House of Commons Hansard #73 of the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was agreements.

Topics

An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

6:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I declare the motion defeated.

Maclean'sPoints of OrderPrivate Members' Business

6:35 p.m.

Bloc

Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Outremont and I seek unanimous consent for the following motion:

That this House, while recognizing the importance of vigorous debate on subjects of public interest, expresses its profound sadness at the prejudice displayed and the stereotypes employed by Maclean's magazine to denigrate the Quebec nation, its history and its institutions.

I believe I have the unanimous consent of all parties.

Maclean'sPoints of OrderPrivate Members' Business

6:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

Maclean'sPoints of OrderPrivate Members' Business

6:35 p.m.

Independent

André Arthur Independent Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC

No.

Maclean'sPoints of OrderPrivate Members' Business

6:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

There is no unanimous consent.

Does the hon. member for Joliette wish to raise another point of order?

Maclean'sPoints of OrderPrivate Members' Business

6:35 p.m.

Bloc

Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to let the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier know that he had better stick around for the rest of the week and all of next week because I will move this motion every single day. That should stop him from doing any sightseeing.

Maclean'sPoints of OrderPrivate Members' Business

6:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

That is not a point of order.

Does the hon. member for Joliette wish to raise another point of order?

Maclean'sPoints of OrderPrivate Members' Business

6:35 p.m.

Bloc

Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC

Mr. Speaker, I think there may have been some confusion. I once again seek the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion.

Maclean'sPoints of OrderPrivate Members' Business

6:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House for this motion?

Maclean'sPoints of OrderPrivate Members' Business

6:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Maclean'sPoints of OrderPrivate Members' Business

6:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Maclean'sPoints of OrderPrivate Members' Business

6:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Maclean'sPoints of OrderPrivate Members' Business

6:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to)

Maclean'sPoints of OrderPrivate Members' Business

6:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

It being 6:41 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from May 27 consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.

Instruction to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivate Members' Business

6:40 p.m.

Liberal

Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON

Mr. Speaker, I seek the consent of the House to share my time with the member for Willowdale.

Instruction to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivate Members' Business

6:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to share his time with the member for Willowdale?

Instruction to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivate Members' Business

6:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Instruction to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivate Members' Business

6:40 p.m.

Liberal

Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON

Mr. Speaker, today I will be speaking favour of Motion 517.

The motion seeks to revitalize parliamentary proceedings through reforming question period, so members of Parliament more effectively and meaningfully communicate their ideas to one another, encouraging us to be more transparent and accountable and to work collaboratively and effectively in this, the most widely reported aspect of parliamentary proceedings. In so doing, it is hoped that Canadians will become re-engaged in parliamentary affairs and less cynical about our ability to be meaningfully engaged with one another. The result will be discussions and policy that better serve Canadians and Canadians who are more deeply engaged in our democratic process.

Instead of speaking to the specific reforms proposed by the motion, all intended to heighten our level of conversation yet without dampening spontaneity, I will instead discuss why the motion represents an important step toward a stronger and more effective Parliament.

As a child, I remember going to my father's office and seeing a plaque on the wall behind his desk. The plaque was from the Rotary Club of Guelph, of which I am now an honorary member. It made reference to a four-way test used to inspire the way in which its members engaged with one another. The principles of the four-way test are: first, is it the truth; second, is it fair; third, will it build goodwill; and fourth, will it be beneficial to all concerned.

These are the very principles from which we have strayed and these are the very principles we must embrace if we are to accomplish a level of transparency and accountability that Canadians want and deserve. These are the principles we must use as a guide in the statements we make to each other in question period. We must avoid language designed merely to make headlines or language only designed to embarrass or diminish a member of the opposite party. We need to attack problems and not people. Issues demand we act collaboratively and not divisively. Sadly, we do not.

Canadians are eager to have question period change. I have heard this everywhere I go, from my constituents in Guelph and from countless other Canadians. They have grown weary of the vitriol, the hate and the disrespect being spewed by their representatives. They are tired of our conduct, of the heckling and of the grandstanding that dominate our question period, and they are checking out. They are disinterested in the House's proceedings and I do not blame them. We have become bad examples and our conduct is appreciated by only the most partisan of politicos.

In my riding, I do not deny anyone the right to meet and speak with me because I believe that everyone's opinion has value. We need to create an environment during question period where we encourage a more thoughtful dialogue among members, a conversation where the opinions of people and parties are respectfully considered and valued, not shunned or degraded because of its source, a question period free from feigned transparency, showmanship or deceit. We need to create an environment in which the level of conversation achieves two things: it discloses to Canadians the state of our nation and where it stands on the important issues of the day; and second, fosters a constructive forum, free from name calling, labelling and accusations.

The motion effectively moves the elephant from the corner of the room onto the table. Because we are all responsible for this problem, we must all participate in the solution. To do that, we need to send this motion to committee so it can be properly analyzed and other ideas introduced to provide the solutions intended by its purpose: to help restore the value of question period and regain Canadians' engagement in parliamentary affairs.

We need to embrace a question period built upon truth, fairness and building goodwill and one of benefit for all. We need to begin to treat each other with greater dignity and with more respect, so Canadians can once again engage in our work and so our democracy is strengthened and made more effective. Canadians are intelligent and Canadians have an interest in meaningful debate. They have an interest in hearing relevant, honest and thoughtful questions and direct answers about the important issues of the day, and not in meaningless and one-sided bluster designed to catch headlines and designed to avoid openness.

By no means do I believe that the changes suggested in Motion 517 will immediately bring about the attitudinal changes about which I speak, but it represents an important step toward, first, admitting a problem exists,and then perhaps in achieving loftier goals.

Let us begin by sending the motion to committee. Let us get back to a question period of which we can be proud.

Instruction to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivate Members' Business

6:45 p.m.

Liberal

Martha Hall Findlay Liberal Willowdale, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House in support of the motion. In that regard, I commend my colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills for putting it forward.

I am proud to have been asked by my colleague to second his motion. I am even more proud to have done so and to have been one of only many members from all different parties to do so. The feedback I have received from my constituents in response to the motion and to our collective support for it has been positive and vociferous.

I am also pleased to see the attention that this issue has garnered among the media and the people who watch us. This is an opportunity for the media and those watching to take this in the right spirit and perhaps pay attention to the fact that we can engage in positive debate and do not necessarily focus on the negative.

I will speak at committee about the specifics of the motion, which will be a wonderful opportunity. Our party certainly encourages moving this to committee.

I also suggest that there is something more fundamental here. I will recall the words of the current Speaker when he was seeking re-election as Speaker the last time. Quite a number of people were running for the august office of Speaker of the House. Candidate after candidate promised to ensure there would be more decorum in the House. Everyone agreed that was necessary. It was encouraging to hear them say that.

I will never forget what the current Speaker said when he spoke about what he wanted to do as Speaker. He acknowledged that decorum had deteriorated. He turned to all of us in this chamber and said, “I recognize that you are asking the Speaker to be responsible for it, but the responsibility for decorum in this House lies with all of you”. It struck me that this was exactly right. It is our collective responsibility.

Each one of us has the opportunity to show individually and collectively that we do not necessarily have to engage in partisan attacks and personal insults. We have the opportunity to engage in debate with respect and civility. We have the opportunity to listen to each other in this place. Heaven knows, if we manage to engage in debate with respect and civility and we manage to listen to each other from time to time, we just may learn from each other. That would enhance not only the decorum in the House, but the progress of government in its entirety.

I reiterate my personal support for the motion. My colleagues and I speak on behalf of our party in terms of our support for it. Again, I commend my colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills for moving this forward. I look forward to having good, positive discussions in committee. I also look forward to hearing this chamber engaging in much more decorous, civil and respectful debate.

Instruction to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivate Members' Business

6:50 p.m.

Bloc

Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC

Mr. Speaker, the issue before us today is a serious one given that the decorum in the House has been subject to a great deal of criticism, particularly during the last session. There have been a number of ethical breaches by some members. To those who are watching us—and we also get observers in this chamber—we can say that it was in very poor taste and that it gave the impression that Parliament is not very respectable.

We must realize that the frustration caused by government responses on political issues bubbles up in question period. I believe that the could-not-care-less attitude sometimes dished out to opposition members is cause for frustration and that we have reached new lows in terms of the lack of decorum and control in the context of a minority government. That has to be said.

There have been too many personal attacks, even outside the House, for example when MPs or ministers were in their home ridings. Frustration spilled over into question period. There were attacks during the law and order debate, for example. That is just one of many examples. The issue of the trafficking of minors also resonated in question period. A fair bit of rhetoric was addressed to the Bloc Québécois on that issue. I am saying that the government was rather partisan.

I can say that the proposal by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills is a reform that may be praiseworthy but, overall, will not have the desired effect of elevating decorum and ensuring that there is better information about issues. His proposal will not result in people being better informed about certain issues.

I will explain why I do not think that the objectives will be achieved. As I was saying, decorum in the House has seriously deteriorated. That, we know. There have been breaches of ethics in both words and actions. This is already being looked at. There is a parliamentary dialogue committee, which brings together members from all the parties to find solutions to elevate decorum. I attended one of the first meetings. There is not a single party that will say today that it does not support the part of the motion that calls for us to elevate decorum during question period. However, will this motion really achieve this objective?

I had to ask myself several questions. Can we deny that the lack of decorum is directly related to the format of question period? Is the lack of decorum limited to question period, or does it extend to all the debates in this House? Is this lack of decorum related to the fact that the public is becoming more cynical, because the rules during question period are not being followed? I can give a qualified answer and say that question period is not the only period in the House that lacks decorum. The lack of decorum cannot be blamed on question period alone.

I think that the lack of decorum is not just limited to question period. However, I must say that question period is when frustrations come out over the responses the government gives to the opposition. The ministers should not show disdain simply because the opposition has a different point of view or opinion.

I do not know whether it is a coincidence, but in a rather revealing article, Manon Cornellier, from Le Devoir, had this to say about decorum in the House of Commons:

It is not so much the tone of the public debate that puts people off, but rather the tenor of the debate....Disinformation, lack of logic, half-truths and omissions have all become staples on the parliamentary menu. All of the parties indulge, but the government appears to be the most partial to such nonsense. Even more worrisome, it seems to take pleasure in feeding this propensity....On many issues, the Conservatives ignore reality and try to impose their point of view....This denial of reality has rubbed off on all of the members, even the Prime Minister...

We have seen contracts awarded without tenders, and this raises a number of questions. The opposition parties have asked those questions in this House.

On another point, the fact of assigning a day—this request is in the motion—to certain ministers for question period will cause the opposition to miss out on opportunities to talk about key parliamentary issues on a given day. Thus, there is not enough flexibility.

For instance, an issue that makes headlines one day can be completely forgotten the next week. However, if it is the responsibility of a minister who is here only on Mondays, we will have to wait six days before we can ask a question.

Some degree of flexibility is needed in the definition of the strategy for question period so that it reflects current affairs. Consider the sponsorship scandal, when the opposition was putting questions to the minister in question every three or four days. What will we do with such a rigid framework in the House of Commons?

We must stop allowing any minister to answer any questions on any issue. That is common practice here, when ministers answer questions from the opposition. Each minister has his or her portfolio for which he or she is accountable and responsible. That is called ministerial responsibility. Since this government came to power, this ministerial responsibility for specific issues no longer exists. From now on, we could compel ministers to be accountable for only their own issues. We do not need motion M-517 for this to be adopted.

Most of the time, the Bloc Québécois assigns questions on a given subject to the critic for that file, who in turn addresses the portfolio holder. When a given region is particularly affected by an issue, the question is assigned to the member concerned. We must reinstate ministerial responsibility without requiring ministers to be present on set days, as this would limit the latitude of the opposition parties.

On another note, I believe that the framework proposed by today's motion is rigid and does not allow for much flexibility. I think that it would help muzzle the opposition in a number of ways. If we increase the time allotted for questions and responses and if question period continues to be 45 minutes long, what will happen to the time allotted to the other opposition parties? It could reduce the time allotted to the opposition party, especially when there is a majority government.

As suggested by the motion, proposing that half the questions be asked by a member whose name would be chosen at random and allowing all members to participate in the random draw—both those in power and those in opposition—could increase the number of questions that may be asked by government members. That would mean that the opposition would have fewer questions.

Those are our concerns about this motion. It is matter that needs to be brought before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, where we could debate it, but without placing too many restrictions in order to change the behaviour in the House. It is not by giving certain hon. members more questions that the issue of decorum will be resolved. Often it is a matter of personality. If the leaders or the whips do not come up with a strategy, then every MP is free to express their own personality.

We know full well that the parties—the governing party and the opposition parties alike—have strategies for getting their message across. The government limits both the opposition's attacks and its own willingness to answer questions. I do not believe this will change anything.

In my opinion, part of the solution lies with the whips. It is their responsibility, in part, to see to the proper behaviour of their caucus. Certain ministers and hon. members are able to avoid mean-spirited behaviour, as we have seen. It is a question of personality.

Peer behaviour is important too. We are all responsible for intervening when a colleague goes overboard. We are responsible for telling our colleagues that they have gone too far and should apologize. Perhaps there should be penalties. When a member rises after going too far, he or she should simply retract his or her statement and apologize. Whips and leaders could help such colleagues think things over so that they develop a sense of responsibility for the things they did or said.

Attacks often take place off-camera. These may be personal attacks or hurtful behaviour or looks. Today, one Conservative member went so far as to pull out her passport. Maybe she thought it was still question period, but the rest of us were voting on another matter. That, too, is provocation.

Yet that member criticized the Bloc Québécois' attitude and some of its members' conduct when things got out of control last session. Today, her behaviour was inappropriate and frustrated the Bloc Québécois. We did not understand what was going on, but some members were really offended by what she did.

Instruction to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivate Members' Business

7 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to comment on this motion.

First, I commend my colleague fromWellington—Halton Hills. In the context of Canada, he is a neighbour from Hamilton. I must say that in the short time that I have known him, like many people here, the member has left a very positive impression, and this is just another indication of that. I give him a very non-partisan personal acknowledgement for bringing this forward and the thoughtfulness behind it.

I am someone who believes in this place and its tradition, having now served seven years here and, prior to that, serving at Queen's Park for thirteen years. During that time I had the chance to try different places around the House. I spent some time as a minister answering questions, as a backbencher watching others answer questions, as the House leader for a while and as a deputy speaker.

Therefore, the traditions and what this place means, like everyone here, touches me deeply. When we talk about this place and what we do here, it goes beyond any of us and our time here. I give every serious consideration to this.

I will be making some positive comments and some negative ones around the issue, not the motion, but around the issue. We will be supporting the motion to have it go to committee so we can have the kind of fulsome discussion that I know the member wants.

I have just a few thoughts because we will do the detailed work at committee. First, a lot of the outrageous behaviour depends on what is happening on the floor. Quite frankly, there are times when there is a bit of an uprising, and it is warranted. If somebody inadvertently, never mind if they meant it, insults someone, something, a province, a community, a body of water or a mountain and that negative impression is hurled across the floor, there will be a reaction.

Depending on what was said, particularly if it is borderline offensive to what we would call Canadian values and Canadian standards, the public would expect, in a case like that, that there would be some kind of reaction. Canadians would be mortified if certain sexist or racist comments, as unintentional as they may be, are mentioned on the floor of the House of Commons. I think the Canadian people expect us to at least react in some fashion that causes that to be corrected. If it is outrageous enough, then the reaction is instant and, in most cases, the member usually, not always, is on his or her feet apologizing because he or she did not mean it.

That would be an example of a bit of an uproar that would be, dare I say, appropriate or at least understandable in the context of this place.

I will tell the House what is not acceptable. I am in the fourth party so I am quite a way from the other end of the House. It is difficult sometimes to feel a part of the action when one is at one of the ends but so be it. However, I have every right, as does anyone else in the House, that when the Prime Minister of Canada stands up I should be able to hear him. When the Leader of the Opposition stands up in his place I ought to be able to hear him or her too. It is not that I should not be able to hear everyone, but when the leaders are speaking, and I apply that to the Bloc and, of course, to my own leader from Toronto—Danforth, I want to heard them. I am speaking now as a non-partisan parliamentarian.

It is wrong that we collectively would make so much noise that even with our earpiece we cannot hear the Prime Minister of Canada on the floor of the House of Commons answer a question. That is not right.

Equally, there are some members of the House who happen to be soft-spoken and all it takes is three or four people who can clearly gang up and drown them out. I have never had that problem. I am always heard. I am not always agreed with but I am always heard, so I am not in that category and I am not complaining for myself.

However, it is inappropriate for a member to feel that he or she is not being given sufficient time on the floor. It is even more worse if we cannot pick up an earpiece and hear what someone is saying.

All the power resides in the Speaker; the Speaker for the most part is sovereign. The Speaker has all the power at his or her disposal. The question is whether we will permit the Speaker to use those powers in ways that we have not before.

I have not seen anybody tossed out of the chamber since I have been here, not that it's is a measure of anything, except when I add it up the number of times that I could not hear the Prime Minister. It is outrageous the number of times that I have seen members in the House, particularly women members but soft-voiced men as well, drowned out as soon as they get on their feet and say one controversial thing. When that happens, for the next three minutes, we cannot hear a word. That is not right.

I hope we will agree that we want something done about this. When the Speaker stands up and brings things to order, even when I am the focus of being out of order, I am pleased. If I do not have the right to do what I am doing right now and no one else has that guarantee, then our democracy is not what we say it is.

Much of this has to do with the public reaction. For 20 years, I have been hearing that teachers do not want to bring their kids here, because of the decorum and the behaviour. But I would argue that the problem is not so much that members react.

My friend from Sault Ste. Marie, whom I have known since I was elected to Queen's Park in 1990, has been an advocate for the poor every day of his elected life. I do not think anyone would doubt the sincerity and hard work that this member puts in on the issue of poverty. If somebody on the other side inadvertently says something negative about the poor, or says something to the effect that it is their fault, the member for Sault Ste. Marie, who is soft-spoken by nature, when he meets with something that actually hurts people in poverty more than they are already suffering, will react appropriately. And when that happens, we would not want to be sitting close to him.

The second the Speaker sees something going beyond the moment of reaction, the Speaker needs to be on the floor, shutting that person down and asking for an apology. If he does not get it, the Speaker should threaten to throw the person out. If the person refuses to retract, then the Speaker should have the person thrown out.

Some people might think this kind of thing makes them a hero back home. I do not think, however, that anybody will be getting votes for getting thrown out of the House of Commons for conduct unbecoming a member.

I can understand the Speaker's reluctance to be heavy-handed, if he is concerned about where the House is. After all, as the Speaker says so often, he is a servant of the House. So it is always back to us. What are the boundaries that we want?

I do not believe for a minute that anyone expects us to sit like schoolchildren in grade 3 with our hands folded together, nice and neat, and not react at all. That is just not the real world. In days gone by, it was soldiers and blood on the battlefield. We wanted to change that in this place, with dialogue and rules.

Let us understand that there will be a motion, there will be reactions, but collectively, we need to recalibrate the parameters of what is acceptable and what is not, and I think the member, by putting this motion forward, has gone a long way towards helping us help ourselves to make a better House for the people we serve.

Instruction to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivate Members' Business

7:10 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by following up on one comment that was made by my predecessor from the New Democratic Party. His thoughts were well considered, but I disagree with him on the merits of throwing members out of the House.

One of the great strengths of the current Speaker of this House, who has served as Speaker throughout my entire career, nearly a decade, is that he has not thrown members out and has eliminated the grandstanding that so often goes along with such ejections. However, that is one of the things we can look at. There are other legislatures, like Ontario, where a different practice obtains.

I want to speak today to what I think is a well-considered and thoughtful motion put forward by my colleague, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, and, more particularly, to the amendment proposed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons on May 27.

The motion, unamended, would have the procedure and House affairs committee on which I serve, as does my colleague from the New Democrats and most of the members who have spoken here, change the Standing Orders in a specific way.

The amendment put forward by theParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons proposes three changes. I want to talk today about those three changes one at time and discuss their merits.

The first change would be to use the word “study”: that the procedure and House affairs committee study the Standing Orders and other conventions, as opposed to saying “recommend changes to”.

The second proposal would be to drop the wording, “examining the convention that the Minister need not respond”, in reference to questions that have been asked of a specific minister.

The third change would be to add words allowing us to examine, and encouraging us to examine, the practices in the mother of Parliaments in Westminster and in other Westminster systems. Although no other parliamentary bodies are specifically mentioned, we can guess that this would include such places as Australia, New Zealand, and the various provinces.

Let me go through and talk a bit about the changes I am proposing.

The first one deals with the roles and responsibilities of the procedures and House affairs committee. The wording of this motion, as originally put forward, would require the committee to recommend changes to the Standing Orders and the conventions regarding question period. Therefore, it presupposes a need for changes to the formal rules before the committee has actually had a chance to decide that for itself.

The amendment says merely that we are required to study it. We may make recommendations; I suspect we probably would make recommendations. However, we ought not to presuppose that those changes need be made.

Standing Order 108 gives each committee the authority to make recommendations on any issue within its mandate. So the requirement, in the original wording of Motion No. 517, that the committee make recommendations actually contradicts this Standing Order. The amendment would remove that problem. Perhaps it is only a technical problem, but it is an important one.

The second aspect of the amendment is a change regarding the proposed requirement that ministers respond to questions that are directed to them.

The amendment would remove the requirement that ministers be expected always to respond to a question that is directed toward the individual minister.

Speakers have always ruled that the choice of which minister responds to a question is a matter that is left to the government. That is not a just a tradition from this House. It goes back to the origins of the concept of responsible government in the 18th century in the United Kingdom.

In our current conventions, the practice is summarized by O'Brien and Bosc on page 508 of their manual, in the following words:

Questions, although customarily addressed to specific Ministers, are directed to the Ministry as a whole. It is the prerogative of the government to designate which Minister responds to which question, and the Speaker has no authority to compel a particular Minister to respond.

That is consistent with our system of government and there are several reasons for this salutary practice, which I would like to go through now.

The first reason is all members will understand that prime ministers have traditionally responded to a whole range of questions covering all aspects of the government's mandate. If a person asks a question of the Minister of Finance, it ought to be the prerogative of the Prime Minister to stand up, as the minister who is ultimately for all areas, and to respond in that area. Likewise the reverse, if the Prime Minister is asked about a question and the greater technical expertise for a fulsome answer falls within the purview of the actual responsible minister, it seems appropriate that the Prime Minister can avoid answering by having the relevant minister answer.

The second reason is there are frequently questions that fall within the purview both of a minister's portfolio but also within the purview of a regional minister. One can imagine an equalization question, for example, falling within the purview of both the finance minister and of a minister responsible for western economic development, or for ACOA.

The third reason is a minister may on occasion have a specific responsibility on an issue that falls outside that minister's normal departmental responsibilities. We ought to have the option of allowing ministers with such a special responsibility to answer the question.

The fourth reason is allowing a particular minister to respond to a question would be inconsistent with the principle of cabinet solidarity and the principle of responsible government, whereby all ministers support the government's policies and the ministry is actually responsible. This is a very important concept, which goes back to the 1720s in the United Kingdom, to the prime ministership of Walpole.

Prior to that time, ministers stood or fell at the King's pleasure, but they fell individually, and ultimately the King was the de facto executive and also the de jure executive. What has happened is the monarch remains in our system as the nominal executive, but in fact always acts on the advice of the prime minister. The prime minister represents the entire government and is the only minister who actually communicates directly with and in the formal sense advises the Governor General, or the Queen, as the case may be.

That is an extremely important concept. It fundamentally means that the responsibility is shared by the entire ministry in order that the House itself will have control over the system of government. It brings responsibility from the House by centralizing it in a single unit.

The final point that needs to be made is also very important. The Speaker in our system needs to be impartial and should not be transformed, as this rule would do, into an enforcer, a kind of policeman. This is a concept. The impartiality and the non-coercive nature of the Speaker's office is absolutely essential to the way the parliamentary system has developed in our country.

Under the congressional system in the United States, where the executive lies outside of the House of Representatives, it has an entirely different system. The Speaker is a highly partisan individual, but the Speaker is also emphatically not performing many of the functions the Speaker in our House does. At least to some degree that would be lost.

I also want to point out as my final note that we are looking and recommending in the amendment that other jurisdictions be looked at.

The third improvement, if one wants to call it that, or the suggested change, would be to have us look at the practices of the United Kingdom's parliament and other jurisdictions regarding question period and their appropriateness for the Canadian setting, specifically the federal Canadian setting.

There may be a variety of lessons. For example, I know the U.K. practice of having Wednesdays dedicated to questions to the prime minister is one option put forward in the motion.

We should also look at other Westminster style jurisdictions. As I mentioned earlier, there are Australia and New Zealand. I have seen question period in both countries. They are very different in their structure from either our system or the U.K. system, but they work well.

Similarly, there are the various Australian states. There are two Houses in each state. We have each of our provincial legislatures. There are numerous other jurisdictions within the Commonwealth, all of which could potentially provide us with very worthwhile alternatives to what we do now.

I will finish by saying that I think this is a good motion and I encourage members to support it. I also encourage members to support the amendment proposed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

Instruction to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivate Members' Business

7:20 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues for their support, especially the 20 members from three different parties who supported the motion. I thank them very much.

I want to thank my colleagues in the New Democratic Party who have supported this motion, in particular the member for Victoria, who has talked about this issue with me over the last number of weeks and has participated with me in some public debates on this issue. Also, I want to thank members of the Liberal Party for supporting me, in particular the member for Guelph, the member for Willowdale and the member for London North Centre. In my own caucus, I want to thank the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Minister of Canadian Heritage for their support and encouragement. As well, I want to thank the Minister of National Defence who advised me on some of the wording of the motion. Most importantly, I want to thank the members of my caucus who have been with me right from the beginning encouraging me to put this motion forward and, in many cases, for seconding the motion. I thank each and every one of them for their support on this. It means a lot to me.

I believe Canadians are hungry for change and reform. I am optimistic that this Parliament can reform itself and reconnect citizens with their democratic institutions. According to a recent Nanos policy options survey, the vast majority of Canadians are not happy with the way in which we conduct ourselves in Parliament, particularly in question period. Furthermore, in the last election, more than four out of ten Canadians refused to vote, a record low voter turnout. These two facts, the poll and the election turnout, are evidence of a growing disconnect between Canadians and their Parliament.

I do not think the behaviour in question period is because of a lesser class of people elected to this House. The problem with question period is fundamentally with its format, and the format drives the behaviour. I think the problem with previous attempts to reform question period is that it has been focused only on the behaviour when in fact the much deeper problem has been with its format. We need to address the format and I think the committee needs to take a look at that.

Some have argued that decorum has declined; others argue that decorum is much better than it used to be 40 years ago, or even 120 years ago. Regardless of who is right or wrong, the fact is what is different today from before is that television and the Internet have brought the floor of this House each and every day, live and instantaneously, into the living rooms and kitchens of the nation. Canadians now see which was once unseen. What they see is something they do not like and something they want us to change.

Another point I will make about question period is that it is not about turning it into high tea with crumpets. It is not about stripping question period of its passion, emotion, or its controversy. It is not about taking the cut and thrust of politics out of question period. It is about fixing the dysfunction of some of the aspects of question period.

How can we begin to close the gap between Canadians and their Parliament? We can begin by reforming question period and by passing Motion No. 517, a motion to reform question period.

There are six specific proposals in the motion for reform. I am not going to go through each and every one of them because many of them have been debated and discussed before. However, the motion, should it be adopted, simply asks the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to consider these reforms and to report back recommended changes to the House within six months.

The government, as the member from eastern Ontario has mentioned, has introduced an amendment that changes the wording but not the substance of the motion. I ask members to support the motion whether it is amended or not. I will be supporting the government amendment, but once again, I ask members who are thinking about voting on this motion that, whether the motion is amended or not, we support the motion.

There are those in the House who have reservations about voting for this motion and I would like to address that.

If adopted, the motion simply asks the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to study the issue. The committee may decide to reject, modify, or adopt all six proposals. It may decide to come forward with its own proposals. Whatever reservations members may have about the six proposals, it is up to the committee to decide, a committee that is controlled by the assistant House leaders and the assistant whips.

In closing, I would like to say to my Bloc Québécois colleagues that I know they do not agree with my six proposals. I empathize and sympathize with their colleague. But if the motion were to be adopted, the committee would merely have to study my six proposals. Neither the committee nor the House would be required to adopt all six.

I thank members for their consideration.

Instruction to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivate Members' Business

7:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

The time provided for debate has expired. The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?