Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 5th, 2006

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I have put the convention issue to rest and it shall rest in peace.

I want to turn to Mr. Milner. I think it's important to note that when we're talking about democratic deficit and reform, I'm sure they didn't study the extension of the franchise to women when they did that. It's simply sometimes the right thing to do and I say that as a passing observation. In this case it's the right thing to do, I believe, along with many other things.

One of the things that impressed me about your work for the Law Commission and some of the other papers you've done is the idea of civic participation. I'd love to talk to you about the idea of proportional representation, but on this particular bill how can we use this bill, not only to pass it in Parliament, but what can we do to really get out there and have more people participate in the democratic system? How do you envision fixed election dates improving that state? And how do we get more people active and involved--young people, people who normally don't participate--with this bill, in and of itself?

[Prof. Henry Milner]

Let me try to answer with a very concrete example about which we now have more information. This begins with something that began in the United States, was taken up in Canada, and I've now heard they do this in Sweden as well. That is, they run mock elections in the schools at the time of the regular elections and they use it to inform young people about the elections. They report the actual votes in the media and they use it as a form of political education, civic education.

We now have some pretty good data on the Americans, who have been doing it for a long time, that it actually does have an effect in terms of greater political knowledge and a greater likelihood to vote in the first real election that these young people confront.

In Canada we did this--something called student vote--in the 2004 federal election. I think it was also done in 2006, but I haven't had a chance to look into that. It was also done in several provincial elections.

What happened in 2004? For the 2004 election it worked badly. It worked badly compared to when it was done in British Columbia at the time of the last provincial election. Why did it work badly when it was done in Canada in 2004 and work so well in British Columbia when it was done in the last British Columbia election?

It's very simple. You will remember--you were all part of this--that in the 2004 election in Canada, the government waited until June 28. We were expecting an election and we waited and waited. Finally on June 28, it came. The student vote people had been preparing and by the time of June 28, many of the schools were already either completely out of session or students were on their way out and so on. So in many schools, nothing happened. And even in the schools where it did happen, in many cases the results were not very useful.

That means that the learning experience...and there is an important learning experience, because you have to prepare, you bring politicians in, the civics education and the history teachers get involved--it's a big process. And yet the process was aborted because Mr. Martin had decided it would be a good idea to wait until June 28 to have the election.

In British Columbia, on the other hand, everybody knew it was going to be on May 17. All the planning worked very well. There were no problems.

If we know that the next Canadian election--at least when there is a majority government--will take place on the third Monday in October of the appropriate year, the next time there is a student vote it will certainly be much more effective. That's a very specific example of what we can do to mobilize a particular group that needs mobilization. There is a great deal of data about young people not voting and so on, so here's a very concrete example of where a fixed election date would make a difference. We've experienced that in Canada, and at the very least, it seems to me that if we're not going to do something like that and do it in a very clear way, one has to explain to the people who've worked hard to organize these student votes why not.

I must say that in everything I've heard and everything I've read in relation to people who are skeptical about moving in this direction, I've never seen a good answer to that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I think we'll end it there because there are only 10 seconds left.

Colleagues, thank you for your rounds of questions.

Most importantly, I'd like to thank our witnesses. Thank you in Sweden for getting up so early--or I should say staying past your suppertime--and thank you in Vancouver, British Columbia, for getting in probably before breakfast. Thank you very much for that.

Professor Massicotte, we extend our appreciation to you as well for coming in this morning.

Gentlemen, your answers were very detailed, and you are clearly experts in your areas. We appreciate the thorough responses to the number of questions this morning.

Colleagues, we will shut off the video conferencing and say goodbye to our friends. The witnesses are excused, but we will continue with business, if we can.

I remind colleagues that we have a motion before us. We will have the motion reread by Ms. Redman in a moment, but I would also like to remind colleagues that debate for motions in this manner have no time limit on them. Although we have 25 minutes left in the meeting, I do have other business to deal with. That's simply a friendly reminder. We will proceed.

Ms. Redman, you have the floor.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the fact that colleagues have had a chance to read this. I didn't want to delay the teleconferencing. I think people went to a lot of trouble to get the witnesses here, so I'm glad we were able to act with dispatch.

The motion reads:

That this Committee recommends that the Standing Orders in effect on October 5, 2006, including the provisional Standing Orders, be made permanent, and, That the adoption of this motion be reported to the House forthwith.

By way of brief explanation, Mr. Chairman, this topic has been discussed at other meetings and in other venues. These provisional orders will expire if they're not dealt with by November 21. We did agree collectively on that extension, and they were dealt with as a package. They were actually brought in when the government as in opposition, and they were proposed then. We, the government at the time, accepted them, and because they were dealt with as a package, we feel it's appropriate that they be dealt with again as a package.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I caught Mr. Hill's eye first. If anybody else would like to speak to the motion, please put your hand up.

Mr. Hill is next, please.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Thank you very much, Chairman.

This is one of those moments in my parliamentary career that I find the most disturbing. For anybody who happens to be listening to the proceedings of this committee and for all my colleagues, I'll explain this in some detail, Mr. Chairman.

I have had the distinct honour and pleasure to serve in a variety of roles, as have most members of Parliament, during the 13 years I've been an MP. Many of those roles were in a caucus officer position. I think I speak with some knowledge of how this place, this Parliament of Canada, this people's House, operates.

It's been my understanding, whether it's a majority government or the minority government we're presently faced with that Canadians have elected to represent them in the House, this place can only work through mutual respect, trust, and honour. While only members of Parliament who have been admitted to the Privy Council have the term “honourable” in front of their names—and I'm very privileged to have had that bestowed upon me in February—I've always believed that every member of every party, and even independents, operate honourably.

I believe that while this motion in and of itself would be viewed by members of the general public and probably by members of all political parties as somewhat innocuous, on the changes to the Standing Orders that were negotiated during the last Parliament, all four parties were involved in the negotiations and discussions. They came into effect on February 18, 2005, in the last minority Parliament. They had an expiry date at the time they were put into place.

I'll read the section: “That these Standing Orders come into effect at 11:00 o’clock a.m. Monday, March 7, 2005 and remain in effect for the duration of the current parliament and during the first sixty sitting days of the succeeding parliament.” That was the 38th Parliament, which was the current Parliament.

As I've said, during my tenure in the House I've had the pleasure, and some might say the advantage, of being in various caucus officer positions. I was the opposition House leader at the time these came into place. I'm well aware of and was privy to the discussions that took place at that time. There would normally be six people sitting on this committee who were privy to the discussions and conversation that took place at the House leader and whips meeting, the regular weekly House leader and whips meeting that took place on Tuesday, September 19, when this was discussed.

Mr. Chairman, getting somewhat advanced in years, my memory isn't always perfect, but I think I have a pretty good understanding of what was agreed to at that meeting of House leaders.

As I said, and I'll relate back to my first comments during this intervention, I strongly believe this House has to operate on honour, trust, and respect.

As I recall, the conversation surrounding an extension of these standing orders went something like this. The government House leader, Mr. Nicholson, raised the issue. It had been raised previously, I think by the Bloc Québécois, if I'm not mistaken, at a previous meeting. They had indicated that they were concerned, as I think all parties were, that given what I'd read earlier, there was an expiry date built into the House order or the motion when the standing orders originally came into existence. There was this expiry date looming, and we had discussions at a couple of meetings.

On Tuesday, September 19, the House leader raised the issue, and we had a pretty good discussion about it, and we came to an agreement. That agreement was that we would temporarily extend the standing orders so they wouldn't come up against the 60-day expiry date and just kind of fall by the wayside somewhat inadvertently, one might say. So we agreed to extend it.

Furthermore, we had some concerns about some of these standing orders. We felt that most of them could be agreed to, probably unanimously agreed to. But what was eventually agreed to by all parties at that meeting was that we would ask our senior parliamentary assistants to meet, obviously sooner rather than later, to see if there was agreement on those standing orders and on which ones we suspected we could have unanimity relatively quickly.

The House leader, Minister Nicholson, was prepared, subsequent to that, to move the necessary motion in the House and get it adopted quickly. Once the staff had met, if there were some who felt it required further discussion, each of the parties could formulate an opinion and do some research on it and on any possible ramifications, either intentional or inadvertent, that would come about because of the permanent adoption of those standing order changes. And we would proceed with further discussion on it.

I well remember that some of my first discussions, Mr. Chairman, at the House leader level or the whip level, were under the chairmanship of Don Boudria, who no longer is a member of Parliament here but who served the Liberal government--in fact, I think successive Liberal governments--as their House leader. I do not recall one single instance, in all those years, despite having a majority, when Mr. Boudria broke an agreement that was made at a House leaders' meeting. He believed so strongly in the fact that the management of the House, and the discussions and negotiations that take place every day in this place to try to further the interests of Canadians at large, is so reliant on the trust and respect and honour of members, that he would never break his word. And I never saw him break his word.

I have tried to uphold myself in these various roles I've had over the last number of years in the same manner, despite the fact that Mr. Boudria is a Liberal and I am a Conservative, Mr. Chairman. Set that aside. This place can only operate if we trust and respect each other and if our word is our bond. We can't have everything in writing. When we agree to something, it has to be an agreement, or the place will cease to operate and it will become completely dysfunctional.

Many Canadians, I'm sure, when they watch proceedings here some days--maybe many days, unfortunately--would probably argue that it is dysfunctional. But it would be a lot more dysfunctional if there weren't this trust and respect between members of Parliament. Despite our partisan political differences and our different viewpoints, when we come to an agreement, especially at the level of the House leader or the whips or the deputy House leaders or the deputy whips.... All these positions are key to the ongoing management of the House itself and its committees and the very parliamentary precinct that we inhabit when we're at work here.

I must say, Mr. Chairman, that to me this is a shameful day. As I said, people might look at this and might say, well, what's the big deal? There probably will be general agreement on these changes to the Standing Orders. So if Madam Redman's motion were to be put to a vote at this committee and passed and adopted by the House “forthwith”, as it reads, what's the big deal?

The big deal isn't with the motion, Mr. Chairman. In fact, we don't know at this point in time whether all the parties, including our party, will agree to all the changes. We don't know, because the staff hasn't met yet. Our senior parliamentary assistant fully intended to honour the spirit of what we'd agreed to at the House leaders meeting.

I would challenge anyone to think that the logical time, the best time, for staff to meet to discuss something like this--which isn't pressing, because the deadline has been put off until November 21--wouldn't be next week when the House is in recess for a week, when they have additional time so they can get together and discuss this, as directed unanimously by the House leaders and the whips at the weekly House leaders meeting.

This motion really calls into question the very fact of whether we should continue to have House leaders meetings if an agreement we make there means nothing, and any one of us or any party can just therefore bring forward a motion that what we agreed to isn't satisfactory or decide that we're in a bit more of a hurry. I challenge why, all of a sudden, this is pressing--why we need to have these changes to the Standings Orders adopted forthwith, which runs contrary to the discussion we had and the agreement we had between all four parties.

That's why I submit that this is shameful, and in the 13 years I have been here, and I mean this with all sincerity--this isn't a political statement, Madam Redman, through you, Mr. Chairman because I want to try to keep this respectful--this is absolutely shameful.

And I would ask, through you, whether the official opposition House leader, Mr. Goodale, is aware of this motion. Does he condone that? It is the word of the official opposition House leader as well as that of the government House leader that are at stake here. If those two gentlemen are going to operate this House and try to manage the affairs of this House in concert with all members, all 308 members of Parliament, they have to operate on the basis of mutual trust and respect. So I'm led to believe that not only does Mr. Goodale, as the official opposition House leader, condone this, but he's behind it, since it's his name and his reputation that are at stake.

Now, if I wanted to try to run out the clock, I could filibuster this, because I'm so upset about it. I could filibuster this until the cows come home, as we like to say out west. But there are other members, as you pointed out at the start of this discussion. Everyone gets a chance to debate these types of things under the rules of our committee, and I'd be interested in hearing what others have to say about this.

As I said, it's not the substance of this. We had a clear agreement, and I stand to be corrected if that's not the case. If it's not the case, in fact, I would challenge, Mr. Chairman, that we had better start recording everything that is said and getting in writing everything that is said at the House leaders meetings.

That's all I have to say.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you, Mr. Hill.

Are there other comments to be made?

Ms. Jennings.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Firstly, if my memory serves me correctly--and most members around this committee will say I have a pretty good memory--I was at that meeting and I do not recollect that there was the agreement Mr. Hill is talking about. Secondly, I'm insulted on behalf of the other members who were at that meeting for Mr. Hill to impugn the honour and integrity and honesty of everyone at that meeting.

However, I would point out to Mr. Hill that if he reads this correctly, if this motion is adopted, it is to be reported to the House forthwith. The House itself will make its determination as to whether or not it wishes the Standing Orders in effect on October 5, including the provisional standing orders, to be made permanent or not.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

It's unbelievable, Marlene. You were there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Order, please.

Members and Ms. Jennings, please speak through the chair.

Mr. Lukiwski is next.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I was also at that meeting. I also believe I have a reasonably good memory, and I recall that there was an agreement. It was agreed upon unanimously; there was no opposition.

There is an issue, again, just to underscore what Mr. Hill was saying. To be quite honest with you, I'm not the leading expert on standing orders. I wouldn't suggest that there is any particular standing order in here that I would be opposed to if it were deemed to be adopted permanently, but I do know one thing: I was brought up in an environment where my word was my bond. That's the bottom line. In this Parliament I have had the good fortune on many occasions to have conversations with, and come to agreement with, other parliamentarians on a variety of issues. Many of those occasions happened in committee, when an agreement would be struck with another committee member on whether you would support this particular initiative.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Excuse me. I apologize, Mr. Lukiwski.

If members want to have conversations, there is one debate happening. The order is that Mr. Lukiwski has the floor; you are very welcome to have conversations, but please step away from the table.

Please accept my apologies, Mr. Lukiwski.

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

Thank you again, Mr. Chair.

Again, if we start getting into an environment in which you can't trust or you can't believe someone.... Most of these agreements are not written down. We all know what we're talking about here; we're talking about approaching another member, saying you're looking for support on a particular issue in committee, and asking if the member will support this initiative--yes or no? If the parliamentarian or one of my colleagues says no, I cannot, for these reasons, that's fine. I don't take it personally, but I take the person at his word. Conversely, if someone says yes, I will support you, or I will support this when it comes to a vote, to me that's good enough; I don't need it in writing. To me, that's the fundamental premise on how we operate in this place.

Ms. Jennings, with all due respect, I was at that meeting, and I do absolutely recall that there was agreement. There was agreement. I don't think Mr. Hill's comments are untoward or out of order whatsoever. I just think that if this motion is adopted, it's the start of a very slippery slope in terms of relationships between parliamentarians and between parties. I know it certainly will be between me and Mr. Hill and other members from our side at the House leader and caucus officer level.

I'm willing to hear Ms. Redmond out on this. I see no reason that this issue has to be dealt with today. If in fact you wish to enact the permanency of these things, what would it matter if we waited at least another two weeks until our senior staff can get together and discuss these items in some detail? Then we can come back and say there is some disagreement about whether we had an agreement to delay this matter until November, but at least our staff has had a chance to get together and consult, and here's the report--here are the items of common agreement and here are the items of common disagreement. That would allow us to hash it out.

But to bring this on, frankly.... I vividly recall it because we had a debriefing. The reason I will place my memory on trial here, Ms. Jennings, is that we always have a debriefing after each House leaders meeting. Perhaps you do the same. This issue was discussed.

Again, to me, as Mr. Hill has said, it is not the issue of whether the motion should be adopted; it is the issue of breaking one's word, frankly, and that's where I have a big problem.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Are there other comments from members?

I saw Mr. Reid first.

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

No, no, I'm okay.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Colleagues—and I say this in the spirit of colleagues, which all of us are—a lot of my career has been spent in dispute resolution, including in Parliament and professionally otherwise. It is immensely possible and happens frequently that when a group of people have conversations--particularly when there are busy agendas--they have a certain idea of what happened. There seems to be agreement in everyone's minds, but people go away with different understandings.

I take very seriously the statements of Mr. Hill, Mr. Lukiwski, and Madam Jennings about their recollections of this, but I think there might be real value in our stepping away from this until we can consider amongst ourselves exactly what happened and identify any particular misunderstanding that might have arisen.

I am not willing to jump to the conclusion that anybody on this committee, or any of our colleagues outside this committee, have acted dishonourably. I'm quite capable of understanding that misunderstandings arise. So I think we should all take a breath and a step back, and consider whether misunderstandings may have arisen and that this point of controversy arises out of those misunderstandings rather than out of any dishonourable behaviour.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you, Mr. Owen.

Mr. Reid, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

What is the intention regarding the length of time this committee's going to sit?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

We will sit until this debate is over and we decide on the motion.

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

So that could go after our intended one o'clock—

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Absolutely. There is no time limit on the debate, according to the Standing Orders.

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

Okay. I may take some time.

Let me begin, as I think is appropriate when one is dealing with acrimonious circumstances, by saying that when I look across the way at my Liberal colleagues, I have respect, actually, for all the colleagues I see over there, but I want to mention the respect I have for the individual Liberal members opposite.

I've always enjoyed Mr. Owen's intervention and particularly low-key manner, which he once again demonstrated today. I am of course aware that Mr. Owen wasn't actually in the room at the time and therefore is offering, I think, a very wise general observation.

Karen, I've dealt with you in the past and have always thought very highly of you. I remember, actually with particular fondness, one occasion when you came over to try to assist me in getting something that was out of order in order--the presentation of a petition. I'm sure you don't remember it, but I do, a petition that was not done in the proper manner but by people who had a heartfelt interest in the issue.

They'd submitted a white ribbon, with lots of signatures, on the issue of child pornography. The fact that they didn't know the formal rules did not diminish the fact that they felt strongly about child pornography. In recognizing the fact that they couldn't be allowed, you were very good at saying you were willing to find unanimous consent to allow something to be tabled that would not normally be allowed to be tabled. I appreciate that. I thought that was a very classy thing to do.

I would have gone to you next, Marlene, but since Marcel is seated, talking to Karen--I'm going in the seating order--I'll just mention that I've always thought highly of Marcel as well. I thought him a very intelligent, thoughtful, and gentlemanly person in his conduct, towards me at any rate, and conduct that I've been able to see.

Then, going back to the very beginning of my career as a parliamentarian in early 2001, I'm not sure if Marlene remembers this, but I remember that she approached me and asked if I would be willing to second a bill that was being introduced on an issue of non-partisan environmental concern--okay, Marlene, you do remember that--on non-economic measures of well-being, and particularly environmental well-being, alternative measures of well-being. So in the very first legislative action I was engaged in, in the House of Commons, I was actually working in cooperation with Marlene. I have fond memories of that, and consequentially of Marlene herself.

I say all of that because I'm trying to find ways of keeping the temperature down as we deal with this issue.

I do have an objection to the issue being brought forward in this manner--actually, two objections. I have the same objection as my honourable colleague, the government whip, has about the fact that it was brought forward contrary to, to my recollection, an agreement--and I want to return to that in a second. As a starting point, I have another concern, and I'll return to this in more detail a bit later.

My concern is simply this: the manner in which the motion is presented. It was of course presented without notice. Our rules permit that, so it's in order, of course. But notice could have been given nevertheless, and the failure to give notice suggests--I do stand to be corrected--that the intention is to have the motion adopted, not without debate, obviously, but without amendment. It's hard to see how one would amend this motion and therefore how one would amend any of the standing orders if such amendment were appropriate.

The way the motion is worded right now is:That this committee recommends that the Standing Orders in effect on October 5, 2006, including the provisional Standing Orders, be made permanent, and

That the adoption of this motion be reported to the House forthwith.

So it's sort of hard to see how you would say, well, they'd be adopted with the following amendments to standing order this or that, particularly when that would presumably involve some degree of discussion and potentially the bringing of witnesses before the committee, that kind of thing. I just don't see how one could do that. This is really a motion designed in such a way as to make amendment practically impossible.

I could see that it's possible to defeat the motion, but it's not possible to amend it. Therefore, we're faced with, effectively, a choice between defeating the motion and saying that what we want is the Standing Orders to revert to what they were prior to February 18, 2005, when the provisional standing orders came into effect or, alternatively, taking them just as written without any alteration, where perhaps alteration is merited.

Truthfully, I don't know where alteration is merited. That was a question I had hoped to look at and consider, as one does with any technical matter of this nature, at a later point in time--during the break, essentially--but certainly as a part of the process that had been laid out in the House leaders meeting.

Having now turned to the House leaders meeting and in so doing I--

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

Mr. Chairman, it is now past 1 o'clock. If our colleague, Mr. Reid, intends to be obstructionist, he will have to wait until after the parliamentary recess to do so. We all have important work to get done today. We thought that the meeting was going to end at 1:00 p.m. Of course, that decision rests with Mr. Reid, but if he wants to be obstructionist, he'll have to wait until we get back, after the parliamentary recess.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Unless a motion to adjourn is moved and adopted by the committee, the debate on the motion before the committee can continue, notwithstanding the scheduled time that the committee would end at one o'clock.

So unless I hear a motion from the members of the committee that is adopted, the debate will continue.

Is there a motion to adjourn?

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

Mr. Chair, I think the question should be, is Mr. Reid intending to filibuster?