Debates of Oct. 6th, 2016

Standing Orders and Procedure

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his comment.

Clearly, if we were not here on Fridays, that might also lighten the workload of the people who work in Ottawa, because they are always ready to support us.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to discuss an issue that I am truly passionate about, the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. In particular, it is worth highlighting that the way the rules work is important for our democracy. It shapes the kinds of conversations we have and our ability to do our work more, or less, effectively.

I want to discuss a number of particular suggestions I have about the Standing Orders that I think can improve the way we operate in this place. I am going to focus my comments on three points: encouraging more substantive exchanges, strengthening the role of individual members of Parliament, and increasing the family friendliness of the House of Commons.

First, on the issue of encouraging more substantive exchanges, we all have an interest in ensuring that this is a genuine, effective, deliberative chamber, in which comments on important issues are exchanged back and forth. Some discussion has happened today about whether that actually occurs in question period. There were some concerns about the reading of answers, for example, and whether ministers can be expected to provide too much detail given the time constraints and the absence of advance notice. Some have suggested removing some of the time constraints.

However, it is worth underlining that we already have a procedure in place for advance notice, in which people have more extended periods of time to pose questions and to respond. Of course, that is what we call adjournment debate or, more informally, the late show. That provides an opportunity for members to spend four minutes posing their questions; ministers have four minutes to respond; then there is a one minute for a supplementary question and one minute for the supplementary response.

We could not ask every single question in question period that way, but it is worth highlighting late shows or adjournment debates as the critical period in which we can have more substantive back and forth on substantive issues. Adjournment debate does not really get the degree of notice or attention it deserves. If we want to improve the substantiveness of debate, we can look at making reforms to question period, but I think the easiest and clearest change we could make would be to give greater attention to and focus on adjournment debate. Perhaps we would have to rename it and it would not longer be called “Adjournment Proceedings” anymore. I still would propose that we move those exchanges to a different time.

Here is what I would suggest we explore. We could move statements by members to the end of the day and have adjournment debate occur right after question period. That way, immediately after question period, while members and ministers are still here, we would have that half-hour period of substantive exchange about specific issues that may have arisen in question period. There would be more time to have that back and forth.

I would also suggest that instead of having parliamentary secretaries respond, or, as often happens, a parliamentary secretary who is not even responsible for the file reading out a pre-written response in the late show, we require that the minister responsible answer the questions in late shows. Given that there is advance notice for those questions and they are scheduled, there really shouldn't be a problem for ministers' schedules and their having to say they cannot respond in a late show on a certain day or in a certain week. It could be scheduled to a different time.

If there were a requirement for a minister to respond in the late show, or what we currently call an adjournment debate, we should set it up that way and have it at a time when members are generally already here and when the media is generally already present for question period. That would really fully leverage the potential of those late shows to ensure that substantive exchanges are happening and that the ministers responsible for the files are actually involved. I think that would be a good change.

There is no reason why statements by members could not occur at the end of the day. There is no particular reason why they have to occur at the time they currently do. Just switching those things around would give the same amount of time for government orders, and within roughly the existing time slots. Again, I think that would be a positive change.

The other thing we could do to encourage more substantive exchanges is to establish a process through questions and comments where only members of different parties pose questions during questions and comments, or there be an expectation that the period for questions and comments is an opportunity for challenging the person speaking, not just agreeing with them and asking him or her to expand on some point he or she has already made. Questions and comments are a valuable time for back and forth, for people to challenge speeches, and for there to be a response.

It is a less effective use of that time when members from one's own party or perhaps even from another party stand, thank a member for a really great speech, and ask him or her to talk more about point X or Y. It would make for better exchanges if we asked questions or made comments that challenged the person speaking during that time. I think that would leverage the opportunity for more substantive debates.

Moving to the question of strengthening the role of individual members of Parliament, the practice we have in the House of Commons is that each of the parties provides a list of members who are going to speak in designated party slots. Although it is not technically required, in virtually every case the Speaker works through that list. Having read the Standing Orders a couple times, as far as I can tell, that list is not even referenced in them.

In fact, the rules establish that the member who rises first should be recognized by the Speaker. That is not how it is done in practice. However, Standing Order 62 says very clearly, “When two or more Members rise to speak, the Speaker calls upon the Member who first rose in his or her place”. There is also a procedure for moving a motion that a different member be heard, but what I said is still the general practice.

I think it would be better if we did not use the list system. The advantage of not using the list system is that it would give members the opportunity to stand to speak in cases where they may have a slight difference of opinion with their party. More importantly, it would require members to be present in the House, listening to debate. They would have to take the initiative to jump up, and maybe if they do not manage to be recognized at the time they expect, then they would have to stay in the House for another 15 minutes or half-hour until they are recognized.

However, if we move to that system, it would also be important to amend that Standing Order to provide for some degree of rotation among the parties, because the current Standing Order that the next member who rises is recognized, risks our having a situation in which multiple members of the same party could speak one after another if they happened to be more proficient at getting on their feet, even if there were other members from other parties who wanted to speak.

Therefore, I would favour moving away from the list system, but at the same time changing the Standing Order to provide for some degree of rotation among parties in the midst of the process in which it is up to the Speaker to recognize a member.

Also, in terms of strengthening the role of members of Parliament, the Speaker should recognize members during questions and comments in a way that tries to get as many members involved in a given day. The Standing Orders provide that a member can only speak once to a motion, but it places no such restriction on the ability of the same member, perhaps from one party, asking questions. I think we would be better off if more members were encouraged to participate in questions and comments. There would be a way for the Speaker to do that. If the same member from one party were always rising, maybe the Speaker could not recognize that party on that go around, just to encourage more members to stand up.

I do not know of a single case in which Standing Order 53(2)(a) has been used in my time here, but it provides for the whip to decide that time will be split. Generally speaking, the practice here is that members indicate that they intend to split their time. I think we should eliminate this Standing Order. I do not think it is a reasonable use of the power. Theoretically, if a member wishes to speak for 20 minutes and then the whip tells the table they will only speak for 10 minutes, that seems to me an unreasonable restriction on the ability of the member to use the time slot they have acquired by standing up. That is one we should change as well.

Very briefly on the issue of family friendliness, we have heard some members talk about eliminating Friday sittings. Having the House sit as much as possible for a 5-day week is important for having fulsome debate. It is important for holding the government accountable. It would reduce accountability and debate if we eliminated Friday sittings.

At the same time, I understand that some members want to go back to their ridings on Friday. I often go back to my constituency on Friday. The solution is already there, however. The Standing Orders provide that votes will not take place on Friday. Therefore, if members are concerned that the current calendar does not provide them with enough time to be in their ridings, let us just add an additional day on which votes cannot take place. I suggest this because votes are the one thing we all have to be here for. If we reduced the number of days on which votes can take place, it would still provide members with a greater opportunity to go back to their ridings, but not reduce that accountability piece.

Instead of eliminating Friday sittings, if members are concerned about this we could explore the option of not allowing votes to take place on Thursdays or Mondays. That sort of change would allow members to spend more time in their constituencies without reducing the accountability piece.

There needs to be some clarification of the rules for non-members, in this case the children of members, being in the chamber. There has been some discussion about it. Technically it is not provided for in the Standing Orders. It is provided for in practice. Members might have different opinions on that. From my view, it is no problem if a member wishes to bring his or her infant into the chamber, but it would be worthwhile if there were some degree of clarification on that.

I have more to say, but that is my time. I appreciate the opportunity to raise these issues.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the member's speech, and I agree with him on some of the issues he brought up.

The member talked about extending question period to allow the supplementary questions, or what we call the adjournment debate. I think his intent is good. He is right on target, but I think he might be a little wide of the mark. I say that because in practice, it would just continue the way it has always been. I have been here 12 years and the member is right about adjournment debate.

One of the things I would suggest is this, and I hope the committee considers it as an idea. Extend question period, yes. Even look at the timing: 35 seconds is a bit tight. But why do we not submit the list of people who want to ask questions to the Speaker, not to the whip? The questions could be provided in advance. I used to do that when I was sitting on that side of the House. I found that the minister was ready for the question and I was able to get answers. This is a good way for MPs to have their local issues addressed, not through the whip but through you, Mr. Speaker, from a list in order to extend QP. So I want to thank the member for his thoughts.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to underline that I made two separate suggestions with respect to adjournment debate. One was to move the time of the adjournment debate, but the other was to require that the minister responsible be there to respond to the question. The change would not have nearly the effect I would hope without that second part of it. Right now, we often have a parliamentary secretary who is not even responsible for the file reading out something written in response. By having the minister there, at least there would be some clear accountability with that minister and, I would argue, a greater degree of public and media attention.

I am not opposed to some of the potential changes to question period that the member has proposed, but the time limits for question period allow for more members to get up. If we extended the time for each question, we would either have to extend question period overall, which would cut into subsequent debate, or we would have to reduce the number of members who participate. What I am saying is that we can have that discussion with the simplest of changes.

Let us take what we already have, which is adjournment debate, and beef up its importance and our use of it, making it more substantive and drawing more attention to it.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan says a lot of interesting things. I am definitely looking forward to discussing them at the procedure and House affairs committee. They are quite fascinating.

He discussed the speaking-list procedure and the rule that the Speaker must recognize the first member who stands. That is a very interesting point. I should note, as an aside, that I once hung a framed copy of a motion that the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor be now heard in the ensuite bathroom in our office. For the purpose of anonymity, I will not mention the member's current riding.

More to the point, the galleries are virtually empty today but are full during question period. The media gallery has one intrepid member there now, and it is full in question period. Does my colleague have any ideas on how we can make the debate, the real business of this place, more interesting and relevant to the Canadian public?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting point. Our debates are broadcast, so I suspect that millions of Canadians are attentively watching our debate on the Standing Orders; but, of course, we have no idea at this point how many they are.

I will say that given that there are already so many people here for question period, let us not pretend that we can fix this issue in a day and all of a sudden have the galleries filled. Let us add that adjournment debate to the end of question period, and I think that many members of the public would see that more substantive exchange and many of the members of the media who are already here for question period would stay for that more substantive exchange. By having that substantive exchange that is related to question period happen, it would be a way of inviting people to stay and tune in a bit longer. That would be a good step in the right direction.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I really welcome this debate. I like to consider myself, first and foremost, a parliamentarian, who truly enjoys what takes place inside this privileged institution to which we have all been elected by our wonderful constituents. It is quite a privilege.

I will start by saying that we have a wonderful opportunity before us, and I truly hope that members will take it as that. The government House leader has been very clear that there is a desire to see changes to the Standing Orders that will help facilitate and modernize the way that Parliament works and the types of things we do here throughout the day.

I am hoping that we will see a good discussion on a number of issues, many of which we have already witnessed. We have talked about private members' hour. We have talked about take-note debates. We would like to hear more about opposition days, emergency debates, unanimous consent motions, the issue of petitions, adjournment debate—about which we just heard a little more—and the need for question period reform.

How many times do we hear a member asking a question to the Prime Minister? The Prime Minister, because it is not a part of that first round, does not necessarily have the opportunity to answer. I think we lost that whole discussion. Why not have a day designated for the Prime Minister, or a portion of a day, where members know that there is a greater likelihood that the Prime Minister will be in a position to answer the question?

There is the need for question period reform. I sat in opposition for over 20 years. I come to this with nine months in government and well over 20 years in opposition. I, too, wanted questions answered, but sometimes when I asked a question, I knew it was meant to embarrass the government. However, if I had a question for which I wanted a detailed answer, I would sometimes approach the minister in advance, give him the question and tell him I hoped he could provide an answer. Giving the government that heads-up helped immensely. The issue of question period reform is very important.

On the issue of decorum, there is always a give and take. The Minister of Natural Resources will recall when we were first elected in 1988 to the Manitoba legislature, we had the clear indication that we would not be clapping but in essence trying to encourage positive decorum. It is a challenge at the best of times. There are changes that we can make to try to ensure it.

I am interested in ideas from opposition members, from all members, as to how we can encourage better decorum. One that we heard already today is having the place that members eat be a common place. We would have government members and opposition members sitting down over lunch, building those relationships. I thought it was a wonderful idea that came from the member across the way.

Again, I want to approach this in as non-partisan way as much as possible. I hear a lot about Fridays, for example. Quite frankly, I very rarely miss a Friday. Having said that, what is more important are the number of hours we sit inside this House, the number of days we sit. To give an example, if we look at the calendar, I would rather sit for more days in January and fewer days in June. When the month of June comes around with those graduations, the demand for MPs is high. I want to be in my constituency. Compare that to January, for instance. We do not get as much love in our constituencies at times, so bring me to Ottawa in January.

When we talk about Fridays, I am more interested in the number of hours we put in. Members know that I enjoy the opportunity to speak inside the House. It is the hours. When we talk about hours of waste, it is efficiency. When we talk about time allocation, and I will get into government legislative agenda, often it means a motion has to be moved to go to orders of the day. Think about it: a half hour of the bells ringing.

Then we go into a question-and-answer period because of the time allocation. That is another half hour. Then we have a half hour of the bells ringing again. We are talking about an hour and a half. We have had time allocation over a hundred times in a few years. Think of the number of hours of debate that have been lost. It is about how we make our system more efficient.

With respect to private members' business, I am very sympathetic. If a member has been around around for a long time and does not get the opportunity to introduce a private member's bill, yet someone who was just elected gets a private member's bill, maybe there is something that can be done in that regard. I am interested in that.

At the present, private members' business gets a couple of hours of debate. It then goes to committee and then comes back for a couple of hours of debate and comes to an end.

Are there things we can do with respect to the government legislative agenda, so that the reaction to time allocation is not quite as high?

Collectively we know that there has to be a government legislative agenda. How do we ensure there is a balance? How do we ensure that those bills that are controversial, and on which we want to have more debate, can be afforded that additional debate? For those bills that are not as controversial, maybe they could pass through more quickly. One does not have to be a genius to realize that any member can cause a lot of havoc for any government on any bill. We need that sense of co-operation.

I am very impressed with the attitude, in particular of the government House leader saying, “Let's try to work this through. We don't want to use time allocation. Let's see if we can get opposition parties and members talking about important things. If we have to sit additional hours, we'll sit additional hours. We want MPs to be engaged.”

That is something for which I am a very strong advocate.

The Friday sitting days are a secondary issue. If it can be worked out so that we have that extra long weekend, so be it. I am sure that everyone of us would agree that MPs work seven days a week. If no one believes me, ask my family members. Whether I am in Ottawa or I am in Winnipeg, I am working. If there are ways in which we can be more productive, I am okay with that. I believe that if we put the party politics to the side and focus on the functionality of this House, not only will we have more members speaking, but there are things we can do to improve the quality of debate.

I have heard members talk about written speeches and so forth. Contrary to what members might think about me standing to speak, we do not need 20 minutes to make a point. We can actually make points in five minutes, or 10 minutes. I would rather see a chamber where there is a five-minute debate and a five-minute question-and-answer period. That would then get more people engaged in the debate.

Trust me, if a debate collapses on a particular bill, it might be because there is no one who wants to talk about it.

However, I can assure members that on the real controversial bills, or the issues that people feel very passionate about, there will not be a shortage of people wanting to speak. With the the Paris agreement, there was no shortage of people who wanted to speak. If there were five-minute speeches followed by a five-minute question-and-answer period, I suspect we would see even better quality debates in this House. If we have a better quality of debates, I believe we would have more members wanting to be engaged.

We always have to be careful of what we ask for. In the Manitoba legislature, we had long questions and answers. That was a long, drawn-out process. It did not improve the quality of the answers, or, I would argue, the questions, even though I was the one asking questions back then.

At the end of the day, I think our question period is better than what we had in Manitoba. Can we have improvements? Yes. There is always room for improvements.

I would like to see members across the way make this issue non-partisan. Let us take advantage of the opportunity as much as possible. Let us try to get some substantial rule changes in our Standing Orders.

We do not have to settle for the low-hanging fruit. We can collectively, as MPs, forget the party lines, make some changes, and make this place more functional.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for a great speech. I love it when he talks about efficiency.

I come from a global business background where we had very complex issues with hundreds of countries. In a two-hour meeting, we would be able to hear from everybody and come with an action plan and a path forward. That is compared to the House, where we will talk about things for days. We hear the same points again and again, but only one-fifth of the members are here, or less.

I wonder if the member would be open to some sort of model where everyone sits to discuss an issue and several people from each party bring a position. In a shorter space of time, we could perhaps come with action and a path forward.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what I appreciate is the member coming up with an idea. That is something that we challenge members to bring forward.

This is why the government House leader and I, and our House leadership team, should approach this with an open mind. We should encourage what the member just said, which is to bring an idea to the table and see how we can make it evolve. One of the best ideas I have heard so far was when the member across the way talked about having a joint meal room. That is hopefully what we will see throughout the day.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about private members' business.

For me personally, being a new MP, I think it is a shame that in a four-year term, I may never have a private member's bill come up for debate.

I think what happens is that members bring forward many private members' bills for their constituents, to have at least spoken about them in the House. With regard to all the resources that go into all those private members' bills that will never see the light of day, including all the research and reaching out to stakeholders and so on, I am wondering what he thinks about my idea that everyone, during one Parliament, should be able to have at least one private member's bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, based on my experience, I could tell the member that if the will were there to make that happen, it could happen.

Earlier I heard someone make reference to a parallel chamber. There are ways in which that could be accommodated. The most important thing is that we have to encourage ideas and not accept the naysayers. We have naysayers within the caucus, and we have them in all of our caucuses. They say they are not interested, they want the status quo. Let us not defend the status quo and instead look at the ways we can incorporate the type of changes the member has just suggested.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I was canvassing for the election, some people wanted to throw me off their porch. They were fed up and frustrated, and I understand that. Their comments were with respect to what happens in the House. I appreciated that, and I know we can do better. As a new MP to this place, I have to say I am amazed at the intelligence, the wisdom, the passion, the commitment, and the dedication that I have witnessed here.

With respect to ensuring that these debates are more wholesome and focused, there have been ideas. A number of people have commented about the member who talked about sharing meals. I think that is brilliant. I actually like to see children in the House. I was pleased to see one of the toddlers in the House today in the arms of one of the members.

One of the things I have done is to start meditation before QP, and I attend the prayer breakfasts on Wednesdays. All of these things are helpful. I heard the member's speech, and it was very well delivered. What I would like to hear is how we can further encourage the development, presentation, and submission of these ideas and make them come to fruition, so that this place can really experience the level of gifts that this House holds?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think that there are individuals within the chamber who have been here for longer periods of time than others, and who have an active interest. For example, for any colleague who would like to explore an issue, I know there are members who are interested in particular issues in each party. I think it is taking the time to have a discussion with them and not just leaving it at that. Chances are that we all have the opportunity in our national caucus to stand up at a mike and say, “This is important to me. I really want to see the changes take place.”

If the goodwill is there, and I believe it is, we can do some really good things to make Parliament that much better.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Just before we go to resuming debate, I want to compliment all hon. members who are participating in this debate for keeping their remarks concise. It is allowing more members to participate, and I appreciate that.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Lethbridge.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this institute, the House of Commons, was passed down to us over 300 years ago. As members of Parliament, we have the opportunity to now sit here and continue forward with an age-old tradition, which is an incredible privilege. We can trace the roots back to the 1700s, when the foundation for the Westminster style of government was laid in Great Britain. The Dominion of Canada was first granted the constitutional framework for this place in 1867. This framework was the result of hundreds of years of refinement, of representative government in the settlements, colonies, and territories that were brought together into the Dominion. I say this in order to urge a bit of caution with regard to this chamber and the changes that might be proposed going forward. We have been entrusted with a magnificent legacy that is the heart of our very democracy here in Canada.

As relative newcomers, many of us in the House having been here for about a year now, it would be unreasonably bold and perhaps even arrogant to presume that we have the knowledge of the inner workings of this institution in order to inflict or request dramatic changes to how Parliament functions. Instead, I would like to advocate for some minor refinements to our existing procedures, and by extension show appreciation for the proud legacy of this place and the centuries of wisdom that steep every tradition of this House.

With that in mind, a simple change that I would bring forward is with respect to scheduling votes after question period. This would take advantage of the fact that all members already prioritize being right here in this place each and every day for a certain period of time. It would allow us to build some predictability into our schedules, and it would help us make efficient use of our time, as one of my colleagues alluded to earlier. There of course would still be the option of allowing a vote to proceed after the collapse of debate if either the government or opposition whips decided to do so.

A second change would be to settle the House calendar for the coming year in the preceding June instead of waiting until September. With the demands on a member's schedule, affording at least a six-month period of notice for one to settle his or her calendar and make plans for the future would certainly be a reasonable expectation, and it would certainly help facilitate the schedules of members in the House.

I would further suggest that the government's musings to end the Friday sitting day is a bit too dramatic and perhaps not a change that would serve the Canadian public at large. Parliament is founded on the concept that the government is accountable to the Canadian people through the testing of its policies and actions by the opposition. Removing the Friday sitting would remove one question period from our weekly schedule. This would mean that there would be one less day per week when the government could be held accountable for its actions.

Furthermore, removing the Friday sitting would remove one day of the week when private members' business is debated, which, as another colleague of mine said earlier, is of concern to us. We already have very little time for private members' business to be brought to the floor, and we certainly do not want to cut that back any further. As private members' business is the one opportunity that opposition MPs have to advance legislative matters before the House, the removal of the Friday sitting would appear be a direct attack on the ability of opposition parties to do their duty to represent their constituents, which I would contend is a direct weakening of democracy.

Another area that I would like to talk about is with respect to the order of business in routine proceedings. I believe that this area could be made more efficient with some minor changes made to the order. The easiest change would be to move the rubric of motions to the end of routine proceedings. By doing so, we would solve two issues that affect all members of this chamber equally.

First, such a change would ensure that petitions are able to be presented each and every day in the House. As many members will attest, we often have guests in the gallery who have travelled a great distance in order to watch their petition be tabled in the House on any given day. At the moment, this is not guaranteed because if a concurrence debate is moved under the rubric of motions before the time for presenting petitions, the opportunity to present petitions is lost.

Second, moving the rubric of motions to the end of routine proceedings would ensure that the government is able to table any order paper questions that are required to be tabled that day. Since questions on the order paper comes after motions during routine proceedings, if a concurrence debate was moved and if that debate stretches to the end of government business, or if the government moves to proceed to the orders of the day and thereby skips questions on the order paper, the government would have no ability to table any answers that day.

The current penalty is that any question not responded to within 45 days is automatically referred to a standing committee, and the minister is required to appear to explain why the question could not be answered. It would be rather embarrassing to the government to cause such a spectacle as a matter of procedural inattention.

With a 15-minute time limit for tabling petitions, the moving of motions will not be greatly delayed by this change. Motions with unanimous consent would still be able to be moved earlier in routine proceedings, thus allowing for most routine housekeeping matters to be resolved in a timely fashion.

Another area that could be refined relates to the specific rules governing order paper questions. First, I would recommend that we remove Standing Order 39(7), regarding the length of a question. Speaker Milliken has already ruled that there is no limit to the length of a question, as long as it is on the same general topic. Government ministers already have the option of stating that information requested “could not be provided in the time period required for an answer” in their response. Therefore, this standing order is redundant and should be eliminated.

Similarly, I would recommend that we remove Standing Order 39(6), which allows for the Speaker to transfer lengthy order paper questions to a notice of motion. The government has the option of responding that they could not gather the data in the required 45 days. Further, this standing order infringes on the ability of individual members to best seek information from the government. As Speaker Fraser said in this place, he was:

....unable...to comply with the terms of the Standing Order in today's context without prejudicing the right of private Members to control fully their business by choosing for themselves how best to seek information....

My final recommendation on order paper questions would be to remove the requirement of the government to request, every day, that all questions be allowed to stand. Given the volume of questions on the order paper, a significant procedural hurdle could inadvertently arise. How such a scenario would play out, of course, is unknown, because it would be unprecedented as previous Speakers have forcefully reminded our parliamentary secretaries to request that all questions be allowed to stand. Given the many other autopilot rules within the Standing Orders, something of this nature should be treated accordingly.

Permit me to speak with regard to accountability. My recommendations for increasing accountability in the chamber would be as follows. First, I would propose that we allow members of the opposition to table documents under the rubric “tabling of documents”. Keeping the ability to table documents to exclusively ministers and representatives of the government will continue to remove the ability of the opposition to put facts before the House in an official manner. This directly impacts the Speaker's ability to rule on these matters.

Second, I would propose that the leader of the opposition be given the power to call two take-note debates at her discretion, each session, and allow the third party leader to call one take-note debate, once during each session. As these are take-note debates, no votes would occur. It also means that no motions could be decided. These debates would happen outside the regular sitting hours of the House, so no government business would be obstructed. Such a change would further allow the opposition to hold the government to account by bringing forward pressing issues that may not qualify for emergency debates.

Third, I would recommend that the procedure and House affairs committee overhaul the process for the production of papers. Currently the government can ignore these requests with impugnity, and changing to a system that mimics the order paper questions process, but with a more generous deadline of perhaps 180 days and a limit on how many questions each member could put forward, would be a reasonable compromise.

I will bring this to a conclusion by simply saying it is a fantastic honour to serve in the House as a member of Parliament. I would hope to work with my colleagues to strengthen the traditions that have been established in this place.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I did not speak about Fridays, but I just wanted to add a couple of clarifications. There are some members from all parties who were in favour of that.

When we discussed this in PROC, just so that the member knows, the majority of the time it was not to lose any question periods or any debate time. They would be added to other days. It actually lengthens the workweek if we change it to a Monday or a Friday in the constituency, because I would usually work there until five o'clock. Tomorrow, when we are here on a Friday, it is only until two o'clock, so it would actually lengthen the workweek by doing Fridays in the constituency.

I am glad the member is here with the baby. Because Parliament has been so good at being family friendly, I think we are going to have lots more babies. We had a very colicky baby and my colicky baby would have been a disaster in votes. Some Parliaments have a way a person could vote from the lobby. We might want to consider that.

Finally, on unanimous consent, we have to be careful. We have great members of Parliament, but if we had a rogue one in the next Parliament, they could stop a lot of important things by not giving consent.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member did not really ask a question but made more of a comment, so in a direct response I will also provide my comments.

With regard to Friday sittings, the Liberal government promised Canadians increased accountability, which means that it needs to be increasingly transparent. Unfortunately, we have not seen this to the full extent that we would like. Should Friday sittings be removed from the House? Should we be removed from the House? Doing so would actually remove accountability mechanisms.

It is here in this place that Canadians trust us to engage in debate and talk about the issues of the day. Canadians have elected us and put their trust in us to come to Ottawa to be a voice on their behalf. If we are going to strip Canadians of their voices by taking away one day on which their voices can be heard in this chamber, then we are weakening democracy and that is a weakening of transparency and accountability.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, over the last 12 years I have seen this Parliament wax and wane and sometimes become extremely toxic. This Parliament has begun on a much better tone and I do thank the Prime Minister for that. There is a desire to move toward something better.

However, the question before us should not be about what makes it easier for us, but rather it should be what would make us more accountable and transparent to the people who voted for us. That to me is the fundamental question.

I know a lot of MPs do not like sitting and standing to vote and would like to get the heck out of here so they could watch Netflix or do whatever else. However, when we stand in the House, we put our faces to our votes. If there is a repetition of 12 votes on the same subject, I would be interested in perhaps finding a faster way to do it, but the fact that we stand up and make our yes mean yes, or our no mean no, is important. I have seen voting in city halls and elsewhere where serious votes went down and no one actually knew if someone was voting. It allows us to hide, when we are accountable to the people back home.

Could my hon. colleague tell me how we could make this more efficient and a little less dull? We could make our ministers a little more accountable so that they actually answer questions, but our fundamental focus should be our transparency and our accountability to the people back home.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raised a good point with regard to accountability and making sure that we are here working on behalf of Canadians.

I was elected by the people of Lethbridge, Alberta. There are about 107,000 of them in my constituency. Each and every day I get up, walk here to Centre Block, and I feel incredibly privileged and incredibly honoured to stand in the House and represent the constituents of my riding. I consider myself incredibly honoured to be trusted with the responsibility of having a voice on their behalf.

If we are going to do anything in the chamber to take away the opportunity I as a member have to speak on their behalf, to advocate for them as a member of Parliament, then shame on us. If we are going to take away any mechanisms that we have as the official opposition or the other opposition parties to hold the government to account, that again would be a shame for democracy in Canada. We certainly do not want to go in that direction.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to be able to take part in this debate today on the Standing Orders. While this topic might seem technical, it is actually the foundation upon which rests everything we do as members of Parliament.

The rules of procedure, or Standing Orders, of this place determine whose voice gets heard, how we resolve the difficult issues facing our country today, how we balance competing interests, and whether the decisions we make truly reflect the expectations of Canadians. Therefore, I would argue that today's debate may well be one of the most important ones that we will have during this Parliament.

If we have a Parliament where MPs can bring those voices, listen to the people who are affected by government decisions, hear evidence and testimony from experts, debate ideas in an open and respectful way, and then be accountable back to Canadians for the choices we make, we will end up with better policies and a democracy where everyone feels that they have participated. Sadly, that is not always how things have been in this House. There has been for some time now an imbalance between the executive branch and the legislative. Too often, by the time bills get to committee, they are already finalized, and there is not much room for amendment.

The decorum in this House, especially during question period, is so disrespectful that teachers actually use us as an example to their students of how not to behave. Partisanship and party discipline sometimes blind us to the good ideas that might come from members of other parties. Also, Parliament is not as inclusive, modern, or efficient as it could be. If we want our democracy to work better, it begins by making this place work better.

I recently held a town hall meeting in my constituency on this topic, democratic and parliamentary reform, and some of the ideas I am proposing today actually came from that town hall.

We also do not need to reinvent the wheel. I am proposing a number of things that have been proposed before in reports over the years on how to modernize this House. Democracy is a verb, not a noun, and we have to keep on working to improve it.

I think we have to do more to improve the general atmosphere and make this place more professional. To do that, first we should improve decorum. We are the people’s representatives and we have to set a better example for the country.

In this regard, I would like to talk about enhancing the role of the Speaker.

Right now, the Speaker, as has been mentioned before, is given lists from the whips as to who will be speaking or asking a question, but it was not always this way. It used to be that members would stand up and the Speaker would have the flexibility to choose who would ask a question or make a statement. In fact, the rules already provide for this. In this way, the Speaker could make sure that everyone had their turn, but it would also give the Speaker the ability to penalize members who are constantly disruptive by not recognizing them until their behaviour improves. It would also reduce the ability of the party whips to determine which topics are brought up and by whom. I believe this is a very interesting solution and something we should study further.

In addition, I think we should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of giving the Speaker more of a say over the parliamentary agenda. Canada has a Parliament where the government side has more say over the agenda than almost any other legislative body. One proposal, which was first mentioned in the 1993 report on House management, is that the Speaker have more say over the use of time allocation and closure.

One possibility would be that the Speaker, with the counsel of a body such as a more transparent and reformed Board of Internal Economy, acts as the final arbiter in cases where there is no consensus on how many more hours or days of debate are needed. This would be one potential solution to balance the rights of members to speak on topics that are important to their constituents, the right of the opposition to use reasonable delay tactics to garner public support, and the need of governments to be able to see their legislation come to a vote.

I would also like to make a number of proposals to improve our committee work. I would like the government to start sending bills to committee before second reading, so that members from all parties can speak to the before the measure becomes mired in party or government politics at the second reading stage.

The referral of bills to committee after first reading is not a new idea. In fact, it was brought up in two separate reports of the liaison committee in 1993 and 1997, and again in the democratic reform action plan in 2004.

It was also one of the suggestions at my town hall meeting. This would be one of the best ways to ensure that MPs can have real and meaningful input in debates.

With regard to how we elect committee chairs and vice-chairs, there are options we could look at to ensure that the chair has the full confidence of all committee members and that she or he presides over the committee in a truly neutral manner. In the U.K., committee chairs are elected directly by the entire House.

In the Quebec National Assembly, the chairs and vice-chairs of committees are elected by a majority of government and opposition members.

This could help decrease partisanship in committees. These are both ideas that I think need to be investigated further. I also note that in the 2004 democratic reform action plan, it was proposed that committees be given the power to do prior review of government appointments. This means that the committee could look at future vacancies in their subject area and request that the government submit the name of a proposed candidate for review before the appointment is finalized. Right now committees can review appointments, but only after the fact. It might make sense to pursue this idea further.

I also believe that committees should be more transparent and accountable to the people who sent us here. Meetings should be held in public and televised as much as possible. This would allow for greater public participation and interest in our work, which engages more people in our democracy. One interesting idea from my town hall meeting is that we stop sitting with our own parties during committee meetings, that we mix it up. That would certainly be something interesting to try.

This is no longer the place it was 150 years ago, when grey-haired white men travelled by train here and deliberated among only themselves to decide what was best for the people. We now have technology that allows constant communication not only with one another but also with those we represent. Our constituents have the expectation that we will be accessible, listening and consulting with them. Yet the House functions as if it is still stuck in the 19th century. We need to provide MPs with more time in our constituencies to hear the views of those we represent and make better use of the time we spend in Parliament.

We could make the House more inclusive and favourable to family life. I would like to propose that we put an end to the Friday sittings. All of us have two or more offices. Some of us live 14 hours away from here. Personally, I am lucky to represent a nearby constituency. We must see to it that people can sit in Parliament at every time of their lives.

Some will no doubt oppose my suggestion to eliminate the Friday sittings because there would be no more Friday question period. However, we could institute a prime minister’s question period, in keeping with the commitment made by our party in the last election campaign. Furthermore, we could offset the lost Fridays by establishing a parallel chamber.

It does not have to be Fridays. I think we can be flexible. It could be Mondays or other days, but the key is that we make our time here more efficient and spend more time listening to the constituents who sent us here.

Setting up a parallel chamber, such as Westminster Hall in the U.K., would allow MPs more time to speak without extending the hours late into the evening. Although some evening sittings were eliminated years ago, there are still exceptions, as we know. For example, the Standing Orders allow for extended hours in June, take-note debates are always in the evening, and closure motions are voted on at 8 p.m. A second debating chamber would allow for more take-note debates and members' statements.

In fact, one proposal would be to make it possible to initiate take-note debates on the request of a certain threshold of MPs, perhaps 50 from the opposition side and 50 from the government side. Regardless of which of these options we choose, we need to look carefully at ways to ensure that the hours we spend here are as productive as possible, so that we can free up more time to spend with our families and our constituents.

Making our Parliament work better for Canadians is an issue that transcends partisan boundaries, as we have seen today, and I look forward to more dialogue about some of the ideas I have proposed, as well as ideas that other hon. members have put forth. Through this, we can make this a more inclusive chamber and one that our constituents can be proud of.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent speech. I especially appreciated her comments about committees, because I was on the pay equity committee when she was the chair. She is also on the status of women committee with me. These committees are fairly harmonious, so I like the idea of referring the bills to committee after first reading so people can offer input. I wonder if she could elaborate on that idea a bit more.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the committee the member chairs and I sit on, and vice versa, are committees that work very collaboratively. Our reports are better as a result.

We have not had legislation at our committee yet, but when there is legislation, often the government is already invested in it and there is already a stake in making sure that legislation passes. However, if legislation were to be referred after first reading there would not be that sense of finality of the legislation, and when we start to move something, at that point we would have more say and members could have more input in advance of the legislation going to second reading.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as a new member to the House, I have found it interesting to watch how we work over the last year. I want to address two aspects of it.

First is the length of time for speeches. I have spent a lot of my life in communications. The principle was to never take 10 minutes to say what could be said most effectively in five minutes. I find the principle exactly the opposite here. We take 10 or sometimes 20 minutes to say what could be said more effectively in five minutes. Therefore, I would like to make a recommendation that we move to five-minute speeches.

The second aspect is on question period. I tell my constituents to watch question period if they are interested in theatre. If they are interested in actually getting information, they should probably not watch it. Therefore, my proposal is either to look at the British model, where the Speaker chooses who is going to speak, or instead go to a rotational basis for the opposition members so that all members of Parliament get the opportunity to ask their questions on behalf of their constituents on a rotational basis, which is very inclusive. Every member in the opposition would get to speak.

I am curious what my colleague thinks of those two recommendations.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member opposite for raising those issues. We do find that most of the time we do not use our 20 minutes; we are splitting it in two. Perhaps that is something that could be institutionalized.

Depending on the bill, if it is a bill that is more technical and needs more explanation, we could have longer speeches; but on those where we want to just state our position, it could be shorter. That is a great idea.

On question period, I agree with the hon. member. There are many things we could do to make question period not only better for decorum, but more equitable in terms of who is able to stand up and ask questions.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the conversation about private member's bills earlier on gave me a new idea, which is to allow amendments by a bill's sponsor, with the consent of the seconder, between the first and second hour of debate, based on the content of debate in the first hour. The sponsor would have to justify it based on what was said. They could not just introduce some new ideas. This would fix somewhat broken but savable bills before they even get to committee and make the whole process easier and saner.

Does my colleague have any comments on that?