Bloggers Note : see Hansard transcript and responses
Points of Order
[Points of Order]
Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning the status of the New
Democratic Party as an opposition party, following the announcement of a
confidence and supply agreement with the Liberal government. To
paraphrase Shakespeare, this NDP-Liberal government is a coalition by
any other name.
While
many of our parliamentary procedures refer to recognized parties,
others specifically refer to government and opposition parties. This
reflects a key feature of constitutional parliamentary government in
Canada as explained at page 4 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition.
Our
rules referring to opposition parties must be carefully interpreted in
light of this backroom deal, which was not been put before voters in
last year's election. What does it mean, though, to be in opposition?
The Canadian Oxford Dictionary, second edition, defines opposition as:
1. resistance, antagonism.
2. the state of being hostile or in conflict or disagreement.
3. contrast or antithesis.
Respectfully,
I would have said those definitions did not really describe the NDP
yesterday, but they sure do not describe them today.
Bosc
and Gagnon, at page 35, describes how the House is generally organized.
It reads, “Functionally, the House is divided into three groups: the
Ministry and its Parliamentary Secretaries, Members who support the
government, and Members who oppose the government.”
The
NDP members are in neither the first group nor in the last group. They
are instead members who support the government, just like the Liberal
backbenchers. Our well-respected, former clerks of the table go on, at
page 35, to quote Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who said:
“...it is indeed essential for the country that the shades
of opinion which are represented on both sides of this House should be
placed as far as possible on a footing of equality and that we should
have a strong opposition to voice the views of those who do not think
with the majority.”
The NDP is now part of a parliamentary majority. I would therefore submit that, by agreeing to participate in the Prime Minister's
power grab, the New Democrats have forfeited their rights as an
opposition party in this Parliament. There are many procedural
implications that arise as a result. Most immediately, it means that we
cannot vote this afternoon on the motion moved by the member for Burnaby South that the House debated yesterday.
Standing
Order 81(13) is relevant here. It begins, “Opposition motions on
allotted days may be moved only by Members in opposition to the
government”.
Put
plainly, the member for Burnaby South is no longer a member of the
opposition to the government. Therefore, we cannot vote on this
so-called opposition motion. Several other rules referring to opposition
parties will also require the Chair's interpretation.
Paragraph
50(2)(b) of the Parliament of Canada Act provides seats on the Board of
Internal Economy for each party with 12 MPs “in opposition to the
government”. Therefore, it would seem that the member for New Westminster—Burnaby would no longer be a member of the board. It also seems that neither the member for Gatineau nor the member for Brampton North, who hold the balancing government seats on the board, would continue to be members.
Standing
Order 33, concerning ministerial statements, states, “A member from
each of the parties in opposition to the government may comment briefly
thereon.”
Standing
Order 106(2), concerning committee chairs and vice-chairs, provides
that each committee's second vice-chair “shall be a member of an
opposition party other than the official opposition”. By definition,
that would now only be the members of the Bloc Québécois.
Standing
Order 81(4), concerning main estimates referred to committees of the
whole, requires that the leader of the official opposition consult “with
the leaders of the other opposition parties” on which departments are
so referred. Does the government's coalition partner get a say?
The list goes on.
It
also follows that we must revisit the uncodified practices of the House
in light of these new arrangements. In particular, the allocation of
oral questions heavily favours opposition parties. Are the NDP questions
now to be treated as lobs, just like those three that Liberals get
daily already? Also, should the NDP members be vacating the opposition
lobby in the room behind me and joining their coalition partners over in
the government lobby?
There
are also committee matters to consider, such as the modified quorum
rules some committees adopt, sequences for committee witnesses,
questioning, and even the seating arrangements at committee tables.
These are very important interpretations that are required to allow our
parliamentary system to function how it is intended to.
There is very little precedent for the Speaker to rely on, because that
is how unprecedented this situation is in federal politics. The closest
parallel I could offer the Chair is the situation following the 1921
general election when the upstart Progressive Party captured the
second-largest number of seats in the House. Many Progressives wanted to
form a coalition government with Mackenzie King's Liberals, who fell
short of a majority. Though in the end the Progressives did not join the
cabinet, they were largely supportive of the government and,
accordingly, declined the opportunity to form the official opposition
since they frankly were not in opposition at all.
Just
as the 1921 election produced a comfortable arrangement for the Liberal
minority government, so too did the election of 2021. We must be guided
by the practical and pragmatic conclusion it offered that a party
openly supportive of the government is simply not an opposition party.
Therefore,
I would ask that the Speaker interpret the rules of the House in a way
that recognizes that the New Democratic Party has ceased to be an
opposition party and that the House cannot vote today on the motion that
was debated yesterday.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. That was such a frivolous and irresponsible statement by the House leader of the official opposition that I do not really need to respond to it.
First,
this is a confidence and supply agreement. As he is well aware, this
has already happened in numerous legislatures in this country. Second, I
would ask that the official opposition House leader
actually consult the political science 101 text to understand that a
coalition government is quite different from a confidence and supply
agreement.
I
would like to say that this invented history is simply not helpful to
the House. I would also like to say that the conduct of Conservative MPs
and Bloc MPs today was reprehensible. It was juvenile, and it was
unbecoming of parliamentarians.
Mr.
Speaker, we empower you to do numerous things, including keeping order
in the House, and I would respectfully ask that, since you have those
powers, to take questions away from the Conservatives and the Bloc if
they continue this reprehensible conduct. If we have question period
tomorrow and they simply do not listen to the very clear directives
given on our behalf, you have the ability, and I think the
responsibility, to take questions away from them. That was simply
reprehensible conduct today that is not acceptable in the House of
Commons of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I also wish to respond to the point of order put forward by the hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil, the hon. House leader for the official opposition.
Having
some personal experience with two confidence and supply agreements,
just to put this into the record, the confidence and supply agreement
that existed in the Province of British Columbia between the British
Columbia Green Party and the British Columbia New Democrats was far more
detailed and, I think, more robust, but in that context, the British
Columbia Green MLAs remained as members of opposition parties and had
all the privileges that attained to that.
I
would also mention the confidence and supply agreement that took place
in New Zealand between the Labour Party there, led by Jacinda Ardern,
and the Green Party of New Zealand, in which case they actually held
cabinet positions within their confidence and supply agreement, but they
were still treated as an opposition party within the Parliament of New
Zealand, which is also, like us, a Westminster Parliament.
One last point, while I have the floor, I want to extend an official apology to the hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil.
Yesterday I believed that no one in my office had been contacted about
the unanimous consent motion. I wish to formally, fully and with deep
contrition apologize to the hon. member for doubting that we had been
consulted. We were consulted.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois would like to have a moment to reply to the comments of the member, the House leader of the official opposition. In response to what my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby
mentioned earlier about the Bloc Québécois, I would say that he can see
the mote in his colleague's eye, but he cannot see the beam in his own
eye.
--------------
We
will take it under advisement, but what we will say is this. The
decision on the vote was made last night and the vote will happen today.
We will take it under advisement to see if the issues are something we
can bring back to the House.
No comments:
Post a Comment