Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 15th, 2007

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

The members want to.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I'm taking names.

Mr. Hill.

Are we in order with all those changes of members?

I'm sorry, just out of courtesy to Mr. Silva...Mr. Silva, we are now on a different motion. The questioning of the witness is over. You're more than welcome to stay, but you are in fact dismissed. It would be your choice.

We'll have Mr. Hill, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I want to start out by saying that this is a very unusual turn of events in the time that I've had the privilege to be a member of Parliament. I think it should be of concern not only to parliamentarians of all political stripes but also to the public, some of whom may be listening to the proceedings today, since this is a public meeting.

Mr. Chair, the situation we have just seen unfold is that by dint of a majority, the question period that you were overseeing as chair was summarily ended. Mr. Chair, so that we clearly understand what we've just done here, I would submit that if that's the case--if we're going to break new ground here and start to do that--then when we call a witness before any standing committee, the majority of that committee can, with a motion, just decide with a vote that the question time is over. It doesn't matter whether there are more people on the list or not, because as you correctly pointed out to the committee, there were members present who had their names on the list of speakers and were prepared to speak. When you recognized Monsieur Plamondon, he put a motion that summarily cut off any further discussion. I say this so that we can very clearly understand what happened.

Mr. Chair, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that what we've just moved into is basically an organized dictatorship. The reality is, Mr. Chair, that if we call a witness, the majority--in this case, all of the opposition together--can decide, for whatever reason, that they want to cut off any further discussion. It doesn't matter how long the list is that the clerk has written for you, the list of members who want to talk on that particular issue. It could be the first round of questioning, and all of a sudden the majority of the committee decides they've heard enough. It doesn't matter; they've just had enough of this particular discussion.

The thing that particularly offends me is that there are individuals sitting around this table who are always quick to say they want to defend the minorities. They want to stand up, beat their chests, and say they're the party, the individuals, the members of Parliament who want to look after the minorities. In this particular case, Mr. Chair, they just decide that they've heard enough at this committee, and they're a majority; therefore, it's going to be the will of the majority to cut off any further discussion. That's what took place here; let's be very clear about that. You correctly pointed out to Mr. Plamondon that there were still people on the list, yet when it came his turn, he presented a motion that basically cut off any further discussion.

As I said, I know that when I was in opposition, we used to rant and rail against majority governments at different times down through history, whether it was a majority Conservative government or, more recently, the back-to-back majority Liberal governments. Whether it was at committee or in the House, we used to often call the government to account because they were behaving, in our view, like a dictatorship. It was just the will of the majority--a show of hands, in a sense--and there was no recognition that perhaps procedure and due process were going to be run over roughshod.

Back in those days the minority, in those cases, was collectively the opposition members. The opposition parties didn't have sufficient votes, whether it was at committee or in the chamber in the House of Commons, to thwart the efforts of the government of the day. In that case it was the Liberals; before my time, opposition parties used to accuse the Progressive Conservatives of something similar.

Yet that's exactly what we've witnessed here today. Despite the fact that people were ready, willing, and able to put forward their points of view, the opposition collectively decided, that's enough, we've decided; we've made the decision that we've heard enough and we're going to cut it off.

If that's the type of precedent that we're going to set, whether it's the individual parties coming together to collectively determine the fate of a chairman or whether it's to cut off any further debate on an issue, as they have done in this committee, I would have to pose the question, Mr. Chairman, where does that leave this Parliament?

I see that we're very rapidly moving into the realm where the opposition collectively, the three opposition parties, have decided that they're going to be the government, that they are going to make all the decisions. They're going to decide who gets to be the chair of the committees. They're going to decide indeed when they've heard enough, when discussion should be cut off.

My concern with this, Mr. Chairman, is obvious. The citizenry, yes, elected a minority government, but they did elect.... And I know how much that sticks in the craw of Liberal members, who actually believe this commonly held view that the Liberal Party of Canada is somehow the natural governing party and it's an anomaly if they're ever thrown out of office. They take very personally that something has gone awry and they're no longer government.

But the reality is that the people elected a Conservative minority government, not a coalition government of the three opposition parties. That's not the decision they made in January 2006. Yet what we're seeing today is the opposition parties collectively, as I said, attempting to decide who gets to talk, when they get to talk, how long they get to talk, and they're going to move a motion, which was allowed to stand, that cut off any further discussion.

I don't think it's that difficult to project and say, where is this going to lead? I would suggest, through you, Mr. Chair, that what we're going to see very rapidly is this: if this approach to a minority government, a minority Parliament trying to work together, is allowed to stand, very quickly we're going to really dissolve into a completely dysfunctional place. If it's going to be the tyranny of the majority that dictates when discussions are cut off, then I really have to question whether that's in the best interests of the Canadian public--that simply like that, they're going to decide, on this particular day in committee, to move a motion, have a vote, and say now we've heard enough.

I have a problem with that. It certainly goes, if not against the existing procedures and the Standing Orders, against the intent of the rules of this place and what, in my time, I've come to try to respect, which is that people do get the opportunity to continue to debate, to talk and to put forward their individual points of view.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

Mr. Lukiwski.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Further to Mr. Hill's comments, for the record, I would like to inquire of the chair and the clerk as to the propriety of the motion that was voted on by Monsieur Plamondon, wherein if a majority of the committee votes to cut off debate and questions, they have the right to do so. Frankly, I'm not sure whether or not it is allowed under the Standing Orders. But perhaps it is, and I appreciate the ruling of the chair.

I would like to get some clarification on that at some point. I may be speaking for a while, so perhaps while I do so, you can provide me with that clarity by checking the Standing Orders and the Marleau and Montpetit House of Commons Procedure and Practice.

It would appear to me, Chair, that it's not really a democratic function to curtail debate by members of the committee when they wish to get comments on the record or to at least participate in the debate itself.

Obviously, Chair, one could argue that procedural techniques or procedural tactics to delay or prolong debate may be something that members do not agree with. But the fact of the matter is that procedures and practices were put into place for a reason. The reason is that over time, over the last 100 years, there has been a system of practices and procedures within this House that seems to work in a democratic manner for the benefit of all parliamentarians and, of course, those whom they represent.

I would sincerely appreciate some clarification as to whether or not, in the spirit of democracy, the motion brought forward and subsequently voted on was in order.

Mr. Hill made a very valid point. If this is in fact allowed to stand and if this is in fact approved under the procedures and practices of this House, it would mean that at any time, in any committee, fulsome debate could be halted if the majority of the committee, in this case the combined opposition, wished to absolutely curtail debate on any subject. They would have the ability to do so merely by bringing forward a simple motion that says we are to call the question or in effect end debate.

I'm not sure, Chair, if the intent is in keeping with the spirit of the procedures and practices of this House. I do not personally believe that when Messrs. Marleau and Montpetit wrote their very well-received book on procedures and practices, what they had in mind was a practice in this House that would allow the curtailing of any debate.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Ms. Redman.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I'm sorry to interrupt you, Tom.

For my edification, can the chair tell us if we're going to be able to listen to this scintillating discussion by Conservative colleagues until question period? Are we going to continue this until next Thursday, when we would normally meet again? What exactly is the timeline, seeing that we have passed 12:30 and one o'clock, which were the pre-arranged times for this committee to end?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I'm sorry. I'll take a moment to answer this point of order.

It has been the normal practice for committees to suspend for question period. However, as the members already know, I made one ruling that was overturned by the committee. We are at the call of the committee. But it would be my suggestion to ask the committee to suspend for question period in a while.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Would the assumption be that we would then come back after question period?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

It would be what “suspending” means.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I'm only looking for clarification, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

It's my pleasure. Thank you.

Mr. Lukiwski.

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

If I may continue with my comments, I'll speak to Karen's point of order. Yes, there was a motion that was defeated to suspend at one o'clock. That is the motion that I believe Mr. Hill or Mr. Reid brought forward, not to adjourn but to suspend, to move to another topic, to suspend debate on this particular topic, and that was overturned. So I can only assume, then, that the members of this committee wanted to continue discussing it.

But now we have debate on whether or not the motion brought forward by Monsieur Plamondon was in order and whether it was correct. I suggest to you, Chair, in all due respect, that it really wasn't. While perhaps technically in order—and I would still like to get clarification on that—it certainly was not in keeping with the spirit of the practices and procedures of this House.

I've always believed that, like it or not, all members who indicate a willingness to debate issues have the full opportunity to do so, and to do so at length from time to time. Yet it appears that the motion that was voted on and upheld by the chair curtailed that ability for members. It in effect said that regardless of the willingness or the intent of a speaker to make comment on an item of debate, they would not be allowed to do so. They would be, in effect, prevented from doing so.

I would definitely like to see indication, whether it be in the Standing Orders or in Marleau and Montpetit, of some reference to that, that speakers who wish to engage in debate cannot do so by majority vote at a committee level. I would love to see where that is indicated in any form, just because I do not believe, as I mentioned, that it was the intention of anyone who was involved in either writing the Standing Orders of this House or the procedures and practices. I believe all members should be allowed to say their piece and say it without disruption, not only without disruption but without being curtailed and cut off. That's in effect what has happened here.

So although I appreciate the ruling, again I would appreciate some clarification and some definitive proof that the ruling was a correct one, because as my colleague Mr. Hill said, that is setting, in my view, a very dangerous precedent. If we now have a system or procedure in place that allows any member at a committee to introduce a motion that in effect would have the ability and the right to cut off debate by any other member, I do not believe that is the intention of anyone who is involved with writing procedures.

Mr. Owen once spoke earlier this afternoon about natural justice. Well, I would say the natural justice with respect to democracy is that debate should not be curtailed. If, however, there are set rules, whether that be in committee or in debate of the House, that state there are parameters and time limits for any debate, so be it; everyone knows the rules going in. But for example, when we introduce a piece of legislation in the House and political parties have the opportunity to put up speakers, I have yet to see any practice that says no, I'm sorry, you can't put up more than this amount of speakers. It's undemocratic. Every member has the ability to stand up and speak, whether it be debate or in comment on a particular piece of legislation.

And we are talking about a piece of potential legislation here. We're talking about a private member's bill that was brought forward, that was ultimately deemed to be non-votable by a subcommittee. The appeal mechanism kicked in. The sponsor of that bill then brought his proposed legislation back to this committee for discussion. After approximately two hours of discussion on the subcommittee's ruling, which was to deem this private member's bill non-votable, a motion was brought forward to cut off debate, to cut off discussion.

Mr. Chair, by all my standards, by all my knowledge of how this place works, not only is this undemocratic, I would suggest to you it's unparliamentary. I would suggest also, Mr. Chair, that it is against the common practices of this House.

Once again—and I will continue to ask, Chair—I would very much like to see any reference, in any writings of this place that deals with Standing Orders or procedures and practices, where it states that it is an allowable function for another member to bring forward a motion that would in effect cut off my right to speak on a subject.

If we can find that reference, Chair, and it's something that's been in practice, obviously I would withdraw my comments and say, fine, I may not like it, but it's something that I have to live by. It's a procedure that has been tried and tested over the years, and found to be in order. I would merely say fine, I object.

Perhaps I would even advise at that point in time, Mr. Chair, that we revisit the particular procedure or practice, indicating that a member would be able to have his voice in effect silenced just because the combined opposition members determined that they don't like to hear what a particular member is saying.

In fact, that's what it comes down to, doesn't it? It comes down to the fact that regardless of topic or point of view, there's an ability for the opposition members—should they be the majority, which they always are in committee—to stifle debate, or to cut off comments that they may not like to hear or that they may not want Canadians to hear. By anyone's standards, Chair, I think that is highly undemocratic. I suggest that the majority of Canadians, if posed with that very simple scenario, would agree with me.

Now, members opposite clearly may not like what I have to say, or maybe they think this is nothing more than a procedural tactic. Frankly, if they wish to make those comments, if they feel that way, that's a fair comment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Order, order.

Mr. Lukiwski, I apologize for interrupting.

I am having a little difficulty hearing. I wonder if we could keep the conversations a little quieter. If you have to have conversations with your staff, maybe you could step away from the table. Thank you.

Mr. Lukiwski, please.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

As I was saying before your intervention—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

A point of order, Mr. Plamondon.

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

Mr. Chair, I would like to withdraw my motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I'm going to ask the committee's unanimous consent that Mr. Plamondon's motion be withdrawn.

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

Could you read the motion before we—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

—just so I'm clear what we're withdrawing?

[An hon. member]

Go on your BlackBerry and say, what's next?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!