Debates of Oct. 23rd, 2023

The House resumed from May 12 consideration of the motion.

Amendments to the Standing Orders

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and address the House.

Whenever we talk about the Standing Orders and procedures, I have a keen interest in the issue. I know there are some members, I would suggest probably more than most, who follow the procedures of the House and take a very keen interest when it comes time to change the rules.

Every year after an election, we have set in our rules the opportunity to review our Standing Orders. As I have in the past, I know the member for Elmwood—Transcona, who is proposing the motion we have before us, has had the opportunity to address the Standing Orders.

The Standing Orders are of great importance to all of us. They are one of the things that add to the fundamental principles of our democratic process in the debates and proceedings that take place right here inside this beautiful chamber. In representing our constituents back home from all regions of the country, we are able to do a lot of wonderful things through this chamber. Those wonders are often achieved through the rules in our proceedings, the Standing Orders.

What the member is proposing is a substantial change to our Standing Orders. Let there be no doubt about that. I can appreciate that the member is trying to get some certainty or is trying, from his perspective, to simplify the whole issue of confidence and what determines a confidence vote.

Over the years, I have had the opportunity, both in opposition and now in government, and hopefully in government for a few more years, to understand and appreciate the importance of a confidence vote. When the Prime Minister became leader of the party, we talked a lot about how members vote. It is one of the reasons why, when we have private members' bills, we will often see members of the Liberal caucus voting in different ways. It is because the vote is not made to be compulsory, as if we have to vote as a caucus, generally speaking, on private members' bills.

There are some circumstances where the votes are whipped such that it is, in fact, compulsory for members to vote as a team, if I can put it that way. That has been long-held parliamentary tradition, whether it is here in Ottawa or in provincial jurisdictions. There are some areas where there is very little wiggle room and other areas where, as I pointed out with the private members' bills, there is a lot more grace given to members in what they feel personally about a particular issue.

Let me give members the ultimate example regarding a confidence vote. We all know the Government of Canada has to present a budget. That budget will have a series of days for debate, and after that debate comes to a conclusion, it will then come to a vote.

I am not aware of any political party here in Ottawa, whether it is that of the current Prime Minister or the previous prime minister, Stephen Harper, or aware of any premier in my years of experience at the Manitoba legislature, whether from NDP governments or Progressive Conservative governments, allowing any latitude to be given whatsoever on a budget vote. I realize the consequence and significance of mandatory voting with one's team. In fact, when I was first elected back in 1988, there was an election because of a confidence vote. There was a razor-thin majority at the time, and one government member voted against the government, which precipitated an election call. That enabled me to get elected back in 1988.

That was my very first experience with regard to the importance of confidence votes. A confidence vote, if it goes negative, will bring down the government. In 1986 the government had a majority, and in that situation back in 1988, because of one individual, that majority was lost.

Today, in a minority situation, parties have to come together. There is an agreement of sorts between the governing Liberals and the NDP. I believe there is a fairly decent understanding between the two entities in recognizing that Canadians do not want an election now. They want to see more co-operation take place on the floor of the House of Commons on different initiatives.

We are seeing that. We are seeing co-operation in areas such as the dental plan. We are seeing co-operation in many of the different discussions between departments on policies, legislation and so forth. I see that as a positive thing. That is what Canadians want. At the end of the day, when we want to change a rule, especially a rule of this nature, I recommend to my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona, who is very genuine and sincere in what he is proposing, that there needs to be more discussion before it even comes to the floor because of the impact it would have on other aspects of the Standing Orders.

I can see this in legislation we passed as a government. I am thinking of our child care legislation. Even though many would argue it was not a confidence vote, there was no doubt that the government, with absolute certainty, wanted to see that legislation pass. We made it very clear that the expectation of the government was to see that legislation pass. However, even if the legislation had not passed, it would not necessarily have triggered an election, because of the traditions of the House.

When does an election get triggered? We have a budget introduced every year, we have throne speeches and we have budget implementation legislation. Those are all well-established, traditional votes that have taken place in parliaments here in Canada, federally and provincially, whereby if the vote is lost, it causes the Governor General or the Lieutenant Governor to take action. In a minority situation, some might argue that the Lieutenant Governor or the Governor General has the option to look to the official opposition or the next party with the largest number of seats to see if, in fact, parties can be put together to form a government. A lot depends on where we are in the mandate.

There are a lot of issues out there that are unknown. Today, there is a lot of stability, as we know what those confidence votes are. We know those confidence votes take place every year at different parts of the year. I think that provides a high sense of accountability.

This is a very lengthy motion. I appreciate the effort the member put into it, but I have not been convinced that it is strong enough to change the status quo, prorogation and so forth. I believe the system has worked well for us in the past. It gets parties to come together to negotiate, to talk and to work on agreements. We have had agreements with all different political parties, depending on the type of legislation we are debating. It is not just with one opposition party.

The current system allows for the type of stability Canadians want to see and expect of the government. It obligates us to have a higher sense of co-operation. I can tell members that it can be frustrating. I have stood up on many occasions to talk about the frustrations of being in a minority situation. However, I accept it in the hope that common sense will prevail on the floor of the House with respect to trying to get legislative and budgetary measures through so that all Canadians can be better served.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege and honour to rise in the House to speak to Motion No. 79, as introduced by the member for Elmwood—Transcona in an effort to amend the Standing Orders of this place. It certainly is an intriguing motion. I will be quite honest: I enjoyed reading it and have enjoyed following the debate that has thus far taken place in this House.

While I give credit to the member for introducing the motion and precipitating this debate, I find myself in a position to speak against it. That is not to say that it is not a worthwhile conversation, because it is. Rather, it is the fact that this is not the way the Standing Orders of this House ought to be amended. As I have said in this place and elsewhere, such as at the procedure and House affairs committee, changes to the Standing Orders should only be done after a broad consensus has been found among the recognized political parties. In this case, that consensus has not been found.

I would point to my own opposition to this during the March to May 2017 standing order standoff at the procedure and House affairs committee. At the time, my friend from Waterloo was the government House leader and tried to unilaterally force massive changes to the Standing Orders of this House, to the opposition of Conservative, Bloc and NDP members of Parliament. In fact, we had a full consensus among the opposition parties: We were in opposition to that.

Members will know that this is not the first time actions have been precipitated unilaterally to amend our Standing Orders. Members of the Liberal backbench tried to do so with Motion No. 231 in a previous parliament when they were upset and frustrated by years of Liberal leadership preventing them from speaking their minds. We also all know that the current government unilaterally, with the support of its coalition partners in the NDP, made changes to the Standing Orders this past June, not only without consensus but with the direct opposition of both the Conservative and Bloc members.

This motion deals with a number of issues. Among them is prorogation. I need not remind this House, but I will anyway, that the 2015 Liberal platform stated, “we will not use prorogation to avoid difficult political circumstances.” What happened? In 2020, the WE Charity scandal happened, and as the former finance minister was forced to resign, the Prime Minister himself was implicated in that scandal and prorogued Parliament to avoid responsibility for his actions, which was another promise broken.

In the very short time that I have, less than 10 minutes, I certainly cannot go through the entire history of the confidence convention, though I know colleagues would be interested in hearing that, but there is a certain amount of nuance and ambiguity that surrounds it, and I do not believe this motion will effectively clarify that much-needed nuance.

At its essence, the confidence convention requires that the prime minister of the day hold the confidence of the House of Commons, meaning a majority of members in this place. It has of course been contentious over time, having a number of challenges. I cannot go into the history over the last 45 parliaments, but one important precedent that must be noted is that of the King-Byng affair. We must also look at provincial examples and the 1968 vote in this House, where there was a subsequent vote noting that a previous vote was not in fact a confidence motion.

I am a strong believer in what has traditionally been seen as the three categories that make up a confidence motion. The first category is that the budget or financial bills of a budgetary nature are clear expressions of the confidence or lack of confidence of the House of Commons. The second category is what would be expressed through an opposition day motion or what we also know as a supply day motion. The third category is the Speech from the Throne at the beginning of each session of Parliament, which clearly lays out the government's agenda and proposals for that session.

As the House will know, one of the great experts in this country on parliamentary procedure and the confidence convention is the late Hon. Eugene Forsey, who was a Liberal senator and a CCF activist prior to his appointment to the other place. In his report, which he co-authored with G.C. Eglington, entitled “The Question of Confidence in Responsible Government”, he wrote:

Once in the Standing Orders a convention would suffer from the worst of all defects. It would be inflexible and cast in one form of words. But it would not be enforceable by the Courts. We also beg to doubt whether it would be constitutionally lawful under Part V of the Constitution Act, 1982 to state many of the conventions in the Standing Orders of one House of the Parliament.

I encourage all members to reflect on these words from the late Senator Forsey as we debate this motion.

The confidence convention is indeed constitutional. I would draw the attention of the House to the Constitution Act, 1867 with these short 12 words, “with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom.” With those 12 words, much of the structure of our Constitution, of our Parliament is developed.

The Standing Orders, however, are a matter of procedure, not necessarily constitutionality. In this place, we rely on a number of authorities to guide the procedure of the House. I would draw the House's attention to Bosc and Gagnon, page 49, where it is written:

The Speaker does not decide what constitutes a matter of confidence. Successive Speakers have stated that it is not for the Chair to interfere to prevent debate, or a vote, on a question relating to the issue of confidence, unless the motion being put forward is clearly out of order on procedural grounds.

We would be asking, through this motion, for the Speaker to enforce a standing order relating to confidence, while at the same time not deciding what would constitute a question of confidence.

Similarly, we all have our favourite authorities in this place. My personal favourite is Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, sixth edition, and I would draw the House's attention to paragraph 168, where it is written:

The determination of the issue of confidence in the government is not a question of procedure or order, and does not involve the interpretive responsibilities of the Speaker. Following the recommendations of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure as well as those of the Special Committee on the Reform of the Bouse of Commons..., the House removed references in the Standing Orders which described votable motions on allotted days as questions of confidence. The committees concluded that matters of confidence should at ail times be clearly subject to political determination. Motions of no-confidence should not be prescribed in the rules.

I would draw the House's attention to that very specific report of the McGrath committee. It says, “We repeat that a question of confidence should be expressed in precise terms in the motion, and not be prescribed as such by the Standing Orders.”

I agree with the work of the McGrath committee, and I agree with the determination that this is inherently a political decision, a political matter and not one that ought to be left to the determination of the inflexible Standing Orders.

I would note as well, when we talk about prorogation, that the rules that already exist related to prorogation are not being followed anyway. As colleagues will know, following the last prorogation, the procedure and House affairs committee undertook a study of that prorogation. At every single turn, the Liberal government prevented us from having a meaningful report on that matter. In fact, the Liberal government filibustered that committee for 100 days to prevent us hearing from the Prime Minister, who was the one and only person who knew in his own mind why prorogation happened and who was unwilling to do so.

I respect the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona in bringing forward this motion, because it is indeed a debate that must happen. I would enjoy a conversation with the member in another venue, perhaps over a hot coffee or a cold beverage, to discuss this matter further.

However, I would repeat the words of the late Senator Forsey, “Questions of confidence, and their definition, are best kept out of the Standing Orders al together.”

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this morning, we are debating the infamous Motion No. 79, which was moved by the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona. Let us just say that I was immediately wary when the NDP moved this motion that seeks to make procedural changes. It is important to remember that, not so long ago, the NDP supported the government in the House when the government wanted to make the hybrid Parliament permanent. The NDP agreed that members should be able to stay home all year round without ever coming to Parliament. The NDP even agreed that ministers should be able to participate in parliamentary work virtually without having to show up in the House, without having to answer questions from journalists or members of the House. That is odd.

The NPD has had an agreement with the government for months. From what we have been told, under this agreement, the NDP has promised to support the government on confidence votes so that it can stay in office until the end of its mandate. In return, the NDP can expect the government to implement certain measures and programs of the NDP's choosing. As a result, the NDP now supports the government every time it curtails debate in the House by imposing gag order after gag order on bills that, under normal circumstances, would be studied before taking effect.

As I said, I was very hesitant when I saw NDP Motion No. 79, which deals with procedure. I was wondering what the NDP had come up with this time. I must admit I was pleasantly surprised. I am guessing that the NDP members are tired of being the Liberals' lackeys and cannot take it anymore. They are trying to grow a backbone by putting forward a motion that might switch up the dynamic somewhat.

Before this well-known agreement was forged between the government and the NDP, almost every vote had us questioning whether it would be a vote of confidence. It became the question of the day. Members would wake up in the morning having to vote on a government motion, yet we did not even know whether it was a vote of confidence. Reporters would ask that question of Liberal MPs right outside the House, and every time they would say they did not know. We did not know whether voting for or against the motion would bring down the current government. That is crazy. It goes to show how the current government abused its power. That is not as common now, because the NDP cannot be bothered and always votes with the government.

I was quite surprised to see the NDP moving something that would change procedure and lead to a little less abuse on the part of the government. One of the objectives of motion Motion No. 79 is to keep the government from unilaterally proroguing Parliament without consequence, something that has happened all too often recently. Some prorogations felt like the government was sending MPs home because it no longer wanted them in Parliament.

No examples come to mind, but there could be very good reasons for proroguing Parliament. However, it is not something to be done on a whim. No one can just wake up one morning and shut down Parliament because they do not wish to hear from the opposition. That is not how it works. Voters elect MPs precisely to send them to Parliament. Generally speaking, the party with the most seats forms government, and MPs in the other parties ensure that the government does not do too bad a job by keeping an eye on it and asking questions. That is why people vote.

To prorogue Parliament this way virtually amounts to the government saying that what people voted for does not count. That pretty much sums it up. If the government does not want to be held accountable, it can simply shut down Parliament. We have seen this happen over and over again in our history. While the government might very well prorogue Parliament for legitimate reasons, the examples that come to my mind suggest that it usually happens for the wrong reasons.

Let me start with an example from 1873. Canada was founded in 1867, so it happened not long after that, when the infamous Pacific scandal broke. Who was at the centre of this scandal? It was none other than Sir John A. Macdonald, founder of Canada's Confederation, the same person described by the Minister of Foreign Affairs as someone whose life history was so wonderful it deserved exploring.

She was so proud of his legacy. I never heard her mention Mr. Macdonald after that. I urge her to learn a little more about his legacy, because the Pacific scandal is one aspect of it that was pretty nasty. He even had to resign over the matter when Parliament resumed sitting.

In 2002, the House was also prorogued, this time under a Liberal government. Why was the House prorogued? There was a parliamentary committee that wanted to look into what happened with the sponsorship scandal. That was a good reason to shut down Parliament. The Liberals wanted to make sure that no one would find out what happened with the sponsorship scandal. That was what the Liberals wanted, but it might not have been what ordinary citizens, opposition members and the justice system wanted.

In 2003, again under the Liberals, there was another prorogation, once again because of the sponsorship scandal. This time, the government wanted to prevent the Auditor General from tabling her report in the House. The Liberals did not want to know what the Auditor General had to say about the sponsorship scandal. I have mentioned three prorogations so far.

Then we get to 2008, a bit closer to where we are now. Why did the House prorogue? A coalition of opposition members formed to bring down the government because they had lost confidence in the government. The Bloc Québécois made a commitment to support that coalition without necessarily being part of it. The government decided to prorogue the House to prevent its own defeat.

In 2010, there was another prorogation under a Conservative prime minister. Why was Parliament prorogued? Officially, this was done to allow people to enjoy the winter Olympics. If that is true, then perhaps Parliament could also shut down for a hockey game. If we want people to watch the playoffs, then we cannot keep Parliament open. It makes no sense. It is as silly as that. It was decided that Parliament would shut down for the Olympics. I am not making this up. It is ridiculous.

The real reason is that, at the time, people were wondering what happened in Afghanistan. They wanted to know whether prisoners had been mistreated. We were seeing pictures of what had happened in Guantanamo in the United States, and people were concerned. They wanted to know whether things were being done the same way in Canada and whether things had been allowed to happen like that. Unfortunately, rather than answer those questions and let things run their course, the government decided to shut down Parliament.

The last time Parliament was prorogued, the most recent time, was in 2020. This happened under the same government we have now, the Liberals. They shut Parliament down because of the pandemic. What I find odd is that they also called an election because of the pandemic. They were saying that the government could not operate in 2020 because we were in the midst of a pandemic but that an election could be called in 2021. That is a bit odd. We all know that the real reason was the WE Charity scandal.

People wanted to know why the Prime Minister's friends and family had benefited from public funds. It was a valid question. How is it that the government wanted to give $1 billion to a foundation that was very closely associated with the Trudeau government? In the end, it turned out that the Prime Minister's family and friends were very closely associated with that foundation.

Recent history shows that, generally speaking, prorogation may not be done for the public's benefit, so it would be useful to have a better framework for prorogation, as the member opposite is proposing.

It is a shame I only have a minute left, because I would have liked to talk more about confidence votes. To be honest, it is ridiculous getting up in the morning and not knowing whether we will have a confidence vote that day.

It is sad that the concept is not defined. We do not know what a confidence vote is. It is simply a tradition. It is a tradition to have a confidence vote at budget time and after the Speech from the Throne. It would be good to define the concept a little better so it cannot be abused like the Liberals have abused it. Then perhaps the NDP would not have to carry water for the Liberals as much and could finally show some backbone.

If it helps the NDP show some backbone, of course we will vote in favour of the motion. If it makes future governments be less likely to abuse procedure and provides more transparency for the public, we are going to vote in favour of it for sure.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the motion from my hon. colleague, the member for Elmwood—Transcona and the NDP critic for democratic reform.

The most crucial piece of this motion is directly related to Canada's democracy, which Canadians truly value and is marked across the world for how important and stable it has been. However, the power of prorogation and the power to deem motions a matter of confidence, which is wholly, willfully and solely used by a prime minister, is a direct concern for the New Democratic Party. We have heard very clearly from both the Liberals and the Conservatives that they would rather keep the status quo and continue a tradition that we believe is truly anti-democratic.

On prorogation, for example, back in 2008, Harper used the power of prorogation to avoid a confidence vote. In 2009, Harper again abused the power of prorogation to end parliamentary debate on the government's complicity in the torture of Afghan detainees and avoid complying with the parliamentary motion to hand over all documents on the relevant charges. These are serious situations, and no single individual should be allowed to use this power to avoid the kind of democratic justice that the House can provide. Fast-forward to today's government and, in 2020, we saw the Prime Minister use prorogation to end parliamentary investigations into the WE Charity scandal after it resulted in the resignation of his own finance minister. We cannot continue to abuse the powers of this chamber for reasons of political expediency; it is not in the interest of Canadians.

These standing orders are important for Canadians, but they may not know, in many cases, that these powers are vested in such small circles, like the Prime Minister's Office. What we have seen, and continue to see, is this continued tradition by both Liberals and Conservatives to preserve these exclusive powers of a prime minister and continue to centralize authority and power away from Parliament. It is the position of the NDP that it should be this place, the democratically elected members of Canada in this chamber, who should decide some of these things rather than be decided, for political expediency, by whoever sits in the Prime Minister's Office. However, it is clear, with the Liberals' use of prorogation for political expediency, that it has been a long tradition in Canada, as evidenced by Harper's use of it as well.

We have the Conservatives supporting the Prime Minister right now with his perseverance in the protection of his personal power. Why would Conservatives say, every single day in the House, that the Prime Minister is an evil guy and make personal attacks, but then not actually address the systems that uphold these devastating authorities and powers that weigh over Parliament and Canadians?

There is a saying that New Democrats in the House are often reminded of, which is “Liberal, Tory, same old story”. I am sure both of these parties have heard this many times before, and it does not take a New Democrat to remind them why we say it. We say it continuously, because it happens right in front of us.

We are seeing the protection of the government and the Prime Minister to hold power that we believe is undemocratic. We are seeing unwavering support from the Conservatives who wish to preserve that power, but why? Well, it is probably because they believe that maybe one day they will be in office again and can then lord that power over Canadians. They could prorogue Parliament again, like Harper did, and they could avoid the accountability and justice that Canadians deserve.

The crux of this issue is ensuring that our democratic institutions actually function for the good of Canada. The exclusive use of prorogation and the exclusive use of declaring motions a matter of confidence is beside that point. Members of Parliament are duly elected by our constituents and citizens. We should not be afraid of those facts.

If anything, we should empower our democracy, our members of Parliament and our House to continue our parliamentary work, even if it is inconvenient to the government; even if there is a scandal. If anything, it should be said even louder that these powers should not exist because of the direct connection between the scandal and the use of prorogation declaring motions of confidence.

New Democrats stand in favour of our democratic institutions and seek to empower them for everyday people. The Liberals and Conservatives continue the status quo argument that has favoured them for generations. It is time to put an end to this. It is time to ensure that all members vote in favour of this motion.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as this is the first time I rise in the chamber with you at the helm, I want to say congratulations for all the work you have done in Parliament as a parliamentary secretary and also for your tenure as Speaker in this chamber.

I am glad to speak on this motion, Motion No. 79, from the member for Elmwood—Transcona. I have affectionately referred to this bill as “ending Ottawa's entitlement to my entitlements” motion, because that is really what this is about. This is about the traditional gatekeepers in this facility who have kept the doors closed against many Canadians, at the same time protecting their self-interests. I will get into that a little bit later.

When prorogation was used by the Prime Minister, it could have been characterized as the “running to your mommy or daddy to protect you from the people around you” bill. They go running to the monarchy to beg for forgiveness. It was the Queen before and now it is the King. It is because “I can't handle it anymore. Please save me”. It is ridiculous. In a modern democracy we should not have to turn to our mommies and daddies as adults in this place. That is really what it is about. That is what has taken place with prorogation. It has been used to protect someone's own interests.

I think one of the biggest things that we want to see with this motion is greater accountability to the public so they understand the rules. At the end of the day, prorogation is about, “Well, I just simply don't have to do it anymore so the rules don't apply to me. I'll see you later.” I am sure a lot of Canadians can relate to that. They wish they could prorogue their laundry, their dishes or their awkward conversations with people who they do not want to be around, but they cannot. They have to deal with them.

It is sad because that is really what we are dealing with. I have seen this happen in the worst of circumstances with then prime minister Harper who did not want to deal with the House of Commons at that time and I have seen it with the current Prime Minister when he did not want to deal with the WE scandal, for example. It is a very serious issue, as it is a way of keeping privileges and entitlements. I was thinking about gatekeeping this morning and about protecting entitlements. There is the protection of the entitlements one gets as a prime minister with all the perks. For my Conservative friends, there are the perks of keeping Stornoway and all the privileges there. By the way, Stornoway does have a gate, because it protects the gardener, the butler, the person who is making the meals, and the $70,000-a-year budget. It has a history of being part of the entitlements that we need to get rid of.

I think that it is really important that people know that prorogation is unique and special at the workplace. People do not get to call a time out in a democracy, which is really what this is: I cannot get my act together. I cannot get my caucus together. I cannot do whatever and I get to call a time out. The problem with that is there are serious issues. One prorogation was over the documents of women and men and issues over Afghanistan. We have that legacy to this day. The devastation to individuals and what took place subsequently would have been shining spotlights on those things. The consequences are still felt now, because we have many Afghanistan men and women who served under our country's banner who are still in harm's way. Some still cannot even come to this country because we do not have our act together on that.

The legacy of prorogation goes beyond the moment of the day because all the stuff in the House of Commons ceases. Everything grinds to a halt, which costs money. To the parties who often champion their role of being the custodians of the public purse, the last unnecessary election sent another $630 million down the drain. A time when Harper did it resulted in a freeze of all of the House of Commons' operations, along with all of its work, worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in that year alone between the studies that would have been done, the people who were flown in for hearings, getting witnesses to come forward and producing reports. All the work that was done in the chamber and all the hours that go into moving bills were basically liquidated at that point in time.

Dozens and dozens of important bills were killed by the Conservatives and the Liberals; some bills had to go on to the next Parliament. That is where the real damage is done. The rest of the world does not get a time out or time off. People do not go running to mommy or daddy to try to figure things out. The world still goes on. The grinding of Parliament starts and the grinding of Senate follows. What that means is that we have to start over.

I cannot say how many of those bills dealt with social justice, women's rights, housing, the environment and the auto industry. They dealt with a number of things that we are trying to compete with in the world. If the Prime Minister, right now, chose to prorogue this Parliament, we would lose the GST rebate, a modest housing initiative and work on the Competition Bureau. They would all be gone.

In the committee I sit on, there are 96 witnesses and about 140 who want to work on Bill C-27, Canada's first bill on artificial intelligence. As the entire world is moving beyond us right now, that would be the real consequence. If an election is called because we have to bend a knee to the monarchy again in the system that we have because the Governor General can decide, we would be into another costly election. none of these bills could be brought back unless there was unanimous consent. On top of that, there would be months and months, if not more, perhaps almost a full year, to get back into order the work that would be gone.

That is critical if we are trying to compete with the rest of the world and world events are taking place, as they are now. My heart goes out to those who are suffering due to what is taking place. So many people are suffering. It is not just the wars, it is famine. Canadians are dealing with an opioid crisis. There is a whole series of issues on housing affordability and people cannot afford groceries. The Prime Minister of the day could basically say he is calling a time out, everyone can deal with it on their own and he will keep all of his privileges intact.

What is funny is when that happens, the Prime Minister's salary, the perks of the residence and everything else are not prorogued. They continue. What does not continue is the hard work that is necessary to improve lives. That is why the member for Elmwood—Transcona is onto something here. It is critical that he get some type of recognition because this issue has not gone away.

The member's father, the former member for Elmwood—Transcona, Bill Blaikie, would be proud of him today. I stood in this chamber with Bill Blaikie many times and listened to his statesman approach, which is missing in many respects, and his maturity in trying to work toward trying to better this place and establish some rules, which is the legacy that current member for Elmwood—Transcona is carrying on. That is what Bill often did in this place: He brought sense and logic to it.

At the end of the day, this motion is about creating a balance of rules. It does not end all the rules but improves upon them in taking a credible step forward. That is critical, because we just cannot have what we have today. Imagine if Parliament shut down tomorrow. What is at stake is our lost voices.

I want it to be clear that this is a reasonable, modest, sensible and practical approach to changing the rules. Conservatives and Liberals should think about this. I know they do not often end some of the privileges in this chamber because they think they can constantly switch back and forth. There will be a new day when they are not there and they will be wishing for this legislation, because all their constituents will need it, instead of the ego of the member who occupies the Prime Minister's seat.

With that, I move:

That the motion be amended by replacing the words, “(iii) in Standing Order 45(6)(a)”, by adding, after the words “An exception to this rule is”, the following: “the division on a confidence motion pursuant to Standing Order 53.2(9) and”, with the words, “(iii) in Standing Order 45(4)(b)”, by adding after paragraph (v), the following: “(vi) a confidence motion pursuant to Standing Order 53.2(9).”

These are housekeeping amendments to improve this bill and make it even stronger.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

It is my duty to inform hon. members that pursuant to Standing Order 93(3), no amendment may be proposed to a private member's motion or to the motion for second reading of a private member's bill unless the sponsor of the item indicates his or her consent.

Therefore, I ask the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona if he consents to this amendment being moved.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

I do so consent, Mr. Speaker.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

The amendment is in order.

Resuming debate, the hon. parliament secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to what the member was proposing and what a couple of other members of Parliament have put forward. When one minimizes something that has taken place not only in Canada but also around the world, there are justifications for an amendment—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

There is a point of order from the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do believe I heard the member for Winnipeg North debate this motion just 20 or 30 minutes ago. I am just wondering whether the Table could check on that, and I am wondering how this is proceeding at this point.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I thank the hon. member for raising that point. However, because we are resuming debate on an amendment, the hon. member for Winnipeg North may rise in the House to take part in this debate.

On a point of order, the hon. member for Perth—Wellington.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your clarity on the matter.

At the same time, I do believe that when one resumes debate, it typically is with the first person who rises in their place, and I did see the member for Elmwood—Transcona rise prior to the member for Winnipeg North. Typically, it would be the first one to rise with respect to a matter, when there is not a set list on a new thing. I did see the member rise before the member for Winnipeg North, so perhaps the member for Elmwood—Transcona should have the first chance to speak to the amendment.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Regrettably, the Chair saw the parliamentary secretary before seeing the member for Elmwood—Transcona. I regret this is the case. It happens from time to time. I do make an honest attempt to make sure I recognize the first person on her or his feet. In this case, I saw the parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, do not feel too regretful, as the member for Elmwood—Transcona gets a five-minute right of reply and did get the opportunity to address the chamber for 20 minutes about the issue.

I want to highlight something I did not during my first 10 minutes of debate about the issue. Members talk about and mock, quite frankly, the use of proroguing a session. In fact, it is something that can be justified on occasion. We saw that the last time it was invoked with the current Prime Minister. We need to realize that the pandemic was not something unique to Canada; it was happening around the world. It was important that the House of Commons refocus, from what was taking place in the House to was happening around the world and the impact it was having on Canadians. That is why there was a need to do it.

Members will recall there was a throne speech that followed, which set the agenda and provided the assurances Canadians were looking for, given the very nature of what was happening in communities from coast to coast to coast. As members will recall, the Government of Canada made it very clear it wanted to have the backs of Canadians. We wanted to focus our attention on a team Canada approach in dealing with the worldwide pandemic.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre has a point of order.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North knows exactly what he is doing, which is being rude and cutting into the member for Elmwood—Transcona's time. I would like to—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I would like to reassure all members that the member for Elmwood Transcona will have his full five minutes for his right of reply. The House started its session at 11:04 today; Private Members' Business will continue until 12:04.

The parliamentary secretary, the member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as you have indicated, the member does not lose any time whatsoever. This is private members' hour and we will use the full hour, as we have often done.

The emphasis I was trying to make is the fact that the Prime Minister and members of the Liberal caucus made it very clear that we wanted to focus the attention on the pandemic that was hitting Canada from coast to coast to coast. That was the need and it was justified.

At the end of the day, I am somewhat sympathetic to what the member for Elmwood—Transcona is saying, but I do not necessarily believe there is a need to change the rules.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I would like to recognize the member for Elmwood—Transcona for his right of reply.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all the members who participated in the debate on this motion, not just today but in the previous hour of debate as well. I do think that it has been an important occasion to reflect on one of the most important tenets of our parliamentary system, including some of the ways it does not serve Canadians well. We have heard, among the arguments on this particular motion, that it is a significant change. I would agree and say that a change of little significance is usually no change at all. I make no apologies for the fact that I am trying to fix something that I think is broken.

The member for Perth—Wellington in particular talked about what it means to unilaterally change the Standing Orders. I want to offer him some reassurance that, in fact, in a minority Parliament, there is no possibility of unilateral changes to the Standing Orders because one cannot pass a change to the Standing Orders without having at least two parties agree. Maybe he meant that changes to the Standing Orders have to be unanimous, but, of course, there is precedent for not having unanimous changes to the Standing Orders. I think that it is important that they not be unilateral. In this case, they would not be. With the Bloc supportive of this motion, all it would take would be for the Conservatives to vote for it. We would have three recognized parties in the House together forming a majority, making what I think is an important change to the Standing Orders.

If we take Conservatives at their word, what they are saying is that they do not want to put any constraints on the prime minister's power without the prime minister's first agreeing, and I think that puts the cart before the horse. As the opposition, we hold the government to account all the time and seek to limit the possibility of abuse of power by the government. We do not ask the government's permission. I find it strange that the Conservative leader is now suddenly saying that he needs the prime minister's permission and agreement before he can do anything to limit his power over this place.

This is the leader of the Conservative Party who just last week challenged the Speaker's authority to make a statement because question period might start late, and who made an appeal to the sanctity of this place. However, he is happy to have the Prime Minister and any future prime minister shut this place down without so much as a wink of parliamentary accountability. Spare me the platitudes about the importance of Parliament, because actions speak louder than words. When we have a vote on this particular measure, it will be an opportunity for Canadians to evaluate the seriousness of the Conservative leader, both when he talks about holding the Prime Minister to account and when he talks about how seriously he takes Parliament and the House of Commons.

Of note is that when the Conservative leader decides to stand up for Parliament, he usually likes to talk not about anything that has happened in recent decades but about the Magna Carta, a document that is about a thousand years old. It is also, incidentally, a document that, when it was signed, democracy was not for the working people whom the Conservative leader pretends to stand up for. It was a bunch of aristocrats getting together to protect their own right to keep the taxes they levied on the backs of working people, on land that belonged to them.

I do not think it is a coincidence that when the Conservative leader stands up for democracy, he stands up for an aristocratic version that serves his own interests very well. He does this even as he protects the gatekeeping power of the prime minister, to keep the seat warm until he thinks he will get an opportunity to take it so he can abuse those powers in a similar fashion, just as his Conservative predecessor, Stephen Harper, did when that guy sat at the cabinet table. Give us a break on the sanctimony of Parliament as we watch this particular Conservative leader stamp on it when it does not suit his interests and then pretend to care a lot about it suddenly when it does serve his interests. That, fundamentally, is what this is about.

We heard also that it is a political decision, not a decision for the Speaker, on confidence. This does not make it a decision of the Speaker. What it does is make it a decision of the House, whether the House has confidence in the government, instead of leaving it to the prime minister to decide whether the House has confidence in him or not. That is not his decision. It is a decision for this place and it is why, if this motion passes, prime ministers would not be able to prorogue Parliament without having to face a confidence vote either before or after. That is the point. The point is that it is a political decision. It should be a political decision of the House of Commons, as it has always been in the past, not a political decision of the prime minister.

Let us change it. Let us have the Conservatives get behind actually doing something to stop gatekeeping power instead of just ranting against it and hoping it will still be there for them when they get the chance.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The question is on the amendment.

If a member participating in person wishes that the amendment be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, October 25, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.