Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 1st, 2014

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

Yes, it shouldn't take much longer, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

At five o'clock, in about one minute, they'll all be deemed moved and they will be voted on without debate.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Now I think it is going to take us a lot longer.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

[Inaudible--Editor]...they'll be deemed moved.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Yes. That was the motion.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'm here all night anyway.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I can't help you, then, with removing—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Anyway, it’s now five o'clock and so, first of all, I would like to thank our guests from the PCO who have been here to help us with this and for your answers for all the questions.

I thank the committee for its work on the amendments. So far, we did get through a significant number of them, and I thank you for that.

We will now break for a very short five minutes, and then we will come back and we will go on, as per the motion of March 4, or whenever it was, that all will be deemed moved and will be voted on without debate.

I suspend the meeting for five minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Let's go ahead. I'm going to close things up because we're going to go at a fairly good speed.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much.

I want to clarify things, since points of order are permitted by the committee motion that was adopted by the majority Conservatives just a few weeks ago.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Yeah, well, I'm not sure the public is going to be particularly impressed by that “hear, hear”, given that this committee now has to go through over 200 pages of the unfair elections act and dozens and dozens of amendments without even having any sort of debate.

My question and the reason I raised the point of order to start, Mr. Chair, is that I don't see our Privy Council representatives there. Of course, there will, I believe, be points of order on the admissibility, perhaps, of certain things brought before this committee. This is…well, the only way to put it is that it's an appalling abuse of what should be a process of due diligence, but it's no surprise to us. We've seen three bills rejected by the Supreme Court from this government over the last month.

So, will representatives from Privy Council be available, at the table, for points of order that will come up over the next few hours?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

No, they will not.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Could you please explain why, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Because as we moved to this portion they were excused.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

But they are present in the room. There are questions of admissibility that will come up and points of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

All admissibility issues will be handled by the chair because it will be on whether the amendment is in order. It would be admissible in that way.

Mr. Julian, I know you're not a regular member of this committee, but I take some offence to your premise because I, even a man of my size and shape, have bent over backwards to give all of the time we could to all of the witnesses requested. Every witness requested was asked to come and present. Many sent briefs also. For you to suggest, at this late date, that we haven't given enough time for this—I could certainly give you a number of cases where time was used that might have been used for what we wanted to do today, even during clause-by-clause over the last couple of days.

As the chair, I take some offence that you're telling me we've somehow mismanaged the process. I'll stop you there.

I'll go to Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Briefly, Chair, I can't speak for Mr. Julian. I'm not sure that offence was intended. I can understand how you may feel that way.

I suppose just on a procedural question, to aid the committee going through the certain number of clauses, to have officials near the table wouldn't.... I'm not sure it would present.... I understand you have advice on admissibility that is given to you by the clerks. Yet I've also seen opportunities at committees where, if the expertise is in the room that sometimes extends beyond the clerks’ knowledge, it's not necessarily cumbersome to have the government officials at least on hand—and they may not be called on.

To clarify, I understand that this has been a difficult process, certainly from the opposition's point of view, in trying to have some sort of understanding and justice brought to this bill. But I want to understand the resistance only in having the officials just sit at the table to offer any guidance on some admissibility issues to committee members from both sides and yourself.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

The point we're moving forward to now is where we will, without debate, have these bills voted on. The only question could be on admissibility. The only way you would get to a point of order—other than admissibility—would be through debate and we're not going to do that. We're going to be moving forward.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Then perhaps I could just understand the process and the adoption. I've read the motion as it's been carried. If a clause, either an amendment moved by the opposition or by the government is being interpreted, I understand the limitations that have been set by the motion carried by the government to not allow debate on any of those motions. But questions of admissibility and clarification of admissibility are they also deemed to be debate? I thought there was an opportunity in those just to have a....

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You, of course, should ask the chair that question, and we then we'll say “yes, it's admissible” or “no, it's not”.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Oh, I see.

The process you want to use is that if we get to one and we have any points, because these have not been debated yet, the government may have the same question. The ruling goes to you. You check with the clerks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I'm going to use the other way. If they are in this stack, they are admissible or I would have already been told that.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Okay, so this is sort of negative option billing. I'm not sure that's the correct analogy for this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

That's how I plan to proceed.

We're moving forward.

If I'm right, I'm at NDP-49. There will be a recorded vote on NDP-49.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

On NDP-50, a recorded vote....

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

On NDP-52—sorry, it's 51.