Before every Question Period in the House of Commons, there is a 15-minute period where MPs are allowed to rise and deliver a one-minute “Member’s Statement” on just about any subject they want. These “Members’ Statements” are provided for under Standing Order 31 of the House of Common procedural rules. So, you’ll often hear an MP say, “I’m giving an ess-oh-thirty-one (SO31) today …” In Parliament Hill shorthand, SO31 is used a noun to refer to these one-minute-long member’s statements.
For most of its Parliamentary life, the SO31 tended to used by MPs who wanted to read into Hansard, the official Parliamentary record, a statement recognizing an important person or anniversary in their riding, to congratulate a local sports team or service club for achieving some objective, and so on. (The SO31 as we know it dates its origins to 1982). In other words, it used to be 15 minutes of “Happy Thoughts” before the politicians would begin jousting in Question Period. Here’s one of those typical “Happy Thoughts” SO31s from Thursday’s sitting of the House of Commons:
Mr. Ed Komarnicki (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the life and work of Robert (Bob) Burns of Estevan, Saskatchewan, in the constituency of Souris—Moose Mountain.
Robert was born in 1930 in the hills of southwestern Saskatchewan in the Wood Mountain area.
Sports like baseball, softball, skating, curling and hockey were always a big part of his life. During his years, he worked as a grain buyer, car salesman, and for 25 years, a retail salesman with Sears Canada.
He always believed in being a team player and devoted much of his life helping youngsters to be involved in the sport of hockey and ball. He picked them up, at times fed them, kept them at his home, and he coached and taught them, not only about sports, but important life lessons as well.
He believed that to be successful in sports and in life, we have to give 100%, hold our head high and be a good sport.
It is these great attributes and qualities in Robert and his life’s contribution to the many communities in Souris—Moose Mountain that is recognized in the awarding of a Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal to him. Congratulations, Bob, way to go.
Nice, eh?
But, as many political reporters have noticed, SO31s are now increasingly used to throw mud at a political opponent. This is a disappointing and depressing new phenomenon because it debases the very point of engaging in discussion in a parliamentary forum: the principle of right-of-reply. But SO31s are, by definition, statements and not debates. Every other type of Parliamentary procedure — whether it’s Question Period, adjournment proceedings, or the daily debates, is set up to allow an MP the right of reply. MPs offended by an SO31 have no such right of reply.
In the last Parliament, it was the Conservatives who began to take advantage of this characteristic of SO31s to call then-Opposition Leader Michael Ignatieff every name in the book and do it just before Ignatieff would stand to lead off Question Period. The Conservatives have been up to the same thing in the current Parliament but, this time around, the Official Opposition — the NDP, of course — is fighting back.
Still, it makes for a dreary session of political talking points hurled back and forth across the floor — and its always backbenchers who engage in this — as the Conservatives haul out ridiculous lines like “The NDP Carbon Tax would kill Hallowe’en” and the NDP MPs stand up to blame the Conservatives for rising gas prices.
Here’s an example of the current back-and-forth that now dominates the last five minutes — and sometimes 10 minutes — of the daily 15 minutes in the House of Commons originally set aside for “Happy Thoughts” from our MPs:
Mr. Wladyslaw Lizon (Mississauga East—Cooksville, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, next week members of Parliament will travel back to their ridings to speak with their constituents on the things that matter most to them. I can assure members that we will not hear a call for higher taxes.
Canadians are pleased with our government’s low-tax plan for jobs and growth and for lowering the price on almost everything with our 2% cut to GST.
What they do not want to see is the NDP’s proposed carbon tax that would raise the price on almost everything. Their sneaky tax scheme would have Canadians spend more of their hard-earned tax dollars on gas, groceries and electricity.
Why does the leader of the NDP want hard-working Canadians to pay for his $21 billion carbon tax?
Now, this is, of course, is a rhetorical question from Lizon for the leader of the NDP has no right-of-reply. It’s all just left hanging there. And this same line has been repeated, with variations, day-in, day-out just about every day in the House of Commons this fall.
The NDP, by now having clued on to the fact that Conservatives aren’t going to let up with these ridiculous talking points, are prepared every day to rebut these “Carbon Tax SO31s” with their own attack SO31s. On Thursday, Lizon was followed immediately by NDP MP Jinny Sims:
Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this week will be busy back in my riding of Newton—North Delta. Not only will I have the pleasure of participating in multiple events but I will also have to explain the $8 billion Conservative money grab. That is right, for the last six years Conservatives have been sneaking increases to user fees for Canadians. They are now twice as high as they were a decade ago. What are the Conservatives gouging Canadians for? Youth exchange programs, maps, family reunification and even divorces. I could go on. There are many more.
What is worse is that almost all of their budget cuts are to the very services Canadians rely on: increased user fees and blind and reckless cuts. It is a double whammy for Canadians and their wallets and that is why New Democrats against their irresponsible agenda.
Frankly, I’d like to hear more about how Bob Burns is doing back in Estevan.
Not to excuse the partisanship, particularly from the government side who’ve made these SO31 attacks an art form, but it’s worth noting that Standing Orders CAN be amended by a simple majority in the House, meaning that someone could bring forward a motion to abolish Member Statements, or restrict the content of these Statements (for instance “cannot be used to attack another party or political position etc.). To my knowledge, from 2004-2011 when the Opposition held a majority, no attempt was made by the MPs themselves to restrict what was, and wasn’t, allowed in SO31s. i know Speaker Milliken warned the House about attacks on individual members, but beyond that, I don’t believe anything else was done by Parliamentarians themselves. Like many things, a lot of the heartache from the Opposition on procedural matters under a majority government is a bit tough to swallow given their complete unwillingness to tackle these issues under successive minority governments.