Madam Speaker, I will try to talk fast, because I have a lot to say this morning.
No one will be surprised to hear that the first measure we are proposing is to abolish the morning prayer and replace it with a moment of reflection. Parliament must serve all its citizens, and not all of them share the same religion. Many have no religion at all. This is a matter of showing respect for each individual, so that everyone who wishes to pray alone can do so, privately, or take a moment to reflect. Others can do whatever they want with this time. I think this is fundamental.
The other point has to do with Fridays. Members will notice that fewer people attend on Fridays, a day that draws less attention. We have thought of a way to reform that. We would like to set aside some time on Fridays for a ministerial question period, similar to what happens in Quebec City.
As members will recall, at the beginning of the COVID‑19 pandemic, a special committee was created that allowed members to question ministers, and ministers had the same amount of time to respond as it took to ask the question. This created some very interesting exchanges. Unlike in question period, we could ask the ministers follow-up questions if their answers were off topic or not entirely accurate. I think that would go a long way toward improving democratic life and providing information to the public. Those sessions could take place in the morning and afternoon, right before Private Members' Business. We would obviously still have oral question period, because it is important to the opposition parties, as it is their opportunity to question the government. If we ever need to add time for government orders, we could adjust the schedule, either on Fridays or other days of the week.
The same formula could also be applied to adjournment proceedings. Rather than having four minutes to ask the question and four minutes to respond followed by one minute to reply and one minute to respond to the reply, which is not very much time, we could have a period of 10 minutes total, where the same formula would apply. The member would ask a question. If their question is 30 seconds long, then the minister would have 30 seconds to respond, and they would go back and forth like that for 10 minutes. That would allow for much more constructive discussions. I would invite members to watch video clips of the time when we were using that formula. It was really interesting.
The other standing order that we would like to change has to do with Private Members' Business. That is what we will be discussing in the last hour today. What most members find really boring and what really hinders the debate is the lack of back-and-forth discussion. We think there should be time for questions and comments in those debates too. A private member's bill is no less important than a government bill. The House of Commons is the seat of our democracy, and we should ensure that every bill is properly debated. One big advantage of this approach would be that perhaps more members would be present in the House to listen to the speeches. That is something that we have observed during these debates.
Earlier, my colleagues had a fascinating exchange about hybrid Parliament. My proposal may align somewhat with the questions and the answers that were given. We agree that remote interventions should be a little more of an exception than they are right now. They should be allowed for family reasons, as my Liberal colleague pointed out, and that is very valid, or for health reasons, but with approval from the whip in order to limit their use. Hybrid Parliament does create some challenges, particularly in terms of interpretation resources. Not everyone is aware of that. Members would have to sit on the Board of Internal Economy to be more aware of it. It does indeed create significant challenges.
Now, confidence votes can be difficult to manage. We believe that confidence votes should happen in person in the House of Commons when they have to do with supply.
With respect to a minister tabling a motion that requires five, 10, 15, 20 or 25 members to oppose it in person, the Standing Orders currently allow that minister to make the request online. That makes no sense. This unfairness is utterly ridiculous. The minister should be here in person to do it.
If a motion to censure the Speaker of the House were ever to be tabled, it should be voted on by secret ballot, the same way the Speaker is elected, so that each member can vote according to their conscience.
We should also return to “yeas or nays,” based on the old way of doing things orally, in person, so that motions or bills can be carried or lost on division. That could be very interesting.
That brings me to committees. We francophones struggle to have our interpretation needs met in this Parliament, and we want to ensure fairness among all elected members.
We are asking that the Standing Orders require an interpreter to be present when a committee's work is suspended for informal discussions. Francophone members have to listen to very long discussions in English where people are talking fast. They miss parts here and there, and then they are asked for their opinion. The sharpest ones will say that they cannot answer because they did not understand anything, because that forces people to translate the message. However, this should be something that is implicitly set out in the rules.
Still on the subject of the Standing Orders, when we get to clause-by-clause consideration of a bill, the deadline for submitting proposed amendments should be at least one day after the last witnesses have appeared. Under the current system, amendments are often requested when there is still one meeting with witnesses left, but members cannot take their testimony into account because they have already submitted their amendments. That is totally illogical. It seems to me that this is something that we should be able to agree upon fairly quickly.
Here is another point concerning clause-by-clause consideration in committee. There is a new trend of having the interpreters work remotely, and we do not like it at all. It is very important that there be no delays during these meetings so that we do not miss anything that is said. During committee meetings spent on clause-by-clause consideration, we would like to make sure that the interpreters are on site, in person, in the same committee room as the members.
As for panels of witnesses at committee meetings, we also suggest that there be a minimum of two witnesses per panel. Occasionally, a panel appearing for one hour has only one witness, whereas the next panel may have two, three or four witnesses. Sometimes, three of the witnesses were invited by our political party, leaving us with less time to put questions to the people we had invited.
Madam Speaker, I would appreciate a little order in the House.
That is a major inconvenience, and I think that every political party has the right to do its work—