Debates of Feb. 6th, 2026

Standing Orders and Procedure

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

Pursuant to Standing Order 51(1), the following motion is now deemed to have been proposed:

That this House take note of the Standing Orders and procedure of the House and its committees.

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise today to speak to the Standing Orders.

I have not been a member of Parliament for very long, but this is a venerable institution. Our regulations, procedures and practices are part of a parliamentary tradition dating back to the Magna Carta. They were adopted by thoughtful parliamentarians who came before us to respond to Canada's unique reality, and they have evolved over time. I am not exaggerating when I say that they represent centuries of work.

I am very mindful that to immediately have opinions on how to better operate could be taken poorly or viewed as presumptive, even arrogant. However, I also know that, like frogs in hot water, we can all become used to the intolerable when given the benefit of time. In those times, it is on those of us who are new and experiencing the shock to our system to speak up, to present the view of the people who have fresh eyes. After talking with colleagues on both sides of the House, I also do not believe that what I am going to say is remotely controversial, though we may disagree on how best to resolve it.

Question period is broken. Canada's system is built on the idea that government must answer to Parliament routinely and in public, and I believe this to be a very good thing. A deteriorating executive cannot hide here, as it can in the United States, but beyond serving as a daily wellness check, the current format of question period falls short of its goal of providing true accountability.

There are shallow questions, shallow answers, a degree of repetition that would make an advertiser blush, and mad applause on both sides as though we were hitting oratory high scores in 35-second exchanges about procurement. If I can relay one thing today, it is that it does not need to be this way.

Question period does not need to be this way.

There are many things that we can try to do to improve question period. There are also many lessons we can learn from our own history and from the experiences of other countries.

The Standing Orders do not actually say much about question period, other than to indicate that it happens.

Procedures and practices are established under the authority of the Speaker, often following consultation with the House leaders. Often, the goal is to ensure that changes have unanimous or almost unanimous support. That is fitting, and I am not suggesting that a mere majority should be able to make changes, but change is possible.

We can as a body be more prescriptive through the Standing Orders, or we can encourage the Speaker through our leaders to consider modification to improve accountability and to improve the value of question period to Canadians. We can experiment: We can agree to try different formats on different days; we can agree to try different formats for one session, having QP revert after that; or we can do both. Then we can see if our experiments have the intended effect or if they create new problems, and we can make changes more permanent or adjust accordingly. We can improve.

Once we embrace that, a world of possibilities opens up to us. For example, we could have different ministers answer questions on specific days. This would provide an opportunity for more targeted questioning and ensure that government weaknesses do not go unnoticed just because they involve topics that do not get much media attention.

We could limit the repetition of substantially similar exchanges. If the goal is to ensure accountability, not to get sound bites, we do not need eight versions of the same back-and-forth. We could do this or any number of other things as an experiment. This leads me to the most obvious way to improve question period.

In Canada, and uniquely in Canada, questions and answers are capped at 35 seconds each. In 35 seconds, anyone can hide. Members do not need to listen to the question to give the answer, and they do not need to engage with the premise. They do not need to back up their attack. Weak performances on either side of the House go undetected indefinitely in the shallow end.

Other countries with parliamentary systems do not do it the way we do it. We have not even always done it this way. The U.K., Australia and Ireland all measure answers in minutes, not seconds; this was also the system here in Canada until the 1990s. The tight clock was introduced to allow more participants. This is well-intentioned, but let us look at the current situation.

Before I was elected, I was a public engagement practitioner, and I would often talk about the conflict between an audience's stated and revealed preferences. Stated preference is what we say we will do; revealed preference is what we actually do. We say we want many questions, but our revealed preference is for longer exchanges. There are not 40 members asking 40 questions; members stay on one topic, one question, with a great deal of repetition for many rounds.

Here is my modest proposal. For one session, for two days a week let us do the following: lengthen the allowable time for both the question and the answer to two minutes apiece.

As questioners, in two minutes, members can lay out their values and the facts they rely on, and they can prosecute their case. They can demand information. They can show their deep understanding of the issue and where they believe our understanding may be deficient.

As answerers, in two minutes, we can lay out our values and the facts we rely on, and we can explain our decision-making and, if necessary, give our statement of defence. We can provide requested information. We can show our deep understanding of the issue and where we believe questioners' understanding may be deficient.

We can raise the level of debate and provide Canadians with thoughtful exchanges, at least from time to time, during these complex times. The purpose of question period is to provide accountability, and accountability is a very good thing. However, true accountability requires substance. Longer questions and answers do not guarantee substance, but they do increase the cost of dodging the question. They force consistency. They expose ignorance. They reward members who have have a firm grasp on their files and penalize those who do not. More in-depth discourse is the most important change we can consider.

We shape our systems, and then our systems shape us. If we allow question period to be shallow, we will become shallow. If we allow question period to be thoughtful, we will be thoughtful.

I want to end with a conversation I had with a teacher a couple of days ago. He told me that when he brought a class to question period many years ago, he was embarrassed because a lesson in democracy became a lesson in how sometimes adults act like children. We have all winced on occasion when we have looked up and have seen a class in the gallery. We see there the leaders of tomorrow watching us, the leaders of today.

I am new to the House, but what I have learned is that while we disagree often and vigorously, we have a chamber full of dedicated, kind and brilliant people from all walks of life; we just do not act accordingly in the chamber. Question period as currently constructed shows us at our worst, not our best, so let us improve, or at least try to improve. I believe that Canadians deserve better, and I believe we can do better. I hope to work with all members in providing them with better.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague, the member for Calgary Confederation, with a great deal of interest. I would encourage him to look at Motion No. 517, which was introduced in the 40th Parliament and which echoes many of the issues he has raised. I note that in that motion, which the Liberal Party later adopted in the 42nd Parliament, the 43rd Parliament and the 44th Parliament, one of the five proposals was for the prime minister to answer questions on Wednesdays.

There being roughly 36 to 40 questions on Wednesdays, Prime Minister Trudeau answered roughly 36 to 40 questions every week in the House. I do not believe that the current Prime Minister answers as many questions each week in the House. I am wondering if the member would like to see the restoration of Wednesday PMQs.

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do believe that one of the things we should explore is mixing up who is up and for what duration on each day, and I think that having Wednesday PMQs is a good idea. One of the challenges we saw in practice was that it then became a question of, “Why is the Prime Minister working only one day a week?”

The challenge with implementing anything like that is that we are going to need to work across both sides of the House to say that this is a standard that increases accountability, and to not suggest otherwise. We do know that the current limits of question period are that the 35-second exchanges also do not necessarily feel like we are getting a lot of meat.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech, in which he raised some good points. For one, he said that if our interventions are shallow, we risk becoming shallow. At times, I fear it is too little, too late for that. I also liked the point raised by my Conservative colleague about the Prime Minister being in the House. It is not a matter of saying he works only one day a week. Everyone knows full well that he does other things the rest of the week, but it is obviously important.

I, personally, would also focus on the content of the answer. Recently, in fact, we had a debate on this, and the Chair decided to cut off certain questions related to something that was happening in Quebec City. When we asked the Chair to cut off answers if they were not relevant to the questions that had been asked, we were told that that was not possible.

Does my colleague think that the Standing Orders should include a provision allowing us to point out when a response is irrelevant to the question or does not answer it? I think that could be very useful for democracy.

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think that would be very challenging to do without getting into matters of debate on a regular basis. I do want to note though that it would also be nearly impossible to answer some of the questions. Here are some samples from QP just yesterday. There were multiple questions about whether we would please adopt Conservative policies. That is very difficult and broad. There was also one question I want to draw attention to: “Is the member...aware of his lack of empathy and moral compass?” I do not know how one holds a government to account with a question like that.

That is the simple reality. These questions are just from yesterday. There is always going to be a certain element of that in question period; I appreciate that, but it makes it difficult to imagine that we could create a rule that says that someone must answer a question. I do not know how we could ask a member to answer a question like that.

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

Madam Speaker, I have had the opportunity, for over 20 years, of being in opposition, and I have been on the government benches. I understand and appreciate what the member is suggesting. The only way I could see something of this nature working is if we had written questions. Some parliaments have done that. We would have to provide the written questions in advance. The government would then respond to them in a question period. Apart from that, maybe we could take away the television cameras during question period.

I would be interested in the member's thoughts on both.

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Madam Speaker, the United Kingdom, I understand, does a version that is somewhere between written and oral, in which a question has to be put on the Order Paper. The Order Paper gets very long; there might be 300 questions on it at some point, but a minister knows the questions. This allows the minister to prepare and to get the answers ready. I think something like that could be explored.

I do appreciate there is a spontaneity to question period; it allows us to address issues of the day. Maybe we could do a hybrid, where a leaders' round could be about anything, but if we go on to those next rounds, then it has to be about something that is on the Order Paper. I think we should explore something like that.

With respect to cameras in QP, I think we have to realize that most of the country sees us through the video clips. That is a reality. I may not love it, but I think it is one of the accountability mechanisms, personally. However, it is certainly worth exploring what other parliaments do.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills North, ON]

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.

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, I agree with all of my colleague's first three reforms. I think they are all worthy of exploration.

I will say, as a father of three young children, an 11-year-old, a nine-year-old and a seven-year-old, and also as the son of aging parents, that I have really appreciated the flexibility that hybrid sittings have allowed on those unique occasions when it was necessary. My father was in the hospital recently, in the ICU for 11 days, and being able to be there at his bedside and do my work for Parliament from the hospital was really important to me. However, I think I understand my colleague's overall thrust and appreciation for this House and how important it is. I think that was the thrust of his speech.

I wonder if he would be willing, in his proposal, to look at a modified hybrid Parliament that would allow, in certain exigent circumstances, the use of hybrid sittings.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am open to all potential options for the way this place sits, but I would note that we already sit the least of any major national legislature in the west. The U.S. House of Representatives typically sits between 165 and 190 days a year, and the U.K. House of Commons typically sits between 146 and 162 days a year. We sit only 129 days a year, and provincial legislatures sit even less. We sit far less than we used to, and I believe that we should consider sitting through much of July and early August and then adjourn for the rest of the summer. I believe we should start earlier in January.

Again, accountability of the executive to this place can take place only when the House is sitting. I would note that in the 1960s and—

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

I am sorry, but I have to leave time for questions from other members.

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague's speech. I strongly disagree with him on one point, however. My colleague said that all members should be able to speak on every issue.

We will soon be presenting a proposal on the circumstances in which a response from the House to the Senate is necessary. No doubt everyone remembers the infamous Bill C-234 from the last Parliament, which never made it back to the Senate because the Conservatives decided they did not want to return it to the Senate, so they had their speakers give endless speeches. This shut down debate in a way that I consider improper.

What solution is my colleague proposing? The Bloc Québécois proposes that speaking times be limited in those specific circumstances, when the House of Commons has to send a response to the Senate.

I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think that any ideas that concern democratic reform here in the House should be considered by members of the House and by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

As I mentioned before, I believe that the three reforms I presented are the easiest and most significant ways to improve the situation. That said, I thank my Bloc Québécois colleague for his comments.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is my third Parliament. I know the member for Wellington—Halton Hills North has been here for many more and has spoken to many of these reforms countless times, but there has been no action taken by Parliament.

Does he think we should put something into the Standing Orders beyond just debating this at the start of each Parliament within a certain number of days? Should we create a method whereby it has to come to a vote or there has to be a way to implement these changes that are being recommended during the debates?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think the way in which many of these reforms can be implemented is quite simple. Most of these reforms would require the procedure and House affairs committee to table a report in this House recommending these reforms, and that the report be concurred in. That would be one way to adopt these reforms.

The other is for any member of the House, through a private member's motion, or for a member of the ministry, through a ministerial motion, to propose these reforms and for the motion to be adopted. Those are two methods through which we could implement the reforms that are being debated here today.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

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—

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

I would ask the hon. members here on this side to lower their tones.

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I was saying that it is important to schedule witnesses at different times for each political party so that we can ask them questions properly. These are people we invite to appear, and we prepare our questions accordingly. We often do not have enough time to ask them questions properly. This is also a very important point.

There is also the issue of members attending committee meetings remotely. Again, this should be allowed for health reasons or family reasons, but if a member is participating remotely, they should not be in a public place or in a car. We have seen all kinds of foolish and ridiculous situations. Yes, the hybrid Parliament absolutely needs to be tweaked.

We also suggest creating a Wednesday motion that would be voted on but not debated. The problem is that we often try to achieve unanimous consent or bring forward a motion that we want the House to vote on, but we get a “no”. That means the government cannot take a position on the issue. We are suggesting that a motion could be moved in advance. Each party would get a turn. Then the motion would be voted on, without debate, in the House either that day or the following week. This would force each political party to take a position. I think that would greatly improve our democracy.

Also, as I mentioned earlier, sometimes a bill comes back from the Senate and the House has to respond. We already went through a period where one political party decided to hold up a bill for over a year. That is unacceptable in a democracy. Debate should be limited so that we can respond to the Senate and move bills forward. We are here to legislate, to act on behalf of the people, not to obstruct things for partisan reasons, which is nonsense.

My last point will be a nice one. During oral question period, the speaking time is already very limited. It is 35 seconds, as someone said earlier. That is tight, and we do not have much time to make our argument. Furthermore, some of the questions from the government side are what I will politely refer to as softball questions. Those are planted questions where government members ask a minister to spend 30 seconds talking about how wonderful and clever the government is and how great it is doing in a specific area.

To me, that does not serve democracy. I think that the government has other opportunities to do that and that question period slots should be reserved for the opposition members, because our job is to ask the government questions about its work and then pass on that information to the public.

That covers all of my proposals. I look forward to my colleagues' questions.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to pick up on the member's thoughts on question period, 35 seconds versus a longer period of time. In the Manitoba legislature, we adopted what Ottawa had here, the 35 seconds. It enabled more participation and, at the same time, the questions. One just needs to look at the Manitoba record to see that people would litter a premier or a leader of the official opposition. People would go for four minutes with a question or give a four-minute answer. It really made a huge difference in the Manitoba legislature, where there was more accountability, or at least more participants.

Looking at the size of the House of Commons, I think the same principles would apply.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am glad for the parliamentary secretary's open-mindedness, and I thank him for it.

That is kind of what we are proposing in terms of a question and answer formula on Fridays or weekday evenings. We would like to have 10-minute question and answer periods where the member would have time to ask their question and the minister would have the same time to respond. That would make for a constructive discussion where we could expand on our question and request an answer on a particular subject. This would allow for a more in-depth discussion of the issues, and I think that would be really good for democracy.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his thoughtful comments. In his first comments, he proposed removing the prayer from our opening ceremonies of Parliament. I wanted to get more information or his thoughts on why he wanted to do that. Obviously, the founding peoples of this country, including the French, held a deep faith when they came to New France and to the beginnings of Canada. In fact, Centre Block is adorned with dozens of scriptures, for example, “Where there is no vision, the people perish”. I think that is a fair reflection of the responsibility of this place and the wisdom that is inspired from our traditions in scripture.

I would like to understand why he thinks it would be a good idea to abandon that heritage that we have in this country.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question. I agree I might be worthwhile to expand on that.

The intention is not to prevent anyone from praying. Some members are religious, and that is an individual matter. That is precisely the point. Faith is a personal matter. This Parliament serves all citizens of Canada, the provinces and Quebec. These people have different religions.

I am wondering how my colleague would feel if he entered a parliament where a prayer from a religion other than his own was said at the beginning of the day. That becomes rather counterproductive, but if we have a moment of personal reflection, then each person can use that time as they see fit. That will enable Parliament to respect religious pluralism as well as the principle of state secularism, which we support.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Madam Speaker, some of my colleague's suggestions make a lot of sense, including the one to reinstate standing orders that were amended on an exceptional basis during the last Parliament by a majority of members. A tradition once existed here in Parliament whereby changes to key standing orders were to be made by consensus. That consensus ended when the New Democrats and the Liberals agreed to amend standing orders that benefited the government party and disadvantaged the opposition parties. That must never happen again. I never understood the NDP's position on this. My colleague is suggesting that we revert to the former standing orders that put the party in power and the opposition parties on an equal footing.

Can my colleague tell me what he would really like to see happen on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs? What often happens is that we debate a motion here and then after it is referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, there is no follow-up. I think the time has come to change some of the standing orders.

Could my colleague share his wishes concerning the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, the fact is, I want to ensure that nothing structural, no organization, no political group is able to block a debate. It is very unfortunate when that happens. If a matter goes before PROC and nothing comes of it, it is because the government does not want to change anything.

We are sending this message to the members of PROC. We have made proposals. These proposals are supposed to be studied by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I expect them to be debated. I expect new rules to be adopted, including one that restores the need for consensus when making fundamental changes to the Standing Orders.