Evidence of meeting #51 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 subcommittee.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Thank you, Mr. Silva.
Unfortunately, though, you don't have a place on the committee to deem when the vote is held. That's number one. Number two, you have made your appeal application in good time. This committee's decision doesn't have to be made within five days. You have to make your appeal.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
So you are quite safe. There are no worries there.
There are further discussions. I don't want to cut off discussions on a process like this. This is a public meeting. I am trying to ask members to focus, and I need time to have a steering committee post this. So I'm going to allow the discussion to go for five more minutes. Let's focus this thing and see if we can get it done.
Mr. Lukiwski, please, then I'm going to have to adjourn for a steering committee.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Thank you, Chair.
My point of order has already been answered. I thank you for that. My impression was that since the appeal has been launched it doesn't have to be done today. In other words, if there is no decision today and Mr. Silva comes back, or whatever, a vote will still take place.
Again, Mr. Chair, I believe there are several options available to Mr. Silva to reintroduce this bill should he not be able to bring this bill in its current form to a vote. Not only has he the ability in this parliamentary session to appeal to the entire Parliament and bring it to a vote by secret ballot, I believe, but also, if this is an issue or a piece of legislation that his own party would like to see move forward, then there is clearly nothing to stop him in the next session of this Parliament from having one of his colleagues, should he not be chosen in the order of precedence when the draw comes forward....
If this is a priority of the Liberal Party, I would certainly think that someone then would be able to make an executive decision within the Liberal Party to say, look, this is a piece of legislation we want brought forward to a vote. I can see nothing procedurally that would get in the way of this bill being brought forward in the next session, because there would be no argument that it would be similar to another bill. The similarity argument is what we're dealing with here to determine votability. So should the Liberal Party deem this to be a priority, they can bring it back. The first time any one of their members gets drawn in the order of precedence, if they feel it's that much of a pressing priority, they can have this bill or some reincarnation of this bill brought forward, and there would be nothing stopping that particular private member's bill from moving forward, that I can see.
It goes back to my comments that I've been emphasizing all along, that there has been a decision made by a subcommittee that was represented by members from all four political parties. They've made a decision that this particular Bill C-415 should not be votable, for their own reasons. But it doesn't prevent this bill from being brought back to the House.
I would suggest that it would certainly be a prudent move to uphold the subcommittee's decision on this, because it would in fact be sending a fairly positive message that subcommittee decisions are respected and they're not overruled for what I would suggest are frivolous means, or for means of expediting a political agenda. I think we would want to respect the decisions by all subcommittees.
But again, this bill would not be quashed. In other words, Mr. Silva or some other member could bring back the very same bill in the next sitting of this Parliament.
Liberal
Karen Redman Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I do appreciate the sincerity with which all members are participating in this discussion; however, I would respectfully ask the chair to ask the committee if, by a show of hands, we'd be willing to call the question, as I hear no new arguments. I hear no value added and nothing that has not already been stated several times in this committee. And I question how productive going on to another meeting would be.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
I agree with you. I think our debate has drawn out. However, I should remind the committee that we are still in the round of questioning the witness, although the witness isn't getting many questions.
I need a move for the motion before I can call the question, number one.
Number two, I would entertain other motions with respect to my previous comments that we have future business to discuss. We have notice that there are other motions to be put on the floor by other members.
So I'm here to entertain two motions, not a question. I need somebody to move the motion that the second report of the standing committee be concurred with, and we can then move to the question.
I'm prepared for that, Madam Redman. I'm also prepared for a motion to defer this meeting, if Mr. Silva can appear on Thursday, and if members still have questions for the witness. So there are a couple of items.
Madam Redman, please.
Liberal
Karen Redman Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
If it would be in order, then, are you saying that the proper wording of the motion before us would be that this committee do concur or do not concur? Is it do concur, and then either it passes or it fails?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Yes, that's exactly right. How we word it would depend on how members would want to vote. But the motion I'm looking for someone to move is that the second report of the subcommittee on private members' business be concurred with.
Conservative
Conservative
Jay Hill Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC
I would ask for the clerk's interpretation. My understanding of the rules is that we cannot interrupt one of our colleagues who is debating the issue and then, at the suggestion of the chair, immediately move to making a motion on a point of order. I don't think that's allowed, unless I've gone to sleep somewhere in the last 14 years and woken up on a different planet.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
My apologies. Mr. Hill is correct.
I hear what you're saying. I accept the point.
Liberal
Karen Redman Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
I appreciate the clarification and the direction from the chair.
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Thank you.
I appreciate the point of order by my colleague, but again, the point I was making here is that I think it would be a very dangerous precedent to set to overrule a subcommittee decision, based on the fact that the subcommittee, represented by members of all political parties, took an extremely good look at the two bills in question before coming up with its decision.
One would think that if you're looking at a decision based strictly on partisan lines.... If this bill was clearly in order, they would have, as a subcommittee, determined it to be votable at the subcommittee level. I don't think there's any question here. I respect the opinions of my colleagues in other political parties. I don't agree with their position, but I certainly respect their opinions and their positions. Clearly, the NDP would like to see replacement worker legislation brought into law. I believe the Bloc Quebecois voted en masse for their colleague's bill when it was brought forward, Bill C-257, so one would think that they would probably be in favour of any similar piece of legislation. I know the Liberals were somewhat divided when the last vote on Bill C-257 took place. And, of course, the Conservatives were against it.
One would think that, at worst, at the subcommittee level, if one were to look at the partisan voting patterns of replacement worker legislation over the course of the last 10 or 15 years, the subcommittee would have been in a dead heat. Yet they came back with a decision that this should be considered to be a non-votable item.
I think it crossed all partisan boundaries, all partisan lines, and I think we need to respect the decision of the subcommittee. If we did not, that would be sending a very dangerous message to a lot of other committees that may be in the same position or in a similar position.
There are options, as I've pointed out to Mr. Silva, many options--several, at least-- some that he could employ right now. He could potentially bring this to a vote before the entire Parliament, or at the very least, this bill could be reintroduced at the next sitting of this Parliament. So even though the ruling of the subcommittee would be upheld, it does not mean this bill would die. It could be brought back in another form, perhaps.
I think that should give comfort to all of those who support replacement worker legislation. Even though we've had it before the House 11 times previously, it may be coming back 12 or 13 times. If they feel that strongly about this legislation, there are options under which they can bring it forward.
Therefore, Chair, I don't see why this committee, in its collective wisdom, should even consider overruling the decision made by our subcommittee. I will continue to present that argument, because it would mean, in my view, an extremely dangerous precedent to set.
How much time do we have, Mr. Chair?
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Well, let me try to wrap up quickly.
Mr. Chairman, this is an issue that I think was brought back to this committee—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Thank you, Mr. Lukiwski. Your time is up on that.
I will move to the next speaker on the list. Are there any other speakers?
Mr. Reid, please.
Conservative
Conservative
Bloc
Louis Plamondon Bloc Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC
That's not what you said, you said five minutes more. That's all.
