Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 15th, 2007

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

I want to hear what the motion was, so we understand what we're withdrawing, if we so choose.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Order, please.

The motion is only in French. Is it okay with the committee that we read this in one official language?

I see agreement.

I'll let the clerk read the motion.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Lucile McGregor]

Mr. Plamondon's motion reads: “that we proceed to adopt the second report of the subcommittee [...]”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Is there unanimous consent by the members at the table who are eligible to vote that the motion be withdrawn?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

There is one dissenting voice.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I am not convinced that I have unanimous consent. Could I get some eye contact here?

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

Who is against this?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I have one member who is not in favour. I do not have unanimous consent.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Who is not in favour?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

No one asked me for a name-calling vote.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

For clarification, how many Conservatives do we have signed into this committee meeting?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

The legal ones voted.

Order, please.

The motion was defeated. We'll continue the debate.

Mr. Lukiwski, please.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

So what are we debating?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

We'll figure something out as we go along.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Colleagues, could I please make one mention right now? I've asked for order a couple of times. I have the authority to suspend this meeting for disorder.

Mr. Lukiwski has the floor, and I think we'll respect that. Thank you.

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

Again, so I can get my head around this for a moment, we are still debating a motion that Monsieur Plamondon wanted to withdraw. Am I on point here?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

That's correct.

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

I believe I am. Perhaps this changes slightly the approach I would take to this debate. And while I appreciate my colleague's efforts to withdraw his motion, I understand that from a procedural standpoint you need unanimous consent for a motion to be withdrawn. Since unanimous consent was not given, obviously we're still in debate.

I think this points to a very important factor here. While it may seem somewhat odd to members of this committee why we're still debating this, it points to the fact that, by procedure, we are following this debate in a correct manner, because we did not have unanimous consent—for whatever reason, one of the members decided to oppose the withdrawal of the motion--so therefore the debate surges on.

It speaks to the fact that procedures are put in place for a reason, and that's the whole essence of the comments of my colleagues and myself, to ensure that we follow proper procedures. Again, as I have beseeched the chair and clerk and analyst at the opening of my remarks, I do not believe there is any reference anywhere in the Standing Orders or in Marleau and Montpetit that suggests that a member should have the right, by majority vote—not even unanimous consent, but by majority vote—to cut off comments being delivered by any other parliamentarian.

Clearly, it doesn't seem to be democratic to me. It flies in the face of the spirit of democracy, frankly, Chair. I would suggest to you there is no reference anywhere to be found that would allow such a motion to be considered, let alone to be acted upon. So I would suggest to you, Chair, that if we perhaps don't have it in time for the suspension of this meeting prior to question period, I would suggest, when we resume debate, that you bring forward whatever reference materials you have found that suggest that Mr. Plamondon's motion was in order to begin with.

[An hon. member]

It was, sir, it was simply overruled.

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

Chair, then it speaks, obviously, to the larger issue of procedure itself. What we have found, Chair, in discussion this afternoon, is that some members want to honour procedure, some seem to want to bypass it when it's convenient for them. I would suggest that's no way to operate in a Parliament either, Chair.

I would strongly encourage all members to understand the reasons for Standing Orders, number one, and procedures and practices, number two, and why they were put into place. There have been over time, I'm sure, many changes, some minor, perhaps some major, for Standing Orders. I note with interest that my colleague Ms. Davies had brought forward a motion for discussion, which we have not yet dealt with at this committee, that would, I think, significantly change the Standing Orders, inasmuch as her motion was, with respect to the appointment of chairs or the election of chairs, to bypass a long-standing practice.

Regarding the approval to have a government member represent committee members as the chair, her suggestion was that we bypass that practice and we allow an opposition member--in other words, change the Standing Orders to allow an opposition member to become chair. Frankly, Chair, I think that is a very substantive change to the Standing Orders that all of us have followed for probably close to a hundred years.

Although I know we haven't had debate on that motion yet, Chair, I would suggest to you that it be something we give very careful consideration to, because I think that then we start going down the path that Mr. Hill referred to--that combined, opposition members can in effect hijack Parliament. Regardless of Canadians' intent to vote governments, whether they be a majority or a minority, if in a minority situation the combined opposition wishes to change Standing Orders, traditions, conventions, procedures and practices, they would have the ability to do so. I am absolutely 100% convinced that was not the intention of our wise forefathers, who spent so much time in developing the Standing Orders to begin with.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, “of persons”.

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

I appreciate that, and I apologize. Yes, I was certainly using it...of persons who developed the Standing Orders as we know them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Also, “wise”.