Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 7th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Madam O'Brien, please.

[Audrey O'Brien, Clerk of the House of Commons, House of Commons]

Mr. Chairman, I have just a small point of clarification. There are two versions of the document that has been distributed. One shows it with the track changes function to indicate where the changes that Monsieur Guimond is suggesting be made so that people can see what was discussed at the last meeting and what is now being proposed by Monsieur Guimond, and the other is a clean copy.

But I want to apologize. I didn't want it to seem as if we were presuming that this would be the new 53rd report. It just seemed a simple way of indicating the changes Monsieur Guimond would like to make.

That's all I have to say.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Monsieur Guimond, just for my own clarification, we'll talk about this on Tuesday before I table the report. Is that correct?

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

To provide a better understanding for Mr. Owen, I will say yes to this question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you very much. We certainly appreciate it.

Colleagues, the clerk has informed me of another technicality. The report number may change. It could end up being the 53rd report, just for the record.

Mr. Owen, please.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

I will just repeat a comment that I made last Tuesday, of concern. That is with respect to the second subsections referring to parties not officially recognized.

I understand, and the clerk gave us the benefit of the conventional interpretation of that, but my concern remains that there might be an interpretation to suggest that members of parties not recognized, by not being independents, might not have any opportunity to pose questions.

I think the clerk's answer was that by convention the Speaker will proportionately take that into account and provide the opportunity.

But since my concerns expressed on Tuesday, members may have seen that Elizabeth May has expressed some concerns in the same way. I think if we were able to give some assurance to her or other people who might be in that situation, that might stop some of the public discourse and concern.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Reid, please, and then Mr. Lukiwski.

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

I must say this is one time when I don't think such a danger actually exists, and the reason is by the way it's worded here; it says, “for the purposes—of this Standing Order”, which I assume means for the purposes of this section. Maybe it should say “this section”, which would be section 31.1, which deals only with a caveat on an earlier section, “members of political parties not officially recognized in the House are not considered independent members”. So it's just for the purposes of section 31.1.

I think by putting the caveat in that way, it makes it very clear it doesn't relate to the concern. It doesn't actually cause the harm that Ms. May legitimately raised. I think it's quite clear that there's no danger of members—I assume she's worried that, say, a Green Party caucus of seven or eight members would be denied the right to pool their questions or give them to their leader.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Lukiwski.

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

I interpreted Ms. May's comments on the paper a little differently. The way I read it is she was concerned that if she were the only Green Party member elected, she would only get perhaps one question a week. I think we're all satisfied that if there is only one member, they get up to one a week.

It certainly states that if the Green Party elects more than one member, they would have more than one a week, so I don't think there's a problem here.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Can I respond, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Yes.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

I have two points. I'm not so sure that it's stated anywhere that that's the case. I do understand that by convention that's the way the Speaker would treat it. On the application of this, I ask the question rhetorically: is there any standing order that deals with political parties not recognized as an official one? I assume there isn't, and if there isn't, it underlines, sometimes, the difficulty of dealing with Standing Orders as one-offs rather than checking comprehensively. That's why I voted against this and wasn't in favour of it as a general practice.

I am confident that no one will be disadvantaged by the practice that is followed, consistent with this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you, Mr. Owen.

I want to ask Mr. Godin and then Madam O'Brien for a comment. But would it help anybody under subsection (2) if we were to add, “for the purposes of this Standing Order, members of political parties registered under the Canada Elections Act not officially recognized in the House are not considered independent members”? Does that help anybody with this issue?

I'll tell you what I don't want to do. I don't want to have a big, long discussion on Tuesday. We're moving to clause-by-clause. I'm hoping this can be worked out by Tuesday. I think it's up to Madam Redman and Monsieur Guimond, both of whom unfortunately have had to leave.

Are there other issues we need to deal with, or is this becoming a bigger problem?

Madam O'Brien, please make a comment, and then I want to hear from Mr. Godin.

[Audrey O'Brien]

Just on what you were saying, Mr. Chairman, if I may, I think the suggestion you make might introduce new problems. Going on the experience we've had in the past, when I think it was the then Alliance caucus split and a number of members became the democratic reform members, they were not registered under the Canada Elections Act, but they occupied a group. They were like a little collective, if you will.

As I read this standing order, they would then be covered under subsection (2), that is to say, the Speaker would not have to treat them as “one question or one statement a week” people; it would be left to his discretion, as it's always been in the past before this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

Mr. Godin, please.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

I'd like to get more clarification. Were they recognized as a party? They were not. They were a group within the Progressive Conservative Party and they were part of the questions of the Progressive Conservative Party. The Progressive Conservative Party were giving them questions, if I recall. They were considered independents. I recall, myself, arguing that they should not get any questions at that time, and the answer was, “Well, if the Progressive Conservative Party wants to give them a question, that's their business”.

[Audrey O'Brien]

I wasn't suggesting, Mr. Chairman, through you, that they were considered a recognized party in the House. All I wanted to point out was that they had moved from a caucus into this undefined status. They did get questions, and the questions were left to the discretion of the Speaker, that is to say, given the way Mr. Godin is accurately describing it, as I recall, they were using slots that had originally been allotted to the Progressive Conservatives, who decided to share with them, if I remember correctly. I wasn't suggesting that they were recognized in the House in any way. It's just that they were a collective as opposed to a sole individual.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Yes, but there again I'd like to know if they got any extra questions or if they just stuck with what the Progressive Conservatives were receiving. I don't recall how many there were. I think there were maybe six or seven or eight; I don't know, but did the Progressive Conservative Party have more questions than before? I'm not too sure about it. I'd like to know.

[Audrey O'Brien]

There were no changes made to the original agreement, but the Speaker did exercise discretion in the conduct of question period. There were no changes to the original arrangement.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you very much.

Go ahead, Mr. Owen, please.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

I'm still worried about this issue of clarity.

After subsection 31.1(2), if we added the words “and so limited by subsection 31.1(1)”, it would clarify the intention of subsection 31.1(2) as being not that members of political parties not officially recognized were excluded from asking questions, but rather that they were not limited to questions in the way that independent members are.

First I'll ask the clerk whether that would properly clarify the situation.

[Audrey O'Brien]

Mr. Chairman, I think that would.... Rather than saying they're not considered independent members, one could state it differently so that it said that for the purposes of this standing order, members of political parties not officially recognized in the House are not limited by the terms of this standing order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Go ahead, Mr. Godin.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Will that give the Speaker the opportunity to do what he's done in the past? We were a party recognized in the House, and from 1993 to 1997 we were a party not recognized in the House. We were a party when the Speaker decided to give us some questions. It could be two, it could be four, and one person of the party could raise all the questions. There was no limit to it. At that time, Madame McLaughlin could have asked all the questions if she had wanted to. We don't want to be limited by this, that a recognized party....