Debates of March 28th, 2013

Oral Questions

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

As well, he knows that there is not just one first nation in Canada.

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of calling into question the member's integrity or identity. I extend my deepest apology if he was offended by my remarks.

The only point I was trying to make is that if we truly care about the plight of Canada's aboriginal peoples and first nations—as I concur that there is more than one—we should work together in a positive fashion and support measures in that regard.

Business of the House

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to rise and ask the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons the usual Thursday question about what is on the agenda for the week after the break. I look forward to hearing what he has to say about his legislative agenda.

We also look forward to the break from Parliament to return to our constituencies and the work that awaits us there.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official opposition and all New Democrats, I would like to wish you and your family and all my friends across the way a happy Easter. I would also like to wish a restful long weekend to all of the hundreds of staff who support all members of Parliament in our daily work. Their work is invaluable and much appreciated.

In particular, I would like to wish my friends across the way a peaceful break from caucus deliberations.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the opposition House leader for his very kind, thoughtful and sensitive comments and concern for our welfare over here.

This afternoon, we will continue the third reading debate on Bill S-9, the nuclear terrorism act. This will be the third time that the bill has been debated at third reading. In the previous two days that it was debated, we actually heard from the comments of the New Democrats that they were quite supportive of the bill and that they called for it to be passed without delay. We are asking them to heed their own advice and allow this matter to come to a vote. The government shares the view that it does need to proceed quickly. If we do care about giving people a safe and peaceful Easter now and in years to come, we certainly want to have this kind of legislation in place to protect Canadians and ensure their peace from nuclear terrorism. I hope the NDP will back up those words and allow a vote to occur.

Monday, April 15, when we return from the time in our constituencies, will be the first opposition day of the new supply period where I understand we will debate a motion from the NDP.

Tuesday, April 16, will be the second opposition day, and I understand we will debate a motion from the Liberals.

On the Wednesday of that week, the House will return to second reading debate of Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act. The bill would finally provide the legal protections for the women on reserve that they have lacked for far too long. This discrimination should not exist. That is why aboriginal people and even the Manitoba NDP have been calling for the passage of Bill S-2. I would hope that the federal NDP would heed that call and allow a vote to take place, giving aboriginal women rights regarding matrimonial property.

If debate on S-2 concludes, the House will then debate at report stage Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act. I believe that this is also very close to the finish line.

Following that, we would consider Bill S-12, the Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act at second reading. Thursday, April 18, will be another opposition day for the NDP.

Before I conclude, let me wish all the MPs and the parliamentary staff a happy Easter.

Alleged Inappropriate Questioning of Committee Witness

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, although the question of privilege I am about to raise happened at committee, I raise it with you because I believe the actions of government members have severely affected my ability to do my job as a member of Parliament in this place by, in effect, limiting who may be willing, and I emphasize the word “willing”, to come forward to committees as witnesses. I will explain why the emphasis is on the word “willing”.

As a member of this place for almost 20 years, I saw what occurred yesterday at the Standing Committee on International Trade as a shameful display of a direct attempt to smear, through implication and innuendo, a witness asked to testify at that committee.

During the course of the meeting, five witnesses testified. As his opening line of questioning, the member for Kelowna—Lake Country, who is a privy councillor, asked only one witness, Professor Gus Van Harten, who is affiliated with the Osgoode Hall Law School, to name his political affiliations and donations to political parties.

I specifically note that the suggestion to the committee that it hear from this witness in relation to its study of a Canada–India trade agreement was submitted to the committee, according to the clerk of the committee, by me as Liberal international trade critic and also by the member for Vancouver Kingsway. In other words, this witness was suggested by members of opposition parties.

I raise this matter in the House for the simple reason that the conduct of government members yesterday could well impede my ability as a member of Parliament in having witnesses I propose willing to appear before any committee of this place. After reading the proceedings of yesterday's Conservative inquisition, prospective witnesses I or any other member of any opposition party propose to any committee could well reconsider appearing before a committee because they may be subject to such a disgraceful interrogation on issues that have nothing whatsoever to do with the issue before any committee. This, I would submit, is nothing more than an effort at intimidation of prospective witnesses.

Do we now need to warn witnesses whom opposition members invite to committee and who expect to testify on specific issues that they could be subject to an inquisition by Conservative members related to their personal lives, related to their political affiliations or related to their religious beliefs? That is most certainly what happened yesterday and where we may be going. It was apparent in the line of questioning by the member for Kelowna—Lake Country that a substantial amount of research on Mr. Van Harten had been done by the government in preparation for the meeting yesterday.

This is from the blues of that meeting. The member for Kelowna—Lake Country said:

Now I just have a list of about eleven times in the last couple of years you've donated to the NDP.

Someone went to a lot of trouble to research Mr. Van Harten. Whether it was the member for Kelowna—Lake Country is irrelevant. It certainly was a government investigation. I note as well that neither the member for Kelowna—Lake Country nor any other Conservative member of the committee asked any other witnesses appearing before the committee that same kind of question.

I now draw the Speaker's attention to the following reference found on page 1,068 of O'Brien and Bosc, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second Edition, 2009. It states:

There are no specific rules governing the nature of questions which may be put to witnesses appearing before committees, beyond the general requirement of relevance to the issue before the committee.

The issue before the committee was that of examining a comprehensive economic partnership agreement, or CEPA, with India. Mr. Van Harten was asked to appear on this issue in relation to the ongoing matter of a foreign investment agreement that is currently under negotiation with India.

The question posed by the member for Kelowna—Lake Country had nothing whatsoever to do with the issue before the committee. It was done for the purpose of attempting to discredit the testimony of the witness, to impugn the testimony of the witness, to place on the record an innuendo that somehow the political affiliation of the witness taints the testimony he provides. The nature of the question, which remains on the permanent public record, was done with the purpose of maligning the witness.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope you will at the very least consider my point of privilege and give some thought to how you could use your good offices to ensure the kind of disgraceful and maligning interrogation of a witness invited to present before a committee of this House never occurs again.

Simply put, what happened at committee smacks of McCarthyism. If I am to ask witnesses to come, do I have to tell them that their lives, their political affiliations and their families are going to be investigated by the Conservative research department and they may be attacked by the Conservative attack machine at committee?

That is where this goes. I raised the question myself with another witness, and said I raised it in jest: who did they contribute to?

Mr. Speaker, I raise this point with you today because I think if you look at the records of the committee yesterday, you are going to see a terrible deterioration in terms of how committees operate and in terms of how questions are asked of witnesses. I think that kind of research into their lives and that interrogation will even jeopardize some witnesses from coming before committees.

If it is at the ethics committee and it is related to a political situation, fine, but this happened at a committee in which we were discussing Canada-India trade. I think it is wrong and I just ask you, Mr. Speaker, to use your good offices to look at this and come up with at least some suggestions so that this does not happen again. I think it is unfair, and it jeopardizes the availability of certain witnesses we may want to invite before committee. It is plainly wrong.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with some regret, but also hope, that I rise to speak on the question of privilege raised by the member for Malpeque.

I say “regret” because in Canada, in 2013, I believe we should not need to address the issue of a politician publicly grilling a witness appearing as a guest of Parliament on his or her beliefs, memberships or donations. It is not a stretch to name this practice for what it is: a shameful act of McCarthyism that should properly be a relic of an intolerant and undemocratic past.

I say “hope” because the discussion today gives parliamentarians an opportunity to commit themselves to a better future, one with a higher standard of conduct for parliamentarians and with renewed respect for Canadians.

This discussion on a higher standard of conduct has also been raised just this morning by my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley, who stood in this House to talk about the duty parliamentarians have to truly represent and respect their constituents.

No party in this House can say it has an unblemished record and claim to have never questioned witnesses appearing before committees of Parliament about their partisan activities or beliefs, but I believe this in every case has been regrettable and wrong.

Witnesses appear before committees at the invitation of the committees and do Parliament the honour of sharing their experience, expertise and perspectives. It is interchangeably disrespectful and indeed counterproductive to this process to try to discredit those witnesses by making their personal political beliefs or activities a source of attack.

Like the hon. member for Malpeque, I also agree that it is fundamentally irrelevant to the question at hand.

If we endorse processes that make testifying before committee a prying inquiry into matters of personal behaviour, we risk driving away necessary and helpful voices from our deliberations—

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

This guy should not have started it—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. If the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margaret's wants to contribute to this point, I would be happy to give him the floor, but I will do so when the member for Vancouver—Kingsway is done.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in Canada and in every democracy, citizens have every right to hold political opinions and express those views by participating in all facets of the political process. In many ways this right is a very personal one and worthy of protection and respect.

As we sit on the verge of the Easter weekend, let us reflect on the lesson of redemption that this solemn weekend presents. As we set to commence a two week break, let us reflect on how we as parliamentarians can make this place a better one. As elected representatives of the people, let us commit to strengthening our democracy and renew our respect for those cherished rights of political freedom that are the cornerstones of our nation. Let us each commit to a better standard of conduct. We, the official opposition New Democrats, will certainly do our part.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, more and more often when I get up in the House, there is a recurring theme. It is me responding to the opposition and asking why they are continually on a sanctimonious high horse saying “Do as I say, not as I do”.

Today's point of order falls four-square in exactly the same category. The concern is that a question was asked about someone's partisan affiliation, suggesting that perhaps the person's involvement in politics had tainted the credibility of the witness's opinion. It goes to the credibility as a witness. It speaks to the motive and why the witness is saying because of particular beliefs. That may or may not be valid.

However, those who are complaining of that today have engaged in exactly that practice, in exactly that committee, in exactly this Parliament. They did not rise on a point of order when that happened. The New Democrats did not get up and say “Hold it, one of us made a grave mistake and did something terribly wrong. Let's rise above it and do better now”. No, they rise and complain when someone else does to them the exact same thing they do again and again. It is sanctimony of the highest order and we are hearing it today.

The fact is, at this very committee, in this Parliament, there was a witness who appeared and a member of the opposition asked this question of the witness, “Are you the one who was a candidate in 1993 for the Conservative Party?” It was an inquiry into the person's background. Obviously, the NDP felt it was worthy of drawing attention to a partisan affiliation, albeit one that is two decades old, as a way of trying to effect the credibility of that witness and to say what was said say had no value.

At the same committee, following that lead in example and practice, a member of the Conservative Party did the same when another witness appeared. All of a sudden it is worthy of a point of order. Never before had it been.

We have had a year and a half since then for the New Democrats to seek into their own souls for a concern about this, to inquire and seek redemption. However, they do not seek redemption until they see the same thing happening to them. One way or another, however we slice it, where I come from, where my constituents are, that is what they call hypocrisy. That is what they call “Do as I say, not as I do”.

I appreciate that now we may be on a different path. Maybe now the New Democrats want to exclaim a truce and say that it is alright for us to them to take shots at us, but as soon as we take shots at them “let's all disarm”. That may be how they want to play the game. We will find out.

What I have heard right now is that it is alright for us to be criticized as a government and for supporters of the government to be criticized, but God forbid we should ever criticize anyone on the opposition side. That is crossing the line. That is bad when it comes to members' statements. That is bad when it comes to questions in the House of Commons in question period, Now it is bad for conduct at committee. That speaks for itself. It speaks to the quality of those members judgment and how they conduct themselves and their consistency and principles.

As for the actual rules in this case, they are clearly established. The practice of committees and the procedures at committees are decided by those committees. In this case, we have a really good situation because what the opposition members were doing was in the exact same committee. The conduct they complain of was the conduct they were undertaking in that committee. It is appropriate for that committee to deal with the question and resolve it.

As my staff likes to say on frequent occasions, “You know the references, they're in that green book” and the green book says that these are matters for the committees to determine themselves.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will make my intervention blessedly short. Perhaps the government House leader has not understand what we are seeking to do, so I will repeat it for him now. I am quoting from my friend just minutes ago, “No party in this House can say that they have an unblemished record and claim to have never questioned a witness appearing before committees of Parliament about their partisan activities or beliefs. But I believe this in every case is regrettable and wrong”.

Let us allow the accusations of sanctimony and hypocrisy to die down just a little. If this is in effect the affairs of a committee, and I am sure you may be of some similar opinion, Mr. Speaker, let me offer this for the government House leader. If his party is willing to stand down on this practice that we equate much too close to McCarthyism, then we will do the same. We in fact will go one further and I will commit to report to my caucus that I will ask that we never use this practice again. There may be some mistakes made, but those will not be by intention. They will be by our efforts to sincerely attribute some respect to the place, that is the House of Commons and the committees that we strike.

I wonder if the government House leader would like to commit to the idea of this being a no-go zone in terms of committee members asking questions of witnesses who we invite, as members of Parliament in front of the committee, and we think this is reprehensible practice and unfortunate, as my colleague said in his statement. If the government House leader agrees with me and will so instruct his members to say that this is not a subject we should approach trying to undermine and undercut the credibility of witnesses if they have ever made a donation or ever run for one of the political parties, then we absolutely will cross the floor and shake hands and say that this shall be the practice of the House and all the efforts and influence that we can make on the members of the official opposition.

In the spirit of the season, redemption is in fact possible. We said as much in our statements. I am sure the government House leader will enthusiastically jump to his feet and support such an effort by all members of the House, so when we invite witnesses to the committees, that we treat them with the respect they deserve.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of the season and in the spirit of truth telling, there is a difference. When the member gets up and says that the government is guilty of McCarthyism and then makes an oblique reference to perhaps other parties at sometime have done something wrong, that is not the spirit of the season. That is not reconciliation. That is not reaching out his hand.

I welcome the member's kind spirit that he offers here, but the fact remains this is a question for the committee and I hope we will see the same spirit reign at committee.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I have heard from several members now on this issue. While there is no doubt members feel strongly about some of the practices that may have happened at committee, members do know that committees have chairs to enforce the rules of the committee and to make decisions about decorum and proper proceedings at committee. Until there is a report back to the House, there is really nothing for the Speaker to delve into.

Although the member for Malpeque encouraged me to use my good offices to address this concern, of course, until the procedures are followed and the committee has reported back to the House, the Speaker does not play a role in that. While all this discussion is very interesting, unfortunately for the member for Malpeque who feels aggrieved of this, there is nothing the Speaker can do at this time. I rule that there is not a question of privilege properly before the House to rule on.

The Chair has notice of other interventions on the question of privilege raised on March 26 by the member for Langley. I will hear first from the hon. member for Kitchener Centre. I will hear him and then the member for New Brunswick Southwest.

S. O. 31

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do indeed rise to speak to the question of privilege raised by the member for Langley and discern the following two very important issues.

First, does Standing Order 31 give a right to every member equally to make a statement or does Standing Order 31 give a right to make a statement only to the party whip and his or her designates?

Second, does Standing Order 31 give you as Speaker the right to deny a member the opportunity to make a statement because you disagree with the content of it? If you as Speaker do not have the right to deny a member the opportunity to make an S. O. 31 statement for such a reason, how could you delegate such a prerogative to any whip or anyone else?

Delegating the right to deny what the Standing Order gives to members is altogether different from delegating mere administrative assistance to the whips.

If Standing Order 31 gives every member the equal right to make a statement, except for usual reasons relating to unparliamentary conduct, surely the House would need to amend the Standing Orders if the House wanted to restrict such statements to only the whips and their designates.

Before proceeding, I offer two qualifications to my remarks. The first is that I have no personal knowledge of the facts on which the member for Langley raises his point of privilege. I have never been refused my place in the rotation of private members' statements, so I leave it to you, Mr. Speaker, to determine the facts of the member for Langley's case from the record before you.

My remarks will be based on the premise that a member has been denied the opportunity to make a member's statement pursuant to S. O. 31 for no other reason except that his whip did not agree with his point of view. As such, this issue transcends the case of the member for Langley and transcends party boundaries.

I heard in fact that a former NDP member reported to the media that the NDP whip or leader refused him an S. O. 31 opportunity for similar reasons. I am quite certain that this is possible in every party.

The Liberal member for Papineau expressed concern about empowering members of Parliament. I am sure many will no doubt be deeply disappointed if he does not intervene on this point to urge you, Mr. Speaker, to empower MPs in this matter now that the opportunity has arisen for him to do so.

I am sure that the member for Langley himself really would not care very much about losing a mere 60 seconds of airtime. I am convinced that his concern is not simply about his 60 seconds but about the democratic governance of the House.

Many Canadians have voiced concerns that members of all parties are becoming mere proxies for party leaders. Is that phenomenon now extend even to 60 second statements?

Such democratic safeguards are more important than any single issue, even that of abortion. Such democratic safeguards also transcend partisan boundaries.

My second caution is that I do not hold myself out as an expert in the arcane precedents which govern the interpretation of the Standing Orders. I caught some of the remarks of the member for Edmonton—St. Albert on this issue. He seemed to be doing a good lawyerly job of reviewing the effect of those precedents. To that extent, I agree with and adopt his submissions.

My remarks on the other hand will be simply based on a common sense reading of Standing Order 31.

After having practised law for almost 30 years, I am well aware of how arcane precedents can lead one away from a common sense interpretation and even away from the very spirit of the enactment in question. However, I hope the precedents in this matter do not have such an unfortunate result with you, Mr. Speaker.

I have three observations to the first of the two questions I have discerned in this, and that is does Standing Order 31 give an equal right to every member to make a statement or does it give a right to make a statement only to the party whips and their designates?

First, Standing Order 31 itself clearly does not say that only a whip and his or her designate may be recognized. To my knowledge, that proposition has never before even been proposed until the government whip rose to speak to the member for Langley's question of privilege.

The practice whereby the Chair is guided by lists provided by party whips surely cannot compel the Speaker to deny a member the opportunity to speak, which Standing Order 31 itself provides to the member. Surely an administrative aid cannot now be cited as support for negating the Standing Order itself. If the House wishes to amend Standing Order 31 to limit opportunities to speak to only party whips and their designates, surely the House would give that direction to you through the ordinary process of amending the Standing Orders. Surely such as an important amendment cannot be accomplished by stealth, without any debate or vote.

Second, I understand from the commentary in O'Brien and Bosc that Standing Order 31 apparently replaced previous opportunities for members to move motions in the House. Did the House really intend to remove every member's right to make a motion and not at least give, in return, every member the right to make a mere 60-second statement? It seems to me that it was a quid pro quo at that time. That bargain having been made cannot be unmade now without an amendment to the Standing Order sanctioned by the whole House.

Third, I understand that even independent members are offered the opportunity afforded by S. O. 31. They are not recognized as parties in the House and have no recognized whip. Are they offered S. O. 31 statements merely as designates of some other party's whip? I suggest not. Rather, they are offered S. O. 31 statements in their own right as members, since that is what S. O. 31 provides to every member equally.

As to the second question, does Standing Order 31 give you, as Speaker, the prerogative to deny a member the right to make a statement simply because you disagree with the content of it? It seems obvious to me; I find no evidence that you possess such a tyrannical and anti-democratic prerogative to deny a member the right to make a statement simply because you disagree, as Speaker, with the content of it. In fact, the commentary in O'Brien and Bosc suggests that only a very limited list of reasons entitles you to disallow a member's S. O. 31 statement.

This is my next question. If you do not, as Speaker, possess such a tyrannical, anti-democratic prerogative, then how can you delegate it to anyone else, party whip or otherwise? Further, if you were to insist that you do have such a prerogative, the effect would be to make you and your opinion about statements more equal than any other member of Parliament or their opinion, to purloin a phrase from George Orwell. To delegate such a power to anyone else would make that member more equal than any other member of Parliament. I have to wonder if that is really what we have come to in this Parliament.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to join the debate on the matter raised by the member of Parliament for Langley regarding speaking rights in the House. I am going to turn to a number of reference documents, so if the House will bear with me, I will try not to sound or look too much like a professor flipping through volumes quickly.

From O'Brien and Bosc, we begin with:

Members are expected to show respect for one another and for viewpoints differing from their own; offensive or rude behaviour or language is not tolerated. Emotions are to be expressed verbally rather than acted out; opinions are to be expressed with civility and freely, without fear of punishment or reprisal. Freedom of speech is one of the most important privileges enjoyed by Members of Parliament.

I will turn now to some of these privileges.

O'Brien and Bosc, on page 60, states:

The classic definition of parliamentary privilege is found in Erskine May's Treatise on The Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament:

Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively...and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions, and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals.

....The rights and immunities accorded to Members individually are generally categorized under the following headings:

The first is freedom of speech.

Page 212 reads:

Members sit in the House of Commons to serve as representatives of the people who have elected them to that office.....

The member of parliament represents his constituency through service in the House of Commons.

Later we find:

The privileges of the Commons are designed to safeguard the rights of each and every elector. For example, the privilege of freedom of speech is secured to Members not for their personal benefit, but to enable them to discharge their functions of representing their constituents without fear

It goes on.

Privilege essentially belongs to the House as a whole; individual Members cannot claim privilege insofar as any denial of their rights, or threat made to them, would impede the functioning of the House.

I would put to the House that this is where we are.

I would like to turn next to a report that really is the genesis of the S. O. 31, or the member's statement. It is the third report of the special committee that dates back to 1982. There is one paragraph I will draw your attention to, sir, and I quote it, although I will jump through it and not read the whole thing. This is effectively what it says:

Under the new recommended procedure the 15 minutes preceding the question period will be reserved for Members...to raise matters of concern for the purpose of place them on the record.... Every Member recognized by the Chair would be given a maximum of one minute

I will just highlight. It is members that are “recognized by the Chair”. That is to say, you, Mr. Speaker.

Later we see, in debates, that the hon. Yvon Pinard, and I think this captures the intention of this reform, stated:

I hope that the Chair, mindful of the intent of the committee report, will recognize Hon. Members without any regard for party affiliation and that the time available will be equally distributed between both sides of the House.

Then if we turn quickly to page 423 of O'Brien and Bosc, just to summarize where we are at today, 30 years later:

The opportunity to speak during Statements by Members is allocated to private Members of all parties. In according Members the opportunity to participate in this period, the Chair is guided by lists provided by the Whips of the various parties and attempts to recognize those Members supporting the government and those Members in opposition on an equitable basis.

Others who have gone before me, in particular the member for Edmonton—St. Albert, have given a good overview of how those rules are to be interpreted today. However, my point to you, Mr. Speaker, is that rules and conventions cannot trump parliamentary privilege. That is to say that whether the situation in which we find ourselves today evolved to where it is or was actually passed and can be found in the Standing Orders is irrelevant, simply because anything that comes along that blocks or impedes members from acting on their rights ought to be placed out of order. Blocking any MP from delivering a statement, known as an S. O. 31, is a violation of a privilege or right.

You, Mr. Speaker, recognize MPs. You do not do so through any other authority or any other institution. We have heard the analogy to a hockey game and who decides who plays and who does not, but I put it to you that the decision was made by voters. They chose who would be on the ice in this House of Commons.

If we were to accept the analogy and that the Speaker does not decide, and I urge you not to, it would mean that the Speaker does not have the ultimate authority to recognize members. That actually goes against the entire set of rules, laws and institutions that govern this House.

What is being proposed by that flawed analogy is that in addition to removing the right of MPs to speak, your authority is extinguished. It suggests that there is a higher authority. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you are prepared to yield this ground.

Earlier, one of my hon. colleagues in the House further expanded on this analogy and likened this to a house league, saying that we all ought to have equal time on the ice. That is an apt analogy.

I will go in a different direction, which I think is a better one. I view this Parliament as the NHL, the top league in terms of law-making in this country, and the government is the Stanley Cup champion. It wins, in large part, through team discipline.

Parties have great authority and great powers. They can rotate members in and off committees. The whip can cajole and intimidate. Ultimately, these teams can decide who will sit on the team and who will not. However, the teams do not decide who is able to speak in this House.

I believe that there are limits that have been crossed that involve removing speaking rights and that suddenly now involve veto rights over who is able to be recognized as a member of Parliament.

Earlier today we heard from the opposition House leader. He very nearly missed the point. His focus was on decorum. That is something I think all members of Parliament would like to see improved. Let us not forget that even the opposition party has begun to move into territory where S. O. 31s are being used by the opposition similarly. The opposition whip picks and chooses who will speak. I believe that one out of every five is used in this manner.

The point that was nearly missed, and the House leader came through on the end, was that in addition to decorum, this also involves our democratic principles. If the Speaker reinforces the authority of members of Parliament by reaffirming their right to speak and the Speaker's right to recognize them, we will together strengthen democracy in this chamber and the power of representation. In turn, I believe, decorum will be improved. This brings me to my final point.

Mr. Speaker, your review of the S. O. 31 and how it is governed will logically take you into another area, and that involves question period and how you recognize members.

There is a wonderful daily spectacle in Westminster of MPs bobbing up and down hoping to catch the Speaker's attention. The Speaker uses a combination of judgment and skill to select members to speak, and that could include party affiliation, the region the member comes from, the rural-urban balance, gender and ethnicity. These are the balls the Speaker must juggle in determining who will be recognized. On that, I would like to recite few lines from a book called, How Parliament Works, 6th edition, authored by Rogers and Walters. On the Speaker's power of the chamber, on page 50, it says:

First...there is the power to call MPs to speak in a debate or to ask a question, described by Speaker Thomas as his most potent weapon. [Of course] Speakers strive to be fair to every MP....

Later, regarding questions in the commons, it states on page 337, that question period is:

—one of the main opportunities for back-bench MPs on all sides of the House to pursue and expose issues, and to get the government of the day to put information on the public record. The very existence of parliamentary questions, and the opportunities that they provide for the representatives of the people to question the government of the day, are of constitutional importance. Their effectiveness has always been down to the tenacity and skill of individual MPs; but whether the system can survive the strains that are now being put upon it is also in the hands of MPs generally.

I feel like that last line is perhaps foreshadowing the decision that you face here, Mr. Speaker.

On that note, as I ask you to expand your review of this question to not just consider S. O. 31s but questions in the House, I would remind you again, sir, that rules and convention cannot trump a parliamentary privilege, a right. What we have seen over the last 30 years has all happened very slowly. To use an analogy, it is a bit like a frog in a pot of water: if we toss a frog in hot water, it will quickly recoil and jump out, but if we slowly increase the heat, the frog will not jump out. Instead, the increasing heat will eventually kill it.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, I propose that your review go further and that you are guided both by your judgment and authority on these questions and yield to no one.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I thank both the member for Kitchener Centre and the member for New Brunswick Southwest for their comments on this question as I continue to study it.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that, because routine proceedings was delayed without a clear indication of the time, the Treasury Board secretary will be back shortly to table the reports on plans and priorities. I would appreciate it if we could return at that time, with the consent of all, to that item.

Justice and Human Rights

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 21st report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to Bill C-394, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (criminal organization recruitment).

The committee has studied the bill and has agreed to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

Procedure and House Affairs

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 104 and 114, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 46th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding membership of committees of the House. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the 46th report later this day.

I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 47th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Pursuant to Standing Order 92(3)(a) the committee reports that it has concurred in the report of the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business arising that the M-408 item of private members' business should be designated non-votable.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Members will recall that Standing Order 92(4) allows the member for Langley to appeal the decision of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs within five sitting days of the presentation of the report we have just received.

Given that Motion No. 408 will come up for debate in the House prior to the end of the appeal period, I would ask the table officers to drop this item of business to the bottom of the order of precedence. The hon. member for Langley has been so advised.

On Monday, April 15, 2013, private members' hour will thus be cancelled and consideration of government orders will start at 11 a.m.

Plans and Priorities

[Tony Clement, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, on behalf of 93 departments and agencies, the reports on plans and priorities for 2013-14.

Veterans Affairs

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Minister of State and Chief Government Whip]

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations and I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following travel motions. I move:

That seven members of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs be authorized to travel to Washington, D.C., United States of America, in the Spring of 2013,for the purpose of inquiring about programs and benefits offered to veterans by Veteran organizations, Government and NGOs and to visit the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee.

(Motion agreed to)

Foreign Affairs and International Development

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Minister of State and Chief Government Whip]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That in relation to its study on the Organization of American States (OAS) and Canada's Engagement in the Americas, eight members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development be authorized to travel to Washington, D.C., United States of America, in the Spring of 2013, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee.

(Motion agreed to)

Public Safety and National Security

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Minister of State and Chief Government Whip]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That in relation to its study on the Economics of Policing, six members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security be authorized to travel to Calgary, Alberta, and Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, in the Spring of 2013, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee.

(Motion agreed to)

Procedure and House Affairs

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the 46th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to this House earlier today be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to)