Inside Politics

MakingParliamentWork Watch: Now that's how you gut a Private Member's Motion!

by Kady O'Malley Posted: October 6, 2010 3:49 PM Last Updated: October 6, 2010 4:27 PM
Watch and learn, future governments who may find themselves increasingly wary of the monkeyshines to which independent-minded MPs -- even those in your own caucus -- can get up to when it comes to private members' business, and looking for ways to minimize the damage that can be done if a particularly pernicious bill or motion shows up in the House. 

Take the curious case of M-517, a motion put forward by former Conservative minister turned stubbornly windmill-tilting backbencher Michael Chong that would put the Procedure and House Affairs committee to work coming up with constructive recommendations to make Question Period less likely to terrify and dishearten spectators, particularly those of the visiting schoolchildren variety. That motion is headed for a crucial second reading vote later tonight --- but the government, apparently mindful of the potential problems that his proposals could cause down the line, put forward what was, at least in theory, an ostensibly friendly amendment, which - although initially accepted by Chong, would seem to take much of the moxie out of his proposal. 

How, exactly? Well, see for yourself. 

Here's the motion as originally drafted, and first tabled in the House: 

 

That the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to recommend changes to the Standing Orders and other conventions governing Oral Questions, and to consider, among other things,

(i) elevating decorum and fortifying the use of discipline by the Speaker, to strengthen the dignity and authority of the House,

(ii) lengthening the amount of time given for each question and each answer,

(iii) examining the convention that the Minister questioned need not respond,

(iv) allocating half the questions each day for Members, whose names and order of recognition would be randomly selected,

(v) dedicating Wednesday exclusively for questions to the Prime Minister,

(vi) dedicating Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday for questions to Ministers other than the Prime Minister in a way that would require Ministers be present two of the four days to answer questions concerning their portfolio, based on a published schedule that would rotate and that would ensure an equitable distribution of Ministers across the four days;

and that the Committee report its findings to the House, with proposed changes to the Standing Orders and other conventions, within six months of the adoption of this order.


Now, here's that amendment, which stands in the name of Tom Lukiwski, the parliamentary secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House:

That the motion be amended by replacing the words "recommend changes to" with the word "study" and by replacing all the words after "(iii)" with "allocating half the questions each day for Members, whose names and order of recognition would be randomly selected,

(iv) whether the practices of the Westminster Parliament in the United Kingdom, such as dedicating Wednesday exclusively for questions to the Prime Minister, and dedicating Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday for questions to Ministers other than the Prime Minister in a way that would require Ministers be present two of the four days to answer questions concerning their portfolio, based on a published schedule that would rotate and that would ensure an equitable distribution of Ministers across the four days, are appropriate and useful in a Canadian context,

(v) whether there are other practices of other parliaments based on the Westminster model that may be adopted and adapted to a Canadian context; and that the Committee report its findings to the House within six months of the adoption of this order.


... which, if accepted tonight, would result in a motion that reads as follows:  

That the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to recommend changes to study the Standing Orders and other conventions governing Oral Questions, and to consider, among other things,

(i) elevating decorum and fortifying the use of discipline by the Speaker, to strengthen the dignity and authority of the House,

(ii) lengthening the amount of time given for each question and each answer,

(iii) examining the convention that the Minister questioned need not respond,

(iii) allocating half the questions each day for Members, whose names and order of recognition would be randomly selected,

(iv) dedicating Wednesday exclusively for questions to the Prime Minister

(vi) whether the practices of the Westminster Parliament in the United Kingdom, such as dedicating Wednesday exclusively for questions to the Prime Minister, and dedicating Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday for questions to Ministers other than the Prime Minister in a way that would require Ministers be present two of the four days to answer questions concerning their portfolio, based on a published schedule that would rotate and that would ensure an equitable distribution of Ministers across the four days, are appropriate and useful in a Canadian context

(v) whether there are other practices of other parliaments based on the Westminster model that may be adopted and adapted to a Canadian context;

and that the Committee report its findings to the House, with proposed changes to the Standing Orders and other conventions, within six months of the adoption of this order.
Not only would it water down the mandate handed down to the committee -- which would simply be asked to study the Standing Orders, and not necessarily produce recommendations for changes that could be made -- but it would expunge completely all reference to that "convention" that allows ministers to use the time allotted for their answer to bang on about something else entirely -- like, say, sinister separatist-socialist coalitions, or opposition leaders who are just in it for themselves. 

The question now, of course, is whether the Lukiwski amendment will pass -- and, even more interestingly, how many Conservative MPs will support the unexpurgated motion if it doesn't. 
Stay tuned. 

Tags: blackberry jungle, like a fish, making parliament work -- just not quite that well, michael chong