Debates of Feb. 1st, 2021

Standing Orders and Procedure

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the idea of a second chamber until we fix the way debates are done. To have a second chamber where speeches are read and it is a stultified debate, under the standard format we have now, does not help anything. It does not achieve the goals of members debating either the details of legislation being presented by the government or a private member's bill or a motion. I oppose the idea of a virtual chamber to linger on afterward.

Everything has to be fit for a purpose. What purpose would it have? Is it just to fill time, or is it to achieve a common agreement on amendments or common agreement on what a bill would do? If it is just to fill time, there is no purpose in having a second chamber. We have this chamber ready to carry on that debate. Whether it is a quality debate is up to members to decide.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Calgary Shepard for this important dialogue we are having today. I appreciate that multiple members in the House have said very clearly this is not necessarily the position of their parties, but it is something they think about. Today, we are really discussing the fundamentals of how we do business. I want to thank everybody for participating in this conversation. I look forward to the continued work that will come out of this.

One of the concerns I have as an opposition member is that, often, opposition days are put on Wednesdays or even Fridays, which allows a lot less time for the opposition to bring forward ideas and have meaningful debate in the House. This should not happen. Opposition days should be given the time and rigour they are well due.

Does the member have any thoughts on that?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree. Often, our opposition supply days get put on a Wednesday as a form of punishment because of wrangling and negotiations among House leaders in this chamber. If, ahead of every session or return to Parliament, specified opposition supply days could be agreed upon at the very beginning, perhaps by standing orders, we could get around this problem. We could then schedule every supply day ahead of time and have it pre-arranged, as opposed to it being an ongoing negotiation to determine which days would be supply days.

I know the current system allows the government much more flexibility. I will admit, the government needs flexibility if it has emergency legislation that it must bring forward or must put to debate. That could be solved by standing orders. The member is correct.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with a lot of what the member said. I am curious if he has a position on the change in the role of the Speaker, back in the late 1980s or early 1990s, when the Speaker starting taking on a list of who was speaking and in what order. Before that, members had to try to stand and catch the eye of the Speaker. My personal view is that it diminishes the quality of the debate if I know I can come in at 20 minutes after 10, give my speech and be back in my office for a meeting at 11.

Does the member have a position on whether the Chair or the Speaker should continue to have a list, rather than the way it used to be done?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would never say you use some type of list. That would be against the Standing Orders. I do not know how you choose who speaks in the House, but catching your eye is the first difficulty of any member, especially new members who are much closer to you or to your sides. It would be a difficult task.

Adopting the United Kingdom's format where the Speaker, at the beginning of the debate on a bill or motion, checks how many members wish to participate and then takes those members as having the first right to participate, as long as they stay in the chamber, is a better way of accomplishing those goals. I would prefer for it to move toward that system.

It would also force members to get to know the Standing Orders, the rules of how we are supposed to work here, understand the issues they want to raise, and stay in the chamber and participate in a debate beyond just their House duty days, as we call them.

It varies. I see some members very often. Pre-pandemic, they would be in the chamber very often to participate in all debates. However, we have other members who have very specific issues that they care about personally or that are very important to their constituents. That would be a way to make sure those members have first opportunities.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to the issue of the various options available to the House for reviewing its procedures.

If I may, I would like to provide a bit of background. When I was training in the law, I went from one Code of Civil Procedure in my undergrad, to a new Code of Civil Procedure after I was called to the bar. In the interim, I had some difficulty understanding the point of procedure in a legal context. I realize that once you really get into the thick of it, it is easier to understand its purpose, and this reminds me the important role that procedure plays.

As its name suggests, the role of procedure is, on the one hand, to ensure that things proceed properly. That is really important. Procedure helps us adapt to changes and new realities. COVID-19 is a great example. Procedure is what allows us to be true to principles that are immutable. It is often said that procedure must be a servant of the law, not its master.

If it is true that, in a legal context, procedure must serve the principles of law and justice, then, in a parliamentary context, procedure must serve parliamentary values. Parliamentary procedure must highlight and reflect those values.

In Bosc and Gagnon's House of Commons Procedure and Practice, there is a good quote by John George Bourinot, an expert in parliamentary procedure and Clerk of the House of Commons from 1880 to 1902. I would like to read it. He said, and I quote:

The great principles that lie at the basis of English parliamentary law have…been always kept steadily in view by the Canadian legislatures; these are: 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.

The COVID-19 crisis gave us the opportunity to revisit the values of the House. In the context of the discussions surrounding the creation of a virtual Parliament, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs had to look at the values we wanted to see respected in the implementation of a virtual Parliament. Among the main themes that emerged were transparency, member participation and accountability.

As a young parliamentarian, I do not claim to know everything about procedure. Similarly, when I was a student, I did not understand everything that was happening. However, I discussed this with some of my more experienced colleagues and we came up with seven ideas that would help to better reflect these values in Parliament.

The first proposal concerns the adjournment proceedings. The role of the adjournment proceedings is to allow a member to obtain a more satisfactory answer to a question asked during question period. The problem with the current format of adjournment proceedings is that they use somewhat the same format as that of oral question period. The participants are just given a little more time to assert their claims. On the one hand, we have a period consisting of four interventions of 35 seconds each. On the other, we have a period consisting of two interventions of four minutes each, followed by two interventions of one minute each. This does not permit us to hold an adversarial debate where we can delve into the details of the subject matter.

Instead we should have a form of more focused questioning, as is used in the courts. If we were to adopt a format somewhat like the one used during the meetings of the Special Committee on the COVID-19 Pandemic, we would have five minutes to ask a question and the person answering would have the same amount of time to respond. We would then have the opportunity to ask other questions. By alternating questions and answers, we would likely have less of a dialogue of the deaf, which tends to consist of prepared questions and also prepared answers. We could delve deeper into the subject matter and achieve the purpose of the adjournment proceedings, which is to get answers.

The second proposal concerns Private Members' Business. I think it would be a good idea to have a period of questions and comments after each intervention. Currently only the sponsor of the bill is entitled to a period of questions and comments. Subsequent debate helps us to see who is in favour of the bill, but since we cannot question them we are unable to improve the position of each speaker or make amendments in committee based on each position that is raised. We are also unable to know where members stand in the end because when we present a position we always present it in the best possible light. It is when we are asked questions that the full picture appears.

Still on the topic of the order of business, I would like to see every bill that does not reach second reading before prorogation get reintroduced in the House thereafter. For example, the Bloc Québécois had already announced and introduced the majority of its private members' bills in January, well before the COVID-19 pandemic. The House was prorogued in the summer and those bills were not addressed before September or October. A lot happened in the meantime, including a global pandemic. Some of those bills introduced in January may have benefited from a review, some could have been dropped and new, more current ones could have been debated. I suggest considering this possibility.

I will move on to secret ballots in the House. I understand the idea of using secret ballots to elect the Speaker, for example, because we want to preserve the credibility and uniqueness of that office. The voting process for electing the Speaker is more like the one used in general elections than the one we usually use in the House. However, for the sake of the transparency I was talking about earlier, I suggest that, when the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business designates a bill non-votable, leading to a secret ballot in the House, the result should at least be announced. I am not saying that the vote should be public, but it should be justified by announcing the proportion of members who accepted the bill's validity and votability.

I also have a suggestion about Fridays, which is one of my favourite days of the week but could use some reinventing. In Quebec's National Assembly, there are certain days when about an hour and a half is set aside for members to question a minister. This serves as a kind of a prolonged question period focusing on a specific minister, who could be chosen at the parliamentary leaders' meeting on Tuesday. That would give members of the House other than committee members access to the minister to ask questions about topical issues.

It would provide greater flexibility and require more accountability on the part of the ministers. We could simply revise the Friday schedule, for example, by starting the sitting with this ministerial question period between 9:30 a.m. and 11 a.m. From 11 a.m. to noon would be oral question period, followed by the continuation of the ministerial question period from noon to 1:30 p.m., before returning to the normal schedule with private members' business from 1:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. We could make up for the two lost hours by starting earlier on Monday and by adding more time at the end of one day of the week.

As for convening committees outside their regular meeting schedule, I would like to suggest that we require only four members to call a committee meeting. Also, there would have to be members from at least two recognized parties, which would prevent one party from taking the committee's schedule hostage and making calling a meeting a very partisan tool. If there were only two recognized parties in the House, my suggestion would have to be modified, but it would prevent one party from using it as a partisan tool.

Lastly, I suggest creating a “Wednesday motion” to be voted on but not debated. This motion would be halfway between a unanimous consent motion, which is dealt with quickly, and an opposition motion, which is debated for an entire day. Unlike a unanimous consent motion, the vote would require that each member take a position on the motion. That would also allow us to move more quickly, since we would not necessarily need a full day's debate, as we do with an opposition motion.

I am out of time. I thank the Chair for giving me the floor. I am ready for questions and comments from my colleagues.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague as I really did enjoy the five-minute question and comment period.

My question relates to women in politics. We have had to adjust very quickly during the pandemic, including doing things like remote voting and holding online committee meetings and even online question period. Does the member think that keeping some of the procedures we have put in place would help to encourage and enable more women to enter politics going forward?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, encouraging more women to join the House of Commons is about more than just voting. I think we have to look at the bigger picture. The Bloc Québécois had the novel idea of allowing members of its caucus with young children to sit only from Tuesday to Thursday. That allows them to spend more time in their riding, not to work in the riding, but to spend time with their children.

The renovation of Centre Block should include the addition of a much better family room so that people can work while keeping an eye on their children. That would be another incentive. I do not think we should limit ourselves to the issue of voting because there are many reasons that a person might not be able to vote. A snowstorm is one example.

Voting is an important parliamentary tool, but it is not the only one. I think that remote voting alone would not solve the problem. I think we need to look at this more broadly.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if my colleague mentioned this, but there is still the matter of electronic votes. I think it would be a good idea to carry out a study to determine how much time each electronic vote would save us. I think it would be very advantageous. We would save time. We can spend more time debating this, but I wonder what my colleague thinks.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that we need to carry out a study to find out how much time we would save. We already know that a recorded vote in the House normally takes about eight minutes. When we use Zoom, the vote takes about 45 minutes. Using the application we are considering now, the vote would take no more than five minutes. That is a little less time than it takes for a recorded vote in the House. I do not think that the three minutes we would save justifies switching to the electronic voting application once the pandemic is over. In terms of efficiency, I think that it would not be worthwhile. In a non-pandemic context, it is important that members be present in the House to do their job.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member and I have had very interesting conversations at the PROC committee about what a virtual Parliament would like. It has been the responsibility of all members to look at how we will change and modify our behaviour during this pandemic. It has taken a lot of thought.

The member mentioned in her speech that the government had prorogued, which meant that a lot of work that had been done was stopped. Should prorogation be something we should also be looking at in terms of the Standing Orders, that is, the ability of a government to prorogue without any consultation with other parties? It really gives the government a lot of power. What are her thoughts on that?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.

This is something that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has looked at. I was pleased to hear Professor Daniel Turp, among others, speak about prorogation and its legality.

I would urge my colleague to listen to the House Leader of the Bloc Québécois and member for La Prairie, who will probably devote a large portion of his presentation this afternoon to the issue of prorogation.

I would not want to pre-empt my colleague, but I will say that we need better guidelines for prorogation, in order to avoid making it an exclusively partisan tool.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, for those wondering why we are debating the Standing Orders in the midst of a pandemic, we have an obligation, according to our own Standing Orders, to have this debate within a brief period after the start of a new Parliament. That is why this discussion is happening today.

I would remind people that everything we are talking about is referred to the procedure and House affairs committee of the House of Commons. That committee does the follow-up on revisions to the Standing Orders. I will be referencing the procedure and House affairs committee, but from here on I will be referring to it by its short name, PROC.

COVID has really shown that we can modernize our Standing Orders. Members will recall that from the date of Confederation we have had Standing Orders in place based on the supposition that a member of Parliament, for example, from my area of New Westminster in British Columbia, would be taking the train right across the country and staying in Ottawa throughout the parliamentary session, so that I would be here for that entire period.

Following the Second World War, we moved to Standing Orders that better reflected the ability of members of Parliament to go to and fro across the country through air travel. Now, through COVID, we have seen a modernization, albeit during a pandemic, showing that we can modernize in the digital age. I would like to start there, because the idea of having virtual votes and virtual committees as tools available to parliamentarians is something that PROC should be considering.

First is the reality of being in our constituencies, particularly if we come from the north or from British Columbia, which are farther away from Ottawa. I have been in that situation since I became a parliamentarian, travelling back and forth across the country for a vote. Travelling to Ottawa and back, I have a 20-hour round trip for what is a two-second action, standing in the House of Commons and voting. Virtual voting allows me to better serve my constituents, and it is something that PROC should look into.

Second, if we are trying to make a family-friendly Parliament, the reality, again, of a member of Parliament having to leave their children to come to Parliament for that two seconds of voting, as opposed to using the various tools that we have put into place during COVID, is something that PROC should look at.

Finally, there is the environmental cost and the implications for greenhouse gases of going back and forth across the country either for that two-second vote in the House of Commons or for committees. Numerous times over the course of the last few years, I have been called to Ottawa for committee hearings in majority governments that had been convened by the opposition members, and the majority of parliamentarians who belonged to the government side have shut down those committee meetings. That has resulted in a two-minute meeting and a 20-hour trip back and forth.

We need to have PROC look into the advisability of using these tools, for the environment, for family and for better service for our constituents. Also, the principle of deferred votes is something that we need to keep in mind. Hopefully PROC will study that important ramification, rather than all of us being in Ottawa for a vote that could come at any moment. Having a deferred voting schedule would make more sense.

I am not going to get into the issue of the confidence convention. I raised it with the member for Winnipeg North. I will not get into the issue of aligning our main estimates, for more transparency, with the budgetary process. These are things that my esteemed colleague from Elmwood—Transcona, and my colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford who is also very dedicated to parliamentary traditions, will be speaking to.

I want to go over five other areas where things could be improved in the Standing Orders. Again, these are all suggestions for PROC to study.

First, on accountability, a majority government not being able to change the Standing Orders is something that needs to be looked at.

Second, the issue of time allocation or closure needs a stricter framework so that it cannot be used so simply.

Third is the issue of prorogation and whether or not that respects parliamentary norms. Having it in the Standing Orders, of course, gives the Governor General more ability to accept, or not, a request for prorogation when it has been improperly formulated.

Then there is the issue of opposition days. My colleagues mentioned not having them on Wednesdays or Fridays, which the member for North Island—Powell River mentioned very eloquently a few moments ago.

Having more late show question periods was another issue. If we have virtual ability, of course sometimes ministers could participate as well. We could have more late shows as a follow-up to question period answers that are not sufficient or adequate.

Then there is the issue of take-note debates. We could potentially allocate them to recognized parties or have them triggered through petitions.

These are all things that would increase accountability, and hopefully PROC will be looking into them.

Then there is modernizing committees. Currently, we have a very laborious process around dissenting and complementary reports. They should be automatic for opposition parties, and all recognized parties should be able to table and speak briefly to them when they are tabled in the House of Commons.

We have a very complex process after an election with the steering committees and vice-chairs, and if there are allocations to all recognized parties, it eliminates what can be complex negotiations. As well, giving committees the ability to table bills after carefully studying something seems to be an interesting idea that PROC should more fully explore.

For question period, a number of my opposition colleagues have mentioned the ability to have more of a back-and-forth. We certainly see this in committee of the whole. This is a way of getting more information to the public. The model for committee of the whole, with the back-and-forth between members of the opposition and members of government, is something that should be explored. We could have it once a week or perhaps have a major modernization of question period as a whole.

Then there is the issue of Private Members' Business. We have a problem of logjam with the Senate. It means that often private members' legislation is passed and then just sits in the Senate. We need to find a way to expedite, through the Senate, legislation passed by democratically elected members of the House of Commons. We also need more time allocation for Private Members' Business in the House.

Of course, if we are using the virtual tools we have used during COVID, we can extend the hours of Parliament. If there is more flexibility around votes, obviously it could make a difference, as we could include more time for Private Members' Business. Private Members' Business should have a priority over Senate bills.

Currently, when a private member's bill is deemed non-votable and there is an appeal, the member of Parliament who brought forward the appeal loses their right to their private member's business if the appeal is not accepted by the House of Commons. This is something PROC should be exploring.

Finally, there is the issue of making the Order Paper easier to read. It tends to be very gummed up at the end of a parliamentary session.

In short, we can modernize all the Standing Orders of the House so that we can use the tools that were implemented during the pandemic in order to be more helpful and responsive to our constituents, especially for those members who are outside the greater Ottawa area. This would also be respectful to members who have families and would be much kinder to the environment.

The whole issue of confidence is not something that the government should be allowed to define unilaterally. This study by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs will be an opportunity to provide guidelines for matters of confidence and prorogation and all of these questions that are important whether we have a minority or a majority government.

I will be happy to answer my colleagues' questions and comments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciated my colleague's comments, especially with respect to the value of working in consensus on changes to the Standing Orders and the idea of expanding and having ministerial participation in late shows. I think that is very worthwhile.

I would like the member's comments on two points.

First of all, he spoke about committees meeting remotely. One of the concerns I have about committees meeting remotely is that it actually leads to a decline in the committees' autonomy, because right now they have to fit into limited predefined slots. I think it would be worthwhile for remote committees to continue to be masters of their domain and schedule as many meetings as they want, with extra meetings if they want, and have flexibility in setting their own schedules.

Also, the member spoke about remote voting. However, we would generally want to have a culture during normal times where members are in Ottawa when the House is sitting, so they could participate in debates. There would not be a need for long flights back and forth just for a vote if members were planning on being in Ottawa for debates taking place Monday to Thursday.

I would appreciate the member's comments on that.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's questions, which are important as always.

The first issue the member raised about committees is actually not an issue of the Standing Orders, but an issue of our technological ability within the administration of the House of Commons. Certainly, as far as the technology is concerned, we have seen significant progress over the course of the last few months and throughout the pandemic.

I agree with the member that committees need to be able to meet when they need to meet, and this is a technological issue that needs to be overcome. I think members of Parliament from all parties should be putting pressure and the resources in place so that the House of Commons administration can allow committees to do just that.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the remark about requiring consensus to change the Standing Orders. I know that my Conservative colleague who spoke before me raised the same thing. However, it does the beg the question as to why, earlier in 2020, an opposition motion that came forward to change the Standing Orders to add opposition days, which was introduced by the Conservatives and supported by the NDP, was accepted by both these members. However, I digress.

With respect to the member's comment about a majority government not being able to change the Standing Orders, I am curious how we would bring forward a Standing Order to actually enforce that. Is that enforceable? Can we not just always waive that if we wanted to? I am asking what I think is a legitimate question: How do we bring in some kind of legislation that makes it enforceable?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first off, the issue of the opposition day did not change the Standing Orders, so I would disagree with the member's first comment quite strenuously.

As to the further issue of changes to the Standing Orders, a number of us have raised this and are submitting it to the procedure and House affairs committee. It could potentially require some changes beyond the Standing Orders, but we should leave it in the hands of the procedure and House affairs committee to look into that important issue.

The reality is that one party, whether in a majority situation or not, should not be able to unilaterally change the Standing Orders. There can be some agreement on what a minimum consensus might require in order to do that.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in the course of his speech, the member alluded to the various ways in which we modernized on the fly. We could not imagine a parliamentary system much more encrusted in tradition than our own, yet we leapt into what I might say is the 20th century, although we are in the 21st.

Does the hon. member believe at this point that we should have Standing Orders that are acceptable in a pandemic situation, somehow defined by all, that move into place right away so that we do not have what we went through? We have now invented a lot of ways to operate virtually. Should those be concretized as Standing Orders for us in situations like this but not otherwise?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is well aware that, tragically, we may be facing future pandemics because of the climate crisis. We have seen a number of indications that this pandemic may, sadly, not be the last unless we get a handle on the climate emergency, which requires real and effective intervention.

The member's suggestion makes some real sense. We could put in place a pandemic group of Standing Orders for what hopefully will not reoccur in the next few years, but could very well reoccur given a lot of the scientific information.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure for me to speak today on the Standing Orders. I would like to clarify that the views I will be expressing are my own. Everyone who knows me knows I like rules a lot. In fact, I volunteered to be on PROC because I really like rules. I am probably one of the very few MPs who have read the Standing Orders multiple times, as well as Bosc and Gagnon, but I digress.

I miss being in the chamber. I understand why we are not, but I am hopeful that eventually we will get back in the chamber. I am looking at my colleagues on the screen and in the chamber we are able to look at each other. We are able to gauge the reaction and give feedback. Unfortunately, we do not get those social cues on the screen.

One of the items we should look at is Standing Order 31. We say that they cannot be used for improper use, but we need to define “improper use”. In Bosc and Gagnon, there are references to personal attacks, using poetry, but these are all things that are unfortunately not being looked at in reality.

What is happening in the chamber during S. O. 31s is not necessarily what the intent of an S. O. 31 is. I would like to see those clarified because it seems to be an extension of question period where members are given a minute to basically say whatever they want to say and use that as their clip on social media. I would like to see that looked at in terms of defining it.

With respect to that, S. O. 18 refers to using disrespectful language toward other members. I am noticing an increase in disrespectful language and in tone, but I am also seeing that at committee when we are speaking to witnesses. I have seen some members actually berate witnesses. Witnesses are there on their own accord to give their testimony, but when the tone is to the point that I have to intervene as a chair, I think we need to take a look at that. We are responsible for our actions, and I understand parliamentary privilege may protect us, but we still do have a responsibility to treat people with dignity and respect.

One thing that drives me crazy, which I am sure my colleague from Winnipeg Centre was going to bring up, is the use of unanimous consent motions on a point of order. After almost every question period, we are seeing a member stand on a point of order and try to bring forward a unanimous consent motion, when we know that motions cannot be put forward on a point of order. I would like this practice to stop and for points of order to be used as they are intended. I think that is what we should be focusing on.

Another area I would like to bring up, and some of my colleagues have brought it up as well, is our virtual Parliament. What we cannot do directly, we should not be able to do indirectly. For instance, if we were in the chamber, we would not be allowed to be on the telephone. I am sitting here, looking at my zoom screen, and I am watching members speaking on the phone, which we would not normally be able to do. I think we should have respect for our colleagues and this institution. Being in the virtual chamber is the equivalent of being in the chamber. We need to be mindful of that.

I believe in the last Parliament my colleague from Brossard—Saint-Lambert brought up proper attire in the Standing Orders. I am going to read this because this is very telling for my fellow female MPs, but in chapter 11, on page 611, of Bosc and Gagnon, it very clearly says, “Current practice requires that male Members wear jackets, shirts and ties. Clerical collars have been allowed, although ascots and turtlenecks have been ruled inappropriate for male Members participating in debate” and that any “Member desiring...to speak at any point during the proceedings of the House must be wearing contemporary business attire.”

This is not just a House of men. There are 100 women members of Parliament, and I would like to see that we are reflected in the rules of order and decorum. We should define what suitable business attire is, because I do not think that stretch pants should be in the House of Commons, but that is just me.

Last, but not least, is something that is not in the Standing Orders. It is in the bylaws and policies with respect to the Parliament of Canada Act, the Board of Internal Economy and members' allowances and services.

I firmly believe that members of Parliament represent all of the citizens in their ridings. For instance, I was elected in Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne in 2015. I represent all 105,000 people in my riding. I do not have any indication of my party affiliation in my office. I do not put out any documentation with a party affiliation using parliamentary resources, so I do not feel that it is appropriate for parliamentarians to either be wearing masks with a party logo, sending out householders with the party logo or putting out advertising with a party logo using parliamentary resources. I know this was an issue in previous Parliaments, but I think it is something we need to look at adding to the Standing Orders, under codes of conduct.

I want any person who lives in my riding to feel free to come to my office and come and speak to me or get service. Regardless of how they voted, or if they voted, they are represented by me, and they should not have a big “L” facing them, because then they do not feel they are included. I have heard this since I was elected.

Some people who come to see me start by apologizing for not having voted Liberal. It is no big deal.

I do not care. I am here to serve them. That is what I do.

Therefore, I do not think that we should be allowed to use parliamentary resources to have the logos or the names of our political parties in our householders, advertising or parliamentary offices. I am the member of Parliament for Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, point final.

I would like to see that included in the code of conduct and for the Board of Internal Economy look at that, because I am seeing more and more advertising with logos. I think it is inappropriate, and I do not think taxpayers should be paying for that. My point is that, if members would like to use their party logo, their EDA should pay for it, or it should be an expense during an election.

Last but not least is voting virtually. We are in unprecedented times. We have said this multiple times. I am sure someone has a bingo sheet and is now checking that phrase off. This is temporary, in my opinion. We cannot all be in the chamber for health reasons. One day we will be back. We will be in the chamber.

I enjoy standing in my position in the chamber to vote. I can understand that for this point in time we are in unprecedented times and that we need to be able to vote in a secure way, but also in a way that is expeditious. I just can imagine a 30-hour voting session on Zoom, and how that would look. While I understand that at this point we should be using virtual voting, I am looking forward to the day that we are back in the chamber all together debating and voting our conscience and voting as per the wishes of our constituents.

With that, I will cede my time. I welcome any questions.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Since hon. members have a lot of questions and comments in this debate, I encourage members to leave the parties' perspectives out of the debate, which is a little different.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from a nearby riding and thank her for her speech.

There is one procedural aspect that has really been bothering me since I was elected a year ago. I am talking about the questions that the government asks itself during question period. I find that completely ludicrous. Every question period, a Liberal backbencher asks a question to a Liberal minister. The Liberal minister then has the audacity to thank the member for their very pertinent question, even though we know very well that the minister wrote the question and the answer is scripted.

Ask anyone: journalists, mothers, fathers. Everyone knows that these questions are a way for the government to promote and congratulate itself. These questions have no place in question period. The government already has enough time to promote its legislation, ideas and opinions. Question period should be strictly limited to questions from opposition members. That is my opinion.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

The government is allowed to ask three softball questions, if you will. I think it would be a good idea for backbenchers to be able to ask ministers their own questions. I agree with my colleague.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member pointed out the practice that has emerged where there are unanimous consent motions after every single question period, just like there are points of order. I wonder if she would perhaps agree to a system where we do what happens during adjournment debates, that we move to the end of question period to stop that practice right now.

I get the same amount of angst as many members do when I am trying to pay attention to what the latest unanimous consent motion is. Many of them should be done by private members' bills, private members' motions or as an opposition supply day. I am wondering whether the member would agree that perhaps a better system would be simply to have, at the end of question period, a prolonged adjournment proceeding, using the same system of four minutes and two minutes, to allow for more in-depth questioning of a minister and then carrying on with orders of the day.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are in agreement in terms of the use of points of order coming out of question period, when they are actually not points of order but unanimous consent motions, which can be addressed through other methods in the House, as the member indicated.

I am in agreement that if something should be brought forward, whether it be through a private member's bill or a private member's motion, it should be brought through that tool and not used as a point of order, because we are getting to the point that literally, after every question period, members stand up on points of order that are not points of order. As chair of a committee, it is pretty hard for me to then follow the rules and regulations and say something is not a point of order and a motion cannot be moved on a point of order when it is being done in the House.