Standing Order 30
April 16, 2008 - Temporary Standing Order Amendments
Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much. I’m wondering if the copies have reached the table yet. No? Okay. I did make arrangements for copies to be sent to the table. My apologies if they’re not there yet. Maybe I could ask one of the pages to look at that. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to stand and make an argument under Standing Order 30, as the Speaker has described. I’m requesting leave to adjourn the ordinary business of the House to discuss a matter of urgent public importance; namely, “the arbitrary government-sponsored changes to the standing orders of the Assembly which threaten the basic democratic principles, especially unanimous consent, of the opposition members.”
The situation we have before us and the urgency that’s before me today is when I look at the Order Paper, there, in fact, is the government motion on the Order Paper. This is the first opportunity that I’ve had to ask for special consideration for that, and if I don’t raise it now, by tomorrow the standard expectation that I would raise it at the earliest possible opportunity will have passed. So I have to raise this issue now.
The issue I’m raising is one of process. There are a number of references that I would like to cite, specifically Marleau and Montpetit pages 584 and 585, also Beauchesne sections 387 through to 398. All of these are referencing urgency. Mr. Speaker, specifically 387 and 389 indicate the primary issue is the urgency of the debate, specifically whether there is opportunity for a debate under the rules and provisions of the House. I contend that there is no opportunity to debate why these standing order changes are coming in through a government motion, which is decided by a majority vote, rather than through a report or a House leaders’ agreement, which requires unanimous consent. What is contemplated here is that the majority government can impose its will upon the minority opposition with regard to the proceedings of the opposition. Put another way, the process by which all members have an ability to consent to the rules which limit them is being denied. The urgency is that the principle of agreement on how this House operates is at stake and the process by which that principle will be debated.
Mr. Speaker, I contend this is wrong. As citizens we agree to having laws in place and agree to allow police officers to enforce those laws upon us. The same principle applies to this Assembly. We must all agree to be governed by the standing orders. That opportunity is being stolen from us by government staging these changes to be done by a majority vote. Without a report to concur with or a House leaders’ agreement to signal caucus’s support, we face a situation where these new rules will literally be forced upon unwilling opposition members.
The fundamental concept of unanimous consent is subverted here. What does it say when we ask for unanimous consent for the leader of the third party to participate in certain events but do not seek it when imposing new rules upon all members? Why must we have a consistently practised procedural need for unanimous consent to revert to an order when that order’s creation is not subject to that same unanimous consent?
The 2007 temporary standing orders did come before the House as two separate government motions, but, Mr. Speaker, they were preceded by a House leaders’ agreement signed off by all three House leaders. That opportunity is not being offered here. Further, I note that the 2001 changes did come before the House as a government motion and, frankly, were rammed through. I argue that two wrongs do not make a right in this instance. There is an urgent need to discuss how this government is trying to impose on this House what it should only be able to impose upon its own caucus.
This does not contribute to the business of the House being conducted in a consistent and predictable fashion by co-operative members.
I believe that we have met a number of the other tests. There was no mention of these changes in the standing orders that was contemplated in the government’s campaign material nor was it in the legislative agenda that was released by a press release under the auspices of the Government House Leader. It was not included in the throne speech. What we have before us today is the notice of the motion for the debate tomorrow, and I argue that we need to have the ability to argue against that.
Thank you for the opportunity to present the arguments, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to your ruling.
Other Sections
Youth Voice
@ The Leg
Photo Blog