Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Nov. 25th, 2008

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

Thank you.

So Mr. Proulx was not implying that the government would do this but that some hypothetical government, other than the one that happens to be sitting here, might do that; therefore, we ought to take measures to ensure that the hypothetical government, not the one that's sitting here...by putting something not into hypothetical rules, but into the rules that are here. I'm glad he's clarified that point for our benefit.

If the government faces, or the opposition faces, a witness we're hostile to, we're going to send somebody to ask them questions. The chance that had this gone forward this would have caused problems...it would be very remote, quite frankly, in the manner he's suggesting. I just find it discouraging that there's talk of wanting to have consensus and goodwill when in fact Mr. Proulx has twice intervened to do what he can to ensure that the government is in fact shut out as much as possible. I find that disappointing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Lauzon, then Madam Jennings.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

As I am a new member of the committee, please keep an open mind about my comments.

First of all, I'm a little surprised that as few as three members can constitute a quorum on a committee--

[A voice]

No, this is a subcommittee.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Oh, this is a subcommittee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

It's only to receive evidence as a committee.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Okay. In other words, if a witness shows up, as long as three people are present, we will see that witness.

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

We wouldn't send them back to Winnipeg.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Then let me continue with the other point I was thinking of.

As I said, I'm a new member of this committee. I have read about the difficulties of the committee in the past. From what I gather, we're supposed to be turning the page here, but it doesn't seem to me we're turning the page very quickly. I think it's just reasonable that you have both sides of the table represented if you're going to have a meeting. That would just seem to be reasonable, and as Mr. Lukiwski said, both sides of the table have the option of not showing up.

I don't think we're starting on the right foot if we get caught up in this particular issue. I'm a little disappointed, actually.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Lauzon.

Madam Jennings.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm disappointed as well. I've always been told that when someone makes a mistake, the first step in the reconciliation process is to admit to that mistake.

We heard beautiful words earlier today, and now there are allusions to the difficulties this committee encountered in the last legislative session. Well, all those who sat on this committee, including Mr. Preston, Mr. Lukiwski, Mr. Scott, and the other members here--not the new members--who actually lived through the experience, know very well that obstruction took place and that the overwhelming majority of the obstruction came from the government. And this is not from me, but from the objective observers who then reported on it to the public. So when someone says they want to work collaboratively and they want to be good friends, I ask them, as a measure of good faith on the part of those individuals, to at least acknowledge some culpability in the difficulty that this committee had.

The burden rests with the government. If we are to believe that you are truly prepared to work in a spirit of cooperation, the first step is to accept at least a share of the responsibility for the problems the committee encountered during the last session of Parliament.

However, I have yet to hear a single past member of this committee accept even a modicum of responsibility for the committee's past problems. This committee has not accomplished anything since last March, through no fault of the opposition members. At the very least, the government members could be honest about that.

As for the new Conservative members on the committee who were not around last time, I strongly encourage you to read the minutes to find out about the decisions made by the majority of committee members, and to see for yourself the obstructionism engaged in by certain government members that completely paralyzed the committee's work.

I'm opposed to the motion and the amendment to the motion. The reason I am opposed is that I do not have faith that the members who were part of this committee in the last session are in fact in good faith, because I haven't heard either one of you, Mr. Reid or Mr. Lukiwski....

Chair, you're neutral now, and I'm going to take it on good faith that you will in fact be neutral and that you will in fact render rulings and decisions objectively, fairly, and reasonably. But those two members were here, and I have not heard any acceptance or any acknowledgement that they might have directly and intentionally contributed to the paralysis of this committee in the last legislative session.

So I'm not going to vote for this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you for the lecture.

Monsieur Godin.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Chair, if I may, I do not appreciate my statement being qualified as a lecture. It was a statement I made in the same way as Mr. Lukiwski's words were a statement and the words of any other member here were a statement. When you say a lecture--

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I apologize.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Monsieur Godin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As I said earlier, I cannot support the motion. We need to move forward and wrap up the debate on this motion.

We need to acknowledge that there is a difference between the government and the opposition. Normally, the government is the party that is less interested in hearing from certain witnesses. I am not accusing any one political party. I'm taking about the government, whether it be Liberal, Conservative or something else. For that reason, the last time around, we passed a motion calling on the committee to decide from the outset which witnesses it would be calling. Someone said we shouldn't cry over split milk, but I have to say that it can be painful at times, because the child could starve to death. Sometimes, we need to remember the past. We are not the ones who sent witnesses home.

In the past, the committee decided to invite witnesses to attend certain meetings. People flew in from Winnipeg, Manitoba, and then the chair blithely chose to cancel the meeting. The witnesses were forced to fly home. This decision did not come from the opposition. So then, we must never forget the past, if we want things to be better in the future. We are not saying that the government cannot be represented on the committee, but merely that the government will not be able to stop the proceedings. I believe we are acting in good faith.

When the motion was first passed in 2006, we never thought that the Conservative government was going to stop committees from meeting. This is something the Liberals have also resorted to in the past. When the opposition and the government invite witnesses to Ottawa, we want them to have the opportunity to testify. This mechanism would ensure that that happens. As I said earlier, no one objected to the government's presence. If the government was absent, then it was by choice. We are not closing the door. All we are saying is that we will hear from the witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Cuzner.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

To continue on in the spirit of cooperation and getting off on the right foot, when Dick Cheney went hunting with his friend I don't think he intended to shoot him in the face. This amendment sort of takes the safety off, I think, so I hope the government understands why we won't be supporting this--not that there's any belief on this side there will be intent, but I just think it takes the safety off.

So we'll be voting against the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Lukiwski.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to respond to Marlene, and Rodger, I appreciate your comments. Obviously we're going to get to the question right away and obviously your perspective will carry the day, but I do want to get something on the record, because I am disappointed.

Rodger, on one hand you say that's the spirit in which you don't try to presuppose anything. Well, quite frankly, Marlene came out and said, look, you guys are the bad guys and you obstructed this. Again, I won't go over everything that precipitated those problems we had last year, but quite clearly we had a position that we did not think the motion they were trying to pass on the in-and-out scandal was fair. We said we'd go along with it as long as you involved all parties. Of course we believed, and still believe, quite frankly--I'll be quite honest--that it was politically motivated. So I'm disappointed when you say it's only one side that was at fault there. I think in any situation there are always two sides to every story.

Quite frankly, yes, I've never denied that I filibustered to prevent that investigation from happening at this committee, because I didn't think the manner in which the motion was presented was appropriate. Now that situation is not even a concern of this committee any more. That's gone to the ethics committee. They're going to deal with it. So I don't think using that as an example of why you don't have any trust on the government side.... I just don't understand why, on one hand, you said that you don't believe the nice, flowery, eloquent words we use. Well, I could say the same thing from our side. You say you want to cooperate, yet in the next breath you say, we'd like to cooperate, except we can't because we don't trust members of the government. But let's not get into an argument about that.

I just want to get on the record saying that I made this motion only because I felt it was a matter of fairness. If you want to have a quorum, well, let's have at least one representative from both sides of the table. Clearly that's not the position of the opposition. We're going to have a vote on it, and they'll get their way. But to suggest, before we even get into proceedings, that there is no trust because there are two members of this committee who were on last year's committee when we went through that whole song and dance on the in-and-out thing I think is a very poor way to start the proceedings here.

With that, I conclude my comments. I would ask you to call the question, unless there are any other interventions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Albrecht.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was not a member of this committee in the previous Parliament. However, I was a member of the government operations committee, a rookie member, that very first day when we came to elect our chair and vice-chairs and go through routine proceedings. I recall very clearly coming up to this particular issue and simply raising the question as to why it would not make sense for at least one government member to be present. The rest of the committee agreed that just from a common sense perspective, if we look at this from the average Canadian voter seeing that there are hearings being held and not even one government member is present, when the opposition has that privilege.... This isn't a matter of controlling anything. One government member isn't going to stop or stymie the witnesses, but it just makes sense that a government member should be present to hear the witnesses.

So this is a common sense amendment. This has nothing to do with political motivation. I'm convinced of that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Madam Jennings.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

I would simply like to make a point for the new members. In order for witnesses to be called, the committee has to have agreed to a list of witnesses. They've also agreed to the dates when those witnesses will appear or they have given the chair the authority to arrange those dates. Notices go out to every single member of the committee. Therefore, on the issue of a committee hearing from witnesses when there's no government member, if any of the regular members—and this includes opposition—is unable to be present, an associate member of that party can be signed in.

So I do not believe the issue of fairness, which raises its head here, is a justification, but in the spirit of cooperation, I support Mr. Lukiwski's suggestion that we move the question now.