Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Nov. 25th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

[Public proceedings resume]

Let's bring this meeting back to order. We're now in public and we're discussing the motion brought forward by Ms. Foote.

I still have Mr. Hoback on the list, then a number of names to follow. Mr. Hoback...?

I will defer to Mr. Lukiwski, then. He was next on my list.

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

All right. I'll cede my time if--

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

When he comes back. I understand. I let him leave the room and then called him. I'm mean that way.

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

Thanks, Chair.

As I mentioned earlier, clearly this is an important issue, and I respect all of the opposition parties' comments that this is a fundamental part of our democratic process in the House. Again, I don't have any issue with that whatsoever, but any time--and I think one of my colleagues mentioned this earlier--there is a motion to amend the Standing Orders, it requires more than an immediate vote. I think we have to do at least a little bit of investigation and due diligence on this; otherwise, we'd certainly be doing an injustice both to this committee and, frankly, to all committees of the House. This committee is the one that is the mother ship of committees. We're the ones who analyze changes that affect all parliamentarians and all parties, whether those changes are to the Standing Orders or to other procedures of the House.

Notwithstanding the sincerity of Judy's motion here, I don't think we should consider doing a quick vote on this for even a moment, because it is a change to the Standing Orders.

One of the things I would suggest is that if we're going to have a full debate on this, a debate that is truly meant to examine what impact these changes would have and what consequences there would be, we should have at least a witness or two who are procedural experts come before the committee so that we can question them and talk to them about it. That's one thing I would be very firm on. If we're going to have a serious debate on this--and I think it requires a serious debate--I'm not saying it has to be an overly extended debate, but I do think we need a few procedural people to come in here to assist us and answer some questions that we may have for them. I know that my colleague, Mr. Hoback, seems to have a number of questions.

That's the first point I would make.

I have a few others, but I see Mr. Hoback is back at the table so, as I stated, I will turn it back to him, with your permission, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you. I will go to Mr. Hoback and leave you some of your own time left.

Go ahead, Mr. Hoback.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

I have lots of questions here about what we've done in the past and why we did it in such a way. If the Standing Orders are such, why are they such a way? How did we come about seeing it that way, and have there been any instances, outside of the one Ms. Foote talks about, of this being applied for and not granted, and if so, why wasn't it granted, or why was it granted?

I need some basis here to make a proper decision as we move forward. I can't go back to my constituents and say I voted based on the recommendation of somebody else or without doing some proper due diligence here. Mr. Lukiwski is right. I think we need to have this discussion in front of some experts so that we can actually talk to the people who understand the dotting of the is and the crossing of the ts and what the implications of this change would be.

That's why I suggest we put this off to another day to at least give us some time to get the background information so that we can have a proper debate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Hoback, I'll forward your questions to the analysts. They're the experts we have. They're experts on many things around here. I will let them give an answer to your questions, but I'm not certain it's going to be as full an answer as you would like.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Would the analysts be able to reply with the answer today?

[Andre Barnes, Committee Researcher]

Do you mean about the difference between what's being proposed?

The first half, the first paragraph, is identical to the existing standing order, except for the wording “in 2011”. It has been substituted for “in any calendar year”, and the motion adds a second paragraph. I believe there are three supply periods; it delineates the minimum number of sitting days and the maximum number of sitting days for each of those supply periods. That doesn't presently exist in the standing order.

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

For clarification, they're not the same. One is December and one is March.

[Andre Barnes]

The order that they're given in is switched, but in the first paragraph....

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Angela Crandall]

It's because we're partway through the financial cycle, so this reflects a calendar year rather than a parliamentary financial cycle. It would start in the next financial period. It will be starting in January and go to March because we're finishing this financial cycle or this budgetary cycle on December 10, so if this practice is to reflect what will happen in the year 2011, it has to start in the first financial cycle, which starts in January and goes to March 26.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Hoback, you still have the floor.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

In that situation, then, if the government should go into an election, does that carry forward no matter who is in government in the case of an election?

[The Clerk]

The standing order is modified in this fashion until another amendment is made. This would be the way it would work in 2011, so regardless of what government came in, unless they moved a motion to change how the standing order worked, this would be how it would work until the end of 2011. It does specifically say “in 2011”, so what would happen--

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

It's what would happen after that.

[The Clerk]

Exactly.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Does changing this standing order have impact on any of the other standing orders, and if so, what would be the domino effect?

[The Clerk]

I don't think there would be any impact on other standing orders. I would really have to do a bit of research on that, but I know there have been modifications on how the particular standing orders dealing with the financial cycle have worked to reflect where we are in the cycle when Parliament begins. If a new Parliament begins partway through a financial cycle and we have to allot a certain number of days within that cycle and there are only a few days left in it.... Modifying the financial cycle to reflect the reality of the parliamentary cycle or where Parliament is at is not something that hasn't been done before. It's been done to accommodate a new Parliament starting on March 31.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

How has it been done?

[The Clerk]

I assume discussions have been done and there has been a motion in the House to do it.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

You said a motion in the House is the normal procedure in doing this. When we look at the implications, have there been examples of this being applied for in the past, and for one reason or another not being granted? Can you explain why that would be?

[The Clerk]

That I don't know for sure. There could have times when this particular modification has been asked for in the past.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

So we don't have that benefit of history to understand.

[The Clerk]

I wouldn't be able to speak authoritatively on what's happened and whether this has happened before. I know there have certainly been appearances of this in how opposition days have been working recently, but there hasn't been a formal change to the standing order recently.