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

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I'll not take that as a point of order.

Carry on.

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

Thank you, but in all seriousness, Mr. Chair, one of the things that is key to the success of Parliament is that we try as best we can to work with each other informally in order to, in a sense, provide the lubrication between the gears that all grind together here to produce the legislation and the oversight for which we're responsible. There are a variety of informal mechanisms we've set up for that, which are based, ultimately, on our trust and respect for each other, notwithstanding the fact that ultimately the nature of what we're doing as policy objectives puts us in perpetual conflict.

But it's not a war of all against all. It is a respectful attempt by all of us to achieve policy objectives when we differ on all of the specifics that come before us--that is the nature of it--but not on the generalities. That's why you have the concept of, for example, the loyal opposition. The opposition is loyal to the constitution, loyal to the Queen, loyal to the idea of the state, loyal to the institution of Parliament, but ultimately not loyal to the government, because it seeks to be an alternative government.

That concept includes not merely the government and the official opposition, but also all of the opposition parties. One of the institutions we use is informal House leaders meetings. These are meetings that take place between the House leaders, the whips, and the deputy House leaders every Tuesday. Although not all the individuals who are here go to these meetings, I think a majority of them, or at least half of the individuals here, do go to these meetings. We agree to conduct ourselves in a certain manner, a manner that I would describe as “gentlemanly”. Although there are no formal rules about contempt of Parliament for talking about what goes on in these in camera meetings, it would be conventionally be understood to be contempt for the process to mention publicly what goes on privately in those meetings. In my remarks I will be respectful of that convention.

It's also important to understand that the undertakings given at those meetings have to be taken seriously. If we agree to undertake a certain process in those meetings, including a process for negotiating some potential change to the Standing Orders, then that undertaking should be honoured. If it isn't, ultimately the utility of that institution--the utility of the weekly House leaders meetings designed to facilitate cooperation and to find the areas where we aren't in conflict in order to move forward--is lost.

As you can probably guess, what I'm working up to here, Mr. Chair, is the suggestion that in essence a version of that seems to have taken place today. It is a version of--and I'm trying to use gentle language here--neglecting the undertaking to be gentlemanly in our conduct with each other, to be respectful of the process and of the fact that we were expecting to use that process to resolve this issue. It has been lost by taking this particular motion and bringing it to this group without notice. We had witnesses here, of course, and an expectation that we'd be dealing with other items of business. Now we're saying that we're going to use this process.

There is no formal violation of any rule--that would be easy to stop, actually, because the rules are the rules--but there's a violation of the conventions that help us to work together.

One of the interesting things about the way our institution is structured after a thousand years of evolution here and in England--

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Yes, Mr. Proulx, go ahead.

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

I'm just questioning the relevance of Mr. Reid's.... I seem to remember that he was using basically the same words on the in-and-out scandal that we investigated at one time. I'm wondering if he's just reading the same speech. Where's the relevance?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you for your intervention, Mr. Proulx, but it really isn't clearly a point of order.

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

Well, what's the relevance?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I believe he's speaking of the Standing Orders and the relationship between the House leaders and deputy House leaders in this place. Since the motion to this committee would include all of that, I'll allow him to continue.

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

Do you feel it's relevant?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I think I just said that.

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

I see.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You can, of course, challenge.

Carry on, Mr. Reid.

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

We're just happy to have a nice guy like you, Mr. Chair.

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

There actually is some similarity, which I will come back to in a moment, in the comments. I'm not entirely sure that having brought up a point in the 39th Parliament invalidates raising a similar theme in the 40th Parliament. Our rules don't, as far as I can tell, preclude that possibility. If they did, it would lead to very interesting debates. We would eventually run out of all relevant arguments and only be able to use the irrelevant ones that nobody had thought of previously, because the relevant ones had been previously engaged in and were therefore impermissible.

I'm going to come back to that point. Let me first talk about what I was saying.

There is an underlying way in which we conduct ourselves when we find that the informalities that allow us to get business done break down. There are two ways of handling this.

You can say that the default position of Parliament is to simply say, when we can't agree, that we shut down debate and have a vote and move on, or the default position could be that when we can't agree and can't find ways of facilitating moving things along through unanimous consent—with which, as you know, you can do anything here—or through a demonstration of widespread consent, we slow the process down. There are many ways in which this applies. Obviously nothing can happen without a majority, but we also have ways of ensuing that if a meaningful minority disagrees with something, they can act in a certain way.

If a meaningful minority of the committee—not a majority of the committee; I think it's four members, though it may be five—don't agree with the chair's decision not to call a meeting within a certain time that they deem reasonable, they can sign a letter and effectively force a meeting to take place. That's an example of a way in which we ensure that more debate can happen.

In the House, if the Speaker asks us to call out the “yeas” and “nays” and determines that the “yeas“ have it and five of the people who are supporters of the “nay“ side believe that the Speaker is incorrect in that interpretation, they can stand up. They call it a “standing five.” That's a way of giving power to a minority to slow the process down and allow for more debate.

This is taken to the point that by convention, when dealing with tied votes, the Speaker always breaks a tie in such a way as to ensure that further debate can continue. It's not written down, but it's a very strong convention, and the Speaker has made reference to it. At third reading, that means voting against the measure in question so that it can be sent back and the process can start all over again, because if you voted in favour, it would pass from us on to the other place.

In the case of a second reading vote—

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

I have a point of order.

Mr. Chair, I can't find the relevance. I really want to know what this has to do with the amendment or the motion. I cannot find relevance in going into the Speaker or whatever.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Well, I can, so Mr. Reid will continue.

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

I challenge the chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We haven't had that for a while, have we? I don't believe I can remember it ever.

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

I'm sorry, but on a point of order, I'm not sure about a point of order, but I think it trumps a challenge to the chair. The chair has to make a ruling to be challenged, so—

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

He already made the ruling. His ruling was that he finds—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I made the ruling that you were relevant.

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

I challenge the chair.

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

Okay. I just want to be clear that this is what was being—

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

Aren't you happy, Scott? He thinks you're relevant.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Order.