Debates of Oct. 6th, 2016

Standing Orders and Procedure

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comment and the work we do on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

There are new ways to work this out. I know the Board of Internal Economy is working on ways to establish video conferencing. All of our constituents recognize that the majority of the work we do is here, and that is where the constituency week comes in, when we can go back to our constituencies and meet with people.

Also, I am only a three-and-a-half-hour drive from Ottawa, so I have the ability to meet constituents on weekends as well and attend events. I know the chair of the committee is from the Yukon, so he has quite a distance to go. I believe he said in his speech today that Friday sittings would really make no difference to him. Even those from British Columbia, if the House sat until midnight on Thursday, could not leave until Friday anyway, so it is of no benefit to them. It is a couple of days of travel, so it really would not benefit them and would put additional pressure on us as MPs to work early in the morning until late at night and continue to work on Fridays, Saturdays, and in some cases Sundays if we are not travelling.

Although I appreciate the suggestion to eliminate Friday sittings, I disagree. Constituents expect us to be here in this place.

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

Mr. Speaker, the curiously introspective S. O. 51 requires us to contemplate the Standing Orders here today. With apologies to interpretation services, I have a lot to say about them.

As a member of PROC, and as a perennial procedure geek who started watching CPAC when I started high school, I am following this debate with even more interest than my normal enthusiastic self.

I want to go over some of the changes that were already proposed by PROC in our recently tabled interim report on moving toward a modern, efficient, inclusive, and family-friendly Parliament and then discuss some other ideas.

A good deal of what we discussed in our report does not affect the Standing Orders directly. I encourage anyone interested in the workings of this place and the impact on their families and personal lives to take the time to read through the report and perhaps provide guidance to their friendly local PROC member on what direction that study should take going forward.

In PROC's 11th report, we made a number of recommendations and had a number of discussion points. Three of those recommendations and three of those discussion points are directly relevant to the Standing Orders. The first two recommendations are related to the standardization of vote times to ensure predictability and efficiency. They state:

That House Leaders continue, whenever possible, the informal practice of holding deferred recorded divisions immediately following Question Period.

That House Leaders, whenever possible, refrain from holding recorded divisions any later on Thursdays than immediately following Question Period.

The third recommendation states:

That the Speaker table the House calendar each year prior to the House's summer adjournment.

That is not always easy, but it is an aspirational goal worth pursuing.

As a committee, we also felt that it was important to look at ways of limiting the number of consecutive sitting weeks. We all know from our pleasant experiences this spring that four-plus sitting weeks in a row really sours the mood around here, especially when we are here until midnight every night. However, there is a lot of work to be done, and we are a remarkable Parliament for our inefficiency in getting through legislation. Those are not the kind of accolades I believe we are looking for on the world stage.

To get there, one of the key items we discussed at length, but did not really get anywhere with, is the concept used in other Westminster parliaments of a parallel chamber, that is, a voteless chamber where items can be pre-debated. Our upcoming move to West Block and our subsequent move back to Centre Block certainly creates an interesting opportunity to retain two fully functional chambers.

The fate of Friday sittings is also a contentious debate, and one I would like to see my colleagues soul-search on as to how we make this place more efficient so that we may spend more time in our constituencies.

The last item, of course, is decorum. While we did not come to any conclusions, I personally find the new tone of question period, with the government side, at least, generally keeping calm and constructive, to be positive, and I would invite the opposition members to follow suit, at least experimentally for a while, to see if it improves the overall tone here. I cannot be the only parliamentary enthusiast who always found question period the least, not most, enjoyable part of the day's proceedings, regardless of who was in power. Decorum is a cultural, not a regulatory, issue that is up to us to fix.

There are few of us who have ever actually read the Standing Orders from cover to cover. I have, on more than one occasion, and I find them fascinating. I may not fully grok them, but I am certainly trying to.

Standing Order 4 does not have a mechanism to deal with the acclamation of a Speaker, for example. When Bill Blaikie was dean of the House, he presided over the unprecedented acclamation of Peter Milliken. I remember watching it on television. He observed that there was no process to deal with this but that the House could do many things with unanimous consent. However, what would have happened if a disgruntled member had denied that consent? For that matter, there are several instances when unanimous consent is required for absolutely routine things that should not need to go to a question.

Standing Order 7(1.1) has some curious wording on the assumed election, but not really, of the Deputy Speaker. Standing Order 7(2) has contorted wording designed to ensure that the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker, between them, speak the two official languages, and 7(3) requires a Deputy Speaker to be elected to replace one who leaves during his or her term but is inconsistent with how that person got there in the first place.

Standing Order 11 permits you, Mr. Speaker, to punt someone from this room. I would encourage you to be unshy to use that power or to become blind to disruptive members, as Speaker Milliken did, regardless of party. Those powers should perhaps be expanded on. What value is there in kicking someone out of this room into a press scrum? What more tangible recourse could perhaps be available?

Standing Order 17 requires us to speak only from our own seats. I would personally like to see, for purely practical reasons, the members of the House leadership team of each recognized party be permitted to be recognized from any seat allocated to their party during regular debate.

Standing Order 23 declares bribery a high crime to be dealt with with the utmost severity, without providing for any type of process to do so.

Standing Order 28(1) says we cannot sit on Dominion Day. Dominion Day was replaced with Canada Day back in 1982, when I was one year old.

Standing Order 37(1) permits a Speaker to punt a question deemed not urgent to the Order Paper. However, in all of my years of watching, I have never seen that actually happen.

Chapter VI of the Standing Orders deals with the process of debate. I think it is worth considering changing the structure of 10- and 20-minute speaking slots, with questions and comments, to 15- or 30-minute speaking slots. Up to 10 or 20 minutes would be used for speaking, and the totality of the unused portion would be left for questions and comments.

For example, if I only speak six minutes out of my 10, which for me happens more often than not, I would have up to nine minutes of questions rather than only five. This will lead to shorter and more candid speeches and better debate afterward.

Standing Order 68(3) has an ironic quirk of old English. It states that bills may not be tabled in “imperfect” form, in English, but that they may not be tabled in “incomplete” form, in French.

Standing Order 71 also has a typo, in English, stating that every bill shall receive “three several readings”, rather than “three separate readings”, or just “three readings”, as it says in French.

Standing 87 deals with private members' bills. When a member of Parliament has been here for several elections and has never had a chance to bring a PMB forward, and another member comes and has a PMB on the Order Paper before figuring out where the washrooms in Centre Block are, the system may be somewhat broken.

I propose for discussion that the PMB lottery be rethought to become fairer. At the start of every Parliament, all re-elected MPs should retain their place on the order of precedence. Those returning MPs not on the list because of being ministers, parliamentary secretaries, or Speaker would come next. New MPs would then be added to the order of precedence in the current manner. MPs from the previous Parliament who had had an opportunity to take their bills through the process would be added to the end of the list, again, in the same process.

Finally, all MPs should be able to trade with all other MPs anywhere on that list. All MPs, then, would have an equal chance to propose a private member's bill, without the peculiar bias against people who just cannot seem to win a lottery and without throwing a new MP into a situation of having to write and table a bill before learning how this place works.

I would also like to revisit the issue of royal recommendations at some point.

Standing Order 128 allows the House to be called back at 1 p.m. on a Wednesday to deal with a report from the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations, to which I say, really?

Standing Orders 129 to 147 deal with private bills. That used to be how to get a divorce in this country. While the Senate still uses them, on the Commons side there has not been a private bill for many Parliaments. Could we not drop this altogether?

Finally, Standing Order 158 permits the Sergeant-at-Arms to detain strangers for their behaviour in the chamber or gallery and may not release them without an order from the House. I do not know if this building contains a jail, but this is certainly an interesting legacy item. What is the real world impact of this?

Getting off Standing Orders, per se, why must bills die in the Senate when the House is dissolved? Could the Senate not continue dealing with bills already before it and simply send the version it has passed back to the new Parliament for concurrence? Private members' bills, especially, would be far less prone to an untimely death.

On other topics, I believe it should be inappropriate for any member to refer to the official language spoken by another member in the House of Commons, in the same way it is inappropriate for a member to refer to the presence or absence of another in this House.

Chapter XIII already guarantees that all members can speak in either official language, but I would go further and make it against the rules to refer to the language another member actually chose.

There are quirks in procedure and practice that are not necessarily in the Standing Orders, such as the entertaining, “When shall this bill be read a second time? At the next sitting of the House”, amid catcalls of, “Now” and “Never”. This is an artifact from a change more than 20 years ago, and there are no doubt several of these bugs where not all consequential changes were properly made.

I suspect the need for the agreement of the House for Order Paper questions to be allowed to stand is another such artifact, and there are surely more.

I would also like to see the clock in this chamber replaced with synchronized digital clocks that can be controlled by the table and that reflect the apparent time in the House as well as the actual time so that when we “see the clock”, the clock agrees.

In fact, until we have integrated information systems in our desks, which is another long-term point we should at least discuss, I might go so far as to suggest four clocks be visible to all members in the chamber. They would show the time, the perceived time, the remaining speaking time for the current speaker, and the actual time the House is expected to rise today.

While we are at it, why do some events prolong the day and others do not? Is there any rhyme or reason to it? Could we perhaps revisit what does and does not make the day end at, say, 6:48 p.m.?

Of course, I would like to see seats in the chamber that do not tear our pockets, which happened to me again last night.

Let me also take this opportunity, as a former staffer, to call for the return of the one-stop shop, which provided for a different kind of Standing Order.

Yesterday a group of around 20 people visited me from their retirement residence in Mont-Laurier. At 3 p.m., security kicked them out of the group visitors gallery above you.

As a fundamental principle, I do not believe that behaving members of the public should ever be asked to leave the gallery during a sitting. If anything, the public should be encouraged to watch our debates, rather than question period, to participate more meaningfully in our legislative process.

Standing Order 51 provides us this wonderful opportunity to get into the weeds on the Standing Orders and to remove relics, artifacts, and cruft that no longer need to be there.

I look forward to continuing to hear the thoughts of my colleagues and to discussing them back at PROC.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member regarding S.O. 31s.

S.O. 31s are an opportunity, under the Standing Orders, for a member to make a one-minute statement, and it is quite diverse what that statement can be about. It can be about someone reaching 100 in a member's riding, or it can be something that is very important to a member.

Today, during the 15 minutes prior to question period, those 15 minutes when S.O. 31 statements are made, the member for St. Albert—Edmonton made his statement, and it was regarding Alison Azer. She is a Canadian, and her four children were kidnapped by her husband and taken to Iran. The response from the minister was to interrupt the member and use gestures in the House.

My question to the member is whether that is appropriate. Would the member condone that, or should that be discouraged in the House?

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

Mr. Speaker, I was not on that side of the House. I did not see or hear what happened. I only know that there was a subsequent debate that was, I will call it, interesting.

I think it is important that when we have a very serious debate, like the one we are having today, we keep partisanship out of it. I would appreciate all members being able to do that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and his passion for this topic.

It is fine to talk about all these rules, but I want to talk about motions that include the words “notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House”. We adopt such motions regularly.

What does the member think of today's discussion about rules in light of the fact that a simple majority can bypass the Standing Orders and procedures of the House just by adopting a motion?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure about that. As I understand it, that can only happen if the motion receives unanimous consent. I am not sure it can be done with a motion that is subject to a recorded division. I will find out, and we can talk about it outside.

Personally, I think it is an important tool if there is unanimous consent, but I do not really think a normal vote is appropriate in such cases.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, this is one of the iconic places in this country. I would not like to see digital clocks put in here. When we walk in here, it is a place of history. I love the way it is situated here today. I think we can all see the clock and know what time it is.

My comment to my colleague is that he is right about the private member's bills. I was a first-time MP in October, and I won the lottery, and then all of a sudden, I had to do the work. Therefore, I agree about private member's bills. When one is here for the first time and gets an early slot, it is a little onerous.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will try not to note too much irony in the member's comments while he is wearing an electronic earpiece, with an LED on his desk and a microphone. I should also note that this is televised, which is a technology that did not exist when this building burned down and was rebuilt.

Technology moves forward. I do not think that advancing to 1960s technology for clocks is too much to ask.

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

Mr. Speaker, when the member started his speech, he described himself as geek. I thought it was a bit harsh to call himself that, but after hearing the entire speech, I think I will affectionately call him a geek.

I also had the pleasure of hiring this guy a little while ago. He is part of the reason I am standing here too.

I want to ask about some of the things the member brought forward. One that I think should be seriously looked at is the idea that we are dropped from the list, when we come back here, when it comes to private member's bills. We have heard time and again today about people wanting to put something forward on behalf of their constituents or something they feel strongly about and never being recognized. There are people who are here 20 years who never even get close to that sort of thing. Maybe the member can expand on that.

I will throw in something else, and he will tell me if I am wrong. He is so good at this that I will believe him. Instead of putting all members on the list, should we put on the ones who only have bills introduced?

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

That is an interesting idea from my old boss, Mr. Speaker.

The idea of members only being on the order of precedence if they already have a bill would certainly force people to think about it right from the get-go if they actually want to get involved in the process. With respect to how it would work, I am not sure how it would go. It is an idea that I am looking forward to discussing properly along with the 4,716 or so ideas we have received today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to speak on this subject, but before I begin, I would like to raise a point of order.

One of the things I was planning to discuss relates to what the member for Laurentides—Labelle just talked about: the fact that the government can adopt a motion notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House.

Mr. Speaker, would you mind clarifying this so that all members have accurate information before we go on with the debate?

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I appreciate the fact that the member raised this point of order.

However, it is not in my purview to provide clarification on how a standing order is perceived by a number of members. Normally, if a point of order has to do with the interpretation of a standing order, for instance, or how it is applied, that would merit consideration.

If the member would like, I can make note of his comment for review and perhaps the House can come back to it later, if necessary.

The hon. member for Sherbrooke.

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the clarification.

That being said, I believe I am correct in saying that, with a simple majority, the government can pass a motion notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House.

I wanted to begin my speech with that information, because we can discuss all the standing orders and change them as much as we like, but the fact is, a majority government often decides to use its majority to pass motions that fly in the face of the usual rules and practices of the House. This happened a lot in the last Parliament. Having this debate today is all well and good, but I wanted to clarify that information before I begin. Indeed, it might be time to review that practice, namely, that a simple majority is enough to pass a motion that overrides the usual rules and practices of the House.

Like all my colleagues, I am adding my voice to the debate regarding some of the rules currently in place that could be changed. We could also come up with new ways of doing certain things in the House that would make it easier for everyone to do the work of an MP and help us be as efficient as possible, which is what Canadians expect of us.

Private companies review their operations and try to be as effective and efficient as possible in order to make the best use of their time. As parliamentarians of the House of Commons, that is what we should be doing as well. We have to review our practices, our customs, our procedures, and our rules and see whether it is possible to improve and amend them.

In my opinion, a debate like this in the House is healthy. I hope that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs will pick up on what we have discussed and go over all the proposals that are on the table, and that we will be able to work in a non-partisan way to move these ideas forward.

The first proposal I am submitting to the hon. members of the House is to formalize the appointment of deputy speakers, assistant deputy speakers, and deputy chairs of committees of the whole, like you, Mr. Speaker, in that chair. Under our Standing Orders, these positions are assigned after consultations with the various parties and there is no obligation to have representation of all the parties in the chair of the Speaker of the House.

I think it would be important to formalize this practice of consultation, but also to ensure that the positions are assigned to all the recognized parties in the House, taking into account the party that the Speaker is a member of. Then we could assign the various speaker positions based on the parties that are officially represented in the House. I believe this proposal would be easy enough to adopt.

Question period is an issue that has been raised often during this debate because it is one of our daily realities. We are here for one hour a day to listen to members' statements, another issue we could address, and then question period, the part of the day in the House that is most watched by Canadians.

There are many people in the gallery during question period. Like other members, I often wonder what I would think if I were not a member and I only came here once every 10 years, or if I were in the gallery to watch question period for the first time. I am putting myself in the shoes of those people watching question period who are not used to it because, unlike us, they do not see it every day. As one of my colleagues said earlier, we end up getting used to this environment. Elementary and secondary school students sometimes come to visit and watch us. I think that we do not come across as a very functional Parliament.

Of course many aspects of question period could be improved, including the quality of responses. I mentioned that in a question to my colleagues earlier.

We must also ensure that the Speaker can use all his powers, that answers have substance, and that there is no repetition. The Speaker must also be able to use existing powers that do not need to be tweaked in the Standing Orders, rules that already allow the Speaker to name members and to eject them.

On a few occasions, we have seen the Speaker name the ridings of members who were acting inappropriately. However, if my memory serves me well, I believe that only one member has been named recently.

However, I have never heard the Speaker warn a member that he was about to expel him from the House, so there are powers that already exist in the Standing Orders that could be used more often.

The quality of answers is another issue that is very important to me. When I attended question periods in Great Britain, I was impressed by the imposing presence of their Speaker. When he found that an answer from a minister or the Prime Minister himself was unsatisfactory, he asked them to respond again. That is what he did when the Prime Minister gave an answer that had nothing to do with the question that was asked. I would therefore like to see our Speaker be more active and make more use of some of the powers that are already set out in the Standing Orders.

I also wanted to talk about questions of privilege, which are raised regularly in the House. Without getting into too much detail, this sometimes leads to a Speaker's ruling. In that case, the Speaker must determine whether there was a prima facie breach of privilege. I think that people recognize that term. It is Latin.

However, after the Speaker has given his ruling, a member must move a motion and it must be adopted by the House. That comes back to what I was saying earlier. When we have a majority government, even if the Speaker finds that there was a prima facie breach of privilege, the final decision is up to the House. If there is a majority government, it is really up to the government to decide whether there was a breach of privilege or not.

I think that there is a way to change that so that a Speaker's ruling is final. If the Speaker determines that there was a breach of privilege, that must be the final decision. A majority government should not be able to use its majority to override that decision. We have seen that happen in the past and I think that it is completely unacceptable.

The Board of Internal Economy, the entity that regulates the administration of our expenses, needs to be made public. That would be the best thing to do. Without going into the details, a number of things happened at the Board of Internal Economy. Some members were not treated fairly in the opinion of many members. It would be beneficial to make it public.

There is also the matter of votes after oral question period, which ties into our desire to achieve a better work-life balance in the House.

I also quite liked the idea of having digital clocks that would show not only the time, but also how much speaking time is left. Mr. Speaker, you just indicated to me that I have two minutes left. I should have roughly 25 seconds.

If hon. members could see how much speaking time they had left, either on their desk or somewhere else, they would have a much easier time organizing their notes and keeping track when they know that their speaking time is drawing to a close.

Finally, we should reconsider the need to say prayers and to thank God at the start of each sitting of the House of Commons. Perhaps the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs could address that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I would like to pick up on some things we discussed earlier.

I had not considered motions the way the member put it. He is right. A motion to ignore the rules of the House can be adopted, but only after debate in the House. The process can take days, and it has to come to a conclusion.

It is a good tool to have, but it should be used sparingly. That is all I have to say about it. We may agree or disagree, but I just wanted to clarify that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's clarification.

If we keep that rule, it should be used appropriately and as infrequently as possible. However, what I wanted to ask all members of the House was whether they think a simple majority should suffice to adopt a motion that bypasses the usual rules and procedures of the House.

Yes, it should be used as rarely as possible, but should we set a higher threshold for the number of votes needed? Should we seek unanimous consent every time? That might be something to consider because this measure should be used only in very rare cases.

Why bother having rules if a majority in the House of Commons can simply bypass them whenever and as often as it wants?

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who is a very active member of the House. I often work closely with him. His office is next to mine. His questions are very relevant.

I have more of a comment I want to make after hearing his presentation. I have been following question period for many years. I was always fascinated by the exchanges that took place. Now that I am taking part in question period myself, I am often disappointed by the answers we get. However, I am even more disappointed when I return to my riding in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area and my constituents tell me that a certain question was excellent and very pertinent, but that they heard no clear answer and they too are disappointed. My constituents find the government's way of answering to be shocking. They are shocked to hear those kinds of answers, because they see all the hard work we are doing on various issues as MPs, including softwood lumber and diafiltered milk, for example.

I think we need new measures. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on what else we should do to have a more constructive and higher caliber question period.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I really enjoy working with her and having our offices on the same floor.

I think that what she said is quite true. I experience the same thing when I return to my riding, and people talk to me about what is happening in the House. The first thing they watch is question period and I often hear the same comments. In fact, they tell me that our questions are good, that we are holding the government to account, but that the answers are ridiculous.

I think a potential solution is to ask that the answers at least be related to the subject. Sometimes the answer has nothing to do with the subject. In that case and according to current rules, the Speaker could ask the minister, parliamentary secretary, or the person who answered to rephrase the answer. He could clarify the subject because it is irritating for Canadians listening to us to realize that the government does not seem to be listening to the opposition, and that it is giving answers that have nothing to do with the question.

We should have a Speaker who is more active and who ensures that we have a better question period using the Standing Orders already at his disposal. I believe that that is possible today, without necessarily changing the Standing Orders. However, it would be good to have more flexible Standing Orders that would allow the Speaker to judge the quality of answers. This is a delicate matter and the Speaker may be reluctant to do it because judging the quality of an answer is very subjective. However, I think that there are already ways of doing this in order to send a message to government members that their answers will be examined and judged, and if they have nothing to do with the question, then the members will have to answer again.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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 Timmins—James Bay, Indigenous Affairs; the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Consular Affairs; the hon. member for Saskatoon—University, Natural Resources.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking all my colleagues, on all sides of the aisle, for their overwhelmingly constructive comments today on the take-note debate as it relates to the Standing Orders.

I, along with a number of colleagues I see within the House, have the privilege of sitting on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I have been carefully taking notes from most of the members in terms of their ideas and suggestions. I know that our very able clerk, Mr. Andre Barnes, will summarize all those issues, so that we can review them carefully and present our recommendations back to this place in terms of changes to the Standing Orders.

I want to say again that the point and the nature of the Standing Orders is to provide us with clear rules with respect to our conduct in this place. However, when it comes to conduct and decorum, it really comes to each and every one of us in terms of how we comport ourselves when we are in this place. Again, I urge members to be mindful of that. Many members today have demonstrated that, with a significant generosity of spirit, as we have entered in this debate here today.

My mandate was quite different. I indicated that my purpose today on the government side was primarily to table items that were within the government House leader's ministerial mandate letter and our electoral platform that I had not heard already during the course of the debate. I think I have heard most of it. The items have been covered, in large part. The purpose of doing so was to allow the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with the opportunity to consider those, and whether it is necessary to make rules changes to the Standing Orders in order to give them greater effect. I will cover a few of them that have not been covered and that I have not heard yet.

I am not convinced that some of these instances within the minister's mandate letter require Standing Order changes. I think it is more of a function of the practice of Parliament and the practice of the government of the day. A lot of things we had discussed in the previous election related to our sense of the conduct that occurred or what we found offensive in previous Parliaments, or the erosion of some of the traditions and practices of this place, requiring a change to the Standing Orders. I hope that is not necessary. I hope that we can respect the traditions of the British parliamentary practice and procedures, so that we do not have to use the strong hammer of amending the Standing Orders to do so. I will cover the ones that I have not heard today, and I will leave it to my colleagues to perhaps comment on them.

One of the commitments we made in the last election was related to the creation of a Prime Minister's question period. I have not heard any commentary on that today with respect to whether that would be a good practice. It is certainly a practice that is adopted in the United Kingdom. There is a dedicated period of time where the prime minister would make himself or herself available to take questions from members. I do not know whether that would change the nature with respect to our overall perception that question period is far too theatrical and far too canned, quite frankly, in terms of the give and take that takes place.

We have heard a lot of suggestions with respect to giving much greater power to the Speaker to enforce the rules of debate, and some of the other amendments with respect to suggesting that questions be tabled in advance so that a substantive response can be given, which is the practice essentially in the British Parliament. I certainly would be supportive of us moving in that particular direction. However, I do want to table the concept of whether the Standing Orders require a change with respect to a dedicated Prime Minister's question period.

The second major item I have not heard much discussion about relates to the use of prorogation and omnibus bills. Again, this was a situation that occurred in the 39th, 40th, and 41st Parliaments, with respect to a situation of prorogation and an increasing use of omnibus bills.

It has been a commitment of this particular government to try to avoid using omnibus bills. The only exception to that should be the budget bill. In the presentation of the budget, it does have the inevitable effect of having significant amendments to all kinds of consequential acts to bring the budget into effect. I do not think that even the budget itself should deal with things that fall outside of budgetary measures. I am very wary of the use of omnibus bills as a standard practice to slide certain types of items through that are not relevant to the minister responsible for moving a particular bill forward. Again, there is a question as to whether that is appropriate use within the Standing Orders, but I again want to table that.

One of the other things that rose in previous Parliaments was with respect to the estimates and whether there is consistency between the estimates and public accounts. At the end of the day, parliamentarians need to have a clear mechanism to ensure that the tabled estimates are consistent with the public accounts. This is something that the President of the Treasury Board is working on. I do not think it requires a Standing Order change, but this is something that the procedures and House affairs committee ought to consider.

Other things that go to the independence of this place, particularly as they relate to the officers of Parliament, are whether there are mechanisms and ways to ensure that officers of Parliament are properly funded, that their reports to the Speaker and ultimately to the House are appropriate, and that the government of the day does not constrain the operation of the officers of the House in doing so. I would also extend that to the parliamentary budget officer. We have seen instances in the past where that has been a challenge. We want to ensure that each of the officers of the House, and the parliamentary budget officer, have the necessary tools so that parliamentarians get the necessary information they need to keep the government to account, while by the same token providing information in a neutral manner.

I thought I heard some discussion about the disclosure of expenses. I do support the concept that the activities of the Board of Internal Economy should be more public and should be open, by default, as opposed to the current practice.

I have a couple of final points to table, and they are already incorporated within the Standing Orders. They deal with ensuring that this workplace is free of harassment and sexual violence. Again, this is something that the procedure and House affairs committee does need to periodically review, that our conduct in this place be reviewed to make sure we avoid situations we have found sometimes unfortunately in the past between members, and between members and their staff. Canadians need to have confidence that we are acting in a fashion that holds the highest standards of workplace practice and that the procedure and House affairs committee continues to review that.

We have heard a lot about family friendly. I do not have much more to contribute to that particular debate, as it has been effectively covered in broad detail. I would encourage members to constantly be open to change. The way in which we conduct ourselves here is often dealt with within historical practice, and is often ossified to a time that is long past. I appreciate that fact, for example, as it relates to the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue. Despite the fact that there is a stranger in the House, none of us has ever exercised the rule to call that matter out.

We need to continue to have that openness among us, to find new ways to accommodate and encourage more members, and a greater diversity of members, to participate and become members of the House of Commons.

I do not have much more to add. My time is up, and I am going to encourage questions and look forward to the debate as it continues today.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to add to the member's first opening comment a congratulations to all members of the House from all parties for being so non-partisan and constructive in this debate today. It has brought all sorts of new creative ideas for our committee to look at to improve this House, Canada's House of democracy, for all Canadians.

I just had an email from the member for Whitby, who would like us to consider changing the word “amen” after the moment of silence in the morning to the words “thank you”.

Someone has also suggested to me that S. O. 31s return to their original purpose of just commendations of people or things, and to be made totally non-partisan. What does the member think of that suggestion?

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from the Yukon, who of course serves as chair of the procedure and House affairs committee.

I am always supportive of prospective changes to our practices, including to the prayer and the moment of reflection, that are more in keeping with the tremendous diversity of our country here today. I would be willing, but again, I would want to hear the give and take from colleagues on all sides.

With respect to S. O. 31 statements, again I would encourage members to use them as primarily an opportunity to reflect issues within their constituencies. It is primarily the tool to be congratulatory or to raise issues that are particularly relevant to where the member comes from, and to share that with members of the House of Commons as opposed to using that as a partisan tool.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on that very point on S. O. 31s, I take great pride in the fact that I illustrate many great contributions by different people, groups, and organizations in my fine riding of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

However, I do have a concern when individual MPs are trying to say what a member of Parliament should say or not say in this place. It should ultimately be arbitrated by the voters themselves. If someone has an issue and wishes to speak on that issue, she or he should be able to do so and be held accountable by her or his voters. Does the member agree, or does he believe that really he should be censoring the constituents of my riding from being the final judges of my conduct?

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I take my friend's point with respect to his comment.

At the end of the day, the most important aspect for us, as parliamentarians, is freedom of speech in this place. I am simply encouraging members. I believe that the primacy of S. O. 31 statements should be about concerns related to our constituencies. I am not suggesting that there may not be any other issue that might arise, but I would encourage us to use it for the purpose that I think it is primarily intended. There may be instances where there can be a very charged issue, as we heard earlier today, that a particular member feels strongly about. For me, that might have been more appropriate for question period, but again it is about freedom of speech and that is our primary rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and suggestions.

I would like to come back to a point that I made in my speech and I would like my colleague to share his thoughts on it.

Does my colleague think that it is reasonable for the House to adopt a motion to send a matter that the Speaker found to be prima facie to a parliamentary committee, usually the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs? If the government has a majority, the motion to refer such a matter to committee can be rejected by the government. It simply has to use its majority and convince all of its members to vote the way cabinet wants them to.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I take my friend's point. As I said, we have already had a number of instances when prima facie cases of privilege have been referred to PROC and there is a concern that the government can use its majority to, in theory, shut down debate or to create a finding that there was in fact no actual breach of privilege. Again, we do get into those instances.

I have heard in the debate today a lot about empowering the Speaker. At the end of the day, the Speaker needs to be viewed as being neutral, so there has to be some kind of mechanism to send these kinds of questions. At the end of the day, we collectively make decisions on the nature of privileges and immunities in this place. It should be governed by practice and by our history. In that sense, there can be profound differences when we make these findings at PROC, but I do not know how we can create any other mechanism, quite frankly. That is really my challenge with respect to the member's question.