Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a point of privilege. It is a fairly complex matter, but I know you are familiar with the essence of it and I will attempt to be succinct.
It is a point of privilege under Standing Order section 41(1) in that I believe sincerely, having lived through this for the last two and a half years, that a process that has been undertaken by motions in committee is impeding my ability to fully represent my constituents and to fully do my job. That is a matter of privilege and I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs so it can be dealt with there.
Let me start with some very clear principles, because all of this emanates from my role as a member of a political party recognized under the Elections Act but with fewer than 12 members elected here, and thus falling under a different category of rights and privileges than other members of Parliament.
It is, of course, a clear principle and trite to note that all Canadians are equal, all federal electoral districts are equal, and that, therefore, representing our constituents, all members of Parliament are in theory equal, and even in principle. The Prime Minister is, as the old Latin phrase would put it, primus inter pares, first among equals. We are all equals here.
Not to be Orwellian about it, but it is clear that since 1963, some of us are more equal than others. While the constitution of this country makes no reference to political parties, over time our parliamentary process here has, at the behest of larger parties, enlarged the powers and rights of those members of Parliament who belong to one of the larger parties. In 1963, the only rule was passed that allowed additional funding to go to members of Parliament in parties of more than 12, and they are generally referred to in our rules now as “recognized parties”.
I can skip ahead on a lot of this and just say that until the late 1990s, there was no question as to how rules operated at report stage. Rules changed at report stage as a result of what we could call a 1999 protest effort by an opposition party, the Canadian Alliance party at that time, which did not like the Nisga'a Treaty that was going through the House and put forward 700 really mischievous amendments at report stage. They were not substantive. They did not change the way the treaty would work. They were not designed to work. They were designed to clog up the system.
Of course, it has always been the Speaker's role, and I will not take too much of your time, Mr. Speaker, on some precedents, but it is well understood that the Speaker has the responsibility of protecting members of Parliament and our personal rights while also ensuring that Parliament itself can function properly. I take you to a ruling of March 29, 2007. Speaker Milliken wrote:
The Speaker must remain ever mindful of the first principles of our great parliamentary tradition, principles best described by John George Bourinot, Clerk of this House from 1890 to 1902, who described these principles thus:
“To protect the minority and restrain the improvidence and tyranny of the majority, to secure the transaction of public business in a decent and orderly manner, to enable every member to express his opinions within those limits necessary to preserve decorum and prevent an unnecessary waste of time, to give full opportunity for the consideration of every measure, and to prevent any legislative action being taken heedlessly and upon sudden impulse.”
Your predecessor, former Speaker Scheer, commented similarly on the responsibility of the Speaker on April 23, 2013, that an unquestionable duty of the Speaker is “to act as the guardian of the rights and privileges of members and of the House as an institution.”
In balancing this, I turn to a ruling of former Speaker Fraser on April 14, 1987. He said that the principle of protecting minorities from majority tyranny applicable in a number of contexts exceeding the normal interpretation of government opposition could surely be applied there. He also said it should be noted that where the Speaker has ruled in favour of protecting minorities, he tends to do so in the context of protecting their ability to hold the government to account so long as it is not at the expense of the government completing its business in a reasonably timely fashion.
On a different occasion in 1990, Speaker Fraser also spoke about the reality of how members of parties such as the Green Party or, in this House, the Bloc, or any independent members are treated. In denying a request from the Bloc Québécois to receive additional research funding when it fell below 12 seats, he stated:
...it is important to note that the decision does not mean that the members in this group are impeded from full participation in the work of the House or that they are deprived of support necessary to represent their constituencies adequately.
We are in a different situation. I recognize that. However, I have to say that what occurred as a result of that Nisga'a treaty report stage protest in 1999 took several years for the House Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to amend the Standing Orders and change the process bills go through at report stage. The rules were changed such that members of parties with more than 12 members, having had an opportunity through their parties at committee stage, could not take basically another kick at the can and come back and repeat the committee process at report stage. Therefore, that process changed report stage. Through the committee on procedure and House affairs, we ended up having to change the Standing Orders around report stage. As I said, that took a couple of years.
When I became a member of Parliament, in reading through O'Brien and Bosc, which is our Bible here, I realized that since I was not in a party of more than 12 MPs I did have the right to make these motions for amendments at report stage. Obviously, the practical application of that was not an opportunity that I welcomed. It is very clear that in fully representing my constituents, they are interested in everything. There is not just one category of issue that interests my constituents. They are interested in all of the bills that go through this place, and they want me to represent them on all of the bills.
Only one bill at a time can be at report stage. However, many bills at a time can be at different committees going through clause by clause. What the previous administration did, and this is the crux of this, was to decide that since the Speaker could not deny my rights at report stage unless so-called opportunities were created elsewhere, a motion was passed through every committee through a period of time that said that I and other members in small parties would be given 48 hours' notice before clause by clause to submit all of my amendments in that period and to then come to committee. However, I was not equal at committee. I did not move my amendments at committee. They were deemed moved and I could make brief comments. The practical application of this motion is that I have had to run occasionally from committee meetings simultaneously doing clause by clause. There have been times when I have had to prepare my amendments to a bill when the witnesses were still testifying on the bill and if new issues arose I did not have the opportunity to submit amendments based on that testimony because it had come in within the 48 hours between my deadline and when the committee moved to clause by clause. In other words, it is impractical, unworkable, and prejudicial to my rights.
My main point today, because I have canvassed the unfairness of these motions to the previous Speaker in the 41st Parliament, is that it is very clear now that these same motions, which are identically worded, have been pushed through every single committee once again, and that what we have here is another issue.
It has always been the case, and it is trite to say because it is found in O'Brien and Bosc and many other rulings by Speakers, which I will not trespass on your time and read back to you, that committees are the masters of their own process. However, this process is a fraud. The committees are no more the masters of this process than I am the master of their process. They all received identical motions. They received them in the Conservative administration and dutifully passed them. Now they have received them from the government House leader, and the government whip followed up to make sure that these motions were passed. It is supplanting the job of the committee on procedure and House affairs by amending the rules by which bills go through the House, through the fiction that each committee has acted independently to come up with this rule that treats members of Parliament who are independents or in parties of fewer than 12 members differently.
If the House committee on procedure and House affairs wishes to review how report stage should be run, then that is where that work should be done. It is very clear under many precedents that a committee cannot exceed its jurisdiction. Committees passing motions that are identical to each other with forced votes of government members is no more the committee being the master of its destiny than it is the case that they are coming up with these motions independently in each committee.
They are supplanting the role of the committee on procedure and House affairs, and impeding on my rights.
As many members of Parliament, through parliamentary tradition have done through the generations, I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to find the right balance, to protect the rights of MPs in smaller parties, to ensure that bills go through this House expeditiously, but that members of Parliament are not denied their rights nor that we allow a backdoor procedure to receive approval in this place which is literally supplanting the role of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House affairs.