Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 21st, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Good morning.

We are here for meeting 26 of the procedure and House affairs standing committee. Today we are in public because we are going to be discussing some options from one of the studies that we have...I was going to say “completed”, but we haven't completed it. It's one of the studies that we're kind of in the middle of.

What we were faced with this time was that, of the members, five of them are new to the study. Five of them weren't here when we did it. So we thought that we would try this. It's a unique thing. I've never seen it done before, but I'm happy to do it. I think it's a great idea.

Andre, one of our crack researchers, is going to give us some summary of testimony. That's always tough to do, because it's really picking out the good things that somebody said in an hour and putting them into 15 or 20 minutes. It's not very easy to do. We're going to do that today, and we're going to try to break it down into the pieces that Andre has laid out. I'd like to discuss each of the pieces.

I would like to lead the committee...and you know the chair should never do that, but we have so many priorities on our plate right now, I want us not to come to a conclusion as to what we're doing today, after this, until we've also seen the same options paper from the Referendum Act and also have seen Mr. Chong's stuff. We can then plan our priorities based on what the collective committee knows to be fact. Some of you are new, and so we'll gather that.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Yes. You know that we are new also to the Referendum Act, so you'll have to at least edify us, and if we ask you questions based on our ignorance, you'll have to bear with us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Absolutely.

Today is supposed to be just informative, and lots of questions would be best.

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Perhaps I can build on where you are, Chair.

I'm asking colleagues: I'm assuming that the other three caucuses are in the same boat as me--namely, given the nature of what we're dealing with here, this isn't just any old bill. Of course, that's not saying that any old bill isn't important. My point is that I'm going to need an opportunity in the process to go back to my caucus to give them a sense of where the issue is, what the dynamics of the committee are, and also to get their marching orders, quite frankly, in terms of where I'm going to be. I would think that might apply, given the nature of what we're looking at here, to everybody, whether it's Mr. Chong's suggestions, the referendum, or the electoral change.

All of that, at least for me, process-wise, Chair, will involve me at some point being able to go back to my caucus with the lay of the land, my recommendations, and asking for my marching orders. Then I come back here and engage others with hopefully the same mandate to make decisions, yes or no.

I guess I'm asking, as much as anything, Chair, are colleagues from other caucuses in the same boat? Is that a step they need to build into this too?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Yes--

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

To follow Mr. Christopherson's point, it's a very intelligent way of doing this. I do not know who from the Conservative caucus is new. You have the memory, transference of knowledge, but we don't.

Could you tell us who the new members are on this committee?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Weston is new.

I think Mr. Hoback came about partway through the study, so he's kind of new. He has some of it in his head and some that we've told him.

The rest of us were all present during the whole study. Some were awake.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

So you're the old warhorses, then.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Yes, apparently.

On this side, Madame DeBellefeuille was here for some of it, correct?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

No. That is what I wanted to tell you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

No? And here I was hoping.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

It was Mr. Guimond and Mr. Paquette who were here. I have not sat in on any meetings dealing with prorogation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Ah, that's great, we have Monsieur Paquette back. He'll be an expert for us today.

What we're suggesting and what I'd like today--as Mr. Christopherson said this, I saw a lot of nodding--is that we come to almost no conclusions, except let's hear from the analysts some of the testimony that's out there, gain all the knowledge we can, ask questions about it. But let's wait until after we've done the same thing with the referendum, the same thing with Mr. Chong, and a little bit more, perhaps on the Chief Electoral Officer stuff, before we decide how we fill in those last four or five meetings we have before Christmas, and which of these it will be.

Let's throw it over to Andre.

Andre, you've done fantastic work on this. I'm going to let you present it by section and then answer questions. Those of us who were here before will also try to answer some of the questions.

It's your floor. Go.

[Andre Barnes, Committee Researcher]

The committee began its study on issues related to prorogation on April 27 of this year. There were nine meetings. We heard from 16 witnesses prior to the adjournment for summer.

The suggestions made by these witnesses were many, to say the least, somewhere in the range of perhaps two dozen. Of these I was able to group them into seven categories. Overall, there does not appear to be a best approach or a consensus on the best approach to restrict prorogation, or whether or not to even do so. There is, of course, as I noted, some similarity, some agreement, and some overlap between the suggestions, and these were grouped together into seven categories in the paper.

I guess the best way to proceed is to begin. Again, these categories are in no particular order, nor are the suggestions within the categories in any particular order.

To begin with, a suggestion was made to amend the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. Mr. Walsh reminded the committee that the Standing Orders regulate the proceedings of the House, and that prorogation is not a proceeding of the House. As such, a standing order could not be put in place that would prevent a prorogation from occurring.

He, along with other witnesses, did note, though, that a disincentive could be built in post-prorogation, if it were the will of the committee to suggest that.

A number of witnesses--

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Can we ask questions as we go along? We didn't hear the witnesses, so....

What sort of disincentive are you talking about?

[Andre Barnes]

He had mentioned—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Can I rule on that first?

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Sure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Let's do the section on the questions about standing orders. Your question may be answered by one of his further statements. We're only going to do section A, then we'll discuss it, and we'll move on from there.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Fantastic.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

So let's try that.

[Andre Barnes]

Other witnesses had suggested that it would be helpful to include an amendment in the Standing Orders in respect of giving notice of a prorogation prior to prorogation occurring, and that the want of a prorogation should be debated and voted upon.

There were other suggestions as well in respect to amending the Standing Orders. These included that the House could not be prorogued while seized with a motion of confidence, and that indeed a definition of confidence ought to be included in the Standing Orders as well.

Another suggestion included that certain committees ought to be able to carry on after prorogation occurs. As far as that's concerned, at present, Mr. Walsh reminded the committee that if a committee were to try to meet during a prorogation period, they would not enjoy parliamentary privilege.

That's the overview to do with the amendments of the Standing Orders. Please feel free to ask any questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Ms. Ratansi.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

I looked at what Mr. Heard was saying about disincentives. I do not think that they're strong enough. What was the disincentive, and how does it affect the parliamentary procedure?