Debates of June 16th, 2015

Unemployment Rate

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, again, I certainly will not have enough time to say everything I want to say about this motion so I am relying on your totally impartial time management skills.

I am particularly pleased that this motion, Motion No. M-585, moved by my colleague from Saint-Lambert, allows me to give a bit of hope not only to my constituents, but to all Canadians when it comes to the economic measures that would be introduced by the NDP, which, as everyone knows, has a good chance of forming the next government.

I am particularly pleased that my speech follows that of my colleague from York Centre, who said that the motion was redundant. It is probably redundant because his own government decided to take some of the ideas in the motion and incorporate them into its budget, proving the merits of the NDP's proposals. However, obviously a copy is never the same as the original. The Conservatives managed to do less than what we were offering.

It always surprises me when I hear my colleagues say or fuel the illusion that the Conservative government creates jobs, when ever since they formed a majority government, we have seen the Conservatives cut thousands of jobs. It would take a lot to convince me that a government, regardless of its political stripe, creates jobs. The role of a government is to create the right conditions to allow entrepreneurs, the business people in this country, to create jobs. The real job creators are the men and women in the business community.

It seems to me as though the Conservatives' policies in recent years have had some rather negative consequences. The breaks given to big business do not seem to have been reinvested into the economy. Members will all remember what I would essentially call a cry or a plea for help from the former finance minister, who urged big business to take that dead money and reinject it into the economy. We know that the Conservatives' theory is that tax cuts should lead to job creation, but it is clear that this has not worked at all. Furthermore, there are 200,000 more unemployed workers in Canada than there were before the recession. Since the Conservatives came to power, their economic policy has resulted in 1,300,000 unemployed workers.

My riding is reeling from this government's economic decisions. For example, 120 jobs were lost when Target closed. Many families are struggling, and many part-time workers do not have access to employment insurance benefits.

Members will probably recall the Conservatives' slogan during the last campaign: “Our regions in power”. Their slogan appears to have become “Our regions abandoned”. The Mauricie region is suffering as a result of the Conservatives' mismanagement. Wood processing is at a standstill and the manufacturing industry is slowing to a crawl. So many companies have shut down, so it makes sense that the household purchasing power in my region has been reduced. According to Statistics Canada, families owe $1.63 for every dollar earned.

While the Conservatives' poor economic record speaks for itself, the Liberals' plan is conspicuous by its silence. The Liberals are abandoning the 1.7 million manufacturing workers. The Liberal leader himself said that he did not have a plan to help the manufacturing sector get back on its feet. The Conservatives have been an economic failure and the Liberals have no plan, but the NDP is going to set things straight. We are making concrete proposals to stimulate the economy and job creation. We will start by lowering the small and medium-sized business tax rate.

The Conservatives deliberately gave tax breaks to big business. To justify these cuts, the government claimed that higher profits for big business would stimulate economic growth and job creation through productive investment. We see that the Conservatives' dogmatic position was quickly negated by the facts. Several studies have shown that companies are not investing their savings in the economy. Thirty-two per cent of GDP remains in the cash reserves of these major corporations. This money, which has been accumulated as a result of the Conservatives' tax cuts, is not being used to create jobs or innovate.

I would like to quote in passing the conclusion of a study carried out by Canadian Labour Congress economists:

...cuts in corporate income tax have contributed to a significant increase in cash reserves held by corporations, delivered higher compensation to CEOs, cost Canadians billions in lower than expected government revenues, led to a higher federal deficit and debt, and cuts to public services.

The Conservatives have chosen to tailor their economic measures to big business to the detriment of SMEs. The Conservatives have almost eliminated the tax advantage of SMEs, which are now facing unfair competition from big business.

The NDP has chosen to focus its economic policy on SMEs because they are vital to job creation in Canada. We are choosing to help SMEs because they have been responsible for the creation of 78% of new jobs in the private sector in the last decade. Small business is the engine of job creation in Canada.

For that reason, the NDP is proposing to reduce the small business tax rate from 11% to 10% immediately, in the first year. This immediate reduction of the tax rate will inject $600 million into Quebec's and Canada's small businesses.

As soon as the financial situation allows, we will further reduce the small business tax rate from 10% to 9%. Once this measure is fully implemented, small business will have some breathing room, as they say.

Martine Hébert, senior vice-president of CFIB, supports our initiative and has congratulated the leader of the NDP for proposing the small business tax cut.

The Conservative government borrowed the measure, but will implement it in small doses by making cuts of 0.5% at a time.

We will extend the accelerated capital cost allowance. This measure is crucial for the manufacturing sector because it will encourage new investments and improve the international competitiveness of our businesses.

Thanks to this NDP measure, manufacturers will save $600 million a year for two years. Small business will mainly use this measure to increase their exports, because 90% of Canadian exporters are small businesses.

To support businesses' research and development efforts, we will establish an innovation tax credit to stimulate small businesses' ability to innovate. Quebec and Canadian manufacturers that make significant investments in research and development will save $40 million as a result of this measure.

On the Conservatives' watch, Canada has fallen from 18th to 25th of 41 on companies' investment in research and development. It is clear that other countries and our number-one competitor just across the border have rather more quickly grasped the importance of investing in research and development.

In closing, I would say that this Conservative government has failed dismally when it comes to creating new jobs—stable, full-time jobs, that is.

What is more, under successive Liberal and Conservative governments, employment quality has declined considerably. According to the CIBC report, over the past 25 years, the number of poorly paid jobs rose twice as fast as the number of well-paid jobs. That is to be expected considering the kind of measures I just discussed.

In light of that failure, the NDP wants to get Canada back on track. We have a plan to create good-quality jobs in a diversified economy.

We will certainly have plenty of opportunities over the coming weeks and months to bring our proposals to the people.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to speak to Motion No. 585, which was moved by my colleague from Saint-Lambert. This initiative calls on the government to implement concrete measures to stimulate the manufacturing sector and support our small and medium-sized businesses.

The motion calls on the government to immediately reduce the tax rate for small and medium-sized businesses from 11% to 9%, establish an innovation tax credit, extend the accelerated capital cost allowance by two years and improve access to job training.

The proposals in this motion are part of the New Democratic Party's economic strategy to strengthen our small and medium-sized businesses so we can reduce the worrisome unemployment rate in Canada and improve employment quality, which is at a 25-year low.

We are proposing measures that focus on SMEs because Canada is a country of entrepreneurs, where small and medium-sized businesses have always been one of the key pillars of our economic system. In Canada, 99.8% of businesses are SMEs, and 98% of them have fewer than 100 employees. They generate 40% of our annual GDP and provide 7.7 million jobs.

The entrepreneurial sector is just as important in my riding of LaSalle—Émard, where 29% of our firms and businesses are considered SMEs. Furthermore, according to Statistics Canada's Business Register, 71% of the small businesses in Lasalle employ fewer than 10 workers. They could even be described as micro-enterprises.

Following the decline of the manufacturing sector, which has affected my riding in recent decades, most SMEs now work in the services sector, particularly in retail, transportation and warehousing.

However, like most Canadians, SMEs are also struggling to make ends meet and are not operating under favourable conditions to ensure their survival. Constant changes to federal programs only present further obstacles for businesses that want to take advantage of those programs, and the lack of resources to comply with regulatory requirements only adds to the red tape that business owners have to deal with.

Another problem that exists in Quebec and across Canada is the shortage of entrepreneurial renewal. Several SMEs could be forced to shut down or move, putting many employees out of work. The services sector is especially vulnerable, since it is very competitive and sensitive to the ups and downs of the Canadian dollar and the ever-changing consumer demand.

Need I remind the House that in recent decades, over 400,000 well paying, stable jobs have been lost in the manufacturing sector and that 1.3 million Canadians are currently unemployed? The situation is also troubling in my riding, where the unemployment rate is 8.2%, and 15% among young people.

Over the past four years, I have had the opportunity to meet with many store and small-business owners in LaSalle—Émard who told me about their struggles to remain financially healthy, maintain jobs and remain competitive in the current economic climate.

I also met with dozens of men and women who struggle to find work, even though they have skills and degrees, and I met with people who can only find part-time, contract, unstable and low-paying jobs. It is often young people and women who have to take these jobs. Our constituents deserve better. They deserve stable, good-quality jobs with fair compensation.

Unfortunately, the quality of the Canadian job market is at an all-time low. According to the CIBC Employment Quality Index, which measures employment quality in terms of compensation and in terms of the distribution of full- and part-time jobs, the decline in employment quality in Canada is structural.

This is a result of the increase in part-time jobs and the rapid growth in low-paying full-time jobs. By way of example, the study shows that last year the number of low-paying jobs increased twice as fast as the number of high-paying jobs.

We have a responsibility to respond to this situation and adopt measures that will stimulate the manufacturing sector and small and medium-sized enterprises, which have traditionally created good jobs. We must support businesses here that create jobs here at home. We must ensure that we have the right conditions to guarantee their success and sustainability. Through careful policies and its purchasing power, the government is in a position to support strategic sectors for Canada, such as the aerospace industry, high tech industries and green technology businesses specializing in the development of renewable energy and climate change adaptation. The greater Montreal area already has interesting industrial clusters in these business areas, including major players that buy from local and dynamic SMEs.

This is what the NDP leader said last week during his speech to the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal:

Montreal's economy, like that of Quebec and Canada, is made up mostly of small and medium-sized enterprises.

...

...we believe in science, research and development and especially in investing responsibly in finding solutions....

Our SMEs are the key to putting the Canadian economy on the right track and creating good jobs.

I want to thank my colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Lambert for this initiative and I invite all members of the House to support this motion.

Finally, to the young people and entrepreneurs in my riding, I want to reaffirm my support for this motion, which seeks to create the conditions that will help our SMEs recover and that will create good, well-paying jobs now and in the future.

Business of the House

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, my apologies for the interruption. There have been consultations among all political parties and I think if you sought it, you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House:

(a) any recorded division which, at the time of the adoption of this order, stands deferred until immediately before the time provided for private members' business on Wednesday, June 17, 2015, shall be deemed to stand deferred to the conclusion of oral questions on the same day;

(b) if a recorded division is demanded or deemed demanded later this day, the said division shall be deemed deferred until the conclusion of oral questions on Wednesday, June 17, 2015`

(c) that the orders for consideration of Ways and Means Motions Nos. 25 and 26 be deemed read, the motions to concur deemed moved, the questions deemed put, and recorded divisions deemed requested and deferred until Wednesday, June 17, 2015, at the conclusion of oral questions.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

(Motion agreed to)

(On the Order: Government Orders)

June 11, 2015—Consideration of a Ways and Means motion to introduce an Act to implement the accord between the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec for the joint management of petroleum resources in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and to make consequential amendments to other Acts—Minister of Natural Resources

(Motion read, motion to concur moved, question put and recorded division requested and deferred)

(On the Order: Government Orders)

June 12, 2015—Consideration of a Ways and Means motion to amend the Income Tax Act—The Minister of State

(Motion read, motion to concur moved, question put and recorded division requested and deferred)

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Unemployment Rate

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I did not anticipate speaking to the motion, but in listening to other comments, I thought it may be appropriate for me to add a few words.

The issue of small businesses in our communities is of a critical nature for the simple reason that our small businesses are the backbone of Canada's economy. If we touch base with economists, we will find that, in looking to the future, small and medium-sized businesses are very much the drivers of Canada's economy. Therefore, we should look at opportunities to give them strength to allow them to build Canada's economy. We should look at different types of initiatives that would assist in that.

I want to focus on a couple of thoughts. One is in regard to what we had suggested as a political entity last fall, recognizing that Canadians want jobs, and the best job creators are in fact small businesses. We recognize that this is the case in every region of the country.

For example, last year the leader of the Liberal Party suggested an EI premium exemption for every worker who is hired to fill a new job in 2015 and 2016. We believe that would go a long way in supporting small and medium-sized businesses. This is something we espoused and talked about at great length.

There are a number of ideas for us to look into. I appreciate the motion that has been brought forward, but I want to highlight the fact that there is a multitude of ways in which government policies can assist and support small and medium-sized businesses. By supporting them, we are giving strength to Canada's economy by providing additional jobs, which is really what Canadians want to see. They want to see an economy that has a healthier middle class, an economy in which jobs are being generated. We should look wherever we can for policy initiatives that would make a difference. We would see that as a positive thing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for allowing me to conclude the debate on Motion No. 585, which sets out the fundamentals of the NDP's economic recovery plan.

Canada has recorded its worst economic performance since 2009: a 0.6% recession during the first quarter of 2015. That means we need economic recovery now more than ever. I will not say any more about this worn-out government's attempts to frame our proposals as its own.

Over the past two hours, we have witnessed two economic policies collide. The Conservatives' policy is based on absolute laissez-faire. That is why they gave big businesses huge tax cuts and employers more latitude in how they treat employees and control the workforce.

After 10 years of that approach, Canadians and Quebeckers can see that it is not getting them anywhere. On the contrary, the Conservatives' approach has been totally counterproductive. It has undermined the true foundations of our economy: small and medium-sized businesses and the manufacturing sector. As a result, the middle class has suffered terribly because of job losses.

In the Montreal suburbs, where my seat is, the job losses are never-ending at Bombardier, Bell Helicopter, Electrolux, and now Pratt & Whitney right next door on the south shore.

The number of jobs is decreasing, job quality is at its lowest level in 25 years and the purchasing power of Canadian families is shrinking constantly. The closing of retail chains like Mexx, Jacob, Sears, Target and Future Shop prove this. Are we doomed to be forced into more and more precarious jobs as long as the Conservative government is in charge? Yes, without a doubt.

However, another economic policy is possible, and that is what the NDP is proposing to Canadians. Unlike the Conservatives, who spend their time reacting to the circumstances, we believe that to govern means to look ahead to the future. The NDP wants to give our economy some direction. We want to invest, innovate and train our workforce in order to stimulate economic activity, on the basis of what we consider the key to tomorrow's economy: SMEs and the manufacturing sector.

Motion No. 585 proposes restoring the tax advantage for SMEs by lowering their tax rate immediately from 11% to 10%, and then to 9%, when finances permit. In an increasingly competitive world, preparing the next generation means we must be able to innovate. That is why we want to restore the scientific research and experimental development tax credit, which was cut by the Conservatives.

Preparing the economy of tomorrow also requires renewing the machinery in our manufacturing sector, in order to improve its competitiveness. We propose extending the accelerated capital cost allowance for manufacturing and processing machinery and equipment. Lastly, preparing the economy of tomorrow requires massive investment in job training and skills development.

For years, I worked closely with young people who were re-entering the labour market. Many wanted to relaunch their career in skilled trades. I can say that most of those trades require specialized technical skills. However, Canadian businesses have dramatically reduced how much they spend on training.

In that context, the government made the disastrous choice to cut $300 million in transfers to the provinces for skills development with the introduction of the Canada job grant.

Conversely, the NDP is choosing a voluntary approach to raising the skill level of the workforce, which requires the broadest possible access to job training programs related to labour market development agreements.

The record is clear: the Conservatives have failed when it comes to the economy. Their rhetoric can no longer hide the reality. They have failed because of their ideological refusal to take action and plan for the future. The NDP, on the other hand, is proposing to transform our economy to ensure that everyone contributes to it and it benefits everyone. Those are two irreconcilable views of public action.

I am very proud to contribute by defending my Motion No. 585. I hope that its adoption will give hope to all my constituents who struggle to make a living.

That is why I invite all members of the House to support my motion and vote for the economic recovery we are proposing for the country.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to an order made earlier today, the recorded division stands deferred until tomorrow, Wednesday, June 17, 2015, after the conclusion of question period.

The House resumed from June 15 consideration of the motion.

Procedure and House Affairs

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I do not think I will be taking my full 10 minutes, but I do want to speak in support of my colleague who has brought forward a motion which, if adopted, would see a fundamental change in the way the House elects the Speaker every time there is a new Parliament.

Currently, as most members know, the first order of business when a new Parliament begins is to elect a new Speaker.

The system we currently use is that a number of members who wish to put their names forward can do so. Actually it is a bit of an archaic procedure that members must actually inform the House if they do not want their name put forward to run for the position of Speaker. Once that has been established, the remaining candidates are allowed to make brief presentations to the entire House and then a voting process ensues.

There needs to be a 50% plus one vote of support of the entire House to be elected as the Speaker. Over the course of the last number of times that we have elected a new Speaker, it has gone anywhere from three hours to sometimes as high as 10 or 11 hours before a final determination has been made.

There seems to be two sets of arguments here either for or against the status quo. Those in favour of the status quo point to the fact that it is almost a convivial bonding moment for new members of Parliament who perhaps are unsure of exactly how Parliament works. I can imagine that a number of the members on the NDP side who were first elected in the 2011 election really had no clear idea of what to expect when they came into this place. Those who would argue in favour of the status quo say that first afternoon and evening when we elect the Speaker finally breaks down that intimidation barrier that a lot of new members face. It allows new members to interact with members on all sides of the House. It allows for some shared experiences to be told. It allows for perhaps a more convivial, less partisan approach to starting off their parliamentary careers. Others have pointed out as well that it has the excitement of a political convention that most of us have experienced at least once or twice in our political lifetimes. It is for those reasons primarily that members who are in favour of the status quo would like to see the status quo remain.

However, I am supporting a change in that system to a preferential balloting system for a very simple reason. If members are familiar with the preferential balloting system at all, they will realize that in all likelihood, every member of this place would have either his first or second choice sitting in the Speaker's chair at the end of the voting process. There is really no chance for a compromise candidate, or perhaps better put, a candidate who no one really wants to support to begin with to take ascension to the Speaker's chair.

I think that is extremely important because I believe as far as an officer of Parliament is concerned, there is no more important position in this place than the Speaker. The Speaker is the ultimate arbiter of discussion, of debate, of disagreements. The Speaker has to be wise, has to be knowledgeable, has to be learned, has to be impartial, and more importantly, has to have the confidence of this chamber.

We have all seen in leadership conventions, as an example, there have been times when neither the favoured nor the second favoured candidate has won the leadership because it becomes an anybody but campaign, where opposing factions get together and say they will gang up and vote for a third place candidate or a compromise candidate just to ensure that candidate X is defeated. We have seen it recently and we have seen it historically where candidates who were not expected to be in contention actually walked away with the leadership of a political party.

While that may be well and good for political parties, I do not believe that should be a process that we allow to happen here. A preferential ballot would quite simply ensure that every member in this place could point to the elected Speaker and say that was either his or her first or second choice. I think that ensures confidence in the House. I think it ensures that members' wishes are respected and it also respects the integrity of this place.

For those reasons, I will be supporting my colleague and encourage all members to do likewise when the vote is taken tomorrow.

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

Mr. Speaker, the primary objection that has been raised to changing to a preferential ballot is that there is a benefit to being able to spend a day, mostly in this room and in the corridors around this room, getting to know each other as the various ballots are under way.

While I do not doubt that there was some conviviality at the time—I was there, being convivial—I have to say that my enthusiasm diminished with the hours, and I think that I reflect the views of others. It seemed to a number of us that ballots were taking longer than we might have wanted them to.

I would say that the real value of that sharing of time with one another lies in establishing an intelligent opinion on the different candidates for Speaker. I want to ask my colleague if he has any views on the system that is used in the United Kingdom for the speakership elections there. As I understand it, the House of Commons uses our system, and the House of Lords uses the same preferential ballot that I proposed in this motion.

Is he aware of the fact, and what does he think about the fact, that the Hansard Society in Britain holds a series of debates between candidates for the speakership in order to give them time to express their points of view and to have members of the chamber express the concerns that they have in order to establish a mandate, in a sense, for that Speaker going forward?

What are his thoughts on that?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I tend to agree. I mentioned that the election of the Speaker is probably the most important decision that new parliamentarians will make in their parliamentary lifetime. Frankly, the process that we currently have does not encourage a lot of knowledge about candidates.

We have a system under which I believe each candidate for Speaker is allowed five minutes to address the House—no, it is four minutes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that correction.

It is a very brief period of time. Many new members will be listening to a candidate for the Speaker's chair for the very first time and will have only have four minutes to determine whether that candidate is worth their vote.

I would love to see a system similar to that in the U.K. An expanded timeframe would allow each candidate for the position of Speaker to reach out to all members and try to further explain to them why he or she is perhaps the most qualified to sit in that chair.

I appreciate my colleague's comments. Frankly, the systems in use over the course of the last few centuries in the U.K. are ones to be emulated more often that not. Perhaps this is a first step in reshaping exactly how we choose a Speaker in this place.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question about the discussions that took place at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the possibility of disclosing the results of the vote each time the votes are counted and an additional round is needed to reach 50%.

I would like to know where he stands on disclosing these results, in light of the fact that it was recently agreed that the members chosen to act as deputy speaker, for example, are chosen on the basis of these results.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have a problem with the current system when it comes to the disclosure of votes, because, quite frankly, I have sometimes seen one candidate receive a very small percentage of the votes and I would not want to see that candidate embarrassed by having the vote totals disclosed.

The current system, as my hon. colleague knows, is simply that if there not a 50%-plus-1 absolute outright winner, the candidate with the fewest votes is taken off the ballot. If memory serves me well, I believe that unless a candidate receives a minimum of 5% of the total votes cast, the name of that person is also taken off of the ballot. I think that is sufficient. I do not believe that there should be the added element of disclosing the exact vote totals.

However, in a preferential ballot, we would avoid all of that because one ballot, and only one ballot, would have to be filled out. After the counting has been completed, a candidate will have been elected. That is a far simpler, far more efficient, and far more beneficial system for this place to adopt.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief as well. I would simply like to speak to the House about the matter before us, the adoption of the 21st report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

If the report is adopted, the committee will instruct the clerk to amend the Standing Orders accordingly. I therefore invite all my colleagues to read the 21st report of the committee, which explains in detail the changes to the Standing Orders that will be made if the report is adopted.

It is fundamental to Parliament that we discuss the election of our Speaker. After all, that person acts on behalf of the House of Commons outside Canada and receives dignitaries here. Thus, it is a very important role. That person also makes important decisions about the debates in the House. Thus, I take this debate very seriously.

The change to the Standing Orders proposed in this committee report is nonetheless significant. Although the changes to the way we vote are not fundamental, they are substantial.

As many of my colleagues know, under the current system, a candidate must obtain 50% of the votes in order to be elected. Thus, in 2011, it took several rounds to elect a Speaker. With the proposed change, we would simply use a ballot and indicate our preferences by ranking them in numerical order.

It is nevertheless an important change because, under the current rules, members can reconsider their choice after every ballot. With the system proposed today, our selection would be made as soon as we write it down on the ballot and we could not make any changes after that.

I only hope that this change will eliminate as much partisanship as possible from the election of the Speaker. The ultimate goal that we must try to achieve is to elect a Speaker who has the largest number of votes and whose election is not influenced by partisan considerations. Personally, as an MP who has a great deal of respect for the role of Speaker, I hope that we can reduce the influence of partisanship on the election of the Speaker as much as possible.

Will this new system improve our current voting process? It will be up to all of us to decide that tomorrow when it comes time to vote.

I also wanted to thank the committee members for their work. They held two meetings on this topic, on June 3 and October 2, 2014. They obviously heard from the sponsor of the motion, who brought this issue to the committee, as well as from a U.K. expert who represented the House of Lords. The committee assessed the pros and cons of the proposed system, the current system, as well as other systems that exist around the world.

I wanted to talk about the work that the committee did. In conclusion, I remind members of the House that tomorrow's vote is very important. If the report from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is adopted, consequential amendments will be made to the Standing Orders that govern this House. This vote should not be taken lightly. Before the vote, I urge all members to carefully read the report and the proposed change to the Standing Orders, so that they are fully informed before making this decision. I hope history will show that the House made the right decision.