trying to change the Standing Orders, it's very difficult to write something that's grandiose sounding. You really have to say, “This rule is being tweaked this way and that rule is being tweaked that way,” in order to make it fit into the existing set of Standing Orders. That was done with the assistance of the clerks, who understand this stuff so much better than I do. That was how the consultation took place.
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
I have only one other question. You mentioned before this centralization of power and the role of leaders, House leaders, whips and so on. My concern is that we were discussing rules around harassment. It got to this point where, especially within the House, we can write all the rules we want, but at the end of the day, there's a lot of peer pressure involved and there's a lot of acceptance of how we behave and so on.
Is that the same feeling you have of the Standing Orders? We can change these rules, but there has to be something further.
What would you suggest is that something further to get us to a point where we come to a consensus and we seem to recognize that there are things that are bigger, like a pandemic, so that we can move past this to get to a better place that actually serves Canadians as it's supposed to?
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
I think the most important thing is that people like me, who are trying to change the rules.... You are dealing with an institution that is several hundreds of years old. The Canadian Parliament has roots that go back to 1791, and before that at Westminster for centuries beyond that. People like me understand that we should be making modest adjustments. We're not revolutionaries. There are other places where you can be a revolutionary more effectively.
We're dealing with the Standing Orders. You say I'm a small part of a long continuum or stream. I should keep them as small as possible and let the conventions that are evolving, and generally evolving in the right direction, I believe, on the whole....
We're more inclusive, for example, of mothers and nursing mothers in the House of Commons than was true when I came here a quarter of a century ago. There are a zillion other examples. We have rules on harassment now that we didn't have in the past. I could think of more examples, but I'd run out of time.
I think we're heading in the right direction on our conventions for the most part. We should only adjust on a limited basis through statutory change. That's the kind I'm considering.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Thank you very much, Ms. Mathyssen.
My understanding is that the Conservatives have ceded their time back to the committee.
Mr. Berthold, would you like to ask a question?
Conservative
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
This is a pretty important topic, so let's see if we can reach a consensus here. I agree with Ms. Mathyssen, who suggested that we invite the senior officials of the House of Commons, including the clerk, to a one-hour meeting, to ask them questions about all the implications of Motion M‑109.
If everyone agrees, I propose that we ask the clerk of the committee to schedule a one-hour meeting with the clerk of the House, the law clerk and parliamentary counsel of the House and other administration officials. I think it's a good idea, given the changes that may be coming.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
I agree, but I also have other witnesses to propose.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
All right.
Maybe what we can do here, colleagues—as I'm getting the sense that there is some agreement here—is just save that for the very end, because once Mrs. Romanado gets the floor she has a couple of questions.
Mr. Berthold, we'll come back to that, before Mr. Reid leaves, to just get consensus from the committee that they do, in fact, want to hear...and to go to the committee business aspect of that. We don't need to use your time to do that. We can come back, of course, because I just want to allow for some discussion before we—
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Mr. Chair, it was only a suggestion, because I thought my NDP colleague's proposal was relevant. We can proceed.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
I agree. I'm going to give the floor to Ms. Romanado for five minutes, and then we'll decide if we want to invite more witnesses.
Colleagues, while Mrs. Romanado has the floor, could you actually just give some thought, please, to Monsieur Berthold's suggestions, so that we can very quickly move on that? It will come around quickly.
Mrs. Romanado, you have up to five minutes.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I probably won't take the full five minutes. I just want to get clarity.
Mr. Reid, my colleague mentioned that, at the end of the day, if a whip whips a vote, wouldn't that undo the intent? However, I think that the intent of this motion is to make sure all members are heard or have the opportunity, should they want, to debate an item with respect to the changing of the Standing Orders. It's not, at the end of the day, what the outcome of a vote would be, but that, at least this way, it's not a government being able to limit the debate or people's ability to participate in that debate. That's the intent of this motion. Is that correct?
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Well, not quite.... Actually, the intent is not that all members be heard. That's why I specifically made the point that unanimous consent is not being sought here, but all recognized parties being sought.