Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 15th, 2007

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

It all comes down to the ability for members to be able to speak and express opinions, whether that be their personal opinions or whether it be opinions based on collective wisdom of the constituents. It certainly speaks to the fact that this ability would be compromised and in fact completely curtailed, because combined opposition members then would absolutely have the ability and the right to be able to control everything from procedures and practices to Standing Orders to long-standing conventions to, in fact, legislation. I don't believe by anyone's definition, regardless of political stripe, that would be an acceptable practice.

I believe Canadians understand the fact that when they express their voting intention on polling day, they expect that the party who receives the most votes by individual members will form a government of sorts. Sometimes it will be a minority; sometimes it will be a majority. It appears the recent practice has been to elect minority governments, and there's nothing wrong with that. If a minority government can function and function well, and in the spirit of compromise perhaps and in the spirit of cooperation it still is able to function by bringing forward legislation that is debated and discussed and then ultimately passed into law, I think most Canadians would say, well, you know, the system works. But I do not believe members of the Canadian public or voters, the ordinary Canadians who cast ballots on any polling day, would agree to the fact that, regardless of who is elected as the government of day, they should not have the ability to advance their own agenda, that in a minority government the opposition in fact is governing this country.

That's why we have votes of non-confidence, and that's why we have elections. I would suggest to the members of the opposition that if they want to govern, well, just bring us down. You have the combined votes. We have a confidence bill, quite frankly, coming up. We have a vote tonight on Bill C-52, and if there's a desire by this combined opposition that they want to see an election right now, well, clearly that's a confidence vote and they have the ability to do so, as they do from time to time over the course of any Parliament.

That's the way the system works. There are checks and balances involved in any Parliament. There are checks and balances that have been put into place in the procedures and practices that we follow, and it's for that very reason that Parliament functions.

So to me, listening to the motion that was brought forward, that was voted in favour of by opposition members here, I think that to stop debate flies in the face of the very thing that I'm talking about. It speaks to the fact that members of the opposition want to ignore convention, long-standing practices, and start working on their own agenda and start working on a different set of practices without even consulting members of Parliament. I just don't think that's right, and I think that most Canadians would, without question, agree with my position on that.

That's why I say that I have—

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I believe the member has strayed very far from the actual motion that we're debating. We're debating a motion as to whether or not we should now be voting on the question of whether or not the private member's bill is admissible to be voted on. This is going far beyond that in terms of other items that are on the agenda that we haven't yet debated, as well as other procedural matters. So I think, as chair, you should ensure that the debate is on the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

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

If I may speak to that point of order—

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

No, I'm sorry. I can't allow that. Thank you very much.

I would caution, you do have the floor, Mr. Lukiwski—

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

I'm not allowed to speak on the point of order?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I don't think we need to speak to the point of order. It's a simple matter of asking you to focus on the issue a little bit better than you have, although I've been listening—

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

Intently. I noticed you took out your earpiece a couple of times, Mr. Chair, so I'm not sure what—

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

It's crackling on me. I'm going to have to order a new one.

Anyway, you have the floor. Just focus a little closer.

Thank you for the point of order.

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

What I'm saying, Chair, is that the very motion that was voted upon and approved by the majority of this committee speaks to far larger issues than merely that simple motion, because it sets a precedent on what we may experience sometime in the future.

This is the precedent that has been set right here, Chair. It's that members of the opposition, or any members, frankly, for that matter, can stifle debate, can curtail debate, can end debate, even though the member who was speaking or wished to express an opinion has the perfect right to do so.

So while I appreciate the fact that all committees are masters of their own fate, I do not believe, Chair, that it is an acceptable practice for this motion or any motion similar to this to be allowed, because in effect it says we don't care what convention has been, we don't care what parliamentary history has been, we don't care what procedures and practices are written, we don't care what the Standing Orders are; we're saying that as a committee we can tell an individual member, I'm sorry, you are not allowed to be heard. That's exactly what this motion has stated--exactly what this motion has stated.

Chair, it just perplexes me, it befuddles me, why members of this committee who propose and purport to be the saviours of democracy, in some cases, when you listen to them speak in the House, would say, on one hand, we believe in the democratic right of all of our members to express their opinion, but on the other hand say, except when we disagree with what the speaker has to say. That's what this motion has done.

This motion has gone forward and said, we want to curtail debate; in effect, we don't like what you have to say, or we don't like the way in which you're saying it, or we don't agree with your opinion, so therefore let's have a simple vote, and if a majority of opinion says yes, that's right, cut the person off, they're cut off.

Chair, that is not democracy. It's absolutely not democracy. That's why I'm speaking so intently and vociferously against the motion brought forward by Monsieur Plamondon. It just flies in the face of democratic rights. Clearly, not only I but I'm sure many others would agree with my position and speak, as I would speak, against such a motion.

Why, Chair, would anyone ever vote to restrict democratic voice? That's, in effect, what this motion has done. It has stopped debate on an issue. It doesn't matter what the issue is. We will always find, in a minority Parliament, in a minority government, that there will be huge differences of opinion. We know that to be a fact. We know that even in a majority government the opposition members, frankly, will oppose, even though they may be somewhat powerless from a legislative point of view to prevent legislation from being passed. We at least recognize the fact they have the perfect democratic right, and parliamentary right, to express their opinion, and we allow them to do that.

Let's take it a step further then, Mr. Chair. If we had a situation where there was a majority government, and this precedent was accepted, one would then, if one extended that logic in that precedent, say the majority then, at any time, could curtail debate on any subject just by a simple majority vote. They could raise a motion, vote upon it in the House, and any subject that the opposition members wanted to discuss would be unavailable to them for discussion. That's what this motion does. It basically allows a precedent to be set that could have very dangerous implications down the road.

Now, in this particular case we have a minority government, so the combined opposition are the ones who will continue to have the majority votes if they wish to vote as a bloc, no disrespect to the Bloc Québécois. But in effect, Mr. Chair, the reverse could be held true as well. If we end up, at some point in the future, in a majority government situation, then those members on the government side would have the perfect right, if this precedent is to be followed, to stifle debate by any member of the opposition. How democratic is that?

I can only imagine, Mr. Chair, if that situation occurred, the howls of protest we would get from members of the opposition, and rightfully so. They would have a perfect right to say that their voices were being squelched by the majority rule in Parliament. We can't allow that to happen, and we shouldn't. If we think that is undemocratic--and I think we all do--then how in the world can this motion--

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Yes.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

I understand the argument and I think he's right. I will retire my proposition. I think he's right to speak against it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Do I have unanimous consent to withdraw the motion?

(Motion withdrawn)

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Now there's no motion on the floor to debate.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Chair, I was on the list of speakers on the previous piece of information we were dealing with.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Do you have questions for the witness? The witness has been dismissed.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Perhaps they're for the rest of the group then, to try to convince them, if they're going to vote one way or the other.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Preston, you are correct. You were on the list prior to this motion being introduced, so we will revert to that.

Mr. Preston has the floor on the discussion prior to your motion, which has now been withdrawn.

I'm going to ask if I have concurrence and unanimous consent from the committee to suspend this meeting for question period. We'll reconvene at 3:30. It probably won't be in this room, but we will make sure everybody has notice of where it will be.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Will I still be on the list of speakers at that point?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Yes.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I don't know if your suggestion is even a friendly amendment. Would it be possible to suspend this meeting until its regular scheduled time on Thursday morning?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I'm open to that. I will just change my friendly request--that we suspend this meeting until the next regularly scheduled meeting, which is Thursday at 11 o'clock. Technically it's an adjournment.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Will I still be on the list of speakers at that point? I'm just trying to make sure. Mr. Lukiwski made some great points. I would like to suggest--

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

May I have unanimous consent that this meeting be adjourned until Thursday at its regular time of 11 o'clock?