Debates of April 24th, 2013

Opposition Motion—Amendments to the Standing Orders

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree. I believe that if members are allowed to speak without fear of losing their speaking time, and if they take turns in alphabetical order, there will be less pressure to make partisan statements.

Naturally, MPs will still be members of a party and they will be proud of that. They will express their party's beliefs, but they will also have the opportunity to spend 60 seconds talking about things they care deeply about. I think that will go a long way toward reducing the excessive partisanship that results from whips telling people what to say.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville will certainly understand that this is of particular importance to the Bloc Québécois, especially in light of our present situation. We are concerned with keeping the proportion that was established after the election, at the beginning of the session, so that we can keep our speaking time.

I note that this motion is directed at one party more than others, that is, the Conservative Party, which seems to find it difficult to manage its members' statements. That is not the case for our party, and from what I have heard from other parties, I do not believe that is the case for them either.

We have five statements every 20 sitting days since we added a fifth member. We would not all want to speak on a Monday or Friday or even later than others.

What I take away from the motion, and I would like the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville to confirm this, is simply that within our own party we will speak in alphabetical order and we will have the flexibility, when it is our turn, to trade with members in our party or even other members if possible. We do not have a problem with that. We do not see this as a bad thing.

I would like to hear what the member has to say about that.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure my colleague that that is exactly the idea behind the motion he is being invited to support. The five Bloc Québécois members will be able to trade their speaking time if one of them is not there. I would willingly take his time, if he would like to give it to me.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the intent of the motion before us today is laudable as it seeks to raise the level of what we sometimes hear in the House of Commons.

I have two quick questions for my colleague. First, the motion says that “the Speaker shall recognize Members in alphabetical order by Party”.

I would imagine that this means alphabetical order by last name, but it could also be alphabetical order by riding. I was just wondering whether the wording of the motion lacks clarity.

Second, could the member also tell us what system the Liberals are currently using to determine who has the right to speak? Have Liberal members been happy with the system to date? Have problems come up on occasion when Liberal members make partisan or somewhat inappropriate statements?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and neighbour is right. We are indeed proposing to use alphabetical order by last name. It could also be alphabetical order by riding, but we thought this would show even more clearly that we want to focus on individuals, the members as individuals, by using their last names.

As to her second point, which party is most to blame? The member will understand that I do not want to get into that today. First, I am personally involved in the sense that I prefer my own party's behaviour. Second, I am also urging the members of all parties to support this resolutely non-partisan motion. The motion seeks to improve the institution of Parliament by enhancing the members' roles, without weakening party discipline where it is needed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition to the motion drafted by the leader of the Liberal Party and moved today by the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville. It seems to be an attempt by the Liberal leader to try to change the channel from what was undoubtedly a disappointing first week for him. Perhaps he has been hearing the grumblings in the media by anonymous Liberal insiders concerned about his performance in a week where he made excuses for terrorists only hours after the deadly attacks in Boston.

It also came to light that he demanded special treatment for foreign cooks for his father's favourite restaurant in his riding, even when he claims to want temporary foreign workers fixed. Of course, he had written the government asking to impose a tax to make Canadians pay for more for iPods, while publicly saying he was against such a tax. We find ourselves dealing with the Liberal leader's motion, desperately trying to change the subject from his own failed leadership.

This motion proposes to amend the Standing Orders to diminish the rights of members of Parliament that were preserved in the Speaker's ruling that was delivered yesterday. We respect that ruling. Clearly, the Liberals do not respect that ruling. If the House were to adopt today's motion, the Speaker would no longer have the authority to recognize members who wished to make a one-minute statement pursuant to Standing Order 31. This recognition would be governed, instead, by alphabetical order.

Before getting any further into the specifics of the motion, allow me to review some history relating to the role of the Speaker in the House and, more broadly, in other Westminster systems around the world.

Beauchesne's sixth edition, at page 47, describes the Speaker's role as follows:

—the Speaker presides over the debates of the House of Commons and enforces the observance of all rules for preserving order in its proceedings.

The motion being debated today proposes to modify the Speaker's authority to preside over the debates and enforce the rules and preserve order. This would be a new development in the wrong direction.

One of the issues raised in the Speaker's ruling yesterday was that in the interest of orderly debate, the Speaker is guided by lists provided by party whips. Let me quote from the ruling, which stated:

In a June 19, 1991, ruling found at page 2072 of the Debates, Speaker Fraser was even more categorical about the authority of the Chair. In response to a member who asked if the Chair was bound to follow a set list in recognizing members, he said:

I appreciate the hon. member's intervention and my answer is yes, there is a list. I am not bound by it. I can ignore that list and intervene to allow private members, wherever they are, not only to ask questions but also to ask supplementals. That is a right which remains with the Chair and I do not think it has ever been seriously challenged. I would remind all hon. members that it is a right which the Chair has had almost since: 'The memory of man runneth not to the contrary'.

There are also numerous procedural citations that speak to how, as the practice of this place has developed, the ultimate authority has remained with the Speaker. Allow me to provide some of those quotes for the record, which were also cited in the ruling yesterday. It was noted as follows:

The authority the Speaker has in this regard is likewise described in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, at page 318, which states:

No member may speak in the House until called upon or recognized by the Speaker; any member so recognized may speak during debate, questions and comments periods, Question Period, and other proceedings of the House. Various conventions and informal arrangements exist to encourage the participation of all parties in debate; nevertheless, the decision as to who may speak is ultimately the Speaker's.

This practice with respect to statements by members is recognized in O'Brien and Bosc at page 423.

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.

At pages 594 to 595 of O'Brien and Bosc, known by my staff as the green book, it states:

There is no official order for the recognition of speakers laid down in the Standing Orders; the Chair relies on the practice and precedents of the House in this regard. The Standing Orders simply authorize the Speaker to recognize for debate any Member who seeks the floor by rising in his or her place....Although the Whips of the various parties each provide the Chair with a list of Members wishing to speak, the Chair is not bound by these.

Further down on page 595, it says:

While the Speaker has complete discretion in recognizing Members, the Chair may follow such informal arrangements as may be made...

Beauchesne's, sixth edition, at page 137, adds, “the Speaker is the final authority on the order of speaking”.

Clearly, your authority is important, Mr. Speaker, and should not be diminished by adopting today's Liberal motion.

I think I heard quite clearly in answer to a question that the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville purported that this motion would not impinge upon that authority of the Speaker. That is clearly not the case. The motion is quite clear on its face. It states:

That Standing Order 31 be amended by adding the following:

(1) The Speaker shall recognize Members in alphabetical order by Party.

It is a clear direction to the Speaker. It does take away the Speaker's authority and discretion to recognize members.

I appreciate that the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville did not actually draft the original motion we are debating today. It was done by the Liberal leader. However, it is a clear indication that it would tramp on that authority. I find it interesting that he is in the House as the proponent of the motion and does not himself understand what the implications and consequences are of what it asks on its own face. That alone shows us this is not something we should take seriously as a proposition coming from the party.

There are other reasons of course. The Liberals are claiming they have some newly discovered interest in Parliament as an institution and that is why they are bringing this motion forward. Curiously, there is nothing stopping the Liberal leader from applying the proposed change to the practices in his party, but the Liberals have not done so to this point. If they said that they had adopted this approach for the members of the Liberal Party, that they thought it worked well and that was why they were asking other parties to adopt it, it might have some credibility. However, the fact is that they are proposing today that all of us should be bound to do something they have never done themselves. We need only look at what has happened in the past several days to see they are still not applying this rule.

If the leader of the Liberal Party believes in advancing the principles contained in his motion, it begs the question as to why it only applies to the time slot that is dominated by government members, that being members' statements.

If the Liberal leader were genuine in his desire to empower members of Parliament, the motion would not just cover members' statements under Standing Order 31. It would also cover question period questions. That would be much more consequential in empowering ordinary members of Parliament.

That is not something the Liberals are putting forward. They have no intention of proposing such a change because that would not be helpful to their own partisan interests. However, it also speaks to the lack of bona fides here, to the fact that this is a really a cynical ploy rather than something they genuinely believe.

If they were genuine, they would propose that application to question period. Perhaps the member does not want to because the leader does not want to cede his supplementary leader's round question to the member for Guelph or perhaps he does not want to have to ask follow-up questions to the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville.

Going beyond conjecture, let us look at the record of the Liberal Party since it elected a new leader last week. As I said, it could have been using this approach but it has not. In the eight sitting days since the member for Papineau has been leader, not once has a Liberal statement been organized based on the alphabet. Perhaps the Liberals are taking their cue from the NDP and adopting a “do as I say, not as I do" approach or perhaps the Liberal leader is just in over his head. Whatever the reason, it is clear the Liberals are being disingenuous and hypocritical in proposing this motion.

There are lots of reforms we can consider. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is currently studying proposals and I am sure is still open to other suggestions. However, I do not think this motion would pass muster as a serious reform there. I suppose that is fair game in the political world, but it should not be deployed as a political tactic at the expense of the role of the Speaker.

I might add that at the beginning of this Parliament, I approached my opposition counterparts to suggest some reforms to question period, for example, lengthening the time allowed for questions and answers. I thought this would be the kind of reform, which people had talked about, that would improve the overall quality of question period, allowing more substantive questions and more substantive answers.

I was in fact heartened to hear the same suggestion on the CBC last night from no less than senior Liberal operative David Herle. Ultimately, however, the opposition parties were not interested in this suggestion, so it has not been put in place.

Things like that are a more appropriate way to look at reforming the rules, rather than putting forward a motion drafted with the aim of simply getting some short-term political advantage. This motion is not an attempt to seriously reform the rules of the House. How can diminishing the role of the Speaker be considered a progressive reform?

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe we should be diminishing your role as the final authority. This motion would eliminate any discretion that you may want to exercise in the performance of your duties in this House. It is no secret that one of those tools at your disposal is a very important one to enforce decorum. That very important tool—the ability of the Speaker to turn a blind eye to a member and fail to recognize him or her for a period of time when the member's conduct has been inappropriate or the member has crossed the line—is one of the most practical sanctions used by Speakers in the past to maintain order and decorum in this House.

The effect of this member's statement, a proposition from the Liberals, would be to take that power, a power that is important to enforce decorum in this House, away from the Speaker. At a time when people are claiming that the ability of the Speaker to enforce decorum is of great importance, I do not see how such a reform would be anything but a backward move.

Therefore, I do not see the proposed motion providing a meaningful and practical benefit to our work in this House. It would simply advance the Liberal leader's agenda in his effort to change the subject from his very bad first week and a half. It is an agenda that obviously has no interest in preserving or increasing the integrity of your office as Speaker.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not hear any comment on the substance of the motion. The hon. minister did not tell us if he thinks it would be an improvement not to have whips' lists and to allow MPs to have the guarantee that they will have their 60 seconds, one after the other, in alphabetical order.

He addressed three items, and I will comment very quickly.

The first one is that we should not affect the power of the Speaker. Obviously we should not and we will not.

He said that the whips' lists do not bind the Speaker. Alphabetical order, by this motion, would not bind the Speaker. We cannot bind the Speaker. We cannot remove the power of the Speaker. We may indicate to the Speaker how the members of the House would like the Speaker to proceed. If my colleague thinks it is not clear enough, he would just have to propose amendments, and we would consider them with openness. We should not be partisan; the cheap partisan jabs in this case are very imprecise and ineffective.

Second, he asked why we should not do it for question period as well. The motion is about statements by members; we will deal with question period another time. It is a step-by-step issue that we need to focus on, and just because we are not able to do everything at the same time does not mean that we should do nothing.

Third, the member asked why the Liberals are not doing it alone. It is because we want to have the same strategy as our friends. If they have a strategy to attack us, we need to be prepared to react. If we have our strategy to offer more leeway to MPs from all parties, we are ready to do it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe the last remarks of the hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville expose fully how shallow the Liberal commitment is to these kinds of changes. The Liberal members stand for themselves as a better argument than any I could make for why this is not a genuine proposal from them.

However, I will point out that I am very surprised that the member appears not to have read his very own motion.

It says:

(1) The Speaker shall recognize Members in alphabetical order by Party.

If adopted, that would be the rule of this House, not a convention reflected in a book that says the Speaker is guided by whips' lists. That is a convention. That is not the statute, the law of the House.

The member is proposing to change the very law of the House, yet he stands here in the House and does not seem to understand what it is that he is trying to do. It frightens me that the person proposing this change to the Standing Orders does not even realize, by his own admission right in front of us right here today, the consequences of doing so: that this change would remove the Speaker's discretion entirely. It is a clear direction when it states:

(1) The Speaker shall recognize Members in alphabetical order by Party.

That would take away the Speaker's discretion. It would be a dramatic change from the convention right now of the whips' lists.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his intervention on this particular piece. However, I would remind him that we are at this point because the member for Langley put a case of privilege before the Speaker.

The member for Langley is a member on the government side, and my hon. colleague is the House leader of the government. This is about the assertion of the member for Langley, and of others, that he was being muzzled by the executive of his party, his whip. That is why we are here: to debate how we would open this up.

There is a sense that we could do it by alphabetical order, and I hear what my hon. colleague is saying about using the word “shall” in the Standing Order. I understand that language because I used to bargain collective agreements. I get the nuance of language.

However, I would ask my colleague across the way how we can undo this issue of not allowing people to get up to speak when the sole responsibility comes down to the whip, even though the Speaker said yesterday that if one stands up, one might be recognized depending on how one presents oneself. I think the hon. Speaker said that a person might be seen if he or she has captured his eye by standing up.

The issue occurs when the whip says to not get up because the member's S. O. 31 was taken away, as was the contention of the member for Langley. He was refused his spot. How do we then get this system to work so that all members have an opportunity to speak when they feel they should be speaking on behalf of their constituents on things that are of importance to them?

I wonder if my colleague could help us understand how we get to that piece, as the Speaker clearly said that we should somehow get there. I think he wants us to find a way to do that.

Whips in each party can do what they need to do to control their own members. That is for their caucus to decide. However, how do we undo all of what seems to have constrained us, other than by what my colleague just described in saying that the convention would no longer be a convention and would be an absolute? I think that is what he said.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would start first by simply saying that today we did not get into the debate proposed by the Liberal Party because of what was resolved yesterday with the Speaker's ruling. That discussion was had, members made their submission, the Speaker ruled, and the question was settled.

If the member is asking how we go forward, I think we follow the direction of the Speaker's ruling. It seems to me that it is quite clear and quite simple. It includes the conventions and the practices around it as well as the authority the Speaker has in that context, which means that who is chosen to be recognized is fully at the discretion of the Speaker. He can take whatever input, submissions and guidance that whips and others who are seeking to speak provide to him.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are debating an important question today and we are speaking on the record.

I would like to ask the government House leader a very simple question: does he believe that there should be more power given to individual members of this House, as compared to the power that the party whips have? Does he believe that it would be better if more power were transferred from the party whips to the individual elected members?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am a great believer in political parties. I think political parties provide Canadians with a shorthand of where people stand so that individual Canadians are not forced to examine individual voting records. That is why I think our political system is superior in some ways to that of the United States or some municipal councils. In the United States, everybody says that Congress is terrible but that their own congressman is okay. That is because they do not have the opportunity to examine what their voting records are and so on.

I think political parties provide an important way of informing Canadians and delivering clear messages, clear alternatives and clear choices. I think clear choices are good from a policy perspective, and they are good for Canadians.

I find it very amusing that the Liberal Party is purporting through this motion to give more power to individual members, but will not do so in the one place where it would actually count: in question period. That would actually have some impact on their strategic approach, and we understand why: the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville said himself that he wants to be able to maintain that maximum advantage for the partisan reason of invoking damage upon the government.

It is the same thing that David Herle said last night on television about how question period works when that is the agenda. That is why the Liberals are not really interested in empowering members of Parliament. They are really interested in the same old Liberal game: power at all costs.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we must look at what is behind this motion. One reason for the motion is to guarantee equal amounts of speaking time within caucuses and freedom of speech, in light of what the member for Langley raised in his question of privilege to the Speaker. Yes, certain government members are being muzzled.

I would like to ask the Leader of the Government if he thinks that a member in the House should have the opportunity to speak to the issues affecting his or her constituents without being censored by the Prime Minister's Office.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find that question kind of odd, coming from a political party that has had members stand in question period and demand of the Prime Minister that he prevent his members from speaking on certain issues, the very issues that the member for Langley is concerned about.

While the NDP members have stood and said members should not be allowed to speak and the Prime Minister must stop them from having opinions on such issues because they find that so offensive, here they are arguing for an entirely different case. I am sorry, but I cannot take these arguments from the NDP seriously.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we return to debate, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Employment Insurance; the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, The Environment.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard.

Mr. Speaker, I am anxious to involve myself in this debate on how we make statements, how we acquiesce to demands inside our own caucus and how we help our caucus colleagues find a way to make statements.

I can use the example of what happened just a few weeks ago when a good friend of mine, a great friend of the folks in Welland, the late Peter Kormos, passed away on a Saturday. I sent a note to my whip's office saying that I would love to do a statement on Monday to commemorate Peter's life, because he had just passed away. My colleagues were very accepting of that fact. Indeed, I ended up on the list, even though it was not my regular rotation. We have an easy schedule that allows us to do statements when we have House duty so that we are actually here, not somewhere else or engaged in a meeting, which would cause the Speaker difficulties if no one else stood. In this caucus, we give ourselves equal opportunities for statements. I can tell members that no one, since I arrived here in 2008, has ever told members of our caucus what we could or could not say in a statement. We are free to talk about constituencies or to commemorate the life of a good friend, as I did for Peter Kormos.

It is that freedom of members of Parliament that is being debated here. How do we allow all 308 of us, all members of this House, whatever number it happens to be in the future, to speak on behalf of the folks who sent us here. Ultimately, the whips did not elect us. The folks in our constituencies, whether it be the great riding of Welland, where I come from, or the wonderful community of Langley, are the folks who sent us here. Those are the folks we represent.

As the hon. House leader said, we are inside a party structure. We run on a particular platform. However, that does not diminish our role as individual MPs in a Westminster model in which the onus is on individual members to stand to speak for their constituents.

One of the things my constituents have asked me is what my role is. I tell them that part of my role is to be their voice, because they cannot all get one day in this House of Commons. It is impossible to have all the people who live in Welland come and speak to the things that are important to them.

There are standing order rules on how we should behave and use language. We all understand that. However, it really is about articulating the views of the folks who send us here and standing up for them, regardless of who they happen to be. I do not, as a member, have to agree with other members' statements, and they do not have to agree with mine. However, what we have to do, in my view, and I say this as an individual member of Parliament, as the member for Welland, not as a member of this particular caucus or party, is treat the other members with respect, even if I totally disagree with the statements they make. They were duly elected to this House. What they say matters to the constituencies they represent. Therefore, they have the absolute right to say it.

Of course, they fall within the confines of the standing orders, as I said earlier, and the Chair will call to order someone who goes beyond the bounds of the standing orders. I admit that I have seen the hon. Speaker end a statement because he felt it went beyond the bounds of the standing orders by which we guide ourselves.

If we are going to find a way to allow all of us that opportunity, then we clearly need to look at alternatives.

My friends in the Liberal Party have offered a possible solution. They have come forward with something that would be alphabetical. I have to thank the hon. member from Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, who said that it would be alphabetical by last name and not by riding, because I would have gone from the top of the list all the way down to W, for the riding of Welland. I appreciate his clarification.

However, it still would come around the alphabet. It would still get to me, even if I was at the bottom. If I had a last name that began with W or T, I would still be recognized.

I am sure that the intent was that the Speaker's rights would not be abrogated in terms of how the Speaker recognizes who should speak. This was meant as a convention. For each party, including the independents, who would be grouped together, the alphabet rather than the whip's list would be the convention. I do not wish to put words in my colleague's mouth, but I am sure that this is my colleague's intent.

I am sure that no one in the House would have the audacity to suggest that the Speaker is wrong. In my view, the Speaker was very eloquent the other day in his ruling. He referenced the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, on page 89, which refers to the freedom of speech of members. It states:

[...] a fundamental right without which they would be hampered in the performance of their duties. It permits them to speak in the House without inhibition, to refer to any matter or express any opinion as they see fit, to say what they feel needs to be said in the furtherance of the national interest and the aspirations of their constituents.

He then went on to say, and this is where the Speaker sees he intersects with us:

The Speaker's role in safeguarding this very privilege is set out in O'Brien and Bosc at page 308. “The duty of the Speaker is to ensure that the right of Members to free speech is protected and exercised to the fullest possible extent...”.

I believe that the Speaker was absolutely right. He correctly pointed out that he is elected by us. We decided who would sit in the Chair as Speaker. He applies the rules we actually give him.

It is all of us as members who decide the rules we give to the Speaker. We empower the Speaker, through a democratic process, to adjudge the rules we have given him, because that is how we want this place to function. We ask the Speaker to accept the rules and to enforce them for us.

The Speaker gets a list to help him. It is a guide. He uses it quite often. All of us also recognize it is a guide. If an S. O. 31 comes to me, I stand up. Usually no one else tries to challenge me to take that spot away, and the Speaker recognizes me because I stood, as he did a moment ago.

Based on all of that, the help we provide the Speaker is important to how the House functions. It really is a piece of what we do in helping the Speaker adjudicate in the House, not with an iron hand but with a guiding hand so that we all feel that we have had an equal opportunity to speak, within the confines of the standing orders.

Mr. Speaker, I can see that you are getting ready to rise to let me know that the time is up. That is one of the rules we have all come to understand. We appreciate the fact that the Speaker always makes us understand that our time is up.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to my colleague that he is right in his interpretation of the alphabetical order. It would be the family name. It would not deprive the Speaker of his power to decide. The House would have to indicate to the Speaker the way we would like to proceed. It would put the power back into the hands of the MPs. The 60 seconds would belong to them. They would not have to compete with the whip's list, because there would not be any whip's list.

It is the only thing that would change. Otherwise, the parties would keep the same spots. Nothing else would change. I think it would be a great improvement.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the clarification from my colleague on how we would replace the convention.

As I said during my remarks, my feeling was that a new convention was replacing an old convention in the sense that it is not an absolute “Thou shalt do this or forever more you will not be allowed”. In my view, we would never challenge the Chair, nor should we attempt to. I do not mean that in a procedural sense. To give a rule to a Speaker would bind the Speaker in a certain way so that the Speaker could no longer make decisions when sitting in the Chair. I think that would be wrong-headed. I do not think that is a direction members in this House are actually looking for, because we duly elected the Speaker. He was someone we placed our trust in when we elected him by secret ballot. We look to the Chair to help us adjudicate in those moments when we might need that. From time to time, I have seen Speakers having to do that to make sure that we function in a way that allows us to not only speak but be heard.

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

Mr. Speaker, in a way, this is really too much. We have the “let freedom reign” caucus here.

I want to point out, though, that the official opposition caucus has a voting record, on private member's bills, of sticking together 100%. There is no breaking off to exercise any independent thought or any breaking away from the pack to exercise any independence. I find this laughable that they say freedom reigns on that side.

I have to point out, though, that the sponsor of this motion does not understand his own motion. The problem with this motion is that it will put an official list above the power of the Speaker. We had this debate in the House over the last number of weeks. The two major opposition parties were frankly not part of that debate. The Speaker wisely ruled last night.

My question is for my hon. friend from Welland. With his caveat that he did not want to do that, I am curious to know how he is going to vote. I know that the sheet that tells the caucus how to vote is not in front of him, so maybe he is not sure. I am curious to know if you are going to support this motion tonight or if you are going to reject it. I suppose if I had that answer, I would know how your entire caucus would vote.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I would just remind hon. members to direct their questions and comments through the Chair.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find the comments that my colleague and friend has made to be really unique, at a time when we are talking about his ability to be free to speak. He talked about that himself. However, he decided to be hyper-partisan at a time when we are talking being free to speak and to speak our minds.

I would only say this to my colleague: He should go back and check the voting record of this caucus. He will find on a very difficult government bill that there were indeed members of this caucus who voted with the government. Therefore, it is not unanimous that we always vote against the government or private members' bills from the other side.

In fact, we have voted with private members' bills on the other side on numerous occasions, so I can tell him unequivocally that no one whips the member for Welland on a private member's bill, regardless of what sheet he may or may not have seen. However, that is neither here nor there. I have many sheets here, but none of them are about voting.

The reality is that on private member's business, we are actually free to vote every way we want and there has never been a whip system inside our party. In fact, we get whipped so badly when it is their side and we all agree with them. I am not sure if they want us to be whipped when we agree with the other side on a private member's bill when we all voted for it. I am not exactly sure whether they want us to be whipped that way or not.

I guess we will never end the debate, since I am not inside the government's caucus to hear what they tell their members. They are certainly not inside my caucus to hear how we have our discussions, either. That is just the way it is. I guess we have to take it on trust as to whether the member has indeed ever been whipped on a PMB.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I start my speech, I want to address the comments made by my Conservative colleague, who I think is misleading people.

This is not about knowing how or whether people vote. The public knows that there are different procedures and rules in the House that apply to each part of the day, and much more besides. Indeed, different rules determine when a debate on a given topic will be held and also who votes, how votes are held and who can allow whom to vote. There are also different types of votes.

Today's motion is not about all of these procedures or the freedom of members of the House at any time when the House is sitting. I think that is important to note, because my colleague's comments were misleading. The motion before us has to do with a very specific period and part of our procedure.

I would like to get back to the motion itself. It refers to the period allocated for statements by members, which happens once a day every Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday. During this time, MPs rise to make a statement of one minute or less. The MPs who are making statements should have the freedom to choose the subjects they will be talking about. These subjects can be varied.

Normally, the whip or a designated party member chooses the list of members who can speak on a given day, as opposed to the next day, and gives the list to the Speaker, so that he knows which members will speak on the designated day.

That is a little background for today's motion, which would determine who decides on the list of members who can speak and the day on which they can speak during member's statements. It is very specific.

I will explain how the NDP operates, since that is what I am familiar with. I must say that my NDP colleagues generally do not complain about how things are done. I am very comfortable with how the NDP whip decides on who will make a statement.

Indeed, a period of time is established and a statement is allocated to each member for a certain period of time. Then, once all members have had their turn, we start over again; the next time period is established and each member is allowed a statement. Accordingly, the distribution is relatively equitable. Each member is allowed at least one statement for a certain period of time, and so on. Unfortunately, this is not the case in all parties, but I will come back to that.

I myself have had the pleasure of making a few statements in the House since being elected to represent Pierrefonds—Dollard. For instance, I took advantage of the opportunity to promote the West Island women's forum and thank those who have contributed to its success.

I also commended the work of the organization PAS de la rue, and I took the opportunity to discuss what the bill on a national housing strategy introduced by my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot could do for homeless seniors living in poverty.

For example:

I also congratulate the important South Asian community in Pierrefonds—Dollard and underline the tremendous work it is doing to keep its cultural life and to build bridges in the largest community of the West Island.

These are just a few examples. If I had the opportunity to make more statements, I would use it to talk about more things that go on in my riding, such as the community-based approach of the Poste de quartier 3, the possible elimination of the subsidy for fighting organized crime in Montreal and the negative repercussions that such a decision on the part of the Conservatives could have. That is just one example.

I would like to give some specific examples of topics that can be discussed in a statement: I can talk about individuals, projects, events that take place in my riding and bills that affect the people of Pierrefonds—Dollard in one way or another.

The NDP has risen in the House in the past and asked the Speaker to analyze the content of some statements that have been made by certain parties, statements that have been used to attack members of the House and spread misinformation about other political parties.

In reality, members' statements should be used to talk about things that are happening in our ridings. I do this proudly, but not all members do. Let us be pragmatic. Members can decide to talk about almost anything as long as they are respectful. What can influence them or motivate them to talk about such subjects rather than about their ridings?

I would like to share some statistics. An analysis conducted by the Ottawa Citizen showed that, since May 2011, 159 Conservative members' statements referred to the carbon tax, 42 were about the leader of the NDP, and 142 were about the New Democratic Party. Did these statements promote what was happening in Conservative members' ridings? One has to wonder.

Members decide what they will talk about. Are they going to waste that precious minute talking about the great leader of the NDP? That is their choice. However, the motion before us suggests that the list be determined alphabetically and that it be provided by the Speaker, rather than by the party whip. This way of doing things would take some power away from the parties, the power to decide who gets to speak and what they can speak about.

This would give members a little more freedom and power. If they want to talk about a certain subject, they know that the time is theirs and that no one other than the Speaker of the House gave them that time to speak. If a member of the party gave them the time to speak, it could affect the content of the members' statements in some cases. For example, the party member could give an MP the time but require him to talk about a specific subject; otherwise, he will not be given that time. It does not necessarily work like that.

As I said before, in the NDP, we are very good at arranging things, and members are free to talk about the subject of their choice. They know that, within a certain period of time, they will have one minute to talk about their riding or about any other subject of their choice.

However, what is worrisome and what probably led to the debate on this motion today is that members of the Conservative Party have complained. About 10 members have complained about being muzzled in one way or another when it comes to the content of their members' statements. That is unfortunate. The purpose of this motion is not necessarily to make accusations against the Conservative Party. It simply seeks to examine part of the procedure related to the period for statements by members in order to ensure that the content of those statements is more impartial and that one party member is not influencing the content of statements made by other members.

The comments and questions coming from the Conservative benches are unfortunate. The Prime Minister and the Conservative Party have muzzled this House on a number of occasions. There have been complaints about how work is done in committee, and a dozen or so members have complained about their inability to speak freely within the party. Again today, there does not seem to be much openness. They say that it is not them, it is the other parties; that the other parties are not doing as many good things as their party is; and that that is how things were done 10 years ago. Why the diversion tactics? Why not talk about the issue at hand, namely how this could affect procedures and freedom of expression for MPs, instead of trying to divert attention by pointing fingers and accusing people of various things at various times?

To conclude, I would like to say that the NDP defends freedom of speech for members in the House. For the NDP, the question is not whether or not members' statements should be doled out in alphabetical order. Our current system works, and it respects our MPs' freedom of expression. However, if this motion can give other members the opportunity to speak freely during members' statements, why not? We are prepared to move forward.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my NDP colleague for her very clear and interesting speech. I appreciate her words of support for this motion, which strives to strengthen the individual freedoms of the members of the House.

I would just like to know if the member will support our motion, which speaks to an important aspect of the role of members. Will she vote in favour of this motion?

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will give a very simple answer to a very simple question: yes, I am prepared to support this motion.

As I said earlier, this is not necessarily an issue for the NDP because our members are comfortable with how our party functions. However, we are prepared to support this motion because it is true that much of the power is held by the party executive. If this hinders members' free speech—as indicated by a dozen or so members of the Conservative Party—why not support the motion?

My answer is simple: yes, I am prepared to support a motion such as this one.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her intervention on this very interesting debate today, and I thank the Liberal Party for bringing this forward. In the seven years I have been here, this is the first time I have had an opportunity to stand up on a procedural issue.

How do we make the rules in this House of Commons? Certainly they should be decisions of the House, but quite clearly they must follow the basic precepts of our country, and rules such as the Canadian Bill of Rights, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution. That should be reflected in our practices here. Sometimes they are and sometimes they are not.

Are we content to continue to follow rules that were set up a long time ago without thinking our way through these rules to see that they are appropriate?

I think of the way that the Speaker arbitrarily goes from party to party when asking for questions after debate. Even so, parties are not the same size. By doing that, the Speaker is denying equality of opportunity for those in larger parties, for those in smaller parties. Is that fair?

I will ask the hon. member, is it not good to have debates about how we behave in this House? Is this not part of what could bring about a better House of Commons, one that could represent the people of this country in a more democratic and sensible fashion?