Mr. Speaker, I rise today to provide some context I was able to discover with respect to the evolution of members' statements. I think it is important that we look to the history of members' statement, as you decide and make a ruling on this important matter.
If we want to look at the history, we would start with the “Third Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure”, November 4, 1982, found in issue no. 7, page 19. The committee says:
Your Committee is of the opinion that Standing Order 43 is being misused, and that a substitute mechanism is required which would enable Members to [rise on] matters of concern on a daily basis.
It goes on to say:
Your Committee believes that a new Standing Order is required which would enable Members to make statements on current issues on a daily basis for the first 15 minutes of the sitting in a manner which would remove the objections arising from the present practice....
Under the new recommended procedure the 15 minutes preceding the question period would be reserved for Members other than Ministers to raise matters of concern for the purpose of placing them on the record. The Speaker would call [them] “Members' Statements” as a routine proceeding preceding the question period.
As well, this is an important section. It says:
Every Member recognized by the Chair would be given a maximum of one minute and a half to state the matter he or she wishes to place on the record and, if appropriate, appeal for a remedy.
That was the report from the committee. When this matter came before the House, the Hon. Yvon Pinard, president of the Privy Council, gave a long speech. I am going to deliver excerpts from that. He started off by saying:
Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure and even greater satisfaction that I may present a motion in the House today which paves the way for parliamentary reform, a concept I have always cherished and a goal I have...wanted to achieve.
Speaking of the reforms, which include a number of reforms in addition to removing Standing Order 43, he went on to say:
The proposed experiment, Mr. Speaker, is interesting and relevant for three reasons. First, it will help to upgrade the role played by Members of Parliament.
I think that is important. He also says:
It will make Parliament more alive and more effective, without eroding the right of the opposition to a full debate. Finally, the third reason why this experiment will be interesting is that it will update Parliament and give it more respectability in the eyes of the Canadian people. To summarize, the role of Members of Parliament will be upgraded, Parliament will become more alive and more effective without infringing upon the rights of the opposition to a full debate.
When he specifically talks about section 43, he says:
We are doing away with that parliamentary oddity, Standing Order 43, a move which practically all Hon. Members fully endorse. It is a proceeding which no longer serves any useful purpose....
Doing away with motions under Standing Order 43 is in itself a very positive step. Instead, Hon. Members will each have 90 seconds to make a point rather than raise objections.
I think we should try it on an experimental basis...I am convinced that those who want that experiment to succeed will draw maximum benefits from those 15-odd minutes before the Question Period.
Here is another important section. He says:
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....
I believe that it is clear what the intent of this was.
Certainly a convention has developed here in the House of lists being submitted to the Speaker. My understanding, however, is that this convention developed for the Speaker's ease of reference. It was so that the Speaker could easily recognize who was supposed to rise in their place and speak. I do not believe that a convention that was arrived at to enable the Speaker to easily identify who should be speaking should trump a member's right to speak in the House.
I want to also quote page 593 of O'Brien and Bosc, where it says:
Freedom of speech is one of the most important privileges enjoyed by Members of Parliament.
This is important. In the notes it goes on to say:
Freedom of speech enables Members to speak in the House (and in its committees), to refer to any matter, to express any opinion and to say what they feel needs to be said in the furtherance of the national interest and of the aspirations of their constituents, without inhibition or fear of legal prosecution.
Mr. Speaker, if you cannot rise at all to speak, you certainly cannot enjoy freedom of speech, which is one of the things that we consider to be sacrosanct in this place.
I want to finish by talking about the reference to playing on a team. We are a team and I am a proud member of my team. I say that without inhibition. I can also say that I have never had my right to speak interfered with. However, if we want to talk about a team, my view would be that this is, certainly for backbench MPs, a house league team. We all get equal time in the House. We all get equal time to play.
I coach a house league hockey team. Every player gets the same chance to get on the ice and the same amount of time. Of course there are rep teams. There is a AA team and a AAA team, perhaps the parliamentary secretaries and the ministers. They are a special team and of course those coaches get to choose which of those players get to play and when. Then they could have no complaints because they are on those teams.
However, if members are on the house league team and the coach decides they do not get the opportunity to play, what do they do? I would suggest, as the member for Langley did, they may have to make an appeal to the league convenor and suggest, “I did not get my time to play on the ice, convenor. I would like you to perhaps intervene”.
Mr. Speaker, this is a serious question. It is a question of importance to Parliament. Those are my submissions and I look forward to your ruling.