Evidence of meeting #53 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 c-415.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

James Robertson  Committee Researcher

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear

All right, that sounds like a motion to me. I'll just clarify so we're very clear on the rules, and then we'll continue.

There is a motion now on the floor for this committee that the report of the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business be now concurred in.

I will just repeat for clarity that the second report of the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business be now concurred in. That's the motion, and we're going to continue with debate on the motion.

The next person on my list is Monsieur Godin, and then I have Monsieur Guimond, but if anybody else wants to get on the list, please raise your hand so I can see it.

Monsieur Godin, please.

11:45 a.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB

Even if I could understand what Mr. Preston and Mr. Reid were saying, and even Mr. Lukiwski has spoken about it, that when a subcommittee makes a decision this committee should approve it just like that, I would tell you that I have never liked to be used as a rubber stamp. We're not rubber stamps, and I don't take it lightly when we say that simply because a committee has done something, we must go that way. That's why we have a subcommittee to look at it and then bring it back. And it will not take away from us the opportunity to look at it more deeply and find out if it's right or not.

If we were to take for granted, as the Conservative government is saying, that because it went to the subcommittee we have no choice other than to respect their decision, it is as I said: we'd be just like a rubber stamp. I have never taken this place to make me become a rubber stamp.

The other thing is that the two bills look the same. I question that too. That's where the position of supporting the bill to go to....

First of all, we have to remember I was probably the one who argued the most that all bills should not all be automatically voted in. I remember the Conservatives when they were the opposition--I think at that time it was the Canadian Alliance, I'm not sure, and then they became the joint Conservative group together--they wanted every bill to be votable-- members should have that right; we are in a democratic country, and let's leave those members' votes. Now I want to put it straight and not let it look like the opposition are the bad guys today. They are the ones who, when they were in opposition, wanted all the bills to be votable. Today, it seems to me that when they got into government, they became like little mosquitoes flying around and, ping-pong, they changed their minds and became something else.

I only want to say that when you look at the two bills, yes, maybe they look the same, the language looks the same and everything. If you were to have a bill to say we want the Department of Transport to make a new four-lane highway from here to Bathurst and then the bill doesn't go through, and then I have a bill that says I want a two-lane highway instead--the same language and everything except it's a two-lane highway instead a four-lane highway--I think the bill has changed. Something has changed in the bill and, I think, changed enough.

Mr. Preston has his interpretation of what's changed in the bill. We surely have our interpretation. I have my interpretation.

I don't want to take more time than that, but I wanted to go on record that there's a difference.

There are steps to be followed. One of them is that members of the subcommittee have the right to meet to review the contents of a bill and decide whether it is similar to another. This bill can also be sent to the standing committee whose members can be of a different opinion. The Speaker decided to send us the bill to see if we have another point of view.

The committee is not here to rubber-stamp the subcommittee's decisions. Otherwise, the subcommittee would have reported directly to Parliament. But this is not the case. The standing committee does not have to accept the subcommittee's decision. We are entitled to change it. Democracy must prevail in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. We did not give a free hand to the subcommittee. The final decision is ours.

Sometimes, in the Senate, committees are used as rubber stamps because senators are not elected. We are elected. So there is a difference.

As I said, when reviewing a bill before us, we could think of another bill asking, for instance, that a four-lane highway be built. That bill may be rejected by the Standing Committee on Transport, but another member may table another almost identical bill asking for a two-lane highway. That would be a different bill.

I did not want to speak but I did. This leaves the impression that the conservative government is doing the right thing and that opposition members are the bad guys. I simply want to repeat that almost all of these people were here during the last Parliament, when Liberals were in office. They were the ones who insisted that all bills be votable. Finally, you are reaping what you have sown. I was one of those who opposed the idea of making all bills votable. As a matter of fact, I was probably the member who argued the most against it. However, that decision was democratically made, and you wanted it really bad.

Now, I think it is up to Parliament to decide democratically by a majority vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

11:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear

Mr. Lukiwski, and then Madam Redman.

11:50 a.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Briefly, Chair, in response to what Mr. Godin was saying, I just want to get it on the record that even though I might have inferred this, or perhaps I even misspoke, I don't want to let Monsieur Godin think that I'm suggesting we rubber-stamp any of the subcommittee's decisions. But I do agree with what Mr. Reid was saying. I think it's imperative that this committee as a whole not vote on the subcommittee decision based on whether they like the bill or not. That would be a very dangerous precedent.

The subcommittee made a decision. They examined both bills—Bill C-257 and Bill C-415—extensively and diligently. They came to a conclusion that there was sufficient similarity that Bill C-415 in this session should not be voted upon because of the similarity concerns. So I think it would be highly inappropriate if this committee decided to reverse that decision just based on the fact that they like the bill, that they like a bill dealing with the ban of replacement workers.

That's not what we're here for. We're here just to determine whether or not the subcommittee's decision was an appropriate one, because there's always an opportunity for this same bill to be introduced in the next session. But our job as parliamentarians—and as commented on by Mr. Reid—is to respect the Standing Orders.

With respect to Monsieur Godin's suggestion that the former Alliance Party had said that all bills should be voted upon, what they had said was—and we certainly supported that—that all private members' bills should have the ability to be voted on, but still respecting the Standing Orders, which say except in the case of two bills being so similar that only one can be debated and voted upon per session. We're still consistent with our position on that. We're just saying that this is too similar to Bill C-257. It is too similar to Bill C-257, and that is the decision the subcommittee came up with.

We charged the subcommittee with the responsibility—and I know they took it seriously—of examining those bills that were similar in content to determine whether or not they should be votable or non-votable. That's what I think we need to respect, not whether the content of the bill is something that I approve of or disapprove of.

So with those two points on the record, I'll turn it over to Ms. Redman.

11:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear

Madam Redman, please.

11:50 a.m.

Liberal

Karen Redman Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to lend maybe a different perspective on the fact that it's a legitimate discussion to be having at this committee, despite the fact that the subcommittee has spoken. I wouldn't want any members here, or other colleagues who represent parties on that subcommittee, to think that this in any way is a critique of their work.

When people come to see me in my riding, I always encourage them to take any appeal process possible, whether it's with the Revenue Agency or whether it's through Immigration and Citizenship or applying for their Canada Pension disability. We always suggest that people take every avenue for appeal possible.

I would point out that this subcommittee has made a decision that the proponent of the bill has come to appeal, and this committee has either chosen to take a different point of view or to uphold the findings and the recommendations of the subcommittee. But it is a very legitimate thing for this committee to do, and that's in no way meant to comment on the work of the subcommittee, or even the process, because indeed this is the process. People do have the right to appeal, and it was appropriate that Mr. Silva came before us.

I continue to look forward to the debate by my Conservative colleagues.

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear

Thank you.

Mr. Reid, please.

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm following up a little on the discussion we've just been having here. There have been some discussions on analogies to four-lane highways and so on. The bills are, I would think, closer in kind to each other than a two-lane highway is to a four-lane highway. It seems that analogy is clearly out there in the minds of some people. I just want to talk a little about that without regard to the merits of drawing one from Bathurst to Cambridge. I'm not sure that would ever make sense, unless it went through Carleton Place and Perth first.

There actually is a four-lane highway being built right now from Kanata to....

The point is that the analogy is being made about how, essentially, a four-lane highway and a two-lane highway are similar enough. First of all, I don't agree that the destinations being the same amounts to similarity. The building of a four-lane highway, in the case of the one to Carleton Place, because there had been a number of fatalities on the two-lane highway that already exists, serves a very significant and different purpose from the two-lane highway. The two-lane highway is to get you from point A to point B. The four-lane highway is not only to get you from point A to point B, but also to ensure that the fatalities will go down. We've had a large number of these fatalities. This is the very first issue I addressed as a member of Parliament. I was elected on November 27 and on November 28 I was talking about this in the early morning with the CBC about the four-laning of Highway 7 to Carleton Place.

If you take that analogy and you go back to the bill, what you see is that the two-lane highway and the four-lane highway are, in many respects, quite different in what they're trying to achieve. This bill is trying to achieve the same thing. It's just trying to achieve it as a slight problem dealt with. It feels like a burr that was under the saddle dealt with, but it's still a saddle on the horse. That's just an analogy to keep in mind right now. It's still, essentially, the same thing, which is a bill to ban replacement workers.

As I went through the bill and demonstrated in my references earlier, they really are very, very similar--a good deal more similar than, frankly, a four-lane highway is to a two-lane highway. I can get from Carleton Place to Ottawa by a variety of different methods. Every so often, when there's been one of these crashes, I have had to take detours. You go off the Cemetery side road and you come along through to Ashton and then turn north and drive up onto Highway 7, missing the spot where the accident has been. Sometimes, when Highway 7 is jammed up, what I've done is I've taken Highway 29 up to Almonte and driven along March Road and come in through Kanata.

My point is that you can get to the same place by things that are similar. These things are, of course, less similar than these two bills. These two bills are really the same thing with the same objective. They're not different things.

With regard to the issue that Mrs. Redman had raised, and Mr. Godin had also.... We seem to have lost both Mr. Godin and Mrs. Redman. It's too bad, because what I'm going to say is, I think, very germane to what they are raising. They are both quite right to raise the concerns they have, that we would never want a decision made by a subsidiary body to effectively be seen as binding on the body that gave it power. Just as we would never want to say, well, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has ruled, therefore the House has no business overturning that decision, overruling it, changing it. By the same token, that's even more true for a subcommittee.

I was just involved last week.... In fact, I missed this meeting on Thursday of last week because I was--

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

Joe Preston Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON

It was a special meeting.

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

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

I've heard that. I can only imagine how special it was. Actually, Mr. Preston was talking for two hours.

Anyway, we were talking for five hours, and we had witnesses, and it was because the steering committee had met in camera and had made a series of decisions as to witnesses we were going to see and the order we'd see them in. It was a decision I disagreed with quite strongly and didn't get a chance to look at until we were in that committee meeting.

The argument then was, look, we've got witnesses here, and one of them has a bad leg, and the other one's mother is ill and he wants to get home and take care of her, so let's just do it. But it didn't make sense. There was a problem, in my view, with what the subcommittee had decided. We had to have, I believe, witnesses in a certain order, because we were dealing with secret documents that could be leaked and we had to determine what documents we could and couldn't look at and whether we could look at them in camera or not.

One of the first problems we ran into in dealing with this was the fact that the steering committee, the subcommittee, had met in camera, so we weren't privy to the discussions that had occurred at the subcommittee or steering committee level. Indeed, I had not known until I walked in the door about one of the witnesses being there. It wasn't until we were about two hours into the meeting that someone inadvertently blurted out...well, not inadvertently, it was actually quite deliberate, but the point is they acknowledged that the House legislative counsel, Mr. Walsh, had been at the subcommittee and given some advice. But of course we still weren't privy to what his advice had been.

After that long meeting was over, I then went down and visited the clerk's office. Of course you're allowed to examine the minutes of in camera meetings as long as you don't take verbatim notes, so I sat down and went through them and made mental notes of what I had seen. At last, long after the initial meeting had occurred, I had a chance to determine with a great deal more insight how I ought to be behaving, but I hadn't had any of that available to me at the time of the previous meetings. So I just basically said that we were not going to be bulldozed into accepting effectively a secret report based on rationales to which we weren't privy, to which we couldn't be privy under the Standing Orders because of the rules about in camera meetings and their secrecy.

So it was completely legitimate for us to resist going in that direction, which is essentially what both Madam Redman and Monsieur Godin have been saying with regard to the subcommittee for this committee, which met in camera and made what I thought was a very intelligent and actually fairly collegial decision. I don't think I'm giving anything away when I say that, because that has been the nature of the subcommittee. In fact, it's been the nature of this committee in this Parliament. It's been very collegial and cordial.

We decided, based on criteria, on our decision that's in our report. But the committee as a whole doesn't have access to everything, so it's entirely legitimate to overrule. Obviously you can guess that I would be voting in support of the initial decision--I made that clear--but there's nothing inherently wrong with voting against that decision, based on the merits of the case as restated.

If anything, the problem here, Mr. Chairman, is that these subcommittees do meet without having direct access to the MPs who have presented the private members' bills or motions in order to hear their cases. The rules don't make explicit provision for that, so it's not our fault that we didn't, as a subcommittee, summon Mr. Rodriguez to present his bill and give the explanation as to why he thought....

I'm sorry?

Noon

An hon. member

Mario Silva.

Noon

Conservative

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

Yes, I'm sorry, Mario Silva. I do that all the time.

We didn't give Mr. Silva the opportunity to come before the subcommittee because no provision was made for that in the rules. I'm not so sure that as we move forward we should not give serious consideration to some kind of change perhaps to the Standing Orders, or perhaps simply the practices of the subcommittees when dealing with these matters.

Looking back to the previous Parliament, I had a motion that had gone before the subcommittee. I was selected high enough in the order that my motion got dealt with and it was brought before the subcommittee. They had questions, not on whether it was similar to a previous motion on the order paper, but on the subject of whether it was unconstitutional, that is to say, outside of federal jurisdiction. I learned about this because the subcommittee sought additional information from the researchers at the Library of Parliament. Therefore, there was a second meeting specifically on the subject of my motion.

I was alarmed by this, unnecessarily, as it turned out. I thought that perhaps they weren't going to give it a fair hearing, and I felt, incorrectly, at the time that this might be like a closed court of star chamber where I would not have a chance to defend my motion. So I actually came to the meeting and sat in on it. As it turned out, it was a very brief meeting. They just dealt with it. They had a report back to the library that said they thought this was constitutional. They then said to let it go forward.

So there's no provision that says you can't come and sit in. I'm not sure I could have sat in and asked to be a witness. That might have gone too far. But that is what has happened because we've gone in camera.

What used to happen with the subcommittee, under the old rules--this is going back to the 37th Parliament--was a very different process. At that time, you had to convince them to make your bill or motion votable. They were all automatically non-votable, something the Canadian Alliance, of which I was then a member, did not support. I think Mr. Godin actually recalls this with some accuracy. I don't know if we wanted to make everything votable under all circumstances; we certainly wanted to narrow the criteria by which something could be designated non-votable, and of course we wanted to reverse the onus. It would be votable unless deemed otherwise.

But at that time there were five criteria, one of which was, effectively, that this item might bring the House into disrepute by its very consideration. That, of course--we're turning now to the theme that Madam Redman was discussing earlier--is where you can see the danger that's involved if you start having a subsidiary body, in this case a subcommittee, effectively determining.... The very consideration of this would lead our parent body to fall into disrepute.

I think we can, in a mature manner, deal with any question whatsoever without falling into disrepute. It's the manner in which we deal with it that could cause us to fall into disrepute; it's not the actual fact that a question was brought before the House of Commons. We are a sovereign body, and in this country we have chosen to hedge ourselves around with a written Constitution that prohibits us from passing certain pieces of legislation that might be unconstitutional, or rather, forbids those pieces of legislation from standing. They could be struck down as being without force or effect. We've also limited the items we've split our sovereignty under. It's classic federalist theory. The provinces are sovereign bodies over many important issues--health care and so on.

Nonetheless, we are a sovereign body. We come from a body, the House of Commons at Westminster, or more correctly, the whole Parliament at Westminster, which is itself an absolute body with absolute authority without any constraints whatsoever other than its own functions. And that body has ruled in that capacity and without any restrictions on it, at the very least, since the glorious revolution of 1689. And it has given the longest period of stability, quite literally, of any country in the world. That suggests that it's a pretty good model.

Other countries, like ours, have put some limits on themselves, but not all countries. New Zealand has governed itself with an absolutely sovereign parliament and has shown itself able to do so.

So it's the manner in which we deal with the questions rather than the questions themselves that is the area that could be potentially problematic. But I don't think there's any need for us to worry about any mandate to be excessively deferential to any subcommittee.

I would suggest here that we could have people come to present their cases to the subcommittee. It might actually give additional authority to the subcommittee's hearings. It also has the advantage that the individual could come, then--if we stuck with the current rules--as Mr. Silva did, before the full committee and represent the case. It might actually be helpful to them to have a sense from the earlier meeting as to what the objections were. I remember that Mr. Silva had, I thought, a perfectly valid point when he said that he didn't really know what the charges against him were. This had been dealt with at a subcommittee and he hadn't been at that subcommittee. Its meetings were held in camera, so he hadn't been able to review the minutes.

I'm not actually sure. It would be an interesting question as to whether Mr. Silva, who is not a member of that subcommittee, could have gone and examined the minutes of the subcommittee meeting in the manner that a member of a committee that has been in camera can examine them after the fact. It would seem to me to be logical that such a right be given in the future so that individuals can come and make a more fulsome presentation before the whole committee of their case.

That's something perhaps for future consideration for this committee; we could consider making a report back to the House on that particular subject as we go through the process of making this process into a more perfect process, to borrow the words from the American constitution, which talks about making its own constitution amendable in order to create a more perfect union in the future. The same rule can apply to how we govern ourselves. That's very important.

The whole process we have here means we go from the subcommittee, in which we meet by one process in camera, to an open meeting of the committee as a whole, which deals with things by a majority vote. We then go to a very different process. We go to the House of Commons. It indicates just how solicitous the previous Parliament that changed these rules was trying to be of the rights of individual members. We go to a vote in the House of Commons, assuming we can get the support of members of at least, in our case, three parties--a majority of the parties in the House of Commons. You have to have at least five MPs sign on, not to show that there's there's a massive level of support, but that there is some support. These are people who are willing to publicly identify themselves with...not necessarily the bill, but with the merits of the consideration of the relevant bill, based on the Standing Orders.

The chairman was just pointing out relevance, and I'm just trying to indicate the nature of the discussion here. It deals not so much at this point with Bill C-415, but with the admissibility of Bill C-415.

I think you're right, and that I've gone a bit roundabout in my discussion, but the whole question of admissibility and what we do here is not necessarily the final decision. I think that indicates the degree to which one can vote in this committee with complete confidence that the vote you're making is on the merits of the bill itself--or rather, of the process; it's not on the merits of the bill, but whether or not it conforms with the rules we are forced to deal with and contend with, which in this case mean its similarity to other bills.

That process can actually be appealed from here. We are not the final word. It then goes to the House. It goes in a way that is very respectful of Mr. Silva's rights. He can then go to other members, if he can get five members from three parties; the committee's ruling is then effectively and automatically challenged in a very particular way. It's going to be challenged by means of a secret ballot vote in the House of Commons, which means there can be no pressure from whips, no party pressures, and none of the pressures that would tend to focus on whether it's policy the government approves of, or that the Liberals, the NDP, or the Bloc approve of. It is purely based on the considerations that individual members are making.

I suspect that the logic of that ruling--and this is very important to the point I've been driving at, Mr. Chairman--is that here in the subcommittee, and again in the full committee, we are trying to decide specifically and exclusively whether this matter violates any of the four conditions of charter compliance or is intra vires as opposed to ultra vires. The one that's relevant to us, of course, is whether it's similar to a previous bill or one under consideration. Those are the considerations we are looking at, and that's all we should be looking at.

When you get to the House, I think it's not illegitimate for people to say at that point that yes, it's similar to something that was before us at a previous point in time, but I don't regard it as a waste of our time, which is the real reason for objecting to having consideration of similar items. I'm using this special procedure of a secret ballot vote to say that notwithstanding the fact that this item is similar to a previous bill, I think it deserves consideration again, because I think it's a good piece of legislation, as many members might say, and at that point the ruling.... That would apply if it was something else--even if it were a piece of legislation that was ultra vires, let's say.

I think it's so important that we need to deal with it, even though strictly speaking it is outside the jurisdiction of the House of Commons and is really within provincial jurisdiction. I'm aware of the consequences: we might deal with it in the House, and then it might be struck down in the courts. Then it will, in a sense, have been a waste of the House's time, but it will have been an important process in, let us say--to follow that analogy--trying to demonstrate that the federal government has a legitimate role in legislating in this particular area. That might start the process of leading to a further amendment to the Constitution, for example, that would expand federal powers. These are legitimate things.

I think the process on the whole, which was designed in the 37th Parliament, is just an excellent process. I encourage all people on this committee to keep in mind the whole picture, if you're looking at it, and not to make that internal decision, which I worry that some people may have made, of looking at the bill and saying, I think it's a pretty good piece of legislation, I'd like to see it go forward, I think it's a more nuanced piece of legislation than the previous piece of legislation. All of these are considerations that are important from a policy point of view, but not important from a procedural point of view.

Really, Mr. Chair, I've gone on at some length to make this point, but I think it is critical to our understanding to perceive to what degree the policy considerations are protected and also that the rights of private members like Mr. Silva are protected by this process. I think the other thing is to indicate the degree to which it is possible to appeal our decision on other grounds if this decision is found, for policy reasons, to not be appropriate. I think, certainly for procedural reasons, it's pretty good.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the fact that everybody has given me so much attention. I'll complete my comments there. Thank you.

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear

Thank you, Mr. Reid.

Mr. Preston, please.

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

Joe Preston Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON

I believe we've said it all, Mr. Chair. I think I should ask for a vote on the motion.

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear

I still have people on the list. I'm sorry, I can't move to a vote right now.

Mr. Lukiwski.

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

That's fine, Chair. I have no further comment.

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear

I have no one left on my list. Is the committee ready for the question?

It appears we're ready for the question on the motion. I'll read it to you once again. Colleagues, we're voting on the following: “That the second report of the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business be concurred in.” For further clarity, we're voting that Bill C-415 be designated non-votable.

It's always difficult with these double negatives, but it looks as if everybody understands. I'll read it again, and then I'll ask for the vote.

Colleagues, all in favour that the second report of the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business be concurred in.

(Motion negatived)

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

On a point of order, can we make that a recorded vote, please?

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear

I have no problem doing that.

12:15 p.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB

On a point of order, is that not normally done before the vote?

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear

I would suggest that it's done beforehand.

12:15 p.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB

It's already done.

You're not fast enough this morning, Tom.

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear

Thank you.

The motion is defeated. I'm going to take 30 seconds to defer.

Madam Redman, go ahead, please.

May 29th, 2007 / 12:15 p.m.

Liberal

Karen Redman Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Can we take from that that the report would then say that the committee supports Bill C-415 being votable?

Thank you.

12:15 p.m.

James Robertson Committee Researcher

In accordance with Standing Order 92(3)(b)--and I'll read it--Where the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, following proceedings pursuant to section (2)

--which is where the sponsor has the right to appear and argue that it be made votable--does not concur in the report of the Subcommittee on Private Members’ Business and is of the opinion that the item should remain votable, it shall report that decision to the House forthwith, and the report shall, upon presentation, be deemed concurred in.

We have a draft report that uses the wording of that, which the chair will have.