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

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Just give us a second. We'll get the clear amendment out to you.

Mr. Lukiwski, let us know if this is close to what you said:

That the motion be amended by adding, after the words “standing order”, “that the committee carry out a study of the preceding motion”.

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

Yes. That captures the spirit of what I was trying to say.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

All right.

On the amendment, I have Mr. Albrecht.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair

I'm absolutely thrilled to speak to the amendment, because this amendment embodies exactly what I was trying to get at in my earlier comments when we were in camera. It is unfair to this committee and to Canadians that a motion like this would be thrust upon them at the eleventh hour with no time to prepare at all or to read what was previously in the Standing Orders and what the recommended changes are.

It's fine for the opposition members to explain their intent and what the differences are, but that is not adequate research, in my opinion. I think that for a procedural change that will be in writing for an entire year, it's important to have more expert witnesses. The clerk herself admitted that she was not sure whether or not there might be a domino effect on other standing orders. It's up to us, certainly, to try to clarify that. I don't think there's any big rush to do this today. With the amendment before us, we have time to study the motion and do due diligence, at which time we can then either vote for or against it.

I would absolutely stand in support of the amendment to give us time to do an adequate study.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Weston, you're next on the list.

[Rodney Weston, Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Thank you, Chair.

As Mr. Lukiwski said, I'm new to this committee. Maybe in that fashion I understand that it is certainly within the realm of a committee's powers to bring a motion of this nature forward, and it's certainly within our responsibility to look at that motion.

However, I have to say that coming in here today and having this thrust upon us in this manner, and not having a lot of background on it myself as a new member and not understanding all of the details, I have heard discussion on both sides of the table in debate that leads me to believe this is something that has been worked on with the House leaders. The cynic in me starts to wonder what's going on here.

Maybe I shouldn't use the word “cynic”. Maybe I should say I'm a curious person by nature, and the curiosity in me makes me wonder what the rush is.

Mr. Albrecht said we're not serving Canadians well by dealing with this in this quick fashion without hearing all the discussion or all the debate around it. Honestly, it's not fair to me as a new member of the committee to expect me to vote one way or the other until I have a complete understanding of the ramifications of a change of this nature. It's incumbent on all of us to have a clear understanding of the implications of anything we discuss and debate here at this committee, let alone a standing rule. A standing rule is something that I honestly take as very serious in nature.

I understand that the committee has the ability to make these recommendations with respect to standing rules. However, I want to understand why things are worded in the manner that they are and I want to hear from people who are well versed. I want to hear from the experts with respect to this matter.

I wouldn't even mind hearing from the House leaders with respect to this issue, and if the House leaders are having discussions around this issue and this standing rule, why don't we hear from them? What is the issue? Why are they not able to resolve the issue, if there is an issue?

I don't even know whether there is an issue; that's my point here today. I don't know what the concerns are. I'd like to hear what they are; I'd like to hear more discussion. I'd like to have not a lengthy debate or a lengthy discussion, but just a clearer understanding, to try to come to terms with what it is we're dealing with here. It's all well and good to say that we're just changing a few words or are just looking at extending what was already in place. It all sounds reasonable when I sit here today and hear it for the first time, to be very honest, but I want to know some background on it. I would like to hear more about it, whether from the House leaders or from anyone at all who has some background and can give me some detail on what it is we're discussing and what it is we're debating in trying to decide whether we implement a new rule or not. It's only right, to be very frank.

Going back to my curious nature, I have to wonder--and I suppose the members opposite are the only ones who could answer this--what the hurry is. Ms. Foote brought in a motion, so I may have to pose a question across the floor. What is the hurry, so to speak? As we say where I come from, what's the rush? Tell me what the whole deal is here.

I have some time; I'm going to be here until one o'clock. Take your time and tell me. Let me in on what it is we're talking about, why we're talking about it here today, and why we're sitting here and all seem to be dug in, if you want, or concerned, or whatever the case may be. Please enlighten me, because I'm not prepared to move at this point until I have some questions answered around this. I don't think these are unreasonable questions. I'm just looking for more information.

I just want to know what it is we're doing here and why we're doing it at this point in time. I understand, as I said earlier, that this is part of what we do, but if it's being dealt with somewhere else and has been discussed, I want to understand why it's here all of a sudden.

This committee had plans to hear from other witnesses whom we've been hearing from and has been working on trying to get some progress on a report, so what is the urgency here today? I understand that there are only a few days left before this has to be dealt with, but that said, there have been many things before the House that go to the eleventh hour, if you like, and deadlines certainly make a difference. When people have deadlines that they have to meet, they tend to make decisions in trying to meet those deadlines. We're not at the eleventh hour yet. We're close, but we're not there.

As I said, I'd like to have more information; I'd like to have a better understanding of what it is, and why, more than anything else, we're dealing with this today, when we had a plan already laid out, we had witnesses here before us, and there is work that this committee has undertaken and is trying to move forward on. Why are we at this today?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Weston.

Go ahead, Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

Before I make my comment, I want clarification from the analyst or the clerk. This motion simply extends what we're doing right now, the status quo. Is that correct?

[The Clerk]

I can't really comment on that, because we don't have this in the standing order at the moment.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

But it's extending the procedure we've been following for the last number of months, is it not?

[The Clerk]

If you did an analysis of when opposition days have been allotted, you might draw that conclusion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

It's been practice.

[The Clerk]

I don't know what discussions there have been and how the decisions have been made and how opposition days have been allotted. I can say that based on what has been happening in the House, you might assume that something like this has been going on. That's as far as I know.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Was it not passed in the House?

[The Clerk]

Nothing has been, as far as I'm aware.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Was there not a change in 2009?

[The Clerk]

There was a temporary change, yes.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Yes, go ahead.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I just want clarification that we're still on the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We're still on the amendment, yes, concerning expert opinion.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Now that you have that new information, I'd just like to clarify that we're just carrying on that provisional change. What we've been doing was ordered by Parliament. We're just extending that, basically. We're basically recommending that we extend what we're doing right now.

[The Clerk]

Yes, you're recommending a change to what exists in the standing order.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

It's a provisional change.

[The Clerk]

Yes, it's a provisional change.