Evidence of meeting #21 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was meeting.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
I think that question is out of order, in the sense that Mr. Reid has the floor. If Mr. Reid is willing to give us an indication, I'll allow the question.
I see no motion to adjourn the meeting at this point.
Mr. Reid, are you willing to answer that question?
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Let me answer the question, with your permission, Mr. Chair, by asking this question: am I allowed to speak to this on more than one occasion, or do I only get one shot at it?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
My understanding would be that if there is a motion to adjourn or suspend this meeting, we will reconvene. I was intending to ask for a motion to suspend for question period, to reconvene following question period. I suspect the same could hold true.
So the answer to your question, Mr. Reid, is that you would be given the opportunity to continue.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
That wasn't quite what I was asking.
What I was asking was, if I yield the floor at this point and get input from other people, am I able to return and continue to comment on this thing, or have I shot my bolt? That's the question.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
In that case, I can be somewhat more brief.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
For other members' knowledge, there is no time limit or numbers of times that members can speak in a debate of this kind.
The floor is yours, Mr. Reid, until I hear a motion to suspend or adjourn.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
I have one point to make very quickly.
I'm glad I put the part in about how much I respect the members opposite. I want to reiterate that I take that very seriously.
In terms of determining what was actually said at that meeting, I'm sure everybody recalls it accurately as far as their own memories go. I don't mean to suggest there was any dishonesty from anybody--believe me, I really don't.
However, we do have some evidence that sheds light on that meeting, although that meeting was unrecorded, in camera, no notes were made at the time, and no official transcript exists. That meeting in question took place between House leaders and whips on Tuesday, September 19. I was there. On Wednesday, September 20, the government House leader, the Honourable Rob Nicholson, moved a motion. His words are on the Hansard for that day. He moved a motion seeking unanimous consent and indicated that unanimous consent had already been achieved among House leaders. The motion was, “That the provisional Standing Orders, adopted by the House on February 18, 2005, remain in effect until Tuesday, November 21, 2006.”
That was based on an agreement. We can argue whether that agreement occurred at that meeting or whether the consent was found later on; I'm not really interested in that. The point is that this was the expectation all of us had, until Mrs. Redman put forward her motion. For that reason--and I can't speak for anybody else--I certainly had not gone through and taken the proper look at the provisional standing orders that I anticipated doing between now and then.
I'll stop at that point, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
The speaker is Mr. Lukiwski, and then Monsieur Proulx.
Mr. Lukiwski.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Thank you.
I want to support what my colleague Mr. Reid said. For those who were not at the meeting, I think that's proof positive that this motion would not have been brought forward with unanimous consent unless there had been a prior agreement at the House leaders meeting. It's patently obvious to me.
I want to applaud Mr. Owen for bringing what I thought under the circumstances was a pretty reasonable suggestion, that we take a deep breath and walk away from this for now. In light of what Mr. Reid has brought forward, I think that proves there was an agreement to extend until November 21. The reason we did that, as Mr. Hill has already stated, was so that staff could get together and discuss these standing orders, bring it back at some point after that discussion, allow us to agree, and move forward on which standing orders perhaps could be agreed upon and which needed further consultation. That meeting of the senior staff, or of the House leader staff at least, has not occurred. I can't understand it.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I move a motion for us to adjourn until the return from the break week.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
I didn't make it very clear. You have to have the floor in order to move that. I'll put your name on the list, and when it comes to your turn, you can move that.
My apologies, Mr. Lukiwski.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
I just suggest that if we're all trying to accomplish something we agreed upon in principle, and that is to look at the standing orders in some detail and determine which should be approved and which still need further discussion...you know, the analysis hasn't been done yet. I can't see what good it would do to approve this motion now. If we agree, then hopefully that consultation between staff will occur in the intervening days.
I'll stand down. There is a motion to suspend.
Conservative
Conservative
Jay Hill Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC
I'll be very brief.
For the benefit of the committee, because not all members of the committee were at this House leaders meeting—and I would pose this to Madam Redman, an individual who, as opposite numbers both when she was in government and I was in opposition and now when I'm in government and she' s in opposition, I have a lot of respect for—my recollection is that there was a discussion, as I alluded to earlier, at the House leaders and whips meeting wherein we discussed the possibility of referring this matter to the procedure and House affairs committee, or a subcommittee of that body, to be dealt with further, to be studied further, and to see if there was unanimity on some of the changes to the Standing Orders, all of them or whatever.
If my memory is correct—and that's why I'm asking through you, Mr. Chairman, to Madam Redman, so that she can consider this and think about it—I recall that she herself said that, because at times committees...how shall I put this? I don't remember her exact words, but it was an allusion to the fact that sometimes at committee meetings things can get contentious and partisan whereas, generally speaking, at the House leaders meeting and the whips meeting, when we discuss things amongst ourselves at that level, it's usually easier to arrive at consensus and agreement.
Through you, Mr. Chairman, to her and to the others present here, people like me, and as Tom said, people who have been raised in the belief that your word is your bond, it's very difficult for us not to take a move like this personally.
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Before you do, Monsieur Proulx, it is the chair's desire to have a bit of time for business, so if you are making a motion, could you consider that I need some time? In other words, don't adjourn the meeting, suspend the debate.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
I respect you 100%, so let's suspend this discussion until the next meeting after the return from the break week. Presumably, you will take a few minutes for future business and we won't have to table another motion.
Thank you.
Conservative