Madam Speaker, I am delighted to rise to participate in this very important debate, because I think checks and balances on power and how power is distributed in Parliament are an extremely important topic of debate.
We have all seen what has happened in other democracies over the last number of years, the weakening of guardrails and the importance of guardrails in restraining executive power. Particularly in a Westminster parliamentary democracy, where the executive is not elected but appointed, and not only appointed but appointed out of this place, it is really important to have the rules and procedures in place to ensure that the legislature can hold the executive branch of government accountable.
I believe there are three areas of reform that the House should consider.
First, I believe that the Speaker's right of recognition should be restored. We are, to my knowledge, the only Westminster parliamentary democracy where the Speaker has effectively lost the right of recognition. In many proceedings of the House, during debate, during Oral Questions and during other proceedings, that right of recognition has been replaced by the list system, managed by the whips and House leaders, which has effectively displaced the Speaker's authority. During most of the proceedings of the House, in order for a member to speak, the member's name has to be put on a speaking list by either the House leader or the whip's office, and too often members do not have a voice in the House because they do not get on the list.
The Speaker should determine who gets to speak in the House. The House should do away with the list system and replace it with a system established and controlled by the Speaker. That system should have two broad principles. First, all members who wish to speak to a matter should get to speak. Second, time allocated to individual members who wish to speak should be distributed as equitably as possible to those members who wish to speak.
As I understand it, in the United Kingdom Parliament, members who wish to speak, whether to a bill or during Oral Questions, go through a system established and controlled by the Speaker. For example, all members who wish to speak to a bill get to speak, because the time allotted for debate is divided by the number of members who have indicated to the Speaker that they want to speak, and the Speaker allocates time accordingly. For example, if four hours of debate are scheduled for a bill at second reading, and there are 40 members who wish to speak to the bill, the 240 minutes allotted are divided by the 40 members, thus each member would get six minutes to speak. In that system, every single member who wishes to speak to a matter in the House will have their voice heard, down to a minimum of three minutes, ensuring that their position on a particular matter is on the record.
I hope all members in the House give serious consideration to this. I would note, in particular, that former Speaker Milliken advocated for this change to the rules of the House and advocated for it strongly. I believe he advocates for it to this day.
The second area of reform the House should consider is its standing committees. In 2002, the Standing Orders were changed, a move supported by then finance minister Paul Martin to address the democratic deficit, by replacing the appointment of committee chairs with their election. Unfortunately, the Standing Order was crafted in a way that did not anticipate it being used in the way it has been. That well-intentioned change has not worked out in practice.
While, technically, committee members can elect committee chairs, about 21 or 22 of them are effectively appointed by the Prime Minister or the Prime Minister's designate, and I think four by the Leader of the Opposition. That is because the moving of a nomination of a member for the chair position is done in public, and the whips use that fact to ensure that only a member that the ministry has decided should be the chair is moved and no one else is moved for nomination. The result, in almost all cases, is that members are acclaimed.
One way to fix this is to require a secret preferential ballot listing all the names of committee members of the recognized party from which the chair is to be selected. That way, no nominations for chair can take place, and the 12 members of the committee, or 10 members, or however many members are allocated per standing committee in that particular Parliament, decide who will be the chair based on a single secret preferential ballot.
To make committees even more effective, I think a second reform should be considered. The House should consider distributing the 25 chairs of the standing committees in a way that is proportional to the recognized parties' standing in the House. That is done in other Westminster parliaments, and I think it reflects the distribution of other aspects of the House when a Parliament is first constituted.
The House should also consider a third change to the way committees are constituted. Members on committees should be elected by their peers in caucus. The election on a secret preferential ballot vote could take place at the same time as the election for Speaker. Other Westminster parliaments do the same thing. In totality, the secret preferential ballot election of committee chairs and the secret preferential ballot election of committee members would strengthen the role of committees in this place and ensure that there is more accountability of the executive branch of government to the House and its committees.
I would add something on this point of committee reform. The United Kingdom had a similar system for its select committees, equivalent to our standing committees, to the one we have here today. About a decade and a half ago, they implemented these kinds of reforms to their committees. After being in place for their select committee system for roughly a decade and a half, these reforms have, by universal acclaim, been seen to be effective reforms that have strengthened the U.K. Parliament.
The third area of reform I think the House should consider is to take away the Prime Minister's power to make key appointments in this place. I do not believe that the Prime Minister should be able to appoint the Clerk of the House, nor do I believe that the Prime Minister should be able to appoint the head of our parliamentary security, the Sergeant-at-Arms. I believe both of these positions should be appointed by the Speaker on the recommendation of a committee of MPs that has vetted various candidates. In fact, at the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that is exactly the process that is in place, and it is that process that is also in place in the U.K. Parliament and the Australian parliament.
Most importantly, I think the majority of members of the powerful board that administers this place should be no longer appointed by the Prime Minister, either directly or indirectly, but rather elected by members of this House on a secret ballot vote. Members of the ministry, as well as officers of the House on both sides of the aisle, should not be eligible for the majority of positions on the Board of Internal Economy. In other words, the majority of the members on the Board of Internal Economy should be backbench members of this House, elected on a secret ballot vote by their peers in this place.
Those are the three areas of reform that I believe the House should consider.
As a final note, I would add this: I believe we should end hybrid Parliament. We are the only national legislature amongst western Liberal democracies to remain in hybrid mode. The U.K. House of Commons ended hybrid sittings on July 22, 2021, five years ago. The U.S. House of Representatives ended hybrid sittings on January 9, 2023, and the Australian parliament ended hybrid sittings on July 25, 2022. I would note that the French National Assembly never actually had hybrid mode, because, if I recall correctly, the court declared it unconstitutional, mandating that members of the legislature appear in person throughout the pandemic time.
Those are the three or four reforms I recommend to this place, and I look forward to the debate on this. I hope a committee of the House or a member of the House will take up these reforms and propose them to the House, and that some of them may be adopted.