Debates of June 2nd, 2022

Standing Orders and Procedure of the House and Its Committees

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I like the member's idea on adjournment proceedings, but I think it should be moved to earlier in the day. It should actually follow question period and it should be shorter. Perhaps the system could be either a random draw done by the Speaker right away through the clerks, or a first-come, first-served system. Whatever it is, could the member comment on that part?

It would be like a continuation of question period, perhaps, just in a longer format. That way, members do not have to stay until the very end of the night and parliamentary secretaries would not have to spend the entire day hoping for the member to show up.

The second part is about making this place a family-friendly environment. I wonder if the member could comment on pairing, because I know everybody seems to sometimes like the voting app, until it does not work in someone's case because he has grown out facial hair and the app does not recognize him, and then he has to call in just to make sure his vote is counted.

That is more of a problem for the men in this place. There is a specific one I am thinking of who continuously has problems with the voting app because he has let his beard grow out, but we already have a tool that has existed for hundreds of years and that was used extensively during World War II to ensure members would be able to vote. Since 1992, it has been connected to the whips. There is a binder on the desk for the table officers where a member can pair their vote and it is signed off on by the whip.

Could the member perhaps speak to that use of pairing, instead of continuing with the voting app?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, on the first part, I will share a rare moment of sympathy for parliamentary secretaries who have to stay, because we know that, especially at this time of year in June, otherwise known as “silly season”, sometimes the House is sitting until midnight, so parliamentary secretaries have to be there and ready, possibly, to stay until 12:30.

On his question, I like his ideas about adjournment proceedings. If we could find a way to schedule it after QP, that would be great. We are all here during the middle of the day.

On the voting question, I am not sure if I am going to land on one side or the other, but as long as we agree to the premise that we are going to try to make this a more family-friendly and inclusive environment, I am open to a more in-depth discussion at the procedure and House affairs committee on what that would look like.

I think we should approach that debate with an understanding that we need to find a way to get more people to participate, because right now I think they look at what the House of Commons schedule is like, and they just do not see how they could manage that with their family responsibilities. That is something I think we, hopefully, can all agree needs to change in this country.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

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 Edmonton Strathcona, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship; the hon. member for Kitchener Centre, Seniors; the hon. member for North Okanagan—Shuswap, Taxation.

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

Madam Speaker, given what we have seen today, we may need a new standing order addition to Standing Order 51 to say that a minimum amount of debate is needed so we all have a chance to contribute to a discussion on standing orders when another more important issue intervenes, as some party takes the time of the House on something else. That is a new thought because we really only have this one chance in every parliamentary session to talk about our Standing Orders, and they are so important. I am limited to 10 minutes, but I could easily talk on this matter for some considerably longer time.

I want to start with some ideas that came to us on the parliamentary Special Committee on Electoral Reform. We had some of the country's best and most thoughtful political scientists speak to us, and I am going to take some presentations that are not on the matter of our voting system, although clearly parliamentary democracy would be improved if we had a more co-operative consensus-based approach, such as occurred in New Zealand when it got rid of first past the post and moved to mixed member proportional. I know from colleagues who are members of Parliament in New Zealand that consensus and co-operation became much more the rule of the day, with much less hyperpartisanship, and Parliament works better.

I want to point to some recommendations that came from professor Hugo Cyr with the Université du Québec à Montréal and professor emeritus Peter Russell from the University of Toronto. One was from Professor Cyr. It may strike people as an unnecessary change to our standing orders, but it is important. We are a parliamentary democracy in the Westminster tradition, which means we do not elect a prime minister. A lot of people get confused on this point, including some people running to lead another party.

It is important to think about Professor Cyr's recommendation, which is that after an election, between electing the Speaker and the Speech from the Throne, this Parliament would elect the prime minister, because all of us elected to this place are, in theory, equal. The prime minister is first among equals. It is a foregone conclusion who becomes prime minister once the seat count of the parties is known, but that does not mean it is not worthwhile to educate all of us on this point every now and then by electing a prime minister from among our own number.

The second point that Professor Cyr made, which is more substantive, is that there should be no prorogation by any prime minister, and the way that Professor Cyr put it was, “To amend the Standing Orders so that asking for Parliament to be prorogued or dissolved would not be possible without first obtaining the approval of the House of Commons. If a prime minister were to do so, that would result automatically in a loss of confidence and the Governor General would not be bound by the prime minister's advice requesting an early dissolution or prorogation without first obtaining the approval of the House of Commons.”

There was another proposal that I think is very important. This is one of the only parliaments in the world where there is no time limit for when we must convene following an election. Professor Peter Russell suggested, as well as Professor Cyr, that right now, in theory, a prime minister, after an election, could wait a year or two and not convene parliament. There is no rule. Almost every other democracy in the world puts in a time limit, whether it is eight weeks or whatever. That is a change to the Standing Orders that would be welcome.

There is also a suggestion that is quite significant, and I know that the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona is an advocate for this one as well. It is that we go forward with constructive non-confidence votes. This is described by Professor Russell in his testimony. Some parliaments, such as in Germany, Spain and Sweden, permit only a constructive non-confidence vote. He goes on to say:

A constructive non-confidence vote is one that names an alternative prime minister. When a constructive non-confidence vote passes, it both defeats the incumbent government and indicates how a new, viable minority government can be formed without calling an election. This practice underlines the principle that in a parliamentary democracy the people elect a parliament...not a government.

These are very significant changes suggested by the best and brightest in our country, who happen to have shared their time with the Special Committee on Electoral Reform.

I would like to suggest another thing that would really make a big difference, and that would be if we enforce the rules we had. The Standing—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I just need to interrupt the hon. member.

The hon. member for Manicouagan.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if we have quorum.

And the count having been taken:

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Yes, we have quorum.

The hon. member may proceed.

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

Madam Speaker, the suggestion I would have is that we enforce our own rules. That would include that, during question period, only the Speaker decides who seeks the floor.

I have a quote from our former Speaker in a ruling. The hon. member went from being Speaker to being leader of the Conservative Party. In response to a request from the late Mark Warawa that his rights had been violated, the Speaker ruled, “The right to seek the floor at any time is the right of each individual member of Parliament and is not dependent on any other member of Parliament.” He further said, “If members want to be recognized, they will have to actively demonstrate that they wish to participate. They have to rise in their places and seek the floor.”

We are the only country in all Westminster parliamentary democracy countries, the only country in the Commonwealth, where a Speaker has surrendered the fundamental right and duty of a Speaker to recognize the member who will then have the floor.

It was an accident of history. It was because Jeanne Sauvé, when she was Speaker, said she could not see members in the far corners. She asked for the party whips to do her a personal favour and provide a list. This has now become custom and tradition, but it is still not part of our rules. While it is not part of our rules, we should take some time to discuss it in the review of the Standing Orders at PROC and ask what they do in the U.K.

I asked and I found out. In the U.K., any member who is going to ask a question the next day provides a letter to the Speaker in advance showing the question they want to ask. The Speaker then identifies that member so they are not all at the same time looking for the floor when the Prime Minister is answering questions.

It works well. It would make a fundamental improvement in this place in terms of decorum and the functioning of the place. Someone, as a rising politician, wants to curry favour with someone else who controls their life. If the Speaker has no influence at all on whether someone gets their TV time during question period, it is easy to ignore what the Speaker says. The person who controls one's life is the party whip, because they put the names on a piece of paper.

The importance of the question we have to ask about the work we are doing, as parliamentarians, is that the power shifts entirely to backroom political parties and away from the Speaker, who controls this place in every other Parliament around the world except here. We need to show deference to the Speaker and deference to Speaker's authority, and pay attention to the Standing Orders, which say we are not to interrupt another member while speaking and we are not to speak disrespectfully of any other member in this place.

They are broken daily as rules. I lament this very often because I think it brings this Parliament, democracy and all of us into disrepute. The public looks at what we are doing. Earlier today, a whole school group left this place and I think it was because the proceedings were so unruly. It is not what any school teacher would allow in a classroom.

Before I run out of time, I also want to speak to another aspect of our rules, which is not to give written speeches. That is against our rules. The substantive difference would be when the House leaders are considering how much time we need for a bill. If a bill is unanimously supported in this place, we do not need to debate it forever.

Whether a bill is controversial or not, if every House leader had to think about who in the ranks of their team has the capacity to stand and speak on a particular matter of policy without a set, prepared speech to read, the number of potential speakers would drop quite a bit.

This place has allowed a trend where political parties control far too much of what goes on here. If a party whip knows they do not have that many people who could stand and speak to a policy, they are going to pick the people who have studied it and who care about it. That is an important rule that we ignore on a routine basis.

What they do in the U.K., and which would be a change to our Standing Orders, is the Speaker recognizes someone to give a speech and they have potentially 40 minutes or more. They can pause and yield the floor to another member of their own party, and then it becomes interactive. It becomes quite interesting. The person who is holding the floor sits down and says they yield the floor to their hon. colleague. Then the person who is asking the question gets an interactive opportunity for discussion. The debates are much more interesting. I also commend that to be considered by PROC when it looks at our Standing Orders.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague and I often compare notes regarding the Standing Orders. One area that the member did not touch on, which we looked at when we sat on the electoral reform committee, is work-life balance. If I remember correctly, she had suggested that perhaps we would sit three weeks in a row, then maybe have three weeks back in our riding, and then three weeks in a row here. Could the member elaborate a bit on the calendar? She did not mention that in her speech and I would like to give her an opportunity to do so.

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

Madam Speaker, the work-life balance problem is almost insoluble because the country is so large, but I am also looking at the carbon content of our work in this place. I call it the Fort McMurray work schedule, by the way. It would be three weeks on, three weeks off, but when we are here, we would extend the number of days we are sitting. We would sit a full five-day week and half a day on Saturday, because we would make good use of the time. Then, when we are back in our ridings for three weeks, with very little adjustment, I think the local chamber of commerce, the local Rotary Club and the local service organizations would know not to plan an event when they know the member cannot come, and they would pick one of those stretches when the member is physically there.

It would reduce the amount of wear and tear on each of us. It is not perfect for everyone, but I do think it would be a good solution and reduce the monetary costs of our travel to the taxpayer and the amount of carbon.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have disagreed with the member quite a bit in the last couple of days, but in her speech now I think she was on to something and I will ask her to comment a bit further.

She talked about giving the member who has the floor the ability to yield the floor to a colleague. In the U.K., members can also yield the floor to a member of the opposition and in so doing obtain more time for their allotment. Would she care to comment on how that could lead to true debate in this House, not exchanges of canned speeches, but actual engagement between members, not just within a party but across parties? It is considered bad manners in the United Kingdom not to yield when a member rises.

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

Madam Speaker, that is exactly how it takes place. We should be more familiar. We do not want to be, in every respect, parroting what happens in the U.K. Particularly, it is important for us to have desks. We know that, with 650 members of Parliament in the Palace of Westminster, they cannot all fit in the room all at once.

However, in this instance, in debates, it is about yielding the floor to a colleague and entering into a discussion, to be able to have a more respectful and reflective exchange in a context that is built around the notion that every member in the place is not reading a speech and is well informed on the topic. These debates are very interesting and engaging and they advance the understanding of issues.

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

Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, it is important to have these discussions, and probably more frequently.

I know the member and I agree on something very clearly, and that is the idea that we need more proportional representation and that it would be good to be in this place knowing that every vote in this country matters and was reflected in the seats around the table and in the House.

A lot of members have come to me from my own riding who are supporters of proportional representation, but are also frustrated that every time there is an election and we get another minority government, we see this cynicism across the country that this is going to last 18 months or maybe two years at the maximum. A lot of my constituents have asked why there is not a rule that the government has to last for four years and members have to find a way to work together collaboratively to get things done. We should not be asked, as citizens of Canada, to continually have elections. When we put people here, they should work together.

I just wonder if the member could speak to that.

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

Madam Speaker, a mandatory rule that we sit for four years and find ways to work together is not really consistent with the principles of Westminster parliamentary democracy, but I do think a way around it is this notion of a constructive non-confidence vote. If there is a clear sense that the Prime Minister or the ruling party has lost the confidence and we are an assembly of parties in a minority situation, the constructive non-confidence vote, which Professor Russell spoke of and which I quoted as evidence, would be to say that we are now proposing a different person. The name of a new prime minister would be part of the constructive non-confidence motion and it would not drive us straight to an election.

I do think we—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We have to resume debate.

The hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today. I have quite a bit to say, so I am going to get right to it. I am going to talk about unanimous consent motions. I am going to talk about debates, committees, hybrid Parliament and vote pairing.

I am going to begin by addressing the increasing trend toward using unanimous consent motions to make declarations of national policy on behalf of the House. I know there is a lengthy history of members using UC motions to score political points or to shortcut the legislative process, but this is an abuse of power, one that actually originally led to the creation of Standing Order 31, which allows members to make one-minute statements on absolutely anything.

In recent years, all parties, but especially the smaller opposition parties, have been increasingly springing UC motions on the House of Commons after question period, proposing motions that sometimes impose serious ramifications on the government. They often end up passing, because no member wants to be the one who stands up and opposes a cleverly worded motion on an emotionally charged hot-button topic.

I know, Madam Speaker, that you have cautioned members about the abuse of UC motions, and I applaud you for trying to curb this abuse.

I would propose that when seeking consent to propose a UC motion that contains a position on any event or policy or a motion that would skip over legislative processes in advancing a bill, the mover of the motion must table a letter, signed by the House leader of each recognized party, to prove that each party was actually consulted and has agreed that unanimous consent should be sought.

Members would still be free to deny consent, but if the Standing Orders force the mover to table proof that the motion is truly the product of genuine consultation and agreement, we could stop the absurd, almost daily occurrence in the House of political grandstanding by UC motion at the end of question period.

There is a reason why bills are debated at each stage and why they have to be studied at committee before passage. There is a reason why opposition parties have supply days that they can use to propose almost anything. There is a reason why we have S.O. 31s. It is because these are the appropriate ways to pass bills, to declare the House's will and for members to make their views on bills known, not by a surprise UC motion after QP.

Next, I would like to talk about debates. We had a good exchange in the last speech about it, and I agree with what the previous speaker had to say about it, but I have something a little simpler to propose, and that is just amending Standing Order 43 to reverse the proportion of time for speeches and for questions and comments, so that instead of most speeches being 10 minutes long, followed by five minutes of questions and comments, we reverse that. A member speaks for five minutes, followed by 10 minutes of questions and comments.

This is an easy fix. It is a clean change. It will not impact the daily rubric or change the number of speaking times during the day, but it will allow for more members to participate in debate, as long as Liberals will stand up and not leave it to the member for Winnipeg North every time, and it would allow ideas to be tested more vigorously.

Most members can make their points in five minutes. In fact, members should be encouraged to make their main points in five minutes and if they cannot, or if their points demand more time, they will have the opportunity to make those points during the debate, in the back-and-forth this change would create. This change would give us real debate, not just canned speeches one after another.

As for committees, there are a lot of problems with the present committee structure, some that could be fixed by Standing Orders changes.

First, the priority of committees is to study legislation, to study spending estimates and, in some cases, to receive reports from officers of Parliament. These are the priorities of committees, but some committees seldom receive bills. Some have minimal or no estimates to study. Many do not have an officer of Parliament who reports to them, and yet they meet every week, twice a week usually, whether they need to or not. They produce reports that nobody reads and that the government ignores.

Ordinarily, this would not be a big problem, except that right now we are having to ration room allocation and translation resources, so this is a problem. It might be time for a standing committee cull.

Let me give an example. Does the House of Commons need a Standing Committee on Science? Science is important. The government needs advice on science and input on science, but does it need a standing committee? There are no estimates to be looked at. There are no officers of Parliament to report to it. Members do not need the extraordinary powers of a parliamentary committee to compel testimony or the production of documents at the science committee. I offer that merely as an example of the most recent addition to standing committee bloat, but this is how these things happen. This committee came about by way of a PMB, which is not the way to change a standing order. Standing Orders ought to be changed by consensus, not by a recorded division in the House of Commons.

In addition to that, committees often fail to study issues critically when they break down along partisan lines. This is a problem during majority governments, because the governing party controls every aspect of the committees' agenda. Committees work a little better during minority Parliaments, because members from at least two parties need to work together to pass a motion, but even so, committees often still descend into naked partisanship and politics.

The House should seriously consider the U.K. model, where committee chairs and membership are determined by secret ballot among the members, not by party whips, and where whips are absolutely forbidden from attempting to influence the affairs of a committee. We can imagine if members had to campaign among their colleagues based on their own wisdom and expertise, and if voting instructions from a whip to a committee member constituted a violation of privilege. We would have the historical independence of committees restored pretty quickly.

I am running out of time, but I want to address the current temporary hybrid Parliament, the voting app and vote pairing, if I can.

Many members know that I opposed a hybrid Parliament from the very beginning. From the outset of the pandemic, I really believed that limited in-person attendance could have been achieved through vote pairing. Surely, now we are at the point where video conference participation can be dispensed with. The problem is that ministers should not be permitted to insulate themselves from this place. This chamber is the citadel of democratic accountability, and ministers should not be given a tool that enables them to avoid this place or to reduce the importance of this place.

I have heard all the arguments in favour of maintaining a voting app or any other expedience in the name of flexibility. Travel schedules and family life balance are important issues. Those are the main arguments that are usually offered, but to those putting forward these arguments, I would say this. Will we collectively be better legislators if we are permitted to let the votes we cast on behalf of our constituents be done entirely at our own convenience, voting from restaurants, from bars or cocktail receptions in the area here, from airplanes, moving cars or cottages, from the middle of unrelated business meetings or while cooking dinner? Is that really what we want? Do we want voting in the House of Commons to be reduced to the world's least cool and least fun video game? I certainly do not.

Furthermore, should we make it easier for MPs to insulate themselves from other MPs, from members of the opposition or from their own colleagues? Should we really reduce the number of times when MPs are forced to be in proximity to each other, where they can actually interact in the most informal ways and maybe, just maybe, have a chance to build confidence, rapport and trust between members of opposing parties? That is what a permanent hybrid Parliament and voting by selfie will do. It will eliminate these limited opportunities where we actually meet face to face and engage with each other, including with our own colleagues within our own caucuses. For that reason, I continue to oppose the hybrid Parliament and the voting application.

What about this need for flexibility? We heard in debate earlier about the disincentive to run because of the impacts on family, but the answer is right before us in the existing Standing Orders. There is an ancient tradition of vote pairing, and there is even a provision for pairs to be made in writing and placed in a book on the table. A standing order could be changed or added so that no member's vote shall count once the member and a paired member have signed the book. That way nobody can break a pair. These members can be paired either through the coordination of party whips or without coordination. Either way, it can be done.

I am out of time. I look forward to questions from members.

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

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned something that piqued my interest, because I too am in agreement with respect to committee membership and chairs, and I like the idea of having a secret ballot for naming committee chairs.

One aspect of committee work that I found quite surprising when I first got here is that it is very adversarial given the way that committees are structured. We have an issue before us and want to study it, but we are sitting on opposing sides instead of having a workgroup that sits together so we can say, “Here is the issue. What do we think about it?” There is no interchange, really, between committee members. We sit on opposing sides, we have witnesses at the end of the table and we have little time to ask questions, but we are not actually speaking to each other and trying to figure out a solution to whatever issue we are debating or whatever study we are doing.

I would like to know if the member has any comment on how we can be more collaborative in committee when trying to find a solution we can all agree with.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is a great question with great observations.

I am not so fussed about the room layout and the adversarial nature of committee. It only becomes a problem when things become personal. If we meet in the same room rather than over video, we have the opportunity to get up from our opposite sides of the table and maybe go over to the coffee machine to have a quick, private word off the record to gain some understanding. We could walk together to the office afterward or maybe even go for a quick bite before question period. It is during these informal opportunities that members of Parliament can engage with each other in a non-adversarial way.

The adversarial system works when it is strictly about ideas and is not personal, and that is why I think it is so important for members to be forced by daily routine to interact with each other.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Calgary Rocky Ridge for his speech.

I believe that there are some things we agree on with respect to the hybrid Parliament. I found the points he raised to be very interesting.

I would like to ask him a question about constituents. We often hear about the advantages or disadvantages for elected members of voting from home, as though it were a video game. At the same time, we are accountable to our constituents.

In his opinion, what are the disadvantages of the hybrid Parliament? I know he mentioned a few of them. The disadvantages of the hybrid Parliament may be unintentional, but we could address them. How can we better serve constituents by being in this place rather than at home?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, we represent our constituents when we are in this place. Our action in this place is what we are accountable to our constituents for, so I think it is critical that we spend the time in this place to do our jobs representing them in Parliament.

Now, one needs to be in touch with constituents. That is why we have lengthy constituency breaks to interact with our constituents. However, we cannot represent our constituents when we are in our constituency. We represent our constituents when we are in Parliament. That is where the votes take place, that is where the debates on ideas take place and that is where we can advocate for and represent our constituents.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague made some interesting points. What I found interesting was the point about switching the 10-minute speech with the five-minute question period so that people had more time to ask questions, although I will note that he used his full 10 minutes to get his point across, which I find a bit ironic.

In terms of the expansion on questions, one of the things I found interesting as a new member in hybrid Parliament was the ability to ask questions during question period but in the way that we do it during committee of the whole, with a five-minute period of time. It allows for more debate.

In terms of the expansion for questions, would the member be in favour of changing how we operate during question period to more of a committee of the whole type of debate?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, yes, indeed I would. The committee of the whole is a much better format for getting real answers. However, I am sorry; I have to say it: Since 2019, there has even been a marked decline in the quality of that forum. I have participated in several committees of the whole and have watched the ministers. They have a whole group of officials in front of them and binders of information. Those officials would have spent hours and hours preparing, but when we ask questions, the ministers simply recite talking points as if it was question period. There is some responsibility on the government to ensure that they act responsibly and answer questions.

To the member's point about question period, yes, absolutely.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to speak to an idea that I think most would agree with, in general terms at least: We ought to modernize Parliament to enable all of us to better represent Canadians. What does that mean specifically? Well, many of us have proposed very specific examples, and I want to tackle this at a bit of a higher level because there are three general ideas we should be grappling with.

The first is about flexibility. I heard what my colleague from the Conservative Party said. By the way, we have worked together on committee, and I think we were a pretty independent committee, even in a majority government context. I heard a dismissal of flexibility.

I take the point, and am serious about it, that we should all be there, potentially, absent emergency circumstances. I was certainly in Parliament in person yesterday when we were voting on the bill for evidence-based drug policy. I thought it was really important to be there in person. I do not think it is important to miss my five-year-old's first baseball game at 6:30 p.m. in East York, this summer at least. I do not think it is important for a procedural vote. I think we can accommodate different votes in different ways, and have different flexibilities for different families in different contexts.

I do think the voting app continues to remain of utmost importance, particularly if people care about young families engaging in Parliament. By the way, I probably will not even consider running again, frankly, if we do not have greater flexibility in this place. I also think of colleagues with loved ones who, in their circumstances, need care as they are sick, or members themselves who are ill. I do not think vote pairing is the ready solution there. I think we need to accommodate members in order to ensure that we are representing our constituents in full and that there is flexibility there.

I do not want to be dismissive of the point, by the way, that we need to be there in person to build relationships. I value the time I spent in person between 2015 and 2019 in particular, when there was a full in-person Parliament. I have relationships across party lines too, and I have been able to build on those relationships even in a virtual environment. In building those relationships at first, certainly being in person meant a lot.

When we look at our 26-week sitting calendar, it may be that in certain weeks there is no flexibility, and then there is flexibility at other times. Maintaining some definite in-person component and allowing flexibility in other weeks may be the solution as far as that goes. Regardless, that has to be looked at seriously and the voting app should be there to stay.

The second broad point is about being able to look at these rules first for flexibility and second for empowering parliamentarians. I have heard some conversation today about the frustration with the arcane nature of Private Members' Business. It is frustrating. I have been lucky, actually. I have effectively won the lottery three times. I am a lucky man, much to the chagrin of the government I think. In winning the lottery, I have also seen others who are so far down the list they will never have their bills or motions debated and voted upon.

I want to quote a former Conservative colleague, Bruce Stanton. I think he was one of the most thoughtful individuals regarding the Standing Orders and our parliamentary work. He wrote, “On the whole, a parallel chamber for the House of Commons would strengthen the democratic process in Canada’s Parliament by giving MPs greater means to legislate and challenge the Executive Branch of government. As such, the idea deserves our careful consideration.”

This is not a new idea. It exists in Australia. It has existed for many years in Australia and also in the United Kingdom. This is from the chamber in the U.K.:

Since 1999 the House of Commons has held debates in a parallel debating chamber, known as “Westminster Hall”.

This chamber is used for debates on issues raised by backbench Members, for debates on select committee reports, for debates on subjects selected by the Backbench Business Committee and for debates on e-petitions.

Before I got into this business, a friend of mine from law school gave me Samara Canada's Tragedy in the Commons. It almost scared me away, frankly, because it is a lament. Every single exit interview is a lament to say, “I wish I had done more.”

We should be empowering parliamentarians via a parallel chamber or some other means. Every single measure we look at should be looked at through this lens of empowering parliamentarians. Adjournment debates could be held in these parallel chambers as well. We ought to be looking at these changes through the lens of empowering parliamentarians, and a parallel chamber is certainly one of the ways to do that.

If we do not want to think of a physical space, then perhaps we can think of a virtual space for that parallel chamber. It happens to already exist.

Before I get to the third point, I want to reference the idea of the independence of committees. This is one place where rules can matter. I want to emphasize my agreement with the idea of electing committee members and chairs via secret ballot as a chamber, but I emphasize to colleagues that it is also about the way we conduct ourselves. This is about culture too. There are ways of ensuring committees are more independent if we act as we ought to act in this place and we embrace a different culture, so let us change the rules but let us not forget our own place in changing the culture.

The third point is related to the second one. As we look at changing the rules, we ought to look at flexibility, number one; two, empowering parliamentarians; and three, at decentralizing operations and reducing party control. Others have already spoken to this point about the role of the Speaker and have said that the power of the Speaker needs to be returned.

I do not ask questions particularly in question period, because it is wrought and it is a theatric exercise, to put it politely. It does not need to be that way and it ought not to be that way.

I think in two different ways about empowering the Speaker. One is that it would encourage those on the government side to ask more pointed questions. Second, it would ensure decorum on the opposition side. That is critical not only in relation to questions but also for S. O. 31s.

Finally, I am not going to use my full 10 minutes, but I want to make this point, a point related to what my Conservative colleague just put forward. We should not be restricted to five minutes as far as our speeches go, but I do think we should be able to use five minutes or two minutes or eight minutes to give our remarks and that the remainder of that 15 minutes should be for questions. It should be our decision how much time we use to speak, and the remainder of the time should be used for questions and answers. Sometimes I just want to speak for one minute and would love to have 14 minutes of questions.

With that, I look forward to questions.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, the evening is getting short, so I want to offer the member an opportunity to comment further on pairing. Like the member who spoke before, the member for Calgary Rocky Ridge, I also have not liked the fact that a hybrid Parliament has allowed for a reduction in accountability and transparency in this place. I have seen things get worse. I was elected in the same year, in 2015.

I would like to hear from this member how we could perhaps use pairing more to achieve the flexibility so that members in this House could go to family commitments or take care of dependents who are seriously ill while also ensuring that we are able to perform the duties that our constituents sent us here to do.

Pairing has been around for hundreds of years. In fact, it was during World War II that hundreds of members sometimes would be paired for particular votes because they had duties outside of this House.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Madam Speaker, pairing has a long history, but it does not have a long history of being used in a very flexible way.

When there is a procedural vote and it is more of a last-minute vote, I wish the best of luck to all of us to sort out a pairing mechanism to accommodate the members who need to be accommodated. It is fiction that pairing gets us to a place of flexibility that we need to get to.