Evidence of meeting #34 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was supply.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
We're recommending to continue with what we've been doing right now and since 2009.
11:45 a.m.
The Clerk
No, the provisional change is not in the standing order.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
No, but we're recommending what Parliament directed and what we've been doing since 2009.
11:45 a.m.
The Clerk
That's what it appears to do, yes.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Okay. For the record and the media, if we're merely recommending that we carry on what we've been doing as Parliament has already directed, for me any lengthy discussion longer than half an hour.... If new people have more technical questions, they should ask them quickly, but anything past half an hour to me would be....
Being new to this committee, Chair, I'd like to say that you're doing an excellent job.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you.
That's a very good start, sucking up to the chair. That's good. We'll expect more of it.
11:45 a.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
If there is any discussion past half an hour, I would describe it in my view as an unnecessary obstruction.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
November 25th, 2010 / 11:45 a.m.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to explain to my colleagues who have not been with us long that the rush to discuss this motion stems from the fact that the session is ending. We are really interested in scheduling opposition days so that they are set out clearly for the next session. We know that there are three weeks left to sit. Since we are talking about it, I assume that it has been discussed already. Perhaps no agreement has been made to schedule these days reserved for the various opposition parties for the next session. In a way, I think this explains the rush to talk about it.
I sort of understand your hesitation. We know that, back when the Liberal Party was in power, they abused the management of opposition days. They tried to cluster them all at the end of a session, for example, as a parliamentary strategy. So we can understand, but just because there has been abuse, we do not need to repeat it. Today, we can collectively decide that we will take the right path and schedule opposition days more clearly and democratically. Basically, the government is not required to repeat what it did not like when it was the opposition.
I feel that we have a good opportunity today to prove, together, that we are in favour of a procedure that will make it possible to manage opposition days with greater transparency.
Everyone—MPs, citizens and all voters—need to be aware of the schedule of opposition days for the next session. No one here is interested in slowing down the debate before the end of this meeting. I hope that we can really deal with it so we can give our leaders the tools they need to schedule opposition days for the next session.
We also need to pay attention when we say that it is unfair. I am sure that all the parties are aware of the issue we are discussing today. It is nothing new. Perhaps we just need to formalize it so that, together, we can make a recommendation to the House of Commons. Once we have done that, the next session can start in a more organized and transparent way for all the MPs, but also for the public.
I do not believe that it would be complicated to make this decision today, Mr. Chair. I think that we need to tell ourselves that, if it has come here, there are good reasons for it. Perhaps the discussions didn't go anywhere? I am not a leader, but I understand that I cannot support an amendment that aims to continue the debate and conduct a study. I would prefer that we really deal with it today. So, I will not support this request to extend the debate and the study, out of consideration for the witnesses.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Thank you.
Could I have a clarification? The clerk described the wording of the proposed amendment a little differently. It's not “I move that the committee study a recommendation”. It's done differently. Could you read that back, please?
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
At the bottom of the motion, the amendment would read as follows:
That the motion be amended by adding, after the words “standing order”, “that the committee carry out a study of the preceding motion”.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Then would it be, “and that the chair report the recommendation” or “and that if the study produces a...”? Do you see what I'm getting at?
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
We're in a conundrum there. I can't report that we did a study; I have to report on the motion.
11:50 a.m.
The Clerk
You report the recommendations of the study of the report.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
But presumably the point of a study is to determine whether it's appropriate to make the recommendation here, or perhaps an amended recommendation, or, conceivably, no recommendation at all. Wouldn't it make sense to make an amendment that reflects the possibility that the study would produce a result, other than simply endorsing this? That is the point of the study. It is not necessarily to find a different conclusion, but to leave open the potential for a different conclusion.
11:50 a.m.
A voice
Good point.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Then it should also include removing the line “and that the Chair report this recommendation to the House”.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Perhaps you could say, “and that whatever conclusion the committee arrives at...”, or something like that, “...be reported to the House”.
11:50 a.m.
The Clerk
And just report it to the House. Whether there's a recommendation for or against, it would be--
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Since this is Mr. Lukiwski's amendment, are you in favour of the changes to it, or--
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Well, no.... I apologize, because when I made my motion, of course I didn't have it written out. One of the problems with not having any advance notice is that it's very difficult to create a motion on the fly that has all the clarity you require.
I appreciate Mr. Reid's point, however. We do need clarity on this. The spirit of what I was trying to get at is simply that this committee engage in a study. It can even be a time-limited study if you wish, but we need a study nonetheless to determine whether or not this committee wishes to make a recommendation to the House and report to the House that recommendation.