While Members are in principle free to vote as they wish, this right will remain purely theoretical as long as its exercise is limited by restrictions stemming from the constitutional convention of responsible government. Both reform proposals therefore seek to give Members more room to manoeuvre, but each in its own way. 

The President would allow the confidence of the Assembly in the Government to be put to the test only in certain circumstances expressly set forth in the Standing Orders, such as the votes on a want of confidence motion, on a motion by the Minister of Finance to approve the Government’s budgetary policy, on a motion to pass the annual appropriation bill and, finally, on any motion regarding which the Government has expressly stated that its responsibility is at issue. Any other matter could, in principle, be decided by a free vote. 

The Minister for the Reform of Democratic Institutions would have the Government House Leader inform the caucus when the matter at hand involves the responsibility of the Government and the support of all caucus members is consequently required. The Leader would likewise inform the caucus when a matter is a key component of the Government’s program that only Ministers and parliamentary assistants are required to defend or, finally, when a matter is not vital to the coherence of the government agenda and all caucus members, including Ministers, may vote as they see fit. 

The Minister for the Reform of Democratic Institutions also proposes that when the National Assembly has carried a want of confidence motion or any motion to which the Government is opposed, or has negatived a Government motion or bill, a motion of confidence be deemed to have been requested by the Premier and placed on the Order Paper in his or her name under Business Having Precedence. The motion would then be discussed during a two-hour limited debate at the next sitting. 

Modernizing the Assembly 

Both reform documents also include proposals to encourage initiative on the part of all Members of the National Assembly. Since the current Standing Orders came into effect in 1984, only motions filed by Opposition Members can be debated during a period of time set aside as part of the Orders of the Day on Wednesdays. Under the Standing Orders in effect from 1972 to 1984, however, all Members except Ministers could present motions on Wednesdays. The President of the National Assembly proposes that, for the sake of equity, Members of the Government party once again be allowed to file motions for debate and that such motions be debated twice a year on Tuesdays or Thursdays so as not to encroach upon the time reserved for business standing in the name of Members in Opposition. 

The Minister for the Reform of Democratic Institutions proposes instead that one hour of every sitting be devoted to business standing in the name of private Members from either side of the House. The matters to be debated could be chosen by a random ballot and could include bills as well as motions.  

Reasserting the role of elected Members is an ongoing concern at the National Assembly, since the credibility of the institution is partly tied to how Members are perceived. Since the effectiveness and visibility of Members’ work are two key factors in achieving this goal, it is under this third broad theme that we find the greatest number of proposals. This theme encompasses all proposals aimed at improving the organization and effectiveness of Members’ work as well as those that would give the standing committees means to enrich parliamentary debates. Here are a few of them: 

Both reform proposals would continue the rationalization of the calendar and hours of meeting of the National Assembly that was begun in the 1990s. Both propose to increase the number of sittings by opening the spring sessional period in mid-February rather than in mid-March and the fall sessional period in mid-September rather than in mid-October. The Minister for the Reform of Democratic Institutions would abolish the so-called intensive sessions—during which the Assembly sits from 10 a.m. to midnight Tuesday through Friday—each of which now lasts about four weeks, while the President of the National Assembly would shorten them to about two weeks each. 

Another proposal by the Minister for the Reform of Democratic Institutions concerns the recognition of parliamentary groups. Under the current Standing Orders a parliamentary group is any group of twelve or more Members returned to the Assembly by the same political party, or any group of Members returned to the Assembly by a political party that has received 20 percent or more of the popular vote in the most recent general election. Except for the President, Members who do not belong to any parliamentary group sit as independents. The Standing Orders therefore permit no changes to the status quo during a legislature even if, in that same time, the makeup of the National Assembly does change. 

The Minister for the Reform of Democratic Institutions proposes to make the rules more flexible. He would lower the percentage of votes required for recognition as a parliamentary group from 20 to 15 percent. Furthermore, he would allow the recognition of a parliamentary group as soon as a political party is represented in the House by six or more Members, regardless of whether this minimum number is attained in a general election or through changes during the course of a legislature. 

In another line of thought, although some progress has been made over the last 20 years, it would be accurate to say that our parliamentary committees still have not achieved the independence and effectiveness that the adoption of the Standing Orders in 1984 had led us to expect. This discrepancy is due, among other reasons, to the fact that their workload is far from equally distributed, the number of hours during which they can sit is significantly limited, the Government House Leader has a hand in how their work is organized, and resources, especially support staff, are lacking. 

Both proposals would therefore redefine the areas of jurisdiction of the parliamentary committees and create a new committee called the “Committee on Relations with the Citizenry.” The President also proposes that responsibility for the verification of the financial commitments and for the accountability exercises required under the Public Administration Act be returned to the sectorial committees according to their respective areas of jurisdiction. These tasks have been the responsibility of the Committee on Public Administration for several years but have proved too much for a single committee. 

Democratic Equilibrium 

Maintaining a democratic equilibrium in parliamentary proceedings is a basic principle of our parliamentary law. It is essential that the National Assembly protect this equilibrium in order to preserve the credibility of the debates held within its walls. To reaffirm this principle, both reform proposals contain several measures aimed at upholding and even extending Members’ right to speak. 

The current Standing Orders set no guidelines for the recourse to a motion to suspend certain rules of procedure, with the result that its effects are almost unlimited. This exceptional procedure allows the Government House Leader to make a motion to suspend the rules in force and to replace them with rules of his or her own choosing.  As a result, important measures are sometimes passed without having been fully debated. The Government regularly uses this type of motion to rush a series of bills through to passage. 

In an attempt to continue the reform effort started during the last legislature, the President proposes that the National Assembly make permanent the temporary rules regarding the exceptional procedure that were in effect from December 6, 2001, until the end of the 36th Legislature. These rules would guarantee a minimum amount of time for debate at each stage in the passage of a bill and would allow the Government to use this procedure for only one bill at a time. The solution proposed by the Minister for the Reform of Democratic Institutions would be to facilitate recourse to the closure motion.  Such a motion, when carried, obliges a committee to conclude its detailed consideration of a bill and to report to the National Assembly, which then finishes such consideration in the committee’s stead. Moreover, as in the President’s proposal, a motion to suspend certain rules of procedure would apply to only one bill. 

Proposals have also been made with regard to the role played by ministers in committee proceedings. Under the current Standing Orders the minister sponsoring a bill is a member of the committee to which the bill has been referred throughout the committee’s consideration of that bill. Again under the current Standing Orders a minister may be a member of a committee for as long as the committee is considering some matter if the motion referring that matter to committee so provides.  Previous reform efforts have argued in favour of significantly reducing the role of ministers in committee proceedings, in particular within the legislative process. 

The President’s reform proposal argues in much the same vein but does not call into question the status of the minister sponsoring a bill as a member of the committee considering that bill. However, he proposes that this status be expressly limited to the committee stage of the legislative process and to the continuation of debate on the budget speech in committee. The Minister for the Reform of Democratic Institutions proposes that a minister never in any circumstance be a member of a committee but that ministers, like other Members not appointed to serve on any committee, be entitled to take part in the proceedings of any committee but not be entitled to vote. 

The Subject of Parliamentary Ethics 

The transparency that is so highly valued by our media-driven society and the public’s lack of confidence in politics daily reinforce the requirement that public office-holders, and above all elected Members, act ethically. 

In that context the Minister for the Reform of Democratic Institutions has proposed that a code of ethics be adopted and that an ethics commissioner be appointed as part of the parliamentary reform. This ethics commissioner would report to the National Assembly and would be appointed with the approval of two thirds of the Members. A parallel proposal by the President of the National Assembly suggested that a working committee on parliamentary ethics be established. The committee, made up of MNAs, legal experts and public servants of the National Assembly, began its work in October 2004. 

Through a comparative study of statutes in legislatures based on the British parliamentary system, this committee has already reviewed the tools that these legislatures have developed to deter and, if need be, to curb unethical conduct. 

At a time when parliamentary action is often challenged, however, it seemed necessary to go further and to reflect on the values and principles that might lie at the core of what we call “parliamentary ethics.”