Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Jan. 27th, 2009

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

We've just adopted the motion, but could we agree to adopt a similar motion to create a subcommittee on gifts?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

That's the question: are we asking to recreate the subcommittee we spoke about at the last meeting? Is there discussion on that?

Mr. Reid.

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

I'm in favour of doing it. If there is not a willingness, I won't pursue this, but I think perhaps as an oversight the committee was designed with one member from each party and with the chair from the government, which means there's nobody on the committee from the government side who can question witnesses and that kind of thing.

I'd like to put forward an amendment to say that this committee consist of one member from each party, plus the chair. If it's shot down, I'll still vote in favour of the original motion, but I think that would improve it somewhat.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

So are you making the motion?

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

No, I think Mr. Guimond effectively made a motion. That is my understanding.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

So you're amending his motion. On the amendment to that motion, is there any discussion?

Mr. Guimond.

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

I would remind Mr. Reid that we have already had this debate and voted on this matter. He is entirely within his rights to try again, but we shouldn't debate the same issues. My goal is to move matters forward, not to get further bogged down. If we're going to get into a lengthy debate, then I am prepared to withdraw my motion, if there is unanimous consent, and we'll have another debate. However, I would ask Mr. Reid to consider the fact that we have already debated this matter and that a majority, democratic vote was taken.

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

I don't doubt the vote was democratic. As I say, I think the subject matter is good. I just think this will improve it. Maybe the appropriate thing is to vote on the amendment. As I've indicated, I'm not wedded to this. I think it would improve the quality of the committee, and I think it would improve the quality of any subcommittee to be structured this way. So I hope people will vote for it, but if they choose to vote against it, I'll then vote in favour of the original motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Is there any discussion on the amendment?

Mr. Albrecht.

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

I don't recall that we did debate that issue as it relates to this gifts committee. We may have, but I don't recall that we did.

It would seem to me that it would make sense to follow the procedure that we used for the subcommittee on agenda, whereby we have the four parties and the chair represented. I think it would be wise to follow the same protocol.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Guimond.

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

With all due respect, I wish to inform my colleague Harold, who was probably too impressed by the looming economic statement and too anxious about the prospect of prorogation, that I recall discussing this question. We had agreed to go with exactly the same structure as that of the subcommittee on private members' business. That being said, maybe I'm the one who has grown forgetful over the holidays.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Monsieur Lauzon.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think what Mr. Reid is saying is that when witnesses appear, he would like the chair to not be able to really take part in the questioning, etc. I think it would just give an opportunity for the government side to be able to question witnesses, etc. I don't think it would derange or do anything to the committee that would prevent the committee from functioning. As Mr. Reid says, I think it would probably enhance the procedures and the insight of the committee. Like Mr. Reid, I'm going to support the motion either way, but I think it would be an act of good faith for all members of the committee to agree with his amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Is there any further discussion on the amendment?

Madam Jennings.

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

My opinion is that it would have been an act of good faith on the part of Mr. Reid and the other members of the governing party not to have put the amendment forward, given that this amendment was put forward in the previous session, was clearly debated, and was defeated. Mr. Reid was clearly informed that there was no support on the part of the opposition members for that amendment. So the act of good faith by this softer, kinder governing party would have been simply not to put it forward.

That's just my opinion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Reid.

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

I'm disappointed that Madam Jennings wants to imply that I'm acting in bad faith. In fact, I think if one looks up how bad faith is defined, that's clearly not what's going on here. I'm just surprised at her comment.

I'll just point out the obvious merit here of having a government member. I chaired a subcommittee of this committee that had one member from each party and no government member, and then this committee chose to change it. It was on changing the conflict of interest code. It was changed, and Mr. Goodyear was added as a member. I thought that helped things. It was a consensus committee. We had no votes. I was quite proud of the fact, actually, that we all got along by consensus and did good work.

When you have a consensus committee, I think it's helpful to have all points of view. When you have a committee that might not be operating by consensus--and the history has been over the last little while that this committee has moved away from consensus to actual votes--it's helpful to have someone who can represent the government point of view and can actually debate that point of view. There is no one to do that.

As I say, I'm not going to pursue this, but I'll just make the obvious point. The opposition, if they're working together--and their great claim to fame in this Parliament is that they do work together and potentially could be a coalition government--and if they have the majority, can do whatever they want in the end. So the desire to keep any government member from being on there as an actual member of the subcommittee is disappointing.

This time around I'm not going to raise a fuss about this. As I say, if someone wants to call the question and they all want to vote against it, that's great, and we'll move on. But in the future if this is the attitude that's going to be adopted, they might anticipate that it will be very hard to get subcommittees set up. They might want to think about that.

It is reasonable to have a voice from the government on a subcommittee when there's a danger that it might not operate by consensus, and they don't always do so.

This time, because it was set up in advance and because I'm a person of good faith, notwithstanding Madam Jennings' assertion to the contrary, I'm prepared, if my amendment is defeated, to see the whole thing go forward as originally planned. But I think we ought to think very carefully. This is the last time I'm going to be so agreeable to the idea of having no government voice on the subcommittee. It's not the proper way of setting things up. I guess you all know how I feel about it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Monsieur Guimond.

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

I want to correct something I said earlier. There are in fact two government members on the subcommittee on private members' business, one of whom is the Chair.

I really don't feel like getting into a lengthy debate on this subject today, but I will live with it. We need to put matters in perspective. We're talking about a subcommittee that would be responsible for looking into gifts from the standpoint of the ethics code for MPs. The 308 Members of the House of Commons are allowed to accept gifts and we need to know what rules apply in such instances. No one party is more likely than another to receive gifts. We're talking here about a small subcommittee that would meet perhaps three or four times a year, unless it wants to present a very detailed report and work on it for a year and a half. I really don't see what the problem is.The Chair would have the right to speak up just like the other members. It would not be a formal structure. We shouldn't anticipate problems where there are no problems. This newly created subcommittee is really quite benign.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Ms. Block.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

I'm sorry; just in reviewing the minutes, just for clarification, I think we had the debate that is being referred to--on the composition of committees--in regard to the private members' business committee. It was not on the gifts committee. There was no debate about the committee structure at that time.

So just to make sure that we're clear, we had not proposed an amendment to that committee composition and had a debate around that; it was another committee, earlier in our time, sitting as a committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Is there any further discussion on the amendment?

Monsieur Godin.

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

There was no debate because no one raised this question. If memory serves me well, aside from the Chair, there are no government members on the official languages committee. The Chair of the steering committee is a Conservative MP, and one member from each party serves on the committee. That issue was not debated. The only debate that took place focused on private members' bills. It was then that I agreed to add another member. Now then, I agree with Michel that no one raised any objections and that this proposal was approved. We're simply asking for the same thing here. It's really quite simple. The parties all agree on this and it would be fair to all Members.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Is there any other discussion?

Mr. Lukiwski.