Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to speak to this opposition day motion, in the hope that members will approach the motion as a form of bringing us closer, in allowing individuals the opportunity to do something we should never take for granted. I have a deep and passionate respect for the House of Commons. Indeed, it is a privilege to be here. I feel honoured, and at the end of the day there are certain things that I believe we have as rights. In representing our constituents, we want to have the opportunity to express ourselves.
Regarding S. O. 31s, I have had a couple of occasions to speak. One was recently, where I talked about the celebration of Khalsa, which is a very important and significant birth in our Indo-Canadian communities all across Canada. I had an opportunity to talk about the Holodomor and the importance of not forgetting the Holodomor. S. O. 31s are used for a multitude of different reasons, so we should try to do what we can.
I would first like to reflect on what actually happened today. We have a card, on which the Speaker is provided with a list. That list is made up by the party whips submitting names of individuals who will be speaking in particular spots. Quite often we will see the Speaker or the clerks at the table crossing off names. We know, through tradition, that the whips submit the names and, one-by-one, each will speak for one minute. The subjects vary, from community ideas or projects or some special occasion—it could be the passing of someone—to something that is a little more political in its nature. The Speaker goes through that list.
The change that is being suggested in this motion would allow every member the opportunity to get on that list. There would be no obligation to abide by party discipline. A member's name would appear on that list in alphabetical order. If there are 35 members in the Liberal caucus, that would mean maybe every 15 or 16 days his or her name would come up on that list. The same principle would apply for all three caucuses. There has also been special consideration given for those who sit as independents, and they would be blocked together. That would indeed be a fair way of proceeding.
For the last number of weeks in the chamber, I have listened to members from all sides, not just from the Conservative benches. The opposition House leader, the House leader from the Liberal Party, a number of members from the Conservative caucus and others, have stood in their place and talked about the importance of a member's right to speak.
On a number of occasions, Mr. Speaker, you will recall, and Hansard will show, that the leader of the Liberal Party was being asked to get engaged, to voice his opinion on this issue. At the time he was not even leader of the party. The question was where we stood on the issue.
This is appropriate. This is the Liberal Party's second opposition day motion. It tries to set a framework that will accommodate what I believe is not unique to one caucus. Every time I see someone from either side of the House stand to address this issue, I see individuals trying to make a case for their right to speak.
I think that most, hopefully all, members of Parliament are sympathetic to the arguments being made and are wanting to see something take place that would alleviate the concerns being expressed by a number of members of the House. That is what should happen here.
Through rules, we have seen changes in the past. When I was a member of the Manitoba legislature a number of years ago, in the early 1990s, we used to call them non-political statements. At the end of the question period, members would stand up and be recognized; however, they could not be political. There might be half a dozen individuals who would stand up, and they could speak for more than one minute.
That has since changed. It was interesting that we looked at how Ottawa dealt with members' statements, S. O. 31s, to do that. The Manitoba legislature was looking at how it could change its rules. We found with the non-political statements that some MLAs were getting a little too partisan. Then there would be points of order being raised, interrupting these non-political statements and so forth.
In the end, changes were made, and the Province of Manitoba looked at what Ottawa was doing. It adopted the concept of having members' statements. It could be anything that the members wanted, but with a restricted amount of time. It proved to work quite well. There was never really a problem.
I sat as an independent back then, and the Speaker had control. There was a sense of independence, in that members of each caucus were afforded the opportunity to contribute if they wanted to. From my understanding, there was no list that was kept by the whip.
When I look at the S. O. 31s today, I believe if we were to adopt what is being suggested by the opposition, it would change the dynamic considerably. If you take it out of the hands of the party whip and put it in the hands of the individual member of Parliament, Mr. Speaker, you would empower the member of Parliament to have more freedom of speech in addressing any issue the member would like to address.
Today, that is not necessarily the case. There are limitations in place. I suspect there might be some variations in all political parties that are represented, and even with the independents.
If this motion were to pass, let there be no doubt that two things would happen. One is that every member inside this House would not have to fear, whether today or a year from now, being denied the opportunity to stand in his or her place and give an S. O. 31. That is a guarantee, and it is something I thought would receive wide support from the House. I hope we see that, and I genuinely hope that members will reflect on that point. Today it might look grey; today we might hear things coming from all three of our parties. However, if this motion were to pass, our rules would change. As individual members of Parliament, no matter what caucus, we would be afforded the opportunity to stand up and deliver our S. O. 31. That is number one.
The second significant change as a result of this motion being passed is that we would enable members of Parliament to express what they feel is important to them. That could be a specific celebration in the constituency. As I mentioned, it could be the passing of someone very important to the larger community, it could be a celebration such as what I made reference to in terms of the Khalsa or, if the MP wants to make it very political, then, by all means, he or she can do that, too. There are no limitations because the difference here is that it is the MP who is allotted the spot. As such, it means the party would have to go to the MP to ask for something to be recognized. It could be anti-racism day, it could be all sorts of national or world-recognized days, celebrations, or significant events. The party would have to go to the individual member of Parliament. The PMO or a leader's office could not say, “This is what has to happen in the S. O. 31s delivered today in the House.” I suggest that this would be a huge step forward in terms of individual members' rights.
I know some people would ask why we are talking about this one particular rule change. I sat on rule change committees before and it is very difficult to get consensus on changing a wide variety of rules. I have seen rules change first-hand. I have been involved in discussions that led to those changes, and they can be exceptionally challenging because there is so much give-and-take expected. If the government wants something specific, what does it get out of it? The opposition wants something specific, what does it get out of it? It is a very partisan look. The reason I say that is at the end of the day, if we were to allow a rules committee to reform or make the necessary changes to give more power to individual members of Parliament, that might not happen for a long time. I know from experience just how difficult it is to get rules changed inside a legislative building and that would include the House of Commons.
I am suggesting that we have a wonderful opportunity and I truly believe that if the Speaker wants to stand for the individual rights of members of Parliament—and I do not want this to be Liberal versus Conservative versus NDP or Bloc party or anything of that nature. It is all about the individual rights of members of Parliament. How many times have members knocked on doors or spoken with constituents and our constituents wanted us to represent them? They want to have a strong voice. There are very few windows of opportunity that will come before the House when members are going to be afforded what we are being afforded today.
I can appreciate that some members are inclined to vote against the motion, and that is fine, but it would be wonderful if members of Parliament were allowed to have a free vote on the issue, quite frankly.
Mr. Speaker, if you believe in the rights of members of Parliament to stand in their places—and we are only talking about one minute. It is one-minute speech maybe every 14 days that the House actually sits. It is not asking for that much. I believe that it sends a very strong and powerful message. When individual members of Parliament stand and vote on the motion, we can all take some credit, if in fact it passes. I would not want us to pass on this opportunity believing that the rule might change six months or a year from now. If members believe that they should be allowed to express their thoughts for that one minute, I would argue this is one of the best opportunities we are going to get in the House of Commons to do that.
In the sense of co-operation, I appreciate what it is that the government House leader has indicated. We use the word "shall". If we read the motion, the Speaker "shall" recognize members.
I look to my colleague. We are sympathetic. If the government says that it should be a different word, we are open to that. If we look at our rules, we will see ample examples of "the government shall" or "the Speaker shall". Ultimately, if a member of Parliament has maybe not played fairly, or has been a little obstructive, the MP would likely be named and not allowed to come into the chamber. He would not be able to stand in his place to be recognized.
Whether it is the word "shall" or there is another word, and I look to the government if there is another word that it would rather see, I believe that I speak on behalf of the mover of the motion when I say that we would be very open to that change. We invite them to bring that thought over to my colleague.
I indicated that I have dealt with the issue of changing the rules in the past, and it is very difficult to change rules. I believe at my core that we need to move forward in providing opportunities for members of Parliament to be able to represent their constituents as MPs with individual rights.
I have periodically had the opportunity to stand up and speak in the House, and I enjoy every opportunity I get to speak. I am very grateful. I understand the roles that political parties play in the House and I do not want to belittle the important roles that they play. However, I will plead to each and every member, not as a member of a caucus, and suggest to them that they are not going to get an opportunity like this in the short term. I believe, with the 20-plus years of experience that I have had as a parliamentarian who has sat on rules committees and has actually seen rules get changed, that it is very difficult. I suspect that there are others who have also been on rules committees who could vouch for this.
This is a one-off. Here is one rule. It will make a difference. I believe our constituents would be very pleased with the rule that is being suggested here, and it would enable us to stand in our place and speak for that one or two minutes every two weeks.
It is a motion that is worthy of support from all members of all caucuses. I look forward, ultimately, to its vote.
