So far, 10 Conservative backbenchers have publicly voiced their concerns about their party’s control over members’ statements to date, and Conservative MP Kyle Seeback (Brampton West, Ont.) says he “would love to see” a Parliamentary committee formed for all Parliamentarians to discuss their concerns over their Parliamentary privileges and to try to find solutions.
“This is something that affects Parliament. I’d love to see this be a committee of Parliament to determine how Parliament can be freer to exercise the rights to free speech and to question freely,” said Mr. Seeback in an interview with The Hill Times. “I think it could do good work and there’s good people in our party and certainly in other parties that think that Parliament’s an important institution and this would only make it stronger.”
Conservative MP Brent Rathgeber (Edmonton-St. Albert, Alta.) said he would want to see a committee be formed to discuss Parliamentary reform and MPs’ concerns, but said one shouldn’t be seen “to head off a Speaker’s ruling.”
“I think a positive ruling from the Speaker which I’m hoping for and, quite frankly, I’m anticipating, I think will kick-start a process that will lead to a change in the practice much quicker than a committee that might take months and months and months to report,” said Mr. Rathgeber in an interview with The Hill Times.
Conservative MP Mark Warawa (Langley, B.C.) kicked off a string of Conservative MPs rising to voice concern over party control of MPs’ statements when he stood in the House on March 26 on a question of privilege and said he felt his Parliamentary privilege as an MP was “infringed upon” when he was yanked off the SO 31 speaking order by his party on March 20, and asked House Speaker Andrew Scheer (Regina-Qu’Appelle, Sask.) to rule on the matter.
That same day, Conservative MP Leon Benoit (Vegreville-Wainwright, Alta.) also voiced similar concerns, and before the end of the month, Conservative MP John Williamson (New Brunswick Southwest, N.B.), who has previously served as director of communications to Mr. Harper in the PMO, and Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth (Kitchener Centre, Ont.) had also risen in the House to speak to Parliamentary privilege concerns.
“I too feel that my rights have been infringed on by members of the party because I am not allowed to speak on certain topics in SO 31s. I have had SO 31s removed, and I have been told that if I have one on a certain topic, I will simply not be given an SO 31,” Mr. Benoit told the House on March 26.
On April 15, Conservative MP Michael Chong (Wellington-Halton Hills, Ont.) added his voice to the cause, as did Conservative MP Pierre Lemieux (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Ont.); on April 16 Conservative MP Russ Hiebert (South Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale, B.C.) also voiced concerns. And, most recently, on April 19 Conservative MP John Weston (West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country, B.C.) rose to speak to his concerns.
“Party whips and party House leaders for decades have served a coordinating and scheduling function as to who gets to speak on the floor of this House of Commons,” said Mr. Chong. “Unfortunately, over the decades the coordinating and scheduling function of party House leaders and party whips has shifted to that of a command and control function.”
Mr. Chong said a similar deviation from original intent and stripping-away of power has happened to questions during Question Period, which he said now face approval from the House leader or party whip who create lists given to the Speaker.
Mr. Warawa’s March 20 statement was related to deliberations taking place over the votability of his Motion 408, which would condemn sex-selective abortions. It has been noted that all of the Conservatives MPs who have risen to voice concerns over Parliamentary privileges being infringed upon by party control over SO 31s voted in favour of Mr. Woodworth’s Motion 312, which sought to create a special House committee to discuss a section of the Criminal Code dealing with when a baby is deemed human. There has been speculation from observers that these Conservative MPs are trying to find an opening to discuss abortion in Canada.
But Mr. Seeback said the concerns being raised have “nothing to do” with the abortion issue and said “if a member of my party had his right to speak taken away on any issue I would have the same feelings.”
Mr. Rathgeber said the abortion issue is “ancillary” to the concerns being raised by Conservative MPs in that he said Mr. Warawa being denied the opportunity to make an SO 31, which stands for Standing Order 31, to do with an abortion-related motion was the first instance he had heard of an MP being denied the right to make an MP’s statement in the House which prompted him to speak up.
Moreover, Mr. Rathgeber said he doesn’t consider himself “to be part of the pro-life movement.”
“The abortion issue is ancillary to this and in many ways is unfortunate because people who might be inclined to support democratic reform might be dismissive of it if they think of it as just something that’s wrapped up in a pro-life cause,” said Mr. Rathgeber.
Mr. Seeback said while he couldn’t speak to the exact number of Conservative MPs who share similar concerns, but said “it’s certainly much more than the nine that have gotten up to speak.”
The possible creation of a committee to discuss the concerns being raised by Conservative MPs was raised in a recent column by National Post reporter John Ivison, who wrote that sources inside the Conservative caucus said “the Prime Minister has extended an olive branch by offering to create a forum for disgruntled [Conservative] MPs to discuss the issue and work up proposals to resolve it.”
Reached by The Hill Times last week, Mr. Ivison said the caucus subcommittee he heard about from sources “was to look at the question of [Mr. Warawa’s] motion and whether they could craft a wording which would deal with the issue of sex-selection abortion but would not obviously reopen the question of abortion,” and said with Mr. Warawa now having dropped his motion, he wasn’t sure “that committee would even sit now.”
Mr. Seeback said he had heard nothing about any sort of committee being formed.
Mr. Rathgeber said he thinks the creation of a caucus subcommittee to discuss MP concerns over Parliamentary privilege is “an idea that’s been floated…I know there’s been some talk about it being formed, based on my knowledge it has not yet been formed…it certainly hasn’t been discussed since we’ve been back from our Easter break.”
“The issue of Parliamentary reform is broader than the issue of SO 31. John Williamson, in his intervention, argued, and I think correctly,…that the same principles ought to apply to the submission of lists with respect to questions in Question Period, so there are issues…of Parliamentary reform and how Parliament functions, first of all as a forum for Members of Parliament to raise matters of importance to Canadians, but also how it performs in its role of holding government to account, so there are broader issues,” said Mr. Rathgeber. “I would agree with the suggestion that even if the Speaker rules favourably that there are broader issues of Parliamentary reform that that committee could discuss, entertain and hopefully make recommendations to improve how Parliament functions, generally.”
Mr. Seeback said he hoped other Parliamentarians, from all parties, would see “this as an opportunity to take back a little power from Parliament and let their voices be heard.”
“I’m not saying, again, that this has happened to me, but right now if I got up and asked a minister in my government a question that wasn’t particularly well-liked, I doubt I’d be asking a question again any time soon,” said Mr. Seeback.
On the other side of the aisle, Independent MP Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay-Superior North, Ont.) left the NDP caucus in April 2012 after he was disciplined for voting in favour of the government’s efforts to end the long-gun registry, and therefore, against the NDP grain. Mr. Hyer said he voted to end the long-gun registry because it’s what his constituents wanted.
Meanwhile, newly-elected Liberal Party Leader Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Que.) is expected to table a motion on April 22 to amend the Standing Orders, or House rules, to require the Speaker to recognize MPs in “alphabetical order by party.”
In his April 15 statement before the House, Mr. Lemieux spent a significant portion discussing the votability of Mr. Warawa’s Motion 408, but also said “the S.O. 31 offers a unique opportunity to an MP to speak on any matter and, as a result, MP privileges in this regard must be protected.”
“It is clear to me that under our system of government, sometimes the demands of the party will need to take to precedence if the government is to government effectively, such as when it comes to support for a budget or other key government legislation,” said Mr. Hiebert in his statement before the House on April 16.
“However, there are also times when the rights of a member to speak freely should be paramount. Standing Order 31 speaking slots are one of those times. After all, these statements are merely words, no matter how contentious some of the subjects raised might be. There is no vote or any other action that can be taken during a one minute statement that is going to topple a government or cause an election,” Mr. Hiebert said.
There are a few motions currently before the House of Commons that, if passed and acted on, would give Parliamentarians more freedom from party control including NDP MP Kennedy Stewart’s (Burnaby-Douglas, B.C.) Motion 428, which would instruct the Procedure and House Affairs Committee to recommended changes needed to implement an electronic petitioning system with the possibility to trigger debates in the House, and Motion 431 introduced by Conservative MP Brad Trost (Saskatooon-Humboldt, Sask.) in February, which would instruct the House Affairs Committee to consider electing committee chairs by preferential ballot from all MPs, see how other Westminster-style Parliament elect committee chairs are elected “propose any necessary modifications to the Standing Orders,” and report back to Parliament within six months.
Original Article
Source: hilltimes.com
Author: LAURA RYCKEWAERT
No comments:
Post a Comment