Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Nov. 26th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Good morning, everybody.

We are here for the 135th meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Typically, I remind witnesses—although I think Mr. Reid is well aware—that we put our earpieces, when not in use, on the stickers in front of us to protect the well-being of our interpreters.

Colleagues, we are here today on M-109, an instruction to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding amendments to the Standing Orders, and on the study of Bill C-65, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act. We will return to C-65 in the second hour of our affairs here today.

For the first hour, we have our colleague Scott Reid, the MP for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, with us. It's always nice when we have a colleague from the House of Commons join us in their capacity as a witness.

Mr. Reid, we very much look forward to hearing from you today, sir. Thank you for making yourself available to the committee. I'll turn the floor over to you for five minutes. If you feel like you need a little bit more time, that's not a problem. Then we will head into our opening rounds of questions.

With that, colleagues, we will begin.

Mr. Reid, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to speak in English today, because I speak much faster in English than in French.

We'll all benefit if I get through this as quickly as I can.

The purpose of M-109 is to ensure that, in the future, it will be possible to amend the Standing Orders only with the consent of all recognized parties.

This guarantee would be achieved by amending the Standing Orders so that, when a debate on any future amendment to the Standing Orders is under way, the rules that can be used to limit debate, under all other circumstances, will not apply. Henceforth, when the subject being debated is an amendment to the Standing Orders, the following four rules would cease to apply: Standing Order 56.1(1)(b); Standing Order 57, which is the provision we normally mean when we use the term “closure”; Standing Order 61, which is also known as the “previous question”; and Standing Order 66(2)(c), which is what we usually mean when we refer to time allocation.

If you examine the text of M-109, you'll see that, in article (b) of the motion, the four subarticles designated by the lower-case Roman numbers (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) limit the application of the four debate-limiting rules I just enumerated. Additionally, M-109 contains two additional subarticles, designated as (b)(v) and (b)(vi). These subarticles serve the complementary purpose of ensuring the Standing Orders cannot be amended via an opposition day motion or a private member's motion, unless there is all-party consent. Instead, if any private member's motion or opposition day motion amending the Standing Orders is approved in the House, it will be sent to the procedure and house affairs committee to be studied and referred back to the House within 75 days, which is exactly the same process being used for M-109.

If M-109 is adopted, the practical result will be that it will never be possible again, in the absence of all-party consent, for a mere majority in the House to force a vote on any proposed amendment to the Standing Orders.

Another word for “all-party consent”, of course, is “consensus”. In the absence of consensus, debate would simply continue as long as one side is willing to continue putting up speakers. Now, importantly, all-party consensus is not the same thing as a requirement for unanimous consent. I think a requirement for unanimous consent to change the Standing Orders—a Canadian version of medieval Poland's liberum veto—would be unwise.

Therefore, it's worth noting that, as a practical matter, the mechanism of delay by drawing out the debate is really only available to organized groups of a certain size. A group of MPs with a dozen members—which, under our rules, is the minimum size for maintaining recognized party status—is big enough, I think, to deny consent by proposing an endless series of subamendments and speakers. However, an individual MP or a handful of MPs do not have the stamina needed to unilaterally sustain a protracted debate on a motion that has the resolute support of the other 330-odd members of the House.

It's equally important to stress that M-109 would in no way limit the use of closure, time allocation or the previous question to any subject matter other than debates on the Standing Orders themselves.

M-109 was unanimously approved, as we all know, on June 19 of this year. I want to stress that this did not cause any standing order changes to come into effect. Rather, the motion had two effects: First, it instructed the procedure and house affairs committee “to undertake a study on the advisability of amending the Standing Orders” as outlined above; and second, it required that “the committee report its findings to the House no later than 75 sitting days following the adoption of this motion.” This means, in practical terms, that the committee has until late February to submit a report to the House.

Now, if committee members wish, I can advise them as to what I'd suggest the committee's report might say. My suggestion is based on the way this committee dealt, 10 years ago, with a similar motion I authored, one proposing to amend the Standing Orders to change the way the Speaker of the House of Commons is elected—a change ultimately adopted by the House.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks, and I'm at the disposal of the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thanks very much, Mr. Reid.

I will take a moment to say that it's a very fascinating piece of legislation, and one I'm looking forward to hearing debate on. Often, at this committee, we have the privilege of working with legislation that has a direct impact on the working procedures and conditions that we, as parliamentarians, undertake every day. Thank you for being here and for your opening remarks.

Mr. Cooper, the floor will be yours for six minutes.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Reid.

Our Standing Orders descend from the House of Commons in Westminster. They are the rules of the game for this place, as you stated in your second reading speech. Over the past 150 years, a convention has developed whereby the Standing Orders ought not to be changed absent consensus. Is that correct?

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

That is the convention. It hasn't gelled as firmly as some other conventions that exist. For example, the confidence convention is more firmly gelled, but I would say it's an incipient convention or a convention that is on its way to gelling.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

When you say it hasn't gelled in the same fashion, how often has it been that the Standing Orders have been changed absent consensus?

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

There are more times than I thought. In the course of preparing my remarks a very long time ago, I asked the Library of Parliament to prepare a review of all the occasions on which the Standing Orders have been changed without the consensus of the House. They came up with a longer list than I thought. Some of them are fairly small changes, but the major ones, the ones I point to that really stand out are.... Let's see if I can get these right. Andre is here and knows this stuff cold, so he can correct me if I miss anything.

In 1913, the previous question was used as a way of limiting debate to introduce the provision that we call “closure”. The closure provision was used in the 1960s to introduce what we call “time allocation”. It was in1968, I believe. On that occasion, not a single opposition member from either the NDP or the Progressive Conservatives supported the government on the changes. It was used again by the Mulroney government on at least one occasion, by the Chrétien government on, I believe, at least two occasions and, most recently, by the current government in 2023. That would have been with reference to changing the Standing Orders to allow virtual sittings of the House to be added as a permanent change.

I know I've missed a few, but those are the big ones.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

As you noted, Mr. Reid, in your speech—and you've just illustrated it—closure has been consistently used when the goal is to change the Standing Orders in a fashion that would give new tools to the government to more effectively limit the amount of debate that takes place in the House of Commons.

Is that a fair observation?

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Yes. I mean, time allocation would not have come into existence, at least not in its current form, without the use of closure, and closure would not have come into existence without the use of the previous question. As to the previous question, that's something we inherited from the British. I'm not exactly sure when, but we did so pre-Confederation.

Yes, the tendency has been that—and this should surprise nobody—a government is motivated to want to restrict the ability to protract debate when it's finding the debate is too protracted, which, by definition, means at a time when the opposition is attempting to draw out debate.

I've gone to some lengths, both in my remarks in the House and today, to avoid commenting in some sort of general way on the merits of time allocation or closure. I was a deputy government House leader for 10 years, so I was part of a government that used closure and time allocation on occasion, and some would say on more than one occasion, so I'm not trying to do that. However, when it comes to placing further restrictions on the House's ability to debate and conduct business and slow things down for the purpose of giving proper examination, regardless of the partisan stripe of who's in office at that time, that is, I think, not the direction we want to head in.

Everything about our system is designed to allow more debate to occur. That's why we have three readings on legislation. That's why we have committee hearings at which amendments can be suggested. The House essentially divides itself up into smaller bodies so that it can do multiple pieces of business at the same time. That's why we have two houses of Parliament instead of just one. We could be unicameral, as all the provinces are, but I think it's actually wiser to go in the direction that has been employed at our federal level and in all state legislatures in the U.S. and in all state legislatures in Australia with one exception, which is to be bicameral.

In general, being slow and deliberate in your actions is reasonable. There are times when it's okay to move more quickly and to suspend the rules. That happened during COVID, for example. When the House was recalled, there were lengthy, all-day hearings—I think it was on March 20, 2020—on suspending the Standing Orders.

I remember I came to the House intending to deny unanimous consent when I thought that was what was going to happen, but once it became clear there had to be discussions, the government and the opposition parties were able to cobble together something that ultimately was, I think, an improvement over what might initially have gone through.

You can, when there's a need, find a way of getting to these things quickly—maybe somewhat messily, but quickly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thanks very much, Mr. Cooper.

Mrs. Romanado, the floor is yours for six minutes.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Through you, I'd like to thank Mr. Reid for being here with us today.

I want to start by saying that I, of course, support this motion and what Mr. Reid is trying to get to.

One area I wanted to check with Mr. Reid, who has much more experience than I do in this, is that there is no reference to Standing Orders 51(1), 51(2) and 51(3), which are about the requirement that, “Between the 60th and 90th sitting days of a Parliament on a day designated by a minister of the Crown...[the] House take note of the Standing Orders and procedure of the House and its committees”.

Basically, this is when we have the opportunity, once every Parliament, to have a wholesome discussion about the Standing Orders and to make recommendations. In Standing Order 51(2), we reference the expiration of proceedings deemed referred to committee.

I want to get your opinion on whether M-109 would need to encompass this part or whether this could stay as a stand-alone.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

I don't think M‑109 needs to deal with this. M‑109 deals with the expiration of debate resulting in something coming to a vote. I believe what happens here is that, upon the expiration of debate, the item simply drops from the Order Paper. It's the opposite problem. Sometimes you want to be able to sustain debate on things because you think you could achieve a result.

What I'm proposing is basically to make it less easy to achieve a result.

Sherry, I'm cheating, and I'm going back and answering one of Michael's questions here through twisting slightly what you asked me. There's the whole idea of delay versus getting on with business quickly and the balancing act that's involved. You do have to be able to get on with business, obviously, but when we have a situation where there's an actual tie vote in the House of Commons, it's interesting what happens in that situation. The Speaker breaks the tie, but the Speaker doesn't stand up and say, “I've thought it over and I like this piece of legislation, so I'm voting for it.” What the Speaker says....

I remember the first time this happened when Peter Milliken was in the chair, he knew that he might have to break a tie one day, so he had a little piece of paper in his pocket, ready for that moment, and he pulled it out and he said that the precedent is that, when the Speaker is breaking a tie, the Speaker always does so in a way that continues the debate on the belief that it might be possible to achieve the necessary level of support, which of course is 50% plus one. Therefore, if it's an item at second reading, the Speaker votes in favour so that it can go forward. If it's an item at third reading—this is obviously a reference to bills—the Speaker votes against it, rather than causing it to leave the House and move on. I think that is the guidance here.

That being said, I think your underlying question is this: Could we beef up the Standing Orders with reference to the debates on the Standing Orders or the process for reviewing the Standing Orders? I agree, and I think something that we don't have room for here, at least it's not stated explicitly, is dealing with practices that are not part of the Standing Orders—so the practices of the House. That's all the stuff that you find in O'Brien and Bosc, which is all about our conventions and practices. I think we should spend some time looking at that.

I think it would be helpful, for example, right now, if we could come to a clearer agreement on what constitutes parliamentary language and what constitutes unparliamentary language, so that we can be clear on what the naughty words are and what the naughty words aren't. Also I think it would be helpful if we could have greater clarity for all of us on this thing we say where you can't do through the back door that which you can't do through the front door. I think a clearer understanding of what that is would be very helpful.

It would mean, when the Speaker stands up and says that's out of order or when the Speaker declines to do so, there would be more legitimacy. We would all say what he or she is doing we support, even if we didn't get what we wanted on the point in question. There would be greater support for the Speaker's actions. That's the definition of legitimacy.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

I actually sat in on part of a study for the former member of Parliament for Pierrefonds—Dollard, Mr. Frank Baylis, when he introduced his PMB regarding sweeping changes to the Standing Orders. I believe you were actually on PROC. I'm not quite sure, but I recall being on that committee for that study.

It was changes such as limiting the power of parties to determine who speaks in question period, and so on and so forth. It died on the Order Paper, but there were only about two hours of debate that would have been devoted to this extensive motion, and I believe you supported it at that time. Could you elaborate a little bit on your thoughts on that now?

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Yes, right, it was a sweeping motion. I remember when I talked at the time, I said, “I think, Frank, this might be a bit too sweeping.” It's easier to get things through if they're modest in scope, which is part of the goal with M‑109, to make it narrow in scope. However, having said that, he was hitting at something that frustrates all of us, which is that we've allowed our practices to move us in the direction of greater centralization.

The practice of a list being submitted to the Speaker, there's no standing order about that. It's a practice. The Speaker could, in theory, say, “I'm simply not looking at that list. I'm going to see who stands up and respond to that person,” as still happens at least some of the time in the United Kingdom and in some other parliaments. However, it's difficult for the Speaker to unilaterally say they don't like that particular convention. The Speaker is all about following the precedents.

I chair my party's caucus. They don't want me to start saying I'm picking and choosing the conventions I like about how we behave there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Mr. Reid, as much as I'd love to hear you talk about what goes on in your caucus room.... I will permit you a few more seconds, but if you could wrap up, that would be great.

Thank you.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

That's very sage advice. I'm not supposed to speak at all about what happens there, as a matter of fact.

The point is that he was, I think, moving toward using a standing order to lock in a replacement to a convention. Sometimes that's what's necessary when the conventions have gone in a direction that is no longer reflective of what the House thinks they ought to be.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Mrs. Romanado.

Ms. Gaudreau, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm delighted today that we're discussing a substantial amendment to the Standing Orders, in connection with which I was personally insulted. We have worked many hours on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The Bloc Québécois tabled a dissenting report. That said, there were a multitude of recommendations on which consensus could be reached.

It's understandable that, in an exceptional case like the COVID-19 pandemic, extraordinary measures were taken. But when it's all over and we have to make a major amendment to the Standing Orders of the House, I'm delighted that it's being tabled today. People and my fellow citizens ask us what our committee is for when, basically, decisions are made behind the scenes by the House leaders. I'll tell you something: There was no consultation between them, and that's unacceptable.

My question is this: Is this proposal going to guarantee that there will be no fast-tracking or shenanigans so as to ensure, when we talk about the Standing Orders of the House, that this won't happen again?

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

I am certain that if Motion M‑109 is accepted, there will be no means of accelerating or limiting debate. The means of limiting debate would be cancelled for discussions and motions on the Standing Orders. It wouldn't apply to other things, only to debates on the Standing Orders.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you for speaking French. In any case, even in English, we have to speak at a moderate pace for our interpreters.

So, I understand your good intention. I've just heard that, on the government side, although they've tabled this and are coming around, perhaps to ease their conscience….

So, I don't know, is it unanimous on your side? When there's consensus in a legislative process—we're talking about democracy here—it is indeed possible to speed things up potentially when there's an emergency. So, do you think your bill has a good chance of being passed?

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Are you asking me if there's a chance of this being passed?

I think so, yes. It was unanimously accepted by the House. I think the idea of a stronger level of consensus than a simple majority of 50% plus one vote is a very important idea in our federation. That's why we have a few formulas for amending Canada's Constitution. The level of consensus required is higher for the most important parts of the Constitution. It's a concept that's absolutely essential to true democracy. Majoritarian democracy without safeguards is not a secure democracy. I think guardrails are always a good idea.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

In closing, I want to tell you that people from Laurentides-Labelle were telling me that they were impressed during the pandemic by the fact that we were working together. We had a global problem, particularly within our own borders. We demonstrated that we were capable of working together. I think it was a moment that made me want to continue in politics. I may say so, since I will never seek to be a minister and be in power.

However, when people see that, once the emergency is over, our system ensures that it's partisanship at all costs—which we've been experiencing for months, I'm sorry, but your party is paralyzing Parliament—it reassures me to know that, minimally for the substantive Standing Orders, I hope the bill will pass.

Do you think it would be possible to revise what's been done, or is it more for the future?

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Revise what?

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Revising previous decisions.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

For example, the decision that was made—