Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Nov. 25th, 2010

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Is that it? Oh.

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

Mr. Proulx, you asked the question. I'm just trying to provide context.

He lost two cases and was told by the courts--

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I'm going to ask you to bring this to--

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

I will, but you see the point. He was told to pay costs when a real court was dealing with this, and he is now appealing it. There was an article in yesterday's paper. He's arguing that while the letter of the law shows the Conservative Party to be right, he's arguing that Parliament had a different intent. That's apparently the case that his legal team is now presenting.

The point was to stop an abuse. That was the purpose. That is the link back, and that's part of what we do here. That's a perfectly legitimate thing to do. It's what we did then, and it's what I'm doing now. I would strongly urge members--and here I will bring my comments to a conclusion--to vote in favour of the amendment to the motion. If that is done, then I would urge members to vote in favour of the motion itself, and then we can look at this proposal, which may very well be a very good proposal. If it is, and I don't know this for a fact, but if it is identical to the one that was presented in the House at this meeting, then it actually struck me as being fairly unobjectionable. However, I object to the process by which our informal methods of respecting each other have been ignored and I would strongly encourage all of us to return to the practice of honouring in public the undertakings we take in private in order to facilitate the business of Parliament getting on in a businesslike manner.

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Reid.

Ms. Foote, you're up.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the comments from my colleagues around the table. It is a pretty conciliatory committee.

I'm new to the committee, but I have to say that I have great difficulty with the filibustering on a motion that's so straightforward that it is not setting a precedent. It's something that already exists in terms of what we're trying to accomplish and is in the best interests of democracy. It's a fair practice to make it possible for the all opposition parties to have an opportunity in the House of Commons to actually put questions to the government and actually raise issues with respect to supply, so I'm at a loss to understand how anyone could suggest that what's being proposed here today is contrary to democracy or fairness.

We have the practice. It exists. When I look at the length of time that Mr. Reid was speaking, we've been debating now for about an hour and a half on a motion that's pretty straightforward. At this point in time, I'd like to call the vote, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

When I've done the list, we'll certainly be able to do that.

Monsieur Laframboise, you're up.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Chair, you might be able to tell that I am against the amendment. I am happy that we are having this debate, that it is not being held in camera. This will let anyone who reads the record of what took place here… I think that the clerk expressed herself well in response to Mr. Hoback's question. The committee is entitled to discuss the motion.

We all know that this motion came out of a debate between the House leaders. Mr. Reid even mentioned that he was there. So he could easily explain what it is about. He could even have requested a 10-minute adjournment to tell his colleagues about the situation, the how and why of this motion being introduced today, mainly to continue what happened in 2010 and fit it to the 2011 schedule. So we will never again have to experience the sad situation where the government could set aside a group of opposition days at the end of a session to avoid having a motion to overthrow it or a motion of censure. It is just another Conservative strategy.

I am not in favour of this motion because… Basically, the only people who could be heard here, if we ever decided to do an analysis or go more in-depth, are our House leaders. They are the ones who give us feedback on everything. It is important that anyone reading these transcripts fully understands that the committee is fit to discuss this motion today and is capable of doing so. Why is this motion before us? Because the House leaders could not agree, and we all know very well why they could not agree.

Our colleagues on the committee here—Mr. Reid, Ms. DeBellefeuille and Mr. Proulx—cannot tell us about it because they are required to maintain the confidentiality of the discussions that took place. But everyone knows why we are discussing this motion. I have always been amazed by the British system. It allows us to vote for or against a proposal, but there is also the filibuster that can totally prevent us from voting, and this is what the Conservative Party has been doing for some time.

The Conservative MPs will perhaps keep it up for three or four days. They have the right to. There is no problem. But, once again, it is important not to try to make people believe that they are not aware of what's happening. They are fully aware of the situation, and there is a reason why they do not want to support this motion. It is because they are unhappy with it. So, obviously, once again, I hope that… We will pay attention to them, listen to them.

Mr. Chair, earlier you had one of your decisions challenged. I do not think that this is something that will happen often. But the Conservatives are completely free to tell us the truth about their intentions. If they want to obstruct the debate, let them say so and everyone listening to us will know it. Let them not try to tell us that they want to do more analysis and do a more in-depth study of a file that they know very well. If this was the case, Mr. Reid could very well explain it in 10 minutes by requesting an adjournment to tell his colleagues why it happened this way at the meeting of the House leaders.

I think that the committee is entitled to propose the motion. The clerk said so today. What happened in 2010 is that an agreement was made between the parties. You'll remember that, in 2009, the reason why this agreement was made was because the House of Commons had asked the Speaker to rule on the question.

So today, this motion is the logical consequence of a decision by the Speaker of the House of Commons. All the parties had asked him to make a suggestion for 2010, and we are applying the suggestion in 2011. As Ms. DeBellefeuille mentioned earlier, it's for 2011, the calendar year beginning on January 1^st. And I told you earlier that the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is also the Minister of the Environment. He needs to go to Cancun in a week, as he made sure everyone knew.

In one way, we want to be reassured that we will start 2011 the same way as 2010, and this is the reason for the motion request today. It is true that it is an amendment of the Standing Order and that, last time, we did not proceed that way. There had been an agreement between the House leaders, but right now, there isn't one. It is simply because the House leader of the Conservative Party does not want an agreement, Mr. Chair. That is the reality.

If Mr. Reid wanted to explain to his colleagues in 10 minutes what happened between the House leaders, I would agree to let him do that. Then we could vote. I am against a deeper discussion of the subject because we are fully aware of what happened at the meeting of the House leaders, and so is the Conservative Party.

We hope to be able to help Parliament move forward, because the role of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is to make Parliament operate when all other ways of proceeding have failed.

Since nothing worked at the meeting of the House leaders, I think that it is up to us to make this decision and issue a report. Mr. Chair, if you bring this report to the House of Commons, Parliament will handle it. I think this is the best way to proceed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Lukiwski.

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

Thanks very much, Chair.

I have a couple of quick points of clarification for my friend Mr. Laframboise. He talked about the Conservatives filibustering. I can assure him that debating this for only an hour and a half or two hours is, at least in my view, not a filibuster.

I think those who have sat on this committee before would know that since I spoke for approximately six and a half hours at one time, straight, on the in-and-out scandal, I'm fully conversant with not only the theory but also the practical application of filibusters. For me, the next 30 minutes will certainly not be a filibuster in any way, shape, or form. It will merely be talking.

I say that, and I'm going to be quite honest with everybody here, because I'm planning to talk this out, pure and simple, for one reason and only one reason. I'm not saying that we are against this whatsoever; it's simply the manner in which it was presented to us without notice. That's still within the rights of the member who presented it, but quite frankly, I want to go back to my House leader—and I'm his parliamentary secretary—and do a consult with him, because I believe the House leaders were making some progress.

There's no question, as Mr. Reid previously mentioned, that if the motion in its original form is put to a vote and all opposition members vote in favour of it, it shall be done. Let's admit it. We're outnumbered on this side, and I understand that. I appreciate that. I'm not going to try to obfuscate and I'm not going to try to filibuster based on the motion itself. I'm merely suggesting that I have a considerable problem with this in the manner in which it was brought forward.

The motion itself talks to the fact that it is going to be a change to the standing order for the Business of Supply in the period not ending later than March 26--on and on and on--in 2011. We have the time. There are approximately six meetings left to deal with this, and I think we can certainly discuss this issue at a future meeting, at which time all of us would be better prepared.

Therefore I'm going to entertain, or at least move a motion right now, to adjourn. If we don't, that's fine. I'll come back and I'll keep talking for 30 minutes. It's strictly up to the committee, but I move to adjourn.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

That's not debatable. A motion to adjourn is not debatable, so I'll call the question.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

We will carry on, Mr. Lukiwski.

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

Thank you very much.

My point is that we do have time, because this would take effect next year. Whether we want to make, or deem it prudent to make, changes to the standing order when in fact we have been working on a supply day system by convention--a system, I might add, that's been working fairly well, in my view--is something that we need to discuss in earnest. I would certainly like to have as witnesses not only procedural experts, but also, as one of my colleagues mentioned earlier, the House leaders, and ask them directly what kind of progress, if any, they are making on this.

One of the things that we have been trying to do in Parliament over the course of the last several weeks is to increase the level of decorum in the House of Commons, particularly during question period. I think we've been having a positive effect to that end. We've been able to achieve that, Mr. Chair, through an agreement among the House leaders. We have discussed this. We have all agreed that the level of decorum in years past has been shockingly poor, and I'm going to choose my words carefully here. I could certainly use stronger words, but I won't. There has been a general agreement among House leaders to try to control their own caucuses and to try to raise the level of decorum during question period.

Yes, there has been the odd flare-up from time to time, but it has not even been close to the raucous behaviour, the childish and boorish behaviour, that we've seen in years past. I think that's a testament to the House leaders in their willingness to get together and agree on something that really makes Parliament a better place and a better environment for all of us.

I don't particularly have a problem with this motion. I honestly don't, because I was in opposition when the previous Liberal government stacked all of the opposition days toward the very end of a session in order to try to avert a vote of non-confidence. At the time I thought that was undemocratic; I still do, and if our party, now that we're in government, tried to do something similar, I would have the same feelings, so I don't in spirit have a whole bunch of difficulty with this motion.

My difficulty, and I will keep repeating it, is the manner in which it was presented here today. I merely suggested that we take until next Tuesday to go back our respective parties to consult with our House leaders, their staff, their deputy House leaders, and, in my case, the parliamentary secretaries to allow us to make a determination on how we wish to proceed.

I honestly think we could get through this quickly if we had a brief study of this motion, and by “study” I mean allowing this committee to ask for and speak to certain individuals who would appear as witnesses--nothing more, nothing less. I don't think that's an unreasonable request. In fact, if you looked at the operations of almost every other standing committee, that request would be agreed to with unanimity among the committees.

I do have some difficulties with the manner in which this motion was put forward, but let's talk about the process that we're in right now and the convention that we have been working under for the last little while with respect to supply days. I have not seen, or at least I have not heard, any great complaints from any of the opposition parties about the manner in which our government has allocated supply days. Some may say that they would prefer a Tuesday as opposed to a Thursday, for the simple reason that many members like to go back to their constituencies on Thursday evening. Quite frankly, some of them seem to disappear shortly after question period; consequently, allocating a supply day on a Thursday might inconvenience some of their own caucus members by not allowing them to go home as quickly as possible.

Chair, that complaint, I would suggest, is a very minor complaint. We have not been making a practice of placing supply days on what we call short days--in other words, on Wednesdays, when we have half a day, or on Fridays, when we in effect have half a day. That is a practice that other governments have used, sometimes, in their opinion, for a good reason. It's usually done to try to punish an opposition party that has done something that has not sat well with the government of the day, and so as a way of retribution and punishment, a sitting government would at the odd time put an opposition day on a Friday, knowing very well that many of the opposition parties' caucus members usually travel back to their ridings on Fridays. That would be a form of retribution to say that if you jerk around with us, we'll jerk around with you.

We have not made a practice of doing that. When we have had difficulties with the opposition parties, I believe we have been able to work those difficulties out or at least discuss them, if not actually come to a complete agreement. We have been able to discuss them at House leaders meetings or at least at the House leaders level. I know many of the agreements that we've had in place informally over the course of the last number of months have come about as informal conversations between House leaders--not necessarily at the Tuesday House leaders meetings, but at private meetings. Frankly, I appreciate the willingness of the opposition parties to engage in those kinds of discussions.

We all know there will be many times, perhaps more often than not, when all parties will agree to disagree. There will be some fundamental differences of opinion on certain issues, particularly when it comes to legislation, that we will simply not be able to agree on or even come close to agreeing on. I appreciate that. I understand that it's a function of Parliament and certainly a function of a minority Parliament.

Having said that, I believe this motion is something on which we can find some agreement--perhaps not unanimity, but I certainly think we can find consensus. I have stated on the record, and our government has stated on the record, our objection to the way the Liberals in their prior years of government handled the business of supply and supply days. Frankly, I thought what they tried to do to usurp democracy was unconscionable. They were taking supply days, in effect, out of the hands of the opposition parties in their own attempt to avert a vote of non-confidence. We have not seen fit to manipulate supply days in the same fashion and, quite frankly, I applaud our House leaders who have taken this approach. I hope the opposition parties recognize that we've done so in an attempt to be as fair and democratic as possible.

Now, will we continue to deliver supply days in the same fashion as we have over the past several months? I can't answer that. Only time will tell, but I can say with certainty that our intentions are honourable. We do not see the need, nor frankly do we see the necessity at this point in time, to try to use supply days as a form of either punishment or reward. We simply see that as a right for opposition parties to bring forward motions they feel or deem to be important and to allow those opposition parties to debate fully and completely their motions on long days.

Let me give you a specific example. I'll say this to my friends from the Bloc, and this is something we could have done today. Yesterday, during routine procedures, I brought forward the notices of motions and production of papers. I asked for all notices of motions and production of papers to stand.

The Bloc did not concur with that.

That event, in and of itself, is probably something that happens perhaps once in a decade, maybe once every second decade. Normally it's always agreed upon, but the Bloc was perfectly within its right procedurally when it said no. Quite frankly we, and I personally, were not quick enough off the mark to ask for that motion to be transferred for debate, which in effect would have negated what they were trying to accomplish.

Nonetheless, a normal reaction would be for many parties to find some form of retribution. We could have done something today, very simply, when the Bloc whip asked to defer the vote to Tuesday, which was an accommodation for their members who would probably want to go home Thursday night. If we had wanted to be meanspirited and had wanted a little payback when they asked for unanimous consent, any one of us, myself included, could have said no. That would have forced a vote tonight. It would have forced their members to stay here tonight for a vote, and it could have been seen as a form of payback, of retribution. Quite frankly, many in other parties would probably have suggested exactly that as the course of action to take--in other words, to use the old hockey analogy, “You cut me, I'll cut you”.

We didn't do that. We could have also, for example, brought forward a concurrence motion, so we would have had three hours of debate in the middle of their opposition day. We did not do that. Why? Because, quite frankly, Chair, we don't see the benefit of taking that kind of action at this point in time.

My point is simply this: our government is not here to try to manipulate or punish opposition parties by using supply days as a hammer. The previous Liberal government did. We didn't appreciate that, and I know the Bloc and the the NDP didn't appreciate that. We were all well within our rights to complain, and we complained vociferously about that.

I believe changing a standing order or dealing with an issue as important as the scheduling of supply days necessitates at least some internal discussion among our own parties. The manner in which the motion was presented today did not allow us to do that. My friend Judy had said the motion could be debated and perhaps voted on today, but even though I appreciate the fact that she offered to allow us to debate, I still believe that the intent was to try to have this motion determined today by a vote of this committee.

As I said earlier, Chair, I believe that when this motion is voted upon, whether in its original form or as amended, the opposition will have their way if they vote collectively. That's a given. I'm merely suggesting that we have an opportunity to come to the next meeting prepared, as opposed to forcing us to vote on something for which the new committee members in particular are completely unprepared.

I think that it's a reasonable request. I don't think that any member of the opposition should take any great offence at that suggestion.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Go ahead, Ms. Ratansi.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Since Mr. Lukiwski is making a statement that they'd like to bring it to Tuesday, would he be willing to do a vote on Tuesday on this motion? Is that what he's suggesting?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Well, since the Chair doesn't have that information, I'll let Mr. Lukiwski carry on with his debate, and he may share that information with you.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Just so that I can appreciate--

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

It's not really a point of order, but I understand it's out there now.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

I know, I know. I'm just in awe of his ability to speak for so long.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Let's have some applause for Mr. Lukiwski.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

I haven't seen the Ritalin guy speak yet.

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

A few others brought their laundry to my last dissertation and started doing laundry in the middle of my presentation, but that's a fair comment, a fair question.

I'll give you an honest answer: I don't know. I honestly don't know. My sense is that we have no real desire to extend this. I honestly do not believe that there is any real willingness on our behalf to filibuster for the next three or six meetings, or whatever it is.

I think, quite frankly, that there is some merit in what you're suggesting. Whether it would be in this exact form, I can't say, and that's why I'm asking for some time to do a consult. My personal view is that no government should be able to arbitrarily manipulate supply days. When I say “arbitrarily”, I'm referring again to the practice of your former caucus when you were in government.

Granted, I know there will be times when opposition parties will be given a supply day or given notice of a supply day on a particular day of the week that they don't appreciate. That's just going to happen. It's the nature of Parliament. There will be times when we engage in some difficult discussions. There will be times when we will feel that the opposition is being unreasonable, and you have procedural levers at your disposal to do what you wish. We as government also have levers at our disposal.

Can I suggest or confirm or guarantee that you will get everything you wish or ask for or desire in terms of the timing of your opposition days? No, I can't say that, but I can tell you in all honesty that we have no really compelling reason at this point in time to manipulate supply days in the same fashion in which they were manipulated by previous governments. I am simply suggesting that in my view it is appropriate to allow a little bit of time for all members of this committee to consult with their own caucuses or their own House management teams to determine how they wish to proceed with this motion.

It could be as simple as some small changes in the wording of the motion, not the spirit of the motion. The spirit, I think, is quite clear. The spirit of this motion is simply to allow the opposition parties to have some certainty on when their opposition or supply days will be held, some predictability that they will be held in a timely fashion, and some assurance that the government will not be able to arbitrarily package them all together within, say, a five-day or seven-day period at the end of a session to try to avoid an uncomfortable vote. I understand that. I appreciate that. I think, quite frankly, that it is a legitimate request. I'm merely saying that the fashion in which this was presented to us is not reasonable for the government. Regardless of the sincerity of Judy's intent or wording, which I appreciate and am not questioning, it does not allow us an opportunity to do a consult with the people that we need to consult with.

Clearly this motion was well thought out by the Liberals. They brought it here with a purpose. They made the motion with the full knowledge that we had a full agenda in front of us to continue our examination of the Chief Electoral Officer's report, yet they obviously felt that from a strategic standpoint it would be in their best interests to bring this motion forward today and present it in the fashion in which they did. We fundamentally disagree.

It is their right to do so. There are no objections there. We are simply saying that we should be given until at least the next meeting to come back with a position or perhaps an amendment, or perhaps not. Allow us at least that amount of time to do the proper consultations and to come fully prepared to discuss this motion at the next meeting. We want nothing more and nothing less.

I sense, Mr. Chair, that we can achieve a resolution to this before we break for Christmas, and that's what is of paramount importance here. I can understand that the opposition parties wish to have certainty before they come back from the Christmas break. They wish to know with certainty that they will have supply days in a fair and democratic fashion. I have no doubt this is what they are trying to achieve here.

Quite frankly, as I mentioned on several occasions in the last few minutes, I think it's quite within their--

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

I have a point of order.

Mr. Chair, I hate to be a bug, but I want to know if the Conservatives are going to be doing the same filibustering on Tuesday.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

That's not a point of order.

Mr. Lukiwski, you still have the floor.