Debates of Feb. 1st, 2021

Standing Orders and Procedure

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

Madam Speaker, I do not know if the member's question was totally clear. Maybe he is simply trying to demonstrate the problems we see in question period. As to his comments about depoliticizing question period, I am inclined to quote Hyman Roth from The Godfather: Part II: “This is the business we've chosen.”

On the issue that I tried to get at in my speech, I would agree in principle that we are not going to make question period better or worse by dramatically changing the time limits. The reality is that we already have a mechanism, known as the late show or adjournment debate, where we can have longer-form interactions. One simple improvement we could have is to require ministers to answer questions on their own files during adjournment debate and perhaps move what we now call “Adjournment Proceedings” to a time earlier in the day when it gets more attention.

Let us use the rubrics we have and maybe strengthen and move them around. This would at least provide an opportunity for a longer-form back-and-forth.

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

Madam Speaker, as my hon. colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan accurately predicted, I will have comments on the notion that heckling can be good for our Parliament. It does violate our Standing Orders, although we would never know it from the normal course of affairs.

I very much agree with the comments made earlier by the hon. member for Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne. He pointed out that constituents want to see us behave respectfully toward each other, and the more we veer toward rudeness and a lack of decorum, the less Parliament has the respect of our constituents, our citizens. Even though the Parliament of Westminster in London, England, does have the occasional jeering and heckling, it does not approach the rudeness of our place.

I wonder if the hon. member would consider that we look at the way Parliament and question period are managed in the U.K. as a model for Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I do not disagree with the member that there are problems with the way heckling is often operationalized in practice, but I think the purpose of allowing heckling and why it has been part of our traditions for a long time is the idea that there can be valuable, useful and respectful interjections.

Sometimes it happens that while I am speaking, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader will say something to me and I will listen to what he is saying and respond to it in the midst of my speech. That is the ideal. It is not just a bunch of noise and people being shouted down. That should not happen. If there is an opportunity for respectful interjection and meaningful exchange instead of just monologuing, that is the ideal we should get at.

That is why I said I would be very interested in our exploring alternative models like written heckling. Instead of members shouting out interventions, they could post interventions to the Speaker and the wider public, allowing the Speaker to then respond to them. For virtual Parliament, it might be worth it to experiment with creating a mechanism for written heckles.

Again, not all heckling is good. Probably most heckling is not good. However, the tradition exists for a reason.

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

Madam Speaker, I am thankful to have these few minutes to talk about two things. They are ideas that have been floated in my existence in Parliament and in my experience with other issues. I think we can improve upon them in the modernization of the House.

One that was thrust upon us, which I will not spend too much time on as my time is limited, is electronic voting. I am a fan of electronic voting. I do believe in coming into the 20th century, as there is technology that existed back then that we can use and are using now.

I truly believe this is going to be a benefit for all of us. It is a benefit for our family lives and is certainly a benefit for those of us who travel quite a bit, like me or members from Yukon who have to travel a bit. This certainly would make travel less onerous. I will leave it at that. We are about to embark upon that new frontier because of the situation we are in.

I would be remiss if I did not pay tribute to a dear colleague of mine, the member for Simcoe North, who first brought to me a very in-depth study about the parallel chamber. The parallel chamber opens up a huge dimension, not to get too science fiction about it, for debate within the context of what is Canada's Parliament. It has been done, as other colleagues have mentioned, in other areas. The member for Yukon brought it up as well. Two parallel chambers already exist in other jurisdictions, such as Great Britain and Australia. They are the Federation Chamber of Australia and Westminster Hall in the U.K.

As a matter of fact, The Samara Centre for Democracy, here in Canada, strongly recommends that we go ahead with a parallel chamber to allow members to exercise some independence as to how they want to engage in debate and policy issues important to them and to the nation. It may not be something they bring up, but others may bring something up that they wish to comment on.

The Samara Centre for Democracy recommends creating a parallel chamber modelled on Westminster Hall in the U.K., and I could not agree more. Westminster Hall is a valuable example of how we can broaden debate in the House, certainly for those in the dimensions of what is considered the backbench who wish to bring up their own local issues and discuss national issues from coast to coast to coast. It would be a good exercise for them.

There are, however, some key notes to make about the parallel chamber. This is going back to a 2018 MP survey that Samara did. It does exit interviews with MPs once they are no longer MPs, and it discovered that debates are the least satisfying dimension of an MP's work.

Those who have been here for a while, or or others who enjoy debate, would certainly agree that in many cases we talk about canned speeches and lines we must say. I am not diminishing the role of people who write speeches and send them off to the House of Commons to be read by whichever department or minister's office. It is a part of who we are and a function of who we are. However, we need to broaden this more to help people who want to speak freely and openly about these debates, whether it is something they feel, as a parliamentarian, is dear to their heart or it is something dear to the hearts of their constituents. Sometimes that may not be caught up in a sound byte or a phrase the government or opposition wish to put out there, but it could be in their own words, which I think is very key to this. I would endorse that.

By way of example, one of the things the parallel chamber is used for in the United Kingdom, in Westminster Hall, is take-note debates on e-petitions. E-petitions have become very valuable and highly popular over the past little while, and we could debate their subject matter and issues in the House.

Right now, there is an e-petition about the Gander International Airport, which is in my riding, that sits in the roster waiting for signatures. The petition calls on the government to help it out in this particular scenario. I would love to engage in a debate not only with the Gander airport but also with airports across Canada that find themselves in a very rural, regional situation where survival is now tedious.

That would be a great example of how we could broaden the debate about regional air travel across this country and a golden opportunity that a parallel chamber could provide for us. That is huge to me. Again, I recognize the member for Simcoe North, the Deputy Speaker, for the work he did in bringing this to my attention.

Let me now go to what we normally call S.O. 31s or members' statements. In the genesis of S.O. 31s, the member could talk about their riding, a current policy issue, or they could stand up and do a one-minute political ad for their party, for that matter, which happens fairly often. If the member is in opposition, they could take swipe at the government. For someone who was in opposition for quite some time, I certainly took advantage of that. However, the key, the basis of it all, is the fact that the statement belongs to the member. That is what is so very important about this.

If the list is provided by the whip, something very dysfunctional ends up happening with members' statements. What happens is that if the whip has a statement they want to put out that is in praise of the latest government policy or of an opposition stand or something against the government, the whip will give that to a particular member, or at least show it to them and ask if they are willing to do it in the House. If that member says they are not interested and would rather do their own statement, more often than not the statement suggested by the whip will go to another member, who will be asked if they want to do it.

That is a fundamental breach of what this statement should be. The statement does not belong to the member anymore, but to the caucus, the party or the whip's office. That is not the way it was meant to be.

My suggestion would be that members' statements be done similar to private members' bills, where there is a rotating list. Members would apply to read a statement and statements would be handled by the Speaker in the rotation in which they arrive. I will leave it at that, because I think that how members' statements should be done is quite self-explanatory.

I know that some people would like to hold question period that way. That is how it is done in Westminster in the U.K. House of Commons. Their members apply to the Speaker to be in a random draw three days prior to question period, to get their question in, under Prime Minister's questions. I will not go that far yet. I walk before I run, as it were. I walk in marginal steps. That shows how long I have been there, because I know that sometimes changes like this travel at glacial speed. Therefore, I will just leave it at that.

Here is something that I proposed some time ago. It met with a lot of bewilderment in many cases, but it is something that the U.K. has done as well since 2010 or 2011, and that is the election of committee chairs, of which I am proudly one. I love being chair of the heritage committee. In the U.K., they started a process where the committee chairs were broken up in proportion to party representation in the House. As a result, the fourth or fifth party recognized in the House would get a chair or two, and the chairs would be broken down that way. Right now, I think the Conservative Party has slightly more than half of the committee chairs. The actual chair occupant is decided by the House. They have a broad vote in the House of Commons about who it should be. There could be three or four Liberals for one seat, three or four Conservatives vying for another seat, and the whole House gets to vote on who they are.

I first noticed it when I went to the U.K. and had meetings with some MPs. I noticed this pamphlet, an elections-style pamphlet, saying vote for so and so, in a riding near Wales. That member was running to be the agriculture chair. I thought it was a fascinating concept.

We should have a deep look into that. Former clerks of the House of Commons in Great Britain have said it has been a wonderful exercise, where the chair has an air of independence about them. They are able to go out and do things without any shackles of party interference. It is something we should seriously look at. Hopefully down the road we can. It is something I proposed in the last Parliament, but it never made it to a vote, unfortunately.

There is something else I want to talk about, and this is probably the more controversial one. It is called—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I have been trying to signal the hon. member that his time is up, unfortunately. I am sure he will have time during questions and comments.

The hon. member for Calgary Shepard.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame and I enjoyed a long time on the PROC committee in the last Parliament dealing with one of the government motions. There is a Yiddish proverb that says “Men don't build on strange ground.” I want to critique the member's proposal for a second chamber.

Going back to what I said earlier, until we fix debate in this chamber, we should not be setting up a second chamber to simply replicate what already happens here. The member is absolutely right about reading of speeches, when stock documents are given to members to read in the House. We should get it right here first and not repeat in a second chamber what we do here until we correct all of the deficiencies here. I wonder what the member thinks of that.

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

Madam Speaker, it is nice to see the member engage in debate with me again, because I remember doing this at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I enjoyed his input there as I do now. He has a valid point, I agree. I honestly think, though, that for the House to fix itself, it depends on the members taking charge and doing that. However, there is another expression called “blowing off steam”, as it were. In a second or parallel chamber we could find ourselves in an organic debate led by the passions of individual members talking about these issues, where they could formulate these to a point where that chamber becomes an excellent model. It would be like little brother behaving well to show big brother how it is done.

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

Madam Speaker, to my hon. colleague from one island on the west coast to a favourite island on the east coast, the member asked why we allow other people in the back room to write speeches for members. Our rules require that we be able to stand on our feet and deliver a speech without notes, without reading a speech. Obviously, that is not our custom, but one of the outcomes of the practice that the member referenced is that the House leaders do not have to share with each other how many speakers they really have on an issue. If we were confined to only those members of Parliament who could actually speak to the issue without notes, we would not be able to put up a bunch of wooden soldiers that last forever to block debate and make the House less functional.

What are the member's thoughts on that?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands whom I have a deep respect for, as one of my colleague on the democracy caucus, and now in fact its chair.

It is a valid point. From one island to the other, I have said this before and have taken flack for it, but I will say it again, that if members cannot stand in the House of Commons and speak for 10 minutes without notes, they probably should not be here. It is as simple as that. We are led by passion. We are led by the size of our hearts and how we deal with these issues. If we constantly stand and read speeches from the department, whose fault is that? It is actually ours. It is our fault because we allow ourselves to do that.

I do not diminish the role of people in the departments who do this. It has to happen at some point, which parliamentary secretaries and others are keen to do because that is their job, but it is our fault when we do not.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to talk a little more about the S. O. 31s because I noticed that it seems that there are some individuals in the House who never get up on an S. O. 31, or very rarely. I wonder what the member thinks of an idea similar to the lottery that we have for Private Members' Business at the beginning of each Parliament. Every member would get a number and be placed in the order of precedence for S. O. 31s to make sure that everyone gets an equal number of those statements to make during every parliamentary session.

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

Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely correct. I thank her.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today.

What I like about today's take-note debate is that it is very collegial. It is a constructive debate with members making suggestions and rising above partisanship. I find that very engaging, and that is what a take-note debate on procedural enhancements should be.

As I mentioned earlier, I am very pleased and honoured to be an MP and to be here representing the riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier. COVID-19 has certainly turned everything upside down for most of us and created challenges for the House of Commons. We have managed to adapt and to continue our work. Dear colleagues, we are all passionate people who have a great desire to contribute. There are always improvements to be made in the House and elsewhere. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this take-note debate.

I would like to go back in time a little. The last debate on the Standing Orders and procedure was held on October 6, 2016. I was a newly elected member when the Leader of the Government proposed that this House take note of the Standing Orders and procedure of the House and its committees.

I had the opportunity to respond to my hon. colleague from Vancouver Quadra, who was then a Liberal member of Parliament and parliamentary secretary to the President of the Treasury Board. She spoke about the need to rebalance the parliamentary calendar for the good of parliamentarians and to reduce the number of sitting days.

Having now begun my second term after completing my first, I have made some observations of my own that I would like to share with my colleagues. I am going to talk about four points that I think are important and that I want to bring to the attention of the 338 members of Parliament.

I want to start by pointing out that there are a lot of similarities among the 338 ridings, such as the desire to contribute to our society and to the well-being of Canadians. There are also a lot of differences in our philosophies, beliefs and ways of handling situations or problems. There are social, cultural and physical differences. There are differing opinions. We all experience that here during each sitting and each committee meeting, as well as within our own caucuses. Not only is this normal, but it is also necessary for a healthy democracy. After all, our parties are not homogeneous, nor are our municipalities and nor is nature. Our own families, no matter how big, are not even homogeneous.

It is our differences that help us to learn empathy. I think that our differences are very important and that they are an important part of our democracy. However, we need to respect the institution. It is an enormous privilege to represent the Canadians in each of our ridings as federal MPs. I would like to remind members of some very important principles that we should apply here in the House, namely, loyalty, fairness and respect. We, the 338 members of the House of Commons, all have the obligation to respect the Speaker and the institution.

Second, I would like to suggest that there be a question period especially for backbenchers. It could be done using a random draw, like we do with Private Members' Business. It is important to understand that there are political parties and partisanship in a parliament. That is completely normal and it helps to get things done. However, there are members who represent ridings who never get to speak to stand up for the interests of their constituents, and I think that all Canadians have the right to this forum to get things done. We should think about that.

Some people have said that those who get to give members' statements should be chosen by a random draw. Others said that a draw should be used to appoint committee members and chairs. We need to create openness. As parliamentarians, we should not necessarily give all the power to our political parties.

Many members who were elected to represent the Canadians in their ridings never or hardly ever have the opportunity to ask a question during question period even though that accounts for 45 minutes per day.

I am not advocating on my own behalf. My party gives me the privilege of asking many questions. I am lucky I can tell my constituents that I speak in the House of Commons every week, and that is impressive. Not all 338 members can say they are defending the interests of the citizens who elected them even though those members are here to represent their ridings. As I said, there are 338 members in the 43rd Parliament, and we represent the entire population, some 38 million people.

Every member should have access to a predetermined question period with a number of time slots so that all members can have that parliamentary privilege. The process could be like the lottery that takes place at the beginning of each Parliament. I suggest that we reserve the first five questions during Friday's question period and hold a draw at the beginning of each new Parliament, just as we do for Private Members' Business. All parliamentarians should have the right to that forum on behalf of their constituents. That is one way to ensure the widest variety of questions and to make people aware of what is going on in every part of this great nation. That should be one of the rights of every parliamentarian. Of course, everyone with an official role in the House should be excluded from the draw. I suggest this new process as a way to respect principles of equality and equity for all partners.

Thirdly, I would like to suggest that we come up with a description of the dress code. It is something we are noticing these days, but we also experienced it when we voted through the night. It is important to properly define the dress code. The book on procedure does not really have a comprehensive description of the dress code. Obviously it is a question of style and things change, but I think there needs to be stricter guidelines. We waste too much time on points of order on the dress code for MPs.

During this period of hybrid Parliament, there are so many things that cause unavoidable delays. It is only natural, and that was not a criticism. It is just a fact. There are problems with the microphones, the cameras, the connectivity, interpretation and so on. We should form a committee to establish and write the most comprehensive dress code possible. In my humble opinion, we must respect the decorum of our institution. One tangible way to do that is to clearly define our dress code. For example, wearing jeans should never be accepted in the House. Last week, the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie wore a hoodie over his tie. He had good intentions, but there was an outcry. It made the headlines.

We are not usually allowed to wear that type of clothing in the House. However, hon. members who wish to get permission might ask the Chair. If the request is approved, the Chair will have to notify the House. In some cases, in special situations, it would be possible to wear such and such an article of clothing in the House, such as a hoodie with festival colours, a hat or any other promotional article.

I think it is important to have a list of the clothing we can wear in the House. I have seen people wearing hoodies and I have even seen people wearing running apparel. That is unacceptable. We have to respect the institution.

Lastly, when the Speaker reaches an agreement with some leaders and members, he or she should inform the House. I rose on a point of order because the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons was using a telephone. I asked the Speaker whether this had been authorized. The Speaker answered that there was an agreement. I checked on my side and noted that we had not received this information. In the interest of transparency, I believe that all members should be informed of what has been authorized. I am not challenging the decisions made, I just want to be kept informed. I believe that it is important.

At the start of the last Parliament, I was a candidate for the office of Speaker of the House. Members know the interest and commitment I bring to Parliament. I would do my utmost to ensure respect for our institution. As I mentioned, I have been a candidate for this position in the past. This shows my intent and keen interest in this matter. I believe that it is in all members' interest to work together to make Parliament better.

I listened to what my colleagues have to say about this and I took copious notes. I want members to know that I will ensure that the rights of all parliamentarians in the House from every party will be respected.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I found one thing he mentioned very interesting. He spoke about decorum and what constitutes appropriate attire in a hybrid Parliament or when sitting in the chamber.

It is fairly easy to set a dress code for men by deciding whether or not they should wear a jacket, a tie and so forth. It is a little more complicated for women, and I would like to hear how my colleague thinks we could determine what is appropriate attire for them. How could we establish a dress code for women in the House?

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Drummond for his question.

It is not easy to establish a dress code, but we could refer to fabrics and exclude all denim, for example. I have seen female ministers wearing denim jackets and male members wearing jeans. If we want to have decorum and a proper dress code, all we have to do is ban sweatshirts and jeans.

I do not claim to know everything, so I suggest we create a committee in the next parliamentary session to establish this dress code. All parties would be represented, and the committee would be responsible for upholding the dress code, people's rights and our institution.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened with great detail to my colleague's intervention. He talked about a dress code and what members are wearing. I am not saying I disagree with him, but I am curious about his intent. Is he is worried that people are wearing clothes that are too casual?

If that is the case, it does not really correspond with the way business culture is changing. It seems as though people are dressing more casually these days, regardless of where they work. There used to be a time when one could not wear jeans in a restaurant or bar, but places are evolving and changing.

I am curious about his intent. Does he think people are not respecting that, or does he want to set a standard?

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Kingston and the Islands.

As I said in my speech, this is not an easy file. However, we should not be afraid to raise these issues and come up with a reference tool to simplify them and avoid controversy. There will always be controversy, but like fashion, this file is always changing.

Anyone who is not wearing a jacket will not be admitted to the parliamentary dining room. I understand what my colleague is saying, but I think that we need a framework, even if it means updating and reviewing it every two years or with every new Parliament. I am very open to that idea. However, first, we need to resolve these issues. It is something that needs to be done even though it is hard.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I did not hear much from my colleague about what we have learned in the past year about how Parliament can operate in the new ways the pandemic has forced on us, such as hybrid sittings, online committee meetings and app-based voting. A lot of those things would be very attractive to people like me who represent ridings on the other side of the country. It often takes me, at the best of times, 12 hours to get to Ottawa. Now that might be two or three days.

Could he comment on what aspects of how we have been doing business might be put into practice in a new set of standing orders?

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from South Okanagan—West Kootenay in British Columbia.

As I say every time I meet with constituents, even though I may not be meeting with very many these days, some good things will come out of what we are going through right now. I did not mention that in my speech, but there are good things that we can continue with. I have to say that we are learning at lightning speed, and I am very interested in learning about best practices so that we can retain the positive elements that will make us even more effective here in the House of Commons.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order.

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 North Island—Powell River, Veterans Affairs; the hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay, Employment; the hon. member for Calgary Centre, Natural Resources.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate, which is on a subject that is near and dear to my heart.

I have been an elected representative for several years now, first at the provincial level and now at the federal level. I think the debate we are having is a good one. I really appreciate this conversation, which I hope will lead to solutions.

I have four points I would like to make in my speech today. First of all, I have to say that I do use notes, because otherwise, I tend to digress in a 10-minute speech. I am francophone and sometimes tend to talk too much.

The first thing I want to talk about today with my colleagues in the House is voting.

It is absolutely necessary that the voting system be modernized. I had the privilege a few years ago of visiting the island of Jersey. I toured its legislature, the State Assembly. The island of Jersey is a very small jurisdiction, especially compared with Canada, but like us it has a constitutional monarchy and a history of French and English bilingualism. For some time it has been operating with an electronic voting system from the desks of the members. When I was there, the voting was conducted in French.

The choices were “yes”, “no” and “abstain”.

I thought it was really important to examine this innovation, which could be used here in the House.

With respect to the pandemic, I hope we will look back favourably on what went on in this chamber and learn from our ability to do things better or improve things. Some members may prefer the old system, which is fair. That is why we are having this debate today. However, I think there is a need to truthfully address the way in which we vote. Later today we will have our first simulated vote using an application that will allow us to vote appropriately, from a health perspective, and with a sense of security. This will ensure we do what we are here to do, which is not only debate, but also vote. That is one of our roles as legislators. Having this amazing opportunity to look at how this chamber can transition from a very old system to a new one is certainly exciting.

The other perspective I want to bring forward is with respect to the controversy of Fridays. We have heard many debates on whether we should sit for more or fewer hours in the House. I have to reflect on my time at Queen's Park in Ontario. When I was a member of the provincial Parliament, although we did not sit on Fridays, I never once felt like I did not work on Fridays. I want to clarify that for everyone, especially the residents of Orléans, whom I have the pleasure of representing. Friday was the day that many of us in the Ontario legislature were able to meet with stakeholders and engage with our local constituents. People say that going from Toronto to Ottawa is not that far, but I can appreciate how difficult it is for many of my colleagues. I have had brief conversations with parliamentarians on both sides of the House. Many of them have said it is great to be home to see their kids a bit more. I am very fortunate: I gave birth 26 years ago, so I do not have young children, but one day I may have grandchildren. I appreciate the debate we are having today about how Fridays could possibly be reconstructed to look different, but the ultimate question for me is why we have to sit on Fridays. We could structure our calendar adequately over four days, from Monday to Thursday. That is the perspective I carry and wanted to share it with everyone today.

The other perspective that is dear to my heart, and I am so happy to hear many members reflect on this, are the dual chambers, or parallel chambers. We think about the importance of debate and our being able convey the messages of our community and the people whom we represent, and sometimes, like today, a more personal aspect of how this chamber should operate. The perspective of having two chambers would be an ideal solution where we could find a meaningful approach to democracy, which I truthfully respect. We could debate bills, including private members' bills. A government bill could possibly go to the other chamber to allow members, and sometimes use the government, to choose a bill on which they know we would need to reflect, because not everyone will agree.

I like the fact that we have this conversation here. I hope that as we transition and move forward, there could be stronger consideration of this. People will say that this would be in 10 years, because currently the Centre Block is undergoing renovations. Is there a way we could possibly do something now or in the near future? I strongly recommend that PROC dive in on the perspective of engaging dual chambers.

I heard members talk about committee of the whole and how significant it was for them. Although sometimes complaining that the government was sitting as a whole, we realize the importance of having great, engaging debate in the House.

My fourth point has to do with time allocation, which was implemented in 1969 to curtail debate as a less draconian alternative to closure. The debate on the motion to implement time allocation was acrimonious, and its use since has been seen rather disdainfully by the opposition and by the media.

Its use by the previous government over 100 times in the 41st Parliament was a clear signal that an alternative was needed. Time allocation disrupts the business of the House, committee work, and cabinet meetings.

In reviewing the international landscape, there are a number of legislatures that have implemented alternative ways to manage time for debate in the House. We have talked a lot about the British House of Commons. Since 1998, it has adopted the practice of using programming motions to allocate time for government bills. Programming was introduced on an experimental basis in 1998 and was made permanent in 2004.

For those watching us at home and for hon. members here in the House, this is how it works. Following discussion with House leaders, the government gives notice of a motion following second reading of a bill to allocate a specific number of days or weeks for the committee stage, and the time needed for debate at report stage and third reading. Following the adoption of such a motion, the bill is disposed of according to the terms of the motion.

In 2013, the British Procedure Committee reported on its review of programming and concluded that programming is beneficial to the scrutiny of legislation. Moreover, the official opposition commented favourably in the review on programming and concluded that it had resulted in an appropriate balance between ensuring the opposition had sufficient time to scrutinize legislation and the government to manage its legislative agenda.

The government has an agenda. It is there to govern. Certainly we all want democracy, but the government will have to carry out its agenda. The opposition parties also have their role, which is not to criticize but sometimes bring up aspects on which they disagree with the government.

Other observers of parliamentary institutions have accepted—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Orléans, but her time has expired. However, she will have a good five minutes to express herself during questions and comments.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, while I was reflecting and getting ready to speak, although I do not think I will have time today, I was looking at some speeches from last time around. In 2016, the member for Chilliwack—Hope said, “Parliament is not here to serve us; we are here to serve Parliament and the Canadians who sent us here.” I am reminded of that as we are having this conversation.

As several members are talking about moving away from Fridays, I would argue that Canadians expect their Parliament to sit. I think they want us to have as many opportunities as we can to engage in democracy on their behalf. I wonder if the hon. member views Parliament as an essential service.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Madam Speaker, I see police officers as serving their community. I see many first responders as serving their communities. I represent the community that elected me to represent it here. Overall, my voice here is as equally important to reflect what I hear in my community and having the opportunity to debate on government or private members' bills from the opposition or my caucus on Liberal side.

With regard to essential services, throughout the summer last year during the pandemic, we saw the need to continue to find ways to help Canadians. I certainly appreciated all the help, collectively, to support Canadians.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening with great interest to the debate and I am one of the heretics on most of the ideas being suggested. In particular, the hon. member raised the idea of eliminating Fridays and lengthening the sitting days in the rest of the week. As a member from Vancouver Island, I do not think eliminating Fridays does anything productive for those who represent ridings farther away.

I wonder if the member considered all the other things that take place on Parliament Hill, such as meeting with delegations and constituents who come to Ottawa. If we eliminate Fridays and lengthen the other days, it would make MPs far less accessible.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Madam Speaker, for me, not sitting on Fridays as a tradition being set does not mean we cannot find other ways. We could possibly have a dual chamber where we could have more engaging debate. I am in Orleans, so I guess my sensitivity is for many members who are far away and need to travel. Representing are members is also being part of our communities.