Government Operations Committee on Oct. 29th, 2013

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Marc-Olivier Girard]

A standing order of the House of Commons—and for the true rule buffs among you, I want to specify that I am talking about Standing Order 119—says exactly the following:

119. Any Member of the House who is not a member of a standing, special or legislative committee, may, unless the House or the committee concerned otherwise orders, take part in the public proceedings of the committee, but may not vote or move any motion, nor be part of any quorum.

Unfortunately, this means that the committee could not adopt a motion that would go against the Standing Orders, as those are higher-level rules that govern your work.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

I hope that answers your question, Mr. Trottier.

We will now come back to the main motion.

Mr. Blanchette, you have the floor.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

My question has to do with what the clerk just said.

Does that mean that the motion is not in order?

I think he said that the committee could not receive amendments from someone who is not a member of the committee. If we are talking about an independent member, who is not a member of the committee, is the government motion still in order?

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Let me just have a look at the Standing Order that was quoted.

Mr. Blanchette, the motion was drafted specifically to avoid any contradiction with Standing Order 119. In point (b), the following is clearly stated:

(b) suggested amendments filed, pursuant to paragraph (a), at least 48 hours prior to the start of clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill to which the amendments relate shall be deemed to be proposed during the said consideration, provided that the Committee may, by motion, vary this deadline in respect of a given Bill; and

I have no one left on my list.

Mr. Martin, did you want to continue the debate?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Yes, I do, and I won't take too much more time.

I think it's important that we represent the concerns and the views as expressed by the actual independent MPs, as set out in this letter. I only scanned through it and quoted a little from the middle. But some of the introductory paragraphs are worth noting, I think, and the committee members should be aware of them.

It is signed by these three independent members and they are saying:

We are writing to respectfully request that members of your committee reject the motion put forth to significantly reduce the rights of individual Members of Parliament.

They're referring specifically to this motion that we are dealing with.

The motion to require that members, who are either independent or are members of recognized parties with fewer than 12 MPs, submit amendments to your committee 48 hours prior to the start of the clause by clause consideration of any bill is deeply problematic. The clear purpose of this motion is to reduce the rights of Members of Parliament.

That should concern us and give us pause; at least we should take time to seriously consider this. The letter goes on:

The context surrounding this motion should give committee members pause. The identical motion has already been tabled in both the Procedure and House Affairs and Finance Committees, and the same motion will soon be tabled in each of the other Standing Committees. It is not plausible that it was actually drafted by the member who has submitted it for your consideration. The only explanation for identical motions in multiple committees submitted by Conservative MPs is that the Prime Minister's Office is coordinating and mandating these actions. The context is this: A party with the majority in the House is seeking to foreclose the one opportunity that MPs who are either Independents or in smaller recognized political parties have to present, speak to, and vote on amendments. By the backdoor, the PMO is attempting to change the legislative process. As this letter will detail, in all previous changes to legislative process, there has been substantive review and study. Members of all parties should give such a move serious consideration. The change that reduces our rights today could reduce yours tomorrow. Meanwhile, it represents a violation of fundamental principles of Westminster parliamentary democracy.

I'm going to go on a little bit, with your indulgence, Mr. Chair, and I'll only take two or three minutes. But this is worth putting on the record, I think, before we cast a ballot that might have such serious consequences. We owe it to ourselves and to these MPs to consider it.

They go on to say, “Those principles”— speaking of the Westminster parliamentary democracy—“are based on the notion that all Members of Parliament are equal”.

I remember many Speakers reminding us of this on a regular basis.

Each MP must have an equal opportunity to fully represent the concerns of our constituents. This motion circumscribes those rights for the convenience of a majority. It is parliamentary vandalism.

The letter provides the background on the treatment of parties with fewer than 12 members. This is interesting, too.

For nearly all of Canada's first century, from 1867 to 1963, all Members of Parliament were not only equal in theory, we were equal in reality. The treatment of Members of Parliament who were not members of parties with a dozen members as distinct and different from those with membership in larger parties stems from a decision in 1963 that related exclusively to financial resources to larger parties. Over time, the “12 person rule” has concretized to deny MPs and smaller parties, as well as Independents, rights to participate on committees, even though the 1963 rule only extended to allocation of financial resources. In 1979, Speaker Jerome dealt with the matter in relation to the status of the five members of the Social Credit Party:

Speaker Jerome is quoted as saying,

“We ought to be clear at the outset that it is not a transgression of propriety to mention the name of the political party of the members who are involved; it is the Social Credit Party of Canada. Its members are members of this House of Commons and their leader is the hon. member for Beauce. Those are the realities. The vote...under no circumstances...can be taken to pass out of existence a political party, nor can it be taken to render as independent members the group which has been recognized as a party and which has in fact been seated together as a political party. The Social Credit Party exists as a political party and the five members exist as members of that party under their leader.”

I don't know why they reference that particular quote. I'm trying to understand the significance of that other than to defend the right of Elizabeth May to be called the Green Party of Canada, which really has nothing to do with the matter before us here today.

I'm looking for relevant information because I'm sorry that not all MPs have this letter. It does make some interesting points.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

You can have a few minutes to think while Mr. O'Connor takes the floor.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Good idea.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

I assume you're reading the comments of the independent members about the appearance that the motion to allow independent members to participate in committees is somehow orchestrated by somebody out there. Well, the very first item we considered today was about in camera sessions in the committees. That identical motion is being passed through every committee in the House, all 26 committees. I can only imagine they're being orchestrated by the OLO. We can make all these accusations about the PMO, the OLO, and whatever the Liberals call themselves, the LO; however, we, on our side, believe that we are being fair to these members. We are offering them something they didn't get before. We are offering them a chance to be in a committee and to make their case in a committee. They don't lose anything because party members do the same thing in committees. When we get to the report stage, if those party members can come up with some amendments that weren't covered, they can make that push at the report stage. I don't see these people losing any benefit whatsoever.

[An hon. member]

Hear, hear!

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Mr. Martin, you may continue the debate.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

If I could continue in response to a point that Mr. O'Connor made earlier and has repeated again now, he makes the argument that these independent members are really losing nothing because they can bring forward amendments at the report stage the same way as we can. It also goes on to say in O'Brien and Bosc:

A motion previously defeated in committee will only be selected if the Speaker judges it to be of such significance to Members as to warrant further consideration at report stages. For the purposes of debate the Speaker will also group motions....

He pretty much rules out the opportunity to bring up the same motion at the report stage that you tried to get through at committee. The key point here is the motions they move at committee they're not allowed to vote on. I don't think it's fair to ask one of us to step out and not cast our ballot in order to give them the opportunity to vote on their own amendment. It's not satisfactory any way you look at it. I can't help but agree with the authors of this letter that it's a very thinly veiled attempt to muzzle and silence some of the independent members who have been so vigorously exercising their rights that it's become inconvenient and a nuisance. I agree it must be off-putting for the government side to have 200 to 300 amendments at report stage. I also think that the Speaker has enough tools in his or her tool box to rule on that to make sure that it doesn't unduly interfere with the ability of the government to advance its legislative agenda. They bundle things. They rule a lot of report stage amendments out of order. If, in the worst-case scenario, once a year we do have to vote into the night to accommodate the legitimate amendments brought forward by independents, so be it. It's not the end of the world.

I wish the government would rethink this motion because I don't think its intentions are constructive. I don't even think they are honourable when you scratch the surface of them.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Thank you all for your comments.

As I have no one left on the list, we can vote on the motion as read by Mr. Trottier a few minutes ago.

[An hon. member]

A recorded vote.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

A recorded division is called for. I will let the clerk proceed with the vote.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We can now move on to the other routine motions, which are probably already before you.

Motion no. 1, proposed by Mr. Blanchette, has already been adopted.

We are moving on to motion no. 2, which concerns time for opening remarks and questioning of witnesses. The motion the committee adopted at the first meeting is the following:

That witnesses be given five (5) to ten (10) minutes to make their opening statement; that, at the discretion of the Chair, during the questioning of witnesses there be allocated five (5) minutes for the questioner of each party, including the responses of the witnesses, as follows: New Democratic Party, Conservative Party, New Democratic Party, Conservative Party, Liberal Party, and Conservative Party.

Mr. Trottier, are you moving motion no. 2?

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Oui. I was wondering if you wanted me to comment on the motion, other than to say it's similar to what we had in the previous session and it seemed to work just fine.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

(Motion no. 2 agreed to)

We will now proceed to motion no. 3.

Before we move on, I think that Mr. Byrne has something to say.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Could you confirm that this motion is consistent with the motion that was passed in the first session of the 41st Parliament?

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

That is the motion that was adopted in the 1st session of the 41st Parliament. That is how the committee functioned during the previous session, when witnesses were given five to ten minutes.

So we are moving on to motion no. 3, which has to do with witnesses belonging to the same organization. I will read the motion as it was carried in the previous session:

That the Chair shall, at the start of a meeting where a number of witnesses belonging to the same organization will be appearing separately on the same study, canvass the Committee on the application of the Committee rule regarding time allocation for questioning of witnesses, in other words to determine whether the rounds of questioning by party should begin over again at the beginning when new witnesses arrive, or resume at the point they left off when the previous witness's appearance concluded.

It has been moved by Mr. Cannan that motion no. 3 be adopted.

(Motion no. 3 agreed to)

We will now deal with motion no. 4.

It's on the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure and states:

That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be established and be composed of the Chair, the two Vice-Chairs, and one additional member, to be designated by the whip, from the Conservative Party.

It has been moved by Mr. Trottier that motion no. 4 be adopted.

(Motion no. 4 agreed to)

So we will have a subcommittee on agenda and procedure.

Let's now proceed to motion no. 5, which deals with meetings without a quorum. The motion reads as follows:

That the Chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence and to have that evidence printed when a quorum is not present, provided that at least three (3) members are present, including one member from the government.

It has been moved by Mr. Martin that motion no. 5 be adopted.

(Motion no. 5 agreed to)

Let's now move on to motion no. 6.

This is in regards to documents distribution:

That only the Clerk of the Committee be authorized to distribute documents to the members of the Committee and only when the documents are in both official languages, and that witnesses be advised accordingly.

It has been moved by Mrs. Day that motion no. 6 be adopted.

(Motion no. 6 agreed to)

We will now proceed to motion no. 7, which concerns working meals. The motion reads as follows:

That the Clerk of the Committee be authorized to make the necessary arrangements to provide working meals for the Committee and its subcommittees.

It has been moved by Mr. Martin that motion no. 7 be adopted.

(Motion no. 7 agreed to)

Let's now move on to motion no. 8, which deals with travel accommodation and living expenses of witnesses. The motion is the following:

That, if requested, reasonable travel, accommodation and living expenses be reimbursed to witnesses not exceeding two (2) representatives per organization; and that, in exceptional circumstances, payment for more representatives be made at the discretion of the Chair.

It has been moved by Mr. Blanchette that motion no. 8 be adopted.

(Motion no. 8 agreed to)

Mr. Cannan, you have the floor.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

For witnesses, I would like to remind the clerk, as much as possible, that we've invested millions of dollars in the new teleconference systems throughout the parliamentary precinct so I'd like to see that we utilize those services and not have to fly in witnesses from Toronto, for example, or right across the country. If it is somebody local they could come here, but I don't see any reason why we can't use our video networking system that we have in place. We spent millions and millions of dollars on it.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Did you hear this request, Mr. Clerk? It was asked that teleconferences be used when possible.

Mr. Martin, go ahead.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

On the same point, Mr. Chair, if I might, it's generally accepted that it is more advantageous for a witness to appear in person. I've even heard witnesses complain that they face a geographic bias and if you're from Toronto, Montreal, or Ottawa you can probably appear in person and make your case to a parliamentary committee with all the flourish that appearing in person affords itself, but if you're from Kelowna or Winnipeg or somewhere like Whitehorse, Yukon, it's more expensive and therefore committees are more reluctant to allow those people to come in person.

I don't think we should make the cost factor the determining factor. If a person is not able to attend in person then by all means we default to the electronic communication, but there is no substitute for appearing in person and making your case face-to-face with parliamentarians, in my view.

As a western Canadian, I feel strongly that people shouldn't be precluded the opportunity to come in person just because we've spent millions of dollars on an electronic service.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Your comments have probably been duly noted by the clerk.

We are moving on to motion no. 9, which concerns access to in camera meetings. The motion reads as follows:

That, unless otherwise ordered, each committee member be allowed to have one staff member present from their office or from their party at in camera meetings.

It has been moved by Mr. Trottier that motion no. 9 be adopted.

(Motion no. 9 agreed to)