Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Nov. 21st, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

I'm sorry, your time is up.

For the third round, please, we're going to move down to three minutes now.

Mr. Hubbard.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm sitting in today at the committee, but it appears that most of this is around question period. That is the big sporting event that we display to the nation. People back home turn on their TVs at two o'clock, or whatever, depending upon where they are, and they watch this event. We get a lot of criticism as members: “How do you behave? If you were children in our school, we would have to close the place down.” We do get a lot of very derogatory comments about members of Parliament, and only a few probably cause most of the difficulty.

Mr. Marleau, with the setting we have, with the TV that we've brought in, the so-called cabinet ministers are under attack. It's like dealing with a hunting game. They never know who is going to be asked a question; they don't know what the question is about.

I would like to ask Mr. Marleau just to comment in terms of other legislators and other parliaments.

How can we improve the setting if we can't have the proper outcomes? We are talking about discipline. How do you discipline?

I was a school teacher for about 30 years. It depends upon the teacher, the setting and the environment, and what the lesson is.

What would improve the setting to make sure we don't get involved in this sporting activity, which is a hunting game to take some minister to task?

[Robert Marleau]

Although I am no longer clerk of the House, I am still an honorary officer of the House. I have always been very careful not to criticize question period too much because it is a very powerful exercise in accountability. It is very powerful, bar none, in the Commonwealth.

The Prime Minister comes for 15 minutes once a day in Great Britain, in that great mother of Parliament. All of the cabinet ministers have notice of the questions, or at least notice of who will be asking the questions. I'm not advocating that as something you should consider.

If you want to tone down question period, there is a draw for questions at the end of the day. Members file their notice for a question and the clerk shuffles them like a bunch of cards and then he turns them over for the first thirteen, and that's what's printed on the order paper. That tones it down a bit because the ministry can get ready in terms of some of the answers coming their way. It does take away, which they don't have in Great Britain to this day, the total party control of their membership in the line-up of question period. The member in Great Britain is far more independent. If he gets in the draw to get his question, it has nothing to do with his party. It may have to, in terms of the content and the policy and that sort of thing, but it has nothing to do with his party leadership. He's there because as part of the process he has been selected.

There are techniques you could look at. Notice is one, but it does diminish the power of question period to ask a question on any matter of public administration within the government's responsibility on any day, at any time. We're very demanding in Canada in asking the Prime Minister to be there most days, and the entire cabinet would be in attendance.

What happens in Great Britain with notice is, well, we know today it's only going to be on defence and social affairs, so only those ministers show up.

There are two ways of looking at it.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Thank you--

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I'm sorry. I don't mean to cut you off. We're just trying to keep to a schedule.

I do not have any other members on my list for questioning. I'm going to assume the questioning is over.

Thank you, colleagues.

I would like to express the gratitude of the committee to the witnesses coming today. Thank you again for being here and for being so kind as to answer our questions. Even though you didn't get many, in some cases, we certainly appreciate that you were available. I now dismiss the witnesses from the meeting.

Colleagues, we will just give the witnesses a moment to step away from the table and then we will continue in public and see where we are going from this.

Okay, colleagues, let's get back to business on this issue. I would like to take just a brief moment to discuss what we want to do next on this particular topic. Obviously, there are some options on how we can move forward on this topic. I would like to hear from the committee as to where we think we should proceed on this issue.

Madame Picard, please.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Chair, I’d like to respond to a comment from Mr. Marleau to the effect that to be positive and achieve something, it takes the participation of the whip, the leader and the parties.

I don’t know if you would agree, Mr. Chair, that we should return to our respective caucuses to talk about this discussion and share our thoughts about decorum in the House with our colleagues, and return to this committee with the comments gleaned from members. I think it would be the best solution, because I too am convinced that the Speaker should not be alone in having to act as judge and dispenser of justice and to punish the guilty. It also takes the participation or will of all members of the House to respect order and decorum.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Merci.

I saw Monsieur Godin's hand go up next. Could we keep our comments to maybe two minutes? Then we'll go to Mr. Lukiwski.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Yes, Mr. Chair. I have listened to what my colleague said and I believe that when we listened to the witnesses who were here this morning, some said we should be prudent. At the same time, they recognize that there is a problem and it is not a recent one. It will not be resolved overnight.

So, in light of what we have heard, I would second that suggestion. We should go back to our respective political parties and share with our colleagues what we have heard from the witnesses, including Mr. Marleau, and that we then meet again to discuss the subject so that everyone, after having the opportunity to speak to his or her colleagues and see if they too recognize that there is a problem within their party, can make their recommendations. Some of the recommendations we have heard could be made, but we could discuss them with our colleagues.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Merci.

Mr. Lukiwski, please.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

I don't have a problem with what Madame Picard and Monsieur Godin are saying, to consult with the caucus, inasmuch as I think we've all agreed that so much of this decorum issue has to be self-imposed. We have to determine ourselves whether or not we want to play nice with others.

But I have a point of clarification, Mr. Chair, and I'm a little confused on this. Were we here to ultimately vote on whether or not the 1992 report should be accepted, or what was the purpose of this?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

We were asked to continue this, not to vote on the report. Ultimately, it was technically never entered as a motion, and the motion that we did have that was not technically tabled is not relevant anymore because the date is wrong. We did agree to have a meeting on this issue to discuss it further and to decide. Where we are right now is we're simply having consultations with the caucuses--that's the consensus I'm hearing--and we'll potentially, at some point in the future, report back as a result of those discussions. That might lead to a letter of support to the Speaker, or it may simply mean that everybody has the message.

But there's no vote on this motion.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Could I just ask if there are there any comments over here, before we start repeating speakers?

Madam Jennings, two minutes, please.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

We are as well in favour of going back to our caucus, reporting what we've heard here, and then coming back to share.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I hear a consensus here, Mr. Godin. Do you have something further?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

I know that you want to go to something else, and I respect that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

That's fine.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

I just want to make sure you understand.

The motion came from us, right?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Right.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

I think right at the beginning we were clear. What happened in 1992, in the report, is the work they have done. Let's look at that and ask if it's something we could do today. Do we recognize that there's a problem in the House, and what can we do? It was not that the report had to be voted on and that's it or nothing else; it was not that.

That's what it is, to look at it, and by looking at it, see what we can do to help have better decorum in the House and have people feel good about it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Okay.

Colleagues, thank you very much. I think we've had an extremely productive conversation this morning, and I appreciate the consensus we're hearing around the table. It demonstrates significant cooperation and a need to do better.

What I'm understanding, just for the record, is that this will be discussed amongst the individual caucuses in some matter of seriousness, and that at some point in the future we'll put it on the agenda. My guess is that it might be February, but let's see how things go. If it's not going to take too much time, we could have a brief discussion about the results of those discussions at caucus here at the meeting, and then decide how further to deal with it, if at all.

Is there any confusion on that? Are there any questions? Okay, perfect. Jamie, we'll mark that down for some future date. We're good to go.

Ladies and gentlemen, what I want to remind members is that we do have before us now Bill C-31, which is, of course, as a direct result of our report from this committee. That will be coming before this committee on Thursday. Regrettably, we're putting the conflict of interest code on the back burner, so to speak, for a little while, as legislation takes precedence.

Members, I just want to remind you that, at the very most, we have seven meetings left before the Christmas adjournment. Before you, you should have a blank calendar. I would certainly like to have a discussion now about what witnesses we need. We have some already. We need to schedule the witnesses, and if necessary—hopefully it's not necessary—I would like to have a brief discussion about the possibility of extra meetings so that in fact we can get our work done prior to the Christmas break.

What we know so far, colleagues, is that on Thursday, Mr. Nicholson will be appearing before the committee--that's confirmed--to begin the discussions. He has been invited. He has agreed, of course, to come.

There are some other witnesses here, I can tell you, who have requested to appear, but also, before I forget, I want to make sure that we agree, as a group, on notice for any amendments. We did agree prior, when we were studying Bill C-16, to 24 hours’ notice for any amendments. First of all, can we get that out of the way? Is that acceptable to members, that there be 24 hours’ notice for any amendments?

I'm seeing nods around the table. Okay, then we can just record that that will be the rule with respect to that. The witnesses who we feel that at this point we need to hear from, and as well have asked, are the B.C. Civil Liberties Association; and Duff Conacher, who is the coordinator of Democracy Watch. We have an individual request that I'm not 100% sure of, from an individual named Tina-Marie Bradford, from British Columbia. She's a lawyer. She has requested to come before the committee.

As well, we had requests from our friends in the Bloc to have folks from Quebec in to discuss the issue of bingo cards. My thinking is that Quebec might be able to offer some insight as well on how they have managed the issue of folks who are homeless, how they've dealt with it.

And then, of course, Mr. Kingsley will be appearing--Mr. Shapiro may want to appear, but I don't see the relevance.

May I just suggest as chair, to lead things along, that we have Mr. Nicholson coming in on Thursday. So next Tuesday, might I suggest that we invite our colleagues from Quebec and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association via teleconferencing? Obviously, I will leave it to the committee to agree to that. I have no position on Mr. Conacher or the individual from British Columbia, the lawyer, so I would leave that to members, if they choose, but my thinking is that we get them all in here on Tuesday, November 28.

Thursday, November 30, is adjourned out of respect for the Liberal leadership campaign. We could reschedule that to a Wednesday night, but let's see how many witnesses we come up with.

I suggest that Tuesday, December 5, which would be the next meeting, we have Mr. Kingsley in for at least the first half of that meeting to answer any concerns we come up with as a result of the witnesses.

I remind colleagues that we've had many witnesses on the report that we tabled. Much of this is going to be repetitive, but in all due process and with respect to colleagues here who may have questions, I will now open the floor for comments on who the witnesses should be.

Monsieur Godin.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Chair, unless I am mistaken, I had the impression that we would only deal with that next week. However, you are right, the bill has precedence. That is why we will discuss it on Thursday.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

We will be proceeding with this on Thursday.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

That's what I said.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I'm sorry. I misunderstood you, Monsieur Godin.