Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 6th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

Mr. Reid, please.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think it goes without saying that I do not agree with the examples and arguments that have been put forward by some of the members of the opposition, nor with the general lack of confidence in the chair.

I have at various times chaired never a committee but a number of subcommittees, and I've always had the good fortune to chair committees where there was a considerable sense of goodwill. In general, the various parties were on the same wavelength, with a common goal in mind.

One of these, of course, is actually a subcommittee of this committee, dealing with the code of conduct for MPs. Some of the people on this main committee are on that subcommittee as well.

We were able to function very well because we had a common purpose. We were really seeking a solution to these issues with a common goal in mind. Every disagreement we had was always a respectful disagreement--essentially a disagreement of opinion as opposed to each of us having a fixed and predetermined outcome in our minds as to what it should be that was fundamentally in conflict with where other members of the subcommittee were going.

The consequence was that chairing really was a pleasure. I got to see MPs functioning at their best.

Another consequence was that I was able to function for the most part without votes. In fact, I think we had no votes at all. Everything was done by consensus. This is the way these things work, whether you're using our rules of order or Robert's Rules of Order. I've chaired innumerable meetings outside of Parliament using those rules.

When you have a level of consensus and agreement, you can operate with less formality. Indeed, you can get to the point where you simply let the consensus, the mood of the room, determine such things as speaking order. You don't stick strictly to your speaking order. And you don't have to have votes. If one person seems to be uncomfortable, you take the time to solicit that person and bring them in, even though you know they're in the minority, on the theory that a unanimous agreement is always preferable to a majority vote.

This is just the way things work. As you get more and more contention, you have to become more and more formal in how you deal with things.

Of course, Mr. Chair, that's the situation you've been placed in. And I must say, I feel a bit odd addressing this to you, because you are the one person in the room who can't vote on this matter. I'm trying to convince members whose opinions differ from mine on the merits of the case I'm making.

But through you, Mr. Chair, to those members, you have a situation in which there's an absolute disconnect between what the government and the opposition want on a certain issue. There are other issues we've dealt with here and there, when we could fit them in, where we've had respectful disagreement. We've been able to go through and sometimes work by consensus, more often by holding votes. But we dealt with that piece of legislation in the midst of what is now our seven- or eight-month dispute over the advertising issue.

So we were able to function. Anybody could have, at any point, started filibustering, for example, but it didn't happen. It wasn't a winner-take-all situation, where the stakes were very high.

You were able to conduct those matters, Mr. Chair, with...and I didn't see or hear anybody objecting to the way you chaired in those circumstances.

Things got torqued up to a much greater level of formality, and now every single rule and regulation is seen as a place where partisan advantage can be sought. That's what's been going on with us in dealing with the advertising issue.

In those situations, the chair is essentially keeping two sides from causing the committee to collapse into complete disorder. It's a difficult task.

It's in that light that I think your actions have to be examined. What you have done, essentially, as the big picture, is you have allowed debate to continue as opposed to shutting it off. The reality is that this is the way our rules in Parliament are structured and have been structured since time immemorial. I mean “since time immemorial” in the formal sense; since before records were kept.

Ultimately, the default situation in a parliamentary body, be it a parliamentary body that governs a country or a private association, is that at some point debate either peters out or is halted. Most obviously in Parliament we see this through closure motions at some point.

I've actually been the last speaker in the House of Commons on an item where there was closure imposed. Part way through my discussion, however brilliant it might be, the Speaker stands and says that the time for discussing this motion has expired and we'll now proceed to a vote, or that the vote is deferred to whatever date.

The point is that ultimately you get shut down and go to a vote, and the majority prevails, regardless of whether or not there are salient points that could have been brought up. That's one kind of default situation.

But that is not the default situation that prevails in the absence of a closure motion in a parliamentary setting, including a committee. What happens in a committee is that the default is towards further debate. That is why, when a chair is breaking a tie at second reading on a bill, he or she will vote in favour of it in order to allow debate to continue, but at third reading he or she will vote to not let it go through, because the bill could be reintroduced and debate could continue. That is the underlying basis on which Speaker Milliken broke the tie vote in 2005 over a confidence motion by voting in favour of the government: because debate can continue. That's the default situation and that's what you've maintained.

At the level of the general way in which you've behaved, you have behaved entirely in accordance with the spirit of the way in which this place operates, and for that I am very appreciative. I have had the experience of dealing with chairs who did not take that approach, and it was, I think, ultimately destructive of the spirit that keeps this place operating.

That's a little bit of generalities. I think at that level the case is very clear and is in favour of voting confidence in your chairmanship and in the way in which you have been behaving, Mr. Chair.

Turning to the level of specifics, I heard Mr. Guimond's presentation about the meeting in question that you suspended. He read the record, and I don't think what he read quite captures the tone. It's a shame it wasn't one of the televised meetings, because then the tone could be captured for those who might want to review it, who weren't actually in the room at the time, but he was extremely aggressive. His intention seemed to be to make life as uncomfortable as possible.

And he actually never specified what his demand was. It was “immediately”. I'm not sure what “immediately” means—presumably right after the vote occurs. We have to physically get here. Perhaps his intention was that he thought there might be a chance there wouldn't be any government members present and that he could ram through his motion with no opposition. I don't know that, but it's certainly a possibility. Certainly he was very much in a breach of the spirit of the rules himself.

You suggested fifteen minutes—not a lot of time. Because this is a new rule we're operating under, there are no precedents as to how long the time should be. My understanding is that was simply a length of time that seemed reasonable and that had been discussed in other circles, I gather in the circles amongst the clerks. So it was a reasonable proposal.

In the face of this kind of bullying, it's appropriate to demonstrate that you are the one in charge. If a member is effectively putting the committee into disorder through his actions, which is what Mr. Guimond was doing, interrupting you constantly, making it impossible for you to carry on—this isn't a course that a transcript can capture—then it's appropriate to say you're not going to allow this kind of disorder to continue, which effectively is what you were doing.

So I do not think that can give a basis for a motion of non-confidence. And while it's certainly true that Mr. Guimond and others then went out and held a press conference condemning you and so on, they had a mechanism for dealing with it at the time. To bring this up so much after the fact suggests to me that this is simply the excuse that presents itself to them, in a form that allows them to actually cite something, because when it comes to how you've behaved in other situations, I haven't heard any really substantial protests. I haven't heard anything raised, other than a cluck here or there.

I also want to deal a little bit with Madame Jennings' comments regarding your making rulings.

The only thing I can conclude is that I don't think she understands our rules of order very well and how this place works. I don't think she understands that when a rule is written down here, and you simply present the rule or draw attention to it, that is not subject to be overridden by a majority. If that were the case, everything would be written here to say, “The majority prevails.” But it doesn't say that. There are certain situations where a majority does not simply prevail.

This is not the case in merely our own Parliament but in all parliamentary bodies. It's also the case under Robert's Rules of Order, or under any of the other rival rules of order that are out there for private societies.

Simple majorities don't determine everything. Therefore, everything is not subject, by definition, to being overturned in the manner that Madame Jennings likes to overturn things, by simply saying, “Is that your ruling? I appeal that ruling. Let's shut down debate based on that, have a vote, and have the majority rule.” That is procedural nonsense, and she should know better.

When it comes to your interpretation of precedents, when you turn to Marleau and Montpetit, then you are making a ruling based upon the precedents--that is, your interpretation of the precedents: “It is my ruling; I looked at the precedents; here is what they say to me.” At that point it is appropriate to have the committee say they disagree. Rather than having a long debate about the merits of various precedents, which would take forever, the rules say that at that point you simply challenge the chair on the ruling, it's overturned, and you move on.

Effectively the chair provided the argument based on the precedents, and the committee, in rejecting that ruling, is indicating that it doesn't accept that body of evidence. But it doesn't itself become a compiler of a separate set of precedents or a separate interpretation.

Combing through the precedents on rulings that have and haven't been accepted--that's how we build further precedents. That's how this place works. That's when you're interpreting the rules...or the prior precedents, and those compiled in Marleau and Montpetit and those compiled elsewhere that haven't been included in Marleau and Montpetit. That's how that works.

To the best of my knowledge, you have never engaged in a review based on precedents and failed to allow it to be challenged by claiming that this is not a ruling. But when the rules are what's written down here, that's not a ruling.

In terms of Madame Jennings' desire to ride roughshod over what the rules of Parliament actually are--the Standing Orders--just because that will let her get her way, that does not constitute anything more meaningful than a private wish that should be disregarded as being inappropriate to this place.

That said, I would simply say that you have my complete confidence, and I hope you have the confidence of the majority of the members of this committee. I cannot imagine anyone else doing a better job under such difficult circumstances.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you, Mr. Reid.

We have one more speaker on the list, and that's Mr. Lemieux.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I first joined this committee in the fall, and since my arrival I've been really disappointed in the manner in which the committee has operated. There was an understanding that we would move forward with legislation. Legislation is of primary importance to Canadians, and in fact to this committee, and that should take precedence, particularly as bills have moved through the House and they must be reviewed by this committee.

Instead I've seen extreme partisanship on behalf of the opposition. They keep coming back to this election financing, and they simply will not let it go. They want to win this point, and they've brushed legislation aside.

I spoke at length about Bill C-6 and how important it was to the last by-elections, how important it is in the upcoming by-elections scheduled for March, and how important it would be in full federal elections. They simply will not move on legislation. They have a partisan issue they want to pursue and they're not going to let it go.

They're trying to hijack the committee. That's basically what it comes down to. To give credibility to this argument, I point out what my colleague, Mr. Lukiwski said: when the law clerk provided his non-partisan, professional advice to the committee, the opposition overruled him. That's remarkable. It's amazing. This is the manner in which they act. They want to hijack the committee. They will use strong-arm tactics in the committee to get their way. When they don't get their way, they get upset; they have a little temper tantrum.

We've seen that again with Monsieur Guimond, even today, raising points of order. In my view, raising a point of order is a privilege that's accorded to MPs. You're actually interrupting debate. You're cutting a member off to make a point of order. I've lost count of the number of times Monsieur Guimond has interjected with a point of order, ground the debate to a halt, and all attention focuses on him. It's not a point of order; it's a point of debate. Then 30 seconds later there's another point of order that's another point of debate.

I don't know how many times your patience has amazed me in the manner in which you have accommodated Monsieur Guimond and these types of, I'll call them, irregularities. I think you should respect the privilege that goes with making a point of order.

I was talking about the opposition hijacking the committee to their own partisan ends, and this is simply the next step. They're unhappy because they haven't had their way yet, so they're going to run roughshod over the committee once again and use strong-arm tactics to force their will upon the committee by ejecting the chair.

I, too, wish that many more of our meetings had been televised. I think Canadians would have seen, Chair, how well you managed this committee in very difficult and challenging circumstances. You've always been professional. You have actually been very careful to recognize people on both sides of the floor. The person who gets his hand up first and has the opportunity to propose a motion has that opportunity to start the debate. That's quite a thing.

Yet I noticed today that you recognized Monsieur Guimond first. You have not always recognized this side. You've recognized Ms. Redman first. There are all sorts of times that you've actually recognized both sides equally and fairly. You've managed the debates in a fair manner. You've corrected people when they've veered into repetition. When they've moved into irrelevance, you've pulled them back and said get back on the point. I think you've been equally firm with all members from all parties.

As I said, the opposition is not happy. All we're seeing here is a little juvenile temper tantrum, because they aren't happy. They're not getting their way. The only reason they're able to get away with it is because they happen to outnumber us on the more rational side.

I think this is a great disservice to Canadians, what's going on here. I will say that taxpayers' money is being used to serve partisan ends instead of studying and moving legislation. I think that is a great shame, and yet the opposition couldn't care less.

Now they're going to chew up more time, more effort, by forcibly ejecting the chair. I am completely opposed to that.

As I said, Chair, I've been on several committees myself, and I have been very impressed with the manner in which you've conducted these meetings in what I call difficult circumstances. I actually think your actions are a model to other chairs.

The opposition, in pulling this tactic today, is simply showing Canadians again that this is a partisan move, that it is a hijacking of this committee, and that it's their way or no way. That's basically the way they're framing this.

You have my full support, Chair, and I thank you for the good work you've done.

We do need to bring this to a vote because I think it's fair that you know where the committee stands with respect to this issue.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

That's the last speaker on the list. Are there any other speakers for this debate?

Seeing none, I'm going to ask the clerk to read the motion one more time, and then we'll have a vote; we'll call the question.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. James M. Latimer]

Mr. Guimond moves as follows:

That the Chair no longer has the confidence of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and, as a result, that we proceed immediately to the election of a new Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

All in favour?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

A recorded vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

We'll have the clerk read the names.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Colleagues, I respect the committee's wishes, and accordingly I will vacate the chair so that the clerk can proceed with the election of a new chair.

First allow me to thank the analysts, who I've been working with for years. I also want to thank our clerk, including Lucile, who was with us for the first year. I also want to extend my gratitude to the peripheral staff, the translators, and the ladies beside me.

It has been an honour and a privilege to work with all of you. I wish you the best. I wish this committee the best.

I now call upon the clerk to assume his role for the purpose of electing a new chair.

Thank you.

[The Clerk]

Honourable members, I see a quorum.

Pursuant to Standing Order 106(2), your first order of business is to elect a chair.

I am ready to receive motions to that effect.

I am ready to receive motions to that effect.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

I propose Mr. Joe Preston.

[The Clerk]

Mr. Guimond moves that Mr. Preston be elected Chair of the committee.

Are there any other motions?

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

A point of order, Mr. Clerk.

This committee had a very impartial and fair chair and he did a great job of taking care of his rulings and getting sound guidance for each of them. I would have acted in exactly the same way as he. The opposition members of this committee do not want a chair; they want a puppet. I will not allow my name to stand.

[The Clerk]

I will remind the honourable members that the clerk is only empowered to receive a motion that someone be the chair. I cannot recognize people on points of order and I cannot make rulings.

Am I to understand that that motion has been withdrawn?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Well, I will not allow my name to stand.

[The Clerk]

Mr. Guimond moves that Mr. Preston be Chair of the committee.

Are there any other motions?

There are no other motions.

Very well. All those in favour that

Mr. Preston is elected Chair of the committee.

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

A recorded vote.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Sorry, this is out of order, Mr. Clerk. I believe this proceeding is out of order.

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

He cannot accept points of order.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

I appreciate that. I believe—

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

Only if you vote.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

I believe this meeting is in disorder. I believe this meeting has to be suspended as being in disorder.

A nomination has been given. It has been refused; therefore, this is a nonsensical proceeding.

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

What is your vote, then?