Evidence of meeting #35 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.
NDP
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
In deference to my colleague from the NDP, perhaps I should say that the likelihood of any other party, except for the current government and the Liberal Party, forming government is remote. That is why whenever we have changes to Standing Orders, it should be something that is particularly examined by both the Liberals and the Conservatives, because the likelihood is that they will be the only two parties in Parliament that will be truly affected by them in a meaningful way.
When I say that, normally the Standing Orders talk about procedures that affect the government. Therefore, if there are likely only two parties in Parliament that will assume the mantle of government, then there are only two parties that really have to pay careful attention to any proposed changes to Standing Orders.
This one in particular talks about what should happen to supply days that affect opposition parties. At the risk of repeating myself, I need to point out again to the committee, as I did in my last intervention on Thursday of last week, that while our government has been I think fairly circumspect and fairly upfront with its allocation of supply days to the opposition parties, that was not the case with the previous government. The previous government, in my view, totally abused supply days in an attempt to further its political interests.
We have seen from time to time all governments, regardless of political stripe, allocate supply days and do so in a way that is not totally acceptable to the opposition. By that, I mean rather than allocating a supply day on a long day, such as a Tuesday or a Thursday, the government has from time to time allocated supply days on either a Wednesday or a Friday, which are short days. Usually, the reason for doing that—and I say “usually” because it's not a common occurrence--for assigning a supply day on a Wednesday or a Friday, is to mete out some punishment or retribution to the opposition parties. That's quite common in Parliament.
For example, if an opposition party has tried to delay debate on government orders or proposed legislation, and it does so only for the purpose of obfuscation, of delay for delay, then in order to try to chastise the opposition, it is quite common for the government of the day to allocate a supply day on a short day the next time that supply day comes forward. We've seen that time and time again. We've certainly done that. But what we have not done—and I don't believe any government has done, in my history, at least—is what the former Liberal government did with supply days, and that was to try to bundle them and put them into the last 10 days of a session in order to try to avoid a vote of non-confidence in Parliament.
I point that out because, of course, should the Liberals ever form government again—and I know that one day, perhaps not in the near future, but one day they will—they will be bound by the same procedures and practices that are before us today. In other words, they will be the ones, if and when they form government, to be compelled and obliged to allocate supply days in the same fashion as this motion suggests.
Without fear of contradiction, I think I can point out that had this motion been in effect when the Liberals were last in government, they would not have been too fond of the consequences because it would have prevented them from doing what they did. It would have prevented them from taking all supply days, bundling them, moving them to the end of the supply period, as opposed to giving out supply days on a regular weekly or bi-weekly calendar.
Therefore, Chair, I would suggest that the Liberals take great care in putting motions such as this forward that would make fundamental changes to the procedure and practices of our place with respect to Standing Orders.
Chair, members may wonder what my personal thoughts are on this matter. I'd be pleased to share those with you.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Seeing such enthusiastic endorsement of my personal views, Mr. Chair, I will continue.
I don't think, Mr. Chair, that any member of this place, whether they be in government or in opposition, would argue the fact that supply days play an important part in our democratic process. There have been times, and history will confirm this, when a motion brought forward on an opposition supply day has proven to be integral to the workings of this Parliament, and in fact has had an effect on government. While it is true that not all motions passed during supply days compel the government to act, there have been examples of when an opposition day motion, or a supply day motion, as it is most commonly known, has had an effect on government legislation. That's when Parliament works best.
Unfortunately, we've also seen the reverse. We've seen where supply days have been used for nothing more than partisan purposes to try to either score cheap political points or to try to embarrass the government of the day. I believe those are the times, Mr. Chair, that prove to be counterproductive in terms of a well-functioning Parliament. They have been counterproductive in the sense that they further entrench the view many Canadians have that Parliament is dysfunctional, that Parliament is too partisan, and that parliamentarians, rather than working on behalf of Canadians, are involved with silly political games and are trying to avoid the real work of Parliament, which is to bring forward legislation that benefits Canadians.
I'll point out an example many of us here certainly recall, and I think most Canadians would recall as well, and that was a recent Liberal supply day motion that dealt with maternal health. During that motion, which was debated and ultimately voted on, the Liberals attempted to box our government into a corner with respect to abortions. They used a supply day motion that was supposed to deal with maternal health, particularly in developing countries, to talk about our government's--
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Mr. Chairman, what's the connection between abortion and the mother's health and the subamendment on the question of privilege? Can you explain that to me? I understand absolutely nothing.
Conservative
Liberal
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
A point of advisement, Mr. Chair. Are you ruling on the point of order?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you, Mr. Szabo, for your assisting of the chair today, but Mr. Lukiwski has the floor and we'll carry on.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Thank you, Chair.
There is relevance here because I'm talking about a recent supply day motion. This motion is about changing supply days. I can't, for the life of me, think of anything more relevant than talking about a supply day motion that was brought forward to this House, and the motion, which talks to changing the Standing Orders concerning supply days.
The motion on maternal health was, frankly, one that ended up backfiring on the Liberals because they attempted to use it, as is commonly known in political terms, as a “wedge issue”, when in fact they didn't do their own due diligence to find out in advance how their members would vote on this. Quite frankly, in terms of political embarrassment on a political embarrassment meter, I would put this up near the top.
Liberal
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Mr. Chair, respectfully, the member is quite right that supply days do give an opportunity to do something. Rather than doing it at this committee, it could be done there. That point is accepted and well made.
But to then move the conversation to a specific supply day and a specific issue, and to a personal assessment of the political interpretation of the result, is way out of order.
I ask you to rule on whether or not we are going to continue to talk about a subject matter of a specific supply day, beyond the fact that supply days are a process, which are available to all parties.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
For the purpose of these interventions, certainly when I make them—and I'm assuming also when someone like Mr. Lukiwski makes them—it is to inform the committee and help us make our decisions. So the question is whether giving an example helps to clarify the purpose of such supply days and their manipulation, and all of those considerations. I personally found this to be highly relevant to my own understanding.
While I appreciate that Mr. Szabo may not be finding it relevant for his understanding, I think it is just a bit on the presumptuous side to assume that he has full cognizance of the thoughts that are going on in my own head, or indeed the minds of other members, and thereby to expect, through his telekinetic powers, to transmit it then to your mind, thereby imposing his will on the entire committee.
That just seems to me to be a complete misunderstanding of the relevant consideration in these matters. I do wish he'd express this differently. I'm sure if he'd given it more consideration, he would have done so.
Mr. Chair, he hasn't really made a point of order. Quite the contrary.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Mr. Proulx, is this a point of order on a point of order's point of order?
Liberal
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Part of what I'm getting at here, Mr. Chairman...I'm actually saying.... First of all, it isn't a point of order, and secondly, there is the idea that I can demand that you make a ruling. I will sit down here and say that I demand that you make a ruling, Mr. Chairman, presumably so I can then turn around and say that I challenge your ruling. Therefore, anything that happens in this subcommittee is subject to the notion--
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Let's go back to my thought here.
The idea that if I or any member can turn anything into a matter that then gets decided on by challenging the chair means that everything, absolutely everything, that we deal with is reduced effectively to a majority vote, notwithstanding the fact that there are a whole series of things that can't be decided by a majority vote.
This is a tactic that I've noticed Mr. Szabo trending toward. We saw it being done in the last Parliament repeatedly by Ms. Jennings when she was here. There is no basis in the rules of order to allow this sort of thing to occur.
I just want to stress that turning points of order, or pretended points of order, into this kind of means of imposing a tyranny of the majority is really not an appropriate thing to do. I think that we really need to concentrate....
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
You've made the point on the point of order. I realize it isn't one, so we'll move on.
Monsieur Laframboise, you're next.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I'm a new member of this Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I'm learning every day. It's very impressive, particularly since Mr. Lukiwski has spent his time saying that the opposition, at least the Bloc Québécois and the NDP, will never be in power. However, for some time now, the Conservative members have been showing that they don't have power, that it's the opposition that has it. That's the fact of the matter.
In this file, why are we in this situation today? I repeated it to you, Mr. Chairman: I don't think you should have accepted the subamendment put before you. I will definitely oppose this amendment. I don't mean to challenge your authority, Mr. Chairman, but I believe you were poorly advised by the clerk because the subamendment ultimately isn't designed to set a time limit. Its purpose is not to state that debate on the motion will be two hours, one hour or three hours long; its purpose is to put the debate after the question of privilege. Mr. Chairman, that way of doing things should have been raised in the discussions of the committee's business; that was why we had this meeting today, to discuss committee business. Mr. Chairman, in the discussions of committee business, the Conservatives did not seize the opportunity to introduce an amendment to the orders of the day to pass the question of privilege. That was a choice.
If they try to make me believe that they are in power, I'll tell you that they are very poorly advised because that should have been done during the discussion of committee business.
I can't get over it, Mr. Chairman. I'm telling you, I'm willing to try to cooperate, to enjoy listening to them, but one thing is for sure: the objective today is definitely not to discuss the motion on supply that was introduced by the Liberals.
It's all well and good for Mr. Lukiwski to tell us that we could have used other procedures; I'm entitled to say that this should have been settled at the House leaders' meeting, Mr. Chairman. It was not settled there; that is why we find ourselves here, in the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. And if there's one place where we should be discussing supply and opposition days, it is here in the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
So the fact that the Conservatives, in the discussion of committee business, missed their chance to amend the orders of the day is the responsibility of your political organization. I believe you're losing power every day just by the way you manage the House of Commons.
Once again, I'm trying to understand where we want to get to, Mr. Chairman. I believe you should have rejected the subamendment. You decided to retain it, on the clerk's advice. I believe that's the wrong way to do it. Once again, I hope we'll have a chance to negative this subamendment so we can resume discussion and the Conservatives can decide to continue the filibuster they started at the last meeting. This is a political organization choice, especially for the party in power. This is precisely the weakness you display when you conduct a filibuster in a committee when you are in power; you do so because you're in a weak position. Mr. Chairman, that's why Quebeckers decided to elect a large number of Bloc Québécois members, to prevent the Conservatives from getting a majority, and to prevent them from doing what they want with a committee such as the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
I can only oppose this subamendment, in the hope that all opposition parties will reject it and that, at the next meeting, you will occasionally lead the discussion back to committee business, as you did today, and that the Conservatives will decide to amend the orders of the day. Let them do it normally, without using an amendment to an amendment that they themselves have introduced and decided to amend because they don't intend to discuss this subject today.
They're trying to explain to us that, at the House leaders' meeting, there may be some developments in this matter that will satisfy all parties. Let's wait for the House leaders and continue discussing the Liberal Party's motion today. Let's decide once and for all to move it forward and let the Conservative Party bring us its suggestions so that we can discuss the matter until this evening's meeting of House leaders. But they should not use this strategy to try to simply stop debate. Bring back the question of privilege, which I think is a very important question.
Mr. Chairman, I don't believe there is a single party challenging this situation. The problem is that, once again, they were unable within the Conservative Party to come up with a strategy in the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. This is nevertheless the most important committee concerning House affairs.
The fact that the party in power, the Conservative Party, is unable to come up with a strategy to move the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs forward is a sign of disarray. Once again, I want to thank my electors for electing me and for electing a large number of Bloc Québécois members to prevent the Conservatives from controlling this House, which they are not even able to do during a crisis. As a minority government, Mr. Chairman, it has to be said that the party in power is in a crisis every day. They are unable to manage that on a day-to-day basis. They try to introduce some subamendments whereas they should have made an amendment during committee business at the outset. I'm learning a lot, but one thing is for certain: the Conservative Party is not showing me that it is capable of managing the House of Commons.
That's important, Mr. Chairman, because you should not have allowed this subamendment, which is simply a dilatory procedure to prevent debate. I know you allowed it in light of the advice of the clerk, who should have taken the necessary time. If she was unable to do so, she should have consulted her supervisors. The clerks have a line network capable of advising them.
We are nevertheless the most important committee. If we start trying to deviate from normal procedure, Mr. Chairman, in an attempt to assert our ideas, we are off to a bad start. That can be done in other committees, but I believe this subamendment should have been rejected in the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs because this is obviously important.
We have a main motion calling for a new way to manage supply days in accordance with the manner that was suggested by the Speaker of the House of Commons and that was approved by the House leaders. They were not heard, and the main motion was introduced. An amendment was introduced by the Conservative Party requesting that the debate be extended and that the committee be able to hear witnesses, which is an entirely admissible amendment, Mr. Chairman. We are obviously discussing it; we are debating it. Last time, because they told us they did not have all the information, the Conservatives decided to go back to their House leader. They told us that, at the next meeting, they would simply tell us whether they were going to continue their filibuster. However, that's not what they're doing today. They've arrived here with a new strategy that they probably concocted before coming here this morning, saying that there was a very important motion yesterday, a question of privilege raised by the NDP member. This is obviously an important matter, I agree. However, there was already a very important situation before our committee that required the committee to amend our orders of the day and to put that motion before other very important matters, including the matter of electoral reform.
As we all know, in a minority government, when the Chief Electoral Officer asks us for amendments, that's very important. So we agreed to change our schedule in order to examine this matter of days allotted for supply motions. Why? Because we didn't want a situation to arise in which we would find ourselves, at the end of a session, having to hold seven opposition days all at the same time, as the Liberals previously did. The Conservative Party is trying to tell us that this won't happen, except that it is giving us no assurance, based on an agreement among the House leaders, that that will not occur. It was therefore normal for the Liberal Party to choose to introduce this motion in the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs; I believe this is where that should be done.
As I explained to you, the amendment requesting thorough debate with presentation of witnesses is acceptable, but the subamendment stipulating that this discussion will take place after consideration of the matter of supply, Mr. Chairman, is an amendment of the committee's business. It should have been introduced and discussed this morning during discussion of committee business, and the Conservatives should have taken advantage of that opportunity.
Mr. Chairman, it is not for you to introduce any motion. I know you are a Conservative, but you are nevertheless neutral. I have had occasion in the past few meetings to see that you are doing a good job; I have to concede that to you. It is up to your colleagues to introduce the motion. They should have done it this morning during discussion of committee business. They put you in difficulty by not taking advantage of that opportunity.
I can understand why you are trying to satisfy everyone, but, once again, I believe this subamendment was not the right way to proceed. I believe it is a dilatory amendment, which is not intended to set a time limit, quite the contrary. A time limit would have been to say that we will discuss this matter for one hour, two hours or three hours. If that had been submitted to the members meeting around this table, it would have been agreed to or negatived, Mr. Chairman. But the subamendment we are currently discussing is designed to put debate after discussion of the question of privilege. However, I repeat, this is not the right place to do that. That was a mistake by the Conservative Party, which, as its members tell us, is the party in power. However, I can tell you that they really need the opposition members because all their ideas, at least since I've been here, carry little weight. They don't know how to negotiate. However, that's how things are done in a minority government situation; you have to negotiate, Mr. Chairman. And that's not the Conservatives' way; they don't like to negotiate. And that leads to what it has led to today.
This is sad for democracy because they're bending procedure in the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The regulation, the procedure, is consistent with a logic that underlies all the regulation of the British parliamentary system. There is a logic, and by virtue of that logic, if the Conservatives or another party wanted to discuss a more important topic, that had to be addressed in discussion of committee business. We did that, we discussed committee business and we had a motion that stated that we were now going to address the question of privilege that was introduced in Parliament yesterday and that the Speaker asked us to discuss. At that point, the committee amended the order of its business, and the committee is king and master. As you know, Mr. Chairman, it is the committee that decides what it does. It can study what it wants, but it has to decide that in discussion of committee business.
The subamendment amends the order of precedence of committee business. According to the subamendment currently before us, we must discuss the main motion or the amendment to the main motion after another matter, and that constitutes an amendment to committee business.
The Conservatives have been caught out by events. This happened yesterday, and they decided that it would perhaps be more acceptable to discuss another matter rather than engage in systematic obstruction once again today. The last time, Mr. Lukiwski told us that he would come back and tell us quite honestly, you will remember, that, if he intended to filibuster, he would tell us so and that he would also tell us if there was an agreement. But today, he told us none of that. He tried again to achieve his ends using procedure, once again, by bending procedure in the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I can't get over it. That's why I am delighted to see that the party in power is not really aware of the procedure and that it is trying to bend it in order to achieve its ends, whereas it could have done so this morning, in discussion of committee business. It could have requested an amendment to the order of business and requested that the question of privilege be discussed first. They did not do so. This is a political organization. I believe they should have been better advised.
Mr. Chairman, I believe you were poorly advised by the clerk. You should not have allowed the subamendment, the sad purpose of which, as I told you earlier, was to ensure that we would discuss one matter after discussing another. That's why I am telling you that this concerns committee business. This isn't an amendment or, as we said earlier, a time limit; it isn't even a discussion about time; it's a matter of putting one matter after another. That has to be done in discussion of committee business. However, this morning, we discussed committee business, and the Conservatives chose not to introduce a motion to amend the orders of the day. I'm telling you once again: if we had children who were shown that at school, we would have slapped their wrists because they didn't behave properly, Mr. Chairman. That's the truth.
Once again, you're stuck with this hot potato and you're trying to... You're doing it well. And that's why I haven't asked that we challenge your decision. You received advice from the clerk. I believe she'll have to check with her supervisors as to whether she did a good job this morning.
The fact nevertheless remains that the way the Conservative party is behaving in the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is appalling for a party in power. They are clearly showing that they no longer have control or power. It's the opposition that has power. Obviously, Mr. Chairman, if they don't want that, they know what they have to do: they need only call an election. I believe they would going back to something worse than the present situation. That's the hard fact of the matter, Mr. Chairman. That's why they're beating about the bush, that's why they're debating, that's why they're engaging in systematic obstruction. As I told you, it's usually the opposition that filibusters. Here in Parliament, in a minority government, it's the government doing the filibustering. Here in the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, it's the government that is filibustering. I think that's beautiful. Once again, that's the beauty of the British parliamentary system.
As I was trying to explain to a number of people who spoke to me about it, the British parliamentary system is beautiful; it's yes or no or systematic obstruction because, when there's a filibuster, no decision is made. That was invented by the British parliamentary system, but that's the way it is and I believe we can live with that. Except that living with a procedure such as the one the Conservatives used this morning, by introducing a subamendment that puts one matter for discussion after another... If I were them, I would be embarrassed at having introduced that subamendment since they belong to the party in power. I don't know who advised them to introduce the subamendment, but if it were one of my employees, he would no longer be working for me, Mr. Chairman. This makes no sense because there was one way to do it this morning, and that was in the discussion of committee business. The Conservatives could have asked to amend the committee's orders of the day.
Furthermore, when I arrived here and saw the orders of the day, I expected that the committee's orders of the day would be amended. I thought there was surely an agreement among the parties. I wasn't here yesterday, but I heard some discussion, and I was convinced that there might be an agreement between two parties to the effect that we would amend committee business to put one subject before another. That's all right; that's permitted by the regulations. However, the Conservatives missed a chance and, in view of the way I've seen them trying to agree with the parties for some time now, I must say it's really improvisation. I don't think it's pretty for a party in power, even less so for the citizens who pay our salaries, Mr. Chairman.
I hope that we go back, that we reject the subamendment, which should not have been introduced, that we go back to the orders of the day and that the Conservatives continue their systematic obstruction. I would understand perfectly well if, at the next meeting, we brought back the committee's business and if the Conservatives introduced an amendment to the orders of the day pursuant to an agreement with another political party.
Why do I say that? For democracy, but especially for procedure, since we are the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. As a committee, we had decided to amend our orders of the day. All of us together decided last time to pass the Liberals' motion on opposition days, supply days. We decided to put it before discussion of the reform requests that had been introduced by the Chief Electoral Officer. We know that the Chief Electoral Officer's requests are very important in the context of a minority government. So we decided, simply because there was a complication—and we all know that now—among the House leaders. The Conservative Leader was unable to agree with the leaders of the other parties on opposition days.
Mr. Chairman, I don't need to draw you a picture, but perhaps I have to draw one for the people who will be reading the record of our discussions, which are public. Obviously, you'll understand that opposition days have played a very important role in other parliaments. When the Liberals decided to grant seven consecutive opposition days at the end of a session because they didn't want a non-confidence motion on an opposition day, they made a political choice. Subsequently, the parties, including the Conservative Party, which I thank, decided that that would not happen again. An agreement was reached at the meeting of the House leaders and, at the request of the Speaker, who had asked the House leaders to agree. However, in the case before us, there was no agreement; the motion was amended and an amendment was made to the amendment.
Coming back again to my main point, the purpose of the subamendment that the Conservatives introduced today is to put one subject before another, that is to say to take the discussion now underway and to put the question of privilege before it. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I think that was not the right way to proceed. That should have been done this morning during discussion of committee business. That is when the Conservatives should have requested an amendment to the orders of the day.
I take the liberty of telling you that I will be voting against this subamendment. I will consider the status of the discussions, but I reserve the right to come back, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
