Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by pointing out that there was some confusion in my friend's address. There was a sort of blurring of the lines between closure and time allocation. They were referred to as one and the same thing, but as we know, they are two entirely different devices.
Time allocation and closure exist under different headings in our Standing Orders, and they are not the same. However, much of what the member casually referred to as closure is in fact motions for time allocation.
The two should not be confused, as they were in her argument. It is important for all those who are listening to be aware of that and to understand that there has been some confusion in the arguments that were laid out on that basis.
While I disagree with the hon. member's question of privilege, I do want to express my appreciation for the advance notice that she provided. It has given an opportunity to provide some research and to share it with you, Mr. Speaker.
What is interesting is that this is a question of privilege that suggests that the government, in following exactly the letter of the law and rules that are laid out before us in the Standing Orders that have been adopted in this very House, has somehow offended the privileges of individual members. It is quite clear from the outset that in following the rules, and in following them exactly, we cannot in any way be offending the privileges of members. It is the members of this House themselves who have set those rules for the conduct of this chamber. The rules have endured for many years in the form that we are dealing with today in this motion for privilege.
I do appreciate the member's abundant comments and quotes from Mr. Justice Binnie, for whom I have a high regard. They are all very noteworthy, but I do not see that they bear any relevance to the actual question at hand of the use of time allocation. Good words that they might be, they were not trenching upon the issue in any way whatsoever.
However, we do have ample guidance. For example, page 669 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice is quite clear. It says:
...the Speaker has ruled that the Chair possesses no discretionary authority to refuse to put a motion of time allocation if all the procedural exigencies have been observed.
That tells us straight out that simply using the rules as written, and following them, is appropriate.
On March 1, 2001, at page 1415 of the Debates, Deputy Speaker Bob Kilger ruled on a question of privilege concerning the former Liberal government's use of time allocation. He said of the matter then before the Chair:
In the case which gave rise to the point which I am addressing, there has been no suggestion that the government in any way deviated from the procedure laid out in the standing orders. I do not feel, under those circumstances, that there are any grounds whatsoever which would lead the Chair to intervene. The Chair wishes to be very clear on this point. The rules and practices established by this House with respect to time allocation leave the Speaker with no alternative in this matter.
Simply put, the rules are the rules.
The Chair then quoted Mr. Speaker Fraser's March 31, 1993 ruling, at page 17861 of the Debates:
I have to advise the House that the rule is clear. It is within the government's discretion to use it. I cannot find any lawful way that I can exercise a discretion which would unilaterally break a very specific rule.
Once again, the rules are the rules, and following them is entirely appropriate.
Going back to Deputy Speaker Kilger's ruling, before dismissing the question of privilege under consideration, he said:
Our system has always been one which functions on the basis of rules established by the House itself. However, under our current standing orders, it would be highly inappropriate for the Chair to take unilateral action on issues already provided for in the standing orders. Where the standing orders give the Speaker some discretion, then it is the Speaker's responsibility to be guided accordingly; where no such guidance is provided, no such action can be taken. It is certainly not up to the Chair to establish a timetable for the business of the House.It is by its rules and not by the authority of the Speaker that the House protects itself from excesses, both on the government side and on that of the opposition. The Speaker's role is to judge each case as it arises, fairly and objectively, and in so doing, to ensure that those rules are applied as the House intended.
It is quite clear that adhering to the letter of our Standing Orders, the rules which we adopt to govern our conduct, can hardly form the basis of a prima facie case of privilege.
However, as I understand the grievance of the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, she is principally concerned about having the opportunity to participate more often in debate. Generally speaking, she questions the overall amount of time budgeted for debates for government legislation.
Mr. Speaker, should you find that argument appealing and wish to perhaps show some courage and disagree with all previous Speakers, decide that it is your role as Speaker to unilaterally review our rules, change them and make those kinds of amendments, I would provide you with some statistics as guidance for that policy argument that you should ignore the rules, if you want to take that courageous stand on the basis of policy. That is, a comparison of the amount of time spent debating comparable legislation in our present Parliament with the current parliament in Westminster, which of course is our parent Parliament, if you will, whose rules we have followed the path of. Here is what it reveals.
Contrary to the arguments of many in the opposition and media pundits, we actually have more extensive debate here than ever occurs in the British parliament.
For example, the average Canadian government bill in this Parliament, or since the last election, is debated at second reading for almost three sitting days, or 2.74 days, which is the average number. To compare with Britain, instead of three days at second reading, a typical bill in that current parliament since the last election is debated about one day, or just over that at 1.16 days. Therefore, we have almost three times as much debate on average for each bill in the Canadian Parliament as does the British parliament.
At report stage, the comparison is even more dramatic. Our average is 1.41 sitting days in Canada and in Britain it is 5.8 hours, not days, which is less than a full sitting day, for consideration. Then at third reading, the difference is even more stark where in Canada we spend on average 1.55 sitting days on third reading of a bill while the House of Commons of the mother parliament can deal with third reading on average in 41 minutes. That is 41 minutes compared with our over one and a half sitting days at third reading.
This tells you, Mr. Speaker, that notwithstanding the complaints and carping of the opposition, we actually have more ample debate here than they do in the British House of Commons.
The opposition says that we are shortening debate. No, we are actually a real talk shop compared with what they do across the ocean. Once more, this does not reflect the individual members' of Parliament right to speak. We have only 308 members, but their 650 MPs can get the same amount of work done in well less than half the time because they are not quite such a talk shop. I guess they are a little more efficient. Perhaps they have a culture that actually focuses on getting things done as our government seeks to do.
Whatever the case, one can see clearly that the government's use of time allocation here is not about shutting down debate. It is not about cutting short the amount of time of debate provided members. It is in fact exactly what I have said it is from the start. Time allocation exists and is used by us as a scheduling device to create certainty in debate so that people know when a debate will conclude, and members can plan to vote and know when those votes will occur.
I will quote from Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, citation 533, which says exactly the same thing. I have quoted from it before.
Time allocation is a device for planning the use of time during the various stages of consideration of a bill rather than bringing the debate to an immediate conclusion.
Of course, that is the difference between time allocation and closure.
We have approached time allocation as a tool for the orderly and predictable management of the legislative agenda. Those statistics I offered clearly demonstrate that the time we propose for consideration of a bill is adequate and quite generous. In fact, I know that there have been occasions where the opposition have complained in this place that we have allocated more time than is necessary to debate a bill.
More pointedly though, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands I think raises the disappointing argument about the number of speeches that she can personally give in the House. With respect to the actual act of a member of Parliament speaking in the House, as we all know, speaking turns are done on the principle of catching the Speaker's eye. The convention of catching the Speaker's eye is described at page 318 of O'Brien and Bosc:
No Member may speak in the House until called upon or recognized by the Speaker; any Member so recognized may speak during debate, questions and comments periods, Question Period, and other proceedings of the House. Various conventions and informal arrangements exist to encourage the participation of all parties in debate; nevertheless, the decision as to who may speak is ultimately the Speaker’s.
That point is echoed at citation 461 and 462 of Beauchesne's.
Therefore, what we have in this question of privilege is really an implicit criticism, Mr. Speaker, of your conduct rather than that of the government. As you said in your own ruling of April 23, 2013, at page 15798 of Debates:
...the need to “catch the Speaker’s eye”, as it is called, continues to underpin the Chair’s authority in this respect.Members are free, for instance, to seek the floor under questions and comments at any time to make their views known. They are also free at any time to seek the floor to intervene in debate itself on a bill or motion before the House. Ultimately, it is up to each individual member to decide how frequently he or she wishes to seek the floor, knowing that being recognized by the Speaker is not always a guaranteed proposition.The right to seek the floor at any time is the right of each individual member of Parliament and is not dependent on any other member of Parliament.
The right of the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands to seek the floor in debate does not depend on any other member, not even me, as government House leader. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the conclusion of your April 23, 2013, ruling offers clear advice to the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. I will quote you again, Mr. Speaker:
Were the Chair to be faced with choices of which member to recognize at any given time, then of course the Chair would exercise its discretion.... If members want to be recognized, they will have to actively demonstrate that they wish to participate. They have to rise in their places and seek the floor.
Perhaps the hon. member will be cheered by the fact that the growing rates of independent members, thanks to the continued loss of MPs from the New Democratic caucus, means that the proportional debate rotation used as guidance by the Chair will see sooner and more frequent speaking opportunities for members not belonging to recognized parties.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I think you are on very solid ground to dismiss this question of privilege without the need to reserve your decision.
