Foreign Affairs Committee on Oct. 29th, 2013

[A Voice]

Why don't we take this out.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

All right, are there any other questions?

I'm going to go back to what I originally read, which was the original motion. Is there any more discussion on that particular one?

All right, so I'll just call the question.

(Motion agreed to)

That is all I have for my routine motions from what we had established before.

Mr. Anderson.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We would like to make an addition to the routine motions. I have copies of what we would be suggesting here for all members.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I believe everyone has a copy now.

Mr. Anderson, would you like to read out the motion and maybe discuss the motion a bit.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Okay. It's fairly lengthy. I'll read it in English.

That, in relation to Orders of Reference from the House respecting Bills,

(a) the Clerk of the Committee shall, upon the Committee receiving such an Order of Reference, write to each Member who is not a member of a caucus represented on the Committee to invite those Members to file, in a letter to the Chair of the Committee, in both official languages, any amendments to the Bill, which is the subject of the said Order, which they would suggest that the Committee consider;

(b) suggested amendments filed, pursuant to paragraph a), at least 48 hours prior to the start of clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill to which the amendments relate shall be deemed to be proposed during the said consideration, provided that the Committee may, by motion, vary this deadline in respect of a given Bill; and

(c) during the clause-by-clause consideration of a Bill, the Chair shall allow a Member who filed suggested amendments, pursuant to paragraph (a), an opportunity to make brief representations in support of them.

This has been proposed at a number of other committees as well. I believe it has been passed by several of them. The point or purpose of it is to basically give all members of the House of Commons an equal right to come to committee with their amendments. It would actually allow for greater integration of independent members' amendments into legislation as it's brought through committee. I think paragraphs (b) and (c) are pretty straightforward. Paragraph (b) would have a timeframe on when those amendments can be made. In (c), people would have a chance to come and explain why they're making the amendments in brief order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We'll start with a list. I have Mr. Dewar and then Mr. Goldring is next.

Mr. Dewar, sir.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I appreciate Mr. Anderson's point of view. The other part of this, of course, is that this would prohibit people bringing amendments to the House, which is what this is about. Let's be honest about what this is about.

I think it's unfortunate that the government is deciding to cut off yet another opportunity for members, in this case independent members and members not represented by enough people to form a caucus recognized in the House. I would caution anyone suggesting that they're fully in favour of this. Today you're the government, but tomorrow, who knows? Any of us, anyone around this table, might decide to be an independent. This really cuts off your opportunity to participate.

We have cited this in previous committees. One of the citations is from our green bible, O'Brien and Bosc, which states that it's the House and the House alone that appoints members and associate members to its committees, as well as the members who will represent it on joint committees. The Speaker has ruled that it is the fundamental right of the House. The committees themselves have no powers at all in this regard. We're trying to overlay at committee the powers that normally would sit elsewhere, in other words.

I don't think this motion should be supported, nor do I think it's in order. As stated in O'Brien and Bosc:

The Standing Orders specifically exclude a non-member from voting, moving motions or being counted for purposes of a quorum.

That is on page 1018, for those who are following at home.

In other words, the committee has no powers to make this sort of procedural change on its own. These powers lie with the House. I know the government has done this at other committees and I'm sure that it will pass it here, because it has the majority. However, it has to be stated for the record that this is a very dangerous procedure we're involved in. I think we should underline that deciding at committee the rights and privileges of members represents a very dangerous path.

If our Westminster system is based on the idea that we are duly elected by our constituents to represent them and to have opportunities to represent them, we need to be able to participate fully.

I know Mr. Anderson provided a certain point of view that would make it sound like it's going to help rather than hinder. I would argue, based on what I've just referenced from O'Brien and Bosc, that it actually takes away privileges from members. It is not the role of a committee to decide who brings forward amendments and who is able to be recognized in the House. Our role here is to deal with the substantive matters of foreign affairs, to allow people to participate fully, and not to constrain participation.

I won't spend too much time on this, but if you look at the studies we've had and you've looked at the trend we've seen here, we have the omnibus process that we seem to see often with the government. That's its choice. We've seen the fact that we have closure. Again, that's its choice. Now we're going down the path of deciding who can bring forward motions and amendments in the House by way of constricting those rights and privileges by a decision made at committee.

It's no way to run a parliamentary democracy. We will oppose this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Dewar. Mr. Goldring.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

I'm reading that this allows a person to bring forward suggestions or amendments. Having been an independent in the past, I thought that I had received some of these from other committees and I thought it was a good way to include the independent members and allow them to have a say in the process.

My only question here would be whether we could be a little more definitive on what we mean by “brief”. Could we be a little more definitive on that comment?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Anderson, do you have a comment?

I think I know what it means to be brief, but I think that's subjective.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Actually, do you know what's important, Mr. Chair? That you do understand what it means to be brief, because you'll be the one defining that when the time comes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Be careful what you wish for.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Beyond that, we will....

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay.

Go ahead, Paul.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thanks to Mr. Goldring for his intervention.

You're aware, I guess through our friends at the table here, that by way of constraining people to only being allowed to bring amendments here, if you bring amendments here it means you can't bring them to the House, right? That's the way our system works.

It's pretty obvious what's happening here. If you're not able as an independent member to be at a committee or be heard, or are constrained as to your intervention, it's pretty obvious your rights are being constricted. In the House you have more opportunity to actually speak, and you're not as constrained.

I would go back to the point, Peter, that this is not about and it shouldn't be about the rights of parties but the rights of members by way of, as you pointed out, this vague language of “to make brief representations”, but also noting that once you've brought them forward to committee, you're no longer able to bring them to the House.

That's understood, right? Do we all understand what this is about?

Okay. As long as we all understand, then there are no surprises. This is really limiting the ability of independent members to bring amendments to the House. I think that needs to be underlined.

I also would argue that Mr. Goldring brings a good point, that when you have language that says “an opportunity to make brief representations”, it's very clear we're trying to constrain here the opportunity for independent members to present their case or to participate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thanks, Mr. Dewar.

Madame Laverdière.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

I agree with my colleague Paul Dewar. Procedurally, this is a way to limit the rights of the members of the House. This should not be the decision of a committee in any way, shape or form. In terms of the substance, this manoeuvre is really anti-democratic and it will weaken our democracy once again, which is very sad.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Are there any other comments at all?

Go ahead, Mr. Dewar.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

There is one other point.

I'm looking at paragraph (b):

(b) suggested amendments filed, pursuant to paragraph (a), at least 48 hours prior to the start of clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill to which the amendments relate shall be deemed to be proposed during the said consideration, provided that the Committee may, by motion, vary this deadline in respect of a given Bill;

Until that last line, it's a pro forma cut and paste of what we have.

I again need to highlight for the record what we're voting on here. Very important is “provided that the Committee may, by motion, vary this deadline in respect of a given Bill”. In other words, this 48 hours might not be 48 hours if the committee decides—with a majority government, we all realize that one day the tables might be turned; you never know—to change it to one hour. You could change it to five minutes.

So we'd all be voting in favour of that. That's what we're voting for—or you are, not me. I just wanted to underline that for the record. That clause, that particular sentence, gives the majority government the opportunity to change 48 hours to whatever it wants. We want to be clear on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Schellenberger.

[Gary Schellenberger, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

With regard to 48 hours, if an amendment is brought forward, or something's brought forward to this committee while we're doing whatever, and it's accepted by everyone here, the thing is 48 hours, but there can be an amendment or it can be a motion made here, and if everyone's in favour of that, it goes forward.

Am I correct or am I not correct?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

If we all decide, yes, of course, but you know how that clause could be manipulated. Why have it? What's the purpose? I guess that is the question. I don't know if you want to consult with your team on that. Why do we have that clause in there? That would be the question. If we have the pro forma rules here of 48 hours, why have that extra clause?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Is there anyone else?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Just before we call the question, obviously that can be extended as well to give people, if they need it, more time to get their amendments in. I think Mr. Dewar should point that out as well.

We're ready to vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

If there is no more discussion, then I'm going to call the question.

(Motion agreed to)

Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.