Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the need for the reform of the Standing Orders governing the House. What I want to raise today are not partisan concerns but rather structural ones, issues that go directly to fairness, accountability and the equal standing of members in the House.
At a time when we see democratic backsliding around the world, Canadians are rightly asking that we demonstrate responsive parliamentary procedures that keep up with the times and stay abreast of the democratic innovations and best practices happening elsewhere. I will briefly touch on several Standing Orders that merit review, but I want to be clear at the outset that the most serious issue before us is the current restriction on who may trigger a recorded vote.
First, on private members' bills more broadly, I believe that PROC should examine whether the balance between the House and the Senate remains appropriate. We have seen cases where the Senate's ability to delay or block private members' bills has effectively nullified decisions taken by elected members of Parliament. Romeo Saganash's Bill C-262, an act respecting the UN Declaration for the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, is an example. Despite all odds, Romeo got it through the House of Commons, only to have it stalled by the Senate and to see it die on the Order Paper.
Jack Layton's climate change accountability act met the same fate. Rona Ambrose's bill requiring federally appointed judges to receive mandatory training in sexual assault law was stalled for two years. We have also seen extended debate on Senate amendments to private members' bills, which occurred with the Bloc Québécois's supply management bill.
Some of these issues, essentially and eventually, were resolved because they were brought back to the House, and some of them were adopted as government bills, but the Senate should never be allowed to stall a private member's bill in such a way that it dies on the Order Paper. That has happened to all parties. PROC should consider whether reasonable limits are required, both on the Senate's capacity to obstruct Private Members' Business and on how long the House debates Senate amendments to those bills. Private members' bills already operate under constrained time and opportunity. They should not face unlimited procedural delay in the red chamber.
Second, PROC should revisit the rules governing dissenting reports. At present, only the official opposition may table and present dissenting reports during Routine Proceedings. That limitation no longer reflects the composition of the House or the reality of the committee's work. All parties should have the ability to formally express dissent and table their dissenting report.
Relatedly, committees should be empowered to table bills following the completion of substantive studies. Committees frequently identify clear legislative gaps or solutions. Allowing committees to initiate legislation in these circumstances would strengthen Parliament's policy capacity and better connect study to action. Too often, committees do a study and come forward with recommendations that, frankly, just sit on a shelf without much action. We should actually empower the House of Commons and members of the committee to be able to move legislation forward.
Third, opposition days should not be scheduled on Wednesdays or Fridays. These are already shortened sitting days. Scheduling opposition business on those days diminishes its effectiveness as an accountability mechanism. PROC should examine whether this practice aligns with the original intent of supply days. I note that the NDP, given where we are, does not actually have opposition motion days, but I raise this because it is important for democracy.
Fourth, we should consider increasing the number of late shows or at least extending the period during which they can be scheduled. Late shows are one of the few procedural tools available to members to pursue answers when initial responses are inadequate. In an era of increasingly centralized messaging, this mechanism deserves strengthening, not contraction. This would allow us to probe questions more thoroughly and more deeply, heightening democratic accountability.
Fifth, the rules governing committee of the whole require updating. Committee of the whole should always last four hours, and participation should rotate in a manner similar to question period. Too often, these proceedings are dominated by government members, despite the fact that committee of the whole is fundamentally an accountability mechanism. PROC should restore balance to this forum.
I want to turn to the most pressing issue, which is the right of members to trigger a recorded vote. Under the current standing order, specifically Standing Order 45(1), only members of recognized parties may request that the yeas and nays be entered into the record. Members without a recognized party status may ask that a motion be carried on division, but they cannot insist on a recorded vote. This is not a long-standing parliamentary practice. It is actually a relatively recent change.
The restriction emerged during the House's transition to hybrid sittings in response to COVID-19. Similar language was adopted in 2021, extended in 2022, and made permanent in 2023, following PROC's recommendation that hybrid-related changes be entrenched. However, what is striking and concerning is that this restriction does not appear to have been fully examined as a stand-alone question to members' rights. It was bundled into a broader package of hybrid reforms, many of which were necessary, but their long-term implications deserve more granular scrutiny.
The practical effect of the current rule is stark. For example, an MP without recognized party status can introduce a private member's bill. They can win a spot in the Private Members' Business lottery, a process that is already governed by chance and scarcity, but when the House reaches the moment of decision, an MP without recognized party status cannot compel a recorded vote on their own bill. From a procedural perspective, this is indefensible.
Private Members' Business is already one of the most constrained elements of House business. The lottery system means that members may wait years for an opportunity to have a bill debated. To deny a member the ability to trigger a vote after clearing all of those hurdles is not merely inefficient; it is inequitable. It creates a hierarchy among members that is not grounded in parliamentary principle. PROC should be particularly concerned about this because the ability to trigger a recorded vote is not a courtesy. It is a core accountability mechanism.
Recorded votes are how members place themselves on the record. They are how constituents assess their representation. They are how Parliament signals collective decisions. There is no democratic rationale for restricting that right to members of recognized parties only, nor is there compelling operational justification.
The House has now demonstrated over several years that recorded votes can be conducted efficiently in a hybrid environment. Whatever concerns may have existed during the early stages of the pandemic no longer apply. What remains is a rule that centralizes power in party structures and diminishes the voice and role of individual members. That should be a concern for all members of Parliament, particularly at a time when democracy is being undermined in so many places around the world.
PROC has a responsibility to ensure that standing orders do not erode the equality of members over time, particularly through incremental or convenience-based changes. In this case, the effect is clear: Some members are being denied the ability to force a vote and force the House to decide. If PROC is serious about protecting Private Members' Business, about fairness and procedure, and about the equal standing of all elected members, then this standing order must be revisited.
At a minimum, every member of Parliament should have the right to trigger a recorded vote on their own private member's bill. Anything less undermines the credibility of our procedures and the legitimacy of members to participate in a fair, democratic and transparent manner, no matter what political party they belong to.
