Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Nov. 30th, 2010

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

After listening to the debate on this motion, with the filibustering and all the commentary, I fail to understand what the issue is. We're talking about a procedure that already exists in the House. There was a motion passed in 2009 to do exactly this. No one has said to me that it hasn't worked well, that it is something we shouldn't do. All we're asking is to have a repeat, to give opposition parties the opportunity for a fair and democratic process in the House of Commons. If it's left as a procedure whereby we could end up with all our opposition days at the end of a session, then that's not in anyone's best interests. It's certainly not in the best interests of the people we represent.

Mr. Lukiwski referred to other options besides this motion, as a way of achieving what we need to achieve on behalf of Canadians and all the parties in the House. He referred to an opposition day motion. This is an opportunity to come before this committee, which determines the rules and procedures of the House. It's the most appropriate committee to come to if we have an issue, and it's a time-sensitive issue. We're talking about 2011. We're now in December.

To come to this committee this morning to change the channel was most disingenuous. We all know what transpired in the House with the breach of privilege. We all know that it is something this committee will eventually deal with. My question is, if it was so important that Mr. Lukiwski wanted to deal with it today in the orders of business, why couldn't we just vote on the motion before us, put that behind us, and move on to dealing with the issue that has been referred to us by the House. That's why I say it was disingenuous of Mr. Lukiwski to do that.

I note again that there's nothing different here. This practice already exists for 2010. It was a motion that was passed by all parties in the House back in 2009. There's been no agreement reached among House leadership at this point. So we're saying, “Let this committee deal with it. Let's take it off their table.” It will still have to go to the House to be voted on.

I'm at a loss to understand why these tactics are being used here today with respect to this motion, the amendment to this motion, and the subamendment to the motion. It seems to me that the tactics being deployed here are unnecessary in themselves and unfair to all parties in the House. They are certainly unfair to the opposition. We represent a significant portion of the Canadian population. Here we are today. We're talking about this motion and this subamendment. I find it disheartening.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Excuse me. Order.

Thank you.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I find it somewhat disheartening, given the sincerity of the motion. We brought it forward because it's the right thing to do. We brought it forward because it's been done in the past. We brought it forward because we wanted to make sure this was dealt with before the House closed for this year. Knowing that it's now a day or two off from December 1, we really need to deal with this. This is the committee that can deal with it.

Again, it's about being fair and democratic. It's about acknowledging that we have a role to play in the House of Commons, we have a role to play in this country, and that is to represent the interests of Canadians. Right now we don't know what's going to transpire come the end of 2010. We don't know, based on the discussion we're having today and all the filibustering that's going on, whether or not that fairness will be there in the House, whether or not we will in fact have a fair distribution of opposition days.

So I'm a little concerned about the impression we're leaving here, as opposition members, of our ability to represent the interests of Canadians, as well as of the government's ability to represent the interests of Canadians, and I'm concerned that we respect each other's role and respect the role we all have to play in the House of Commons as elected representatives. To do that, I think we really do have to acknowledge that opposition days are important. They're really important for us to get our message across, for us to speak to policies and procedures and roles that the government is putting forward and to different aspects of legislation. That's one of the ways we get to do that, where we get to have comprehensive debate on policies that the government is putting forward or approaches that the government is taking.

For us to run the risk of what has happened in the past, to have all of our opposition day motions put at the end of the session--we have a really serious problem with that. What has happened in the past need not happen again. There are new players at the table. That's why we're here. We're saying we were really appreciative that the government recognized in 2009 that this was a path we should go down. All the parties in the House recognized that and voted to do exactly what this motion is asking to have done for 2011.

For the government to try to change the channel on us this morning and not to take with sincerity what is being proposed here, and the lines along which it is being proposed.... This is nothing more than making sure opposition days are not crammed in the end of a session, and it is in fact continuing on with a process that is in place now for 2010. If in fact it's something, as Mr. Lukiwski said, that they're sincere about doing, and they acknowledge it's the right thing to do, then what I don't understand is why we can't just vote on it. If he agrees with it, I suspect the vote would pass unanimously.

My fear is that what we're seeing here today is that there's somehow some reluctance to go down this path again. With all due respect to the comments that have been made, that they understand and appreciate where we're coming from with this motion, based on past experience, somehow it begs the question why, then, we're in the situation this morning of debating this. We're debating an amendment and a subamendment, knowing full well that by doing so we're talking out the clock. There will be no vote on this, and we'll still be in the same situation when we leave here at one o'clock as we were when we came in here at 11 o'clock, and we'll be no further ahead.

I guess we can hope that it will be resolved at some other level, but at this point it hasn't been. We have an opportunity, as members of this committee, to do the right thing, to acknowledge that this is what we need to do. We've all said it's what we need to do.

We've all suggested that it's worked, but to suggest, as a former colleague did last week, that we should probably study this, review this, and bring witnesses before the committee, I say witnesses to what? This already exists. This is something that's been practised for the past year, and it's worked well. I think everybody would acknowledge that it's worked well. It's worked in the best interest of democracy, so that Canadians know, when they watch the House of Commons in session, that when we have an opposition day it's being done in a manner that is fair and respectful of all parties in the House, and that all opposition can be put forward and debated and discussed, which is what is supposed to happen in the House of Commons. So I'm at a loss to understand why there is a reluctance to go down that path.

Why, in the name of heaven, would we be suggesting reviewing this? Why would we be suggesting bringing witnesses before the committee? Again, it would just push this out, and we're talking about the timeframe here; we're talking about 2011. In three weeks the House will rise and again we'll be no further ahead.

So I don't have that level of comfort, based on what I'm hearing from the government members on the committee, that this is something they believe in, that they think this is the right thing to do, because I think if they really did believe it was the right thing to do, they would have agreed to vote on this instead of filibustering it.

Mr. Chair, unfortunately, we may very well find ourselves in the same situation again next week if we don't deal with this as a committee, if we don't acknowledge that this is the right thing to do. We don't know at this point whether or not the House leadership is going to be able to resolve this, but we do know it's something that's important. We do know the process has worked. Why would we be second-guessing it now? I don't know.

Everybody, I think, who has been a part of this experience has acknowledged the way the opposition days have been placed in the calendar. It's been in the best interests of all of us. It has enabled us to put forward positions to question the government on policies and issues, and to hear back from the government and to get their reason and the rationale for the path they're going down.

To push it all into the end of the session, to end up with votes taking place and people having to be here and somewhere else...I think when things are planned, when we have an agenda, things work much, much better. I think that's what we should be aiming to do, Mr. Chair, as members of this committee, to ensure the House runs smoothly, in terms of the rules and regulations of the House. I think we have an opportunity, as a committee here, to do what is right. To suggest, as is being suggested by the government members, that we can deal with it later, let's deal with the other issue first, it just begs the question again: if they're committed to this, if they believe this is about democracy, that this is the right thing to do....

As Mr. Lukiwski said, he has no problems at all with the motion. He just wanted to amend it and add a subamendment to that motion. If he agrees with the principle of the motion--and that is in fact that we should be having our opposition days span the legislative agenda instead of being put together at the end of the session--then I really cannot understand. I've tried to understand. I've listened to the government members, but I cannot for the life of me understand what the issue is.

It exists. What we're proposing already exists. It was agreed to by all parties in the House in 2009 that this is the path we will go down. It worked in 2010. We're saying let's do it again in 2011. All we would do here in committee, Mr. Chair, is recommend to the House. The House would vote on this.

I guess I would like to see the motion I put forward last week voted on, but of course that's your call, and as long as you have speakers, it won't be voted on. But having said that, this is the right thing to do. It's about democracy; it's about doing what's right for Canadians.

I'm going to finish up here, because I really don't believe the filibustering that's going on at this committee is in the best interests of Canadians and the people we represent.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Weston, you have the floor.

[Rodney Weston, Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Chair, I have several questions here today. I'm at a loss to understand how we could have spent the last 25 minutes listening to opposition members question the government's tactics and question a filibuster, when for the last 25 minutes it has been the members of the opposition who have held the floor and have actually contributed to this filibuster we're debating here today.

That's not the only question I have. There have been many times over the last couple of years, since I've been a member of Parliament, when I've questioned the tactics of the opposition. Today is no different for me, in that sense.

Ms. Foote made some points that certainly speak to the concerns I had when we first started discussing this motion the other day. They certainly speak to why an amendment was brought forward, and I guess, even further, to why a subamendment was brought forward. Obviously, there are issues that are important for us. We see the issue brought forward by the Speaker as an issue that takes priority. Certainly, if this issue is being dealt with in another forum, I'm comfortable with that approach, giving us as a committee, as the Speaker said, the opportunity to deal with this issue that he considers important.

Going back to earlier in our discussions today, there were several interventions by other members who were speaking to relevance. I guess, for me, there is great relevance. It speaks to exactly what my concerns were the other day, when I talked about this original motion. I have a curious mind, and I try to understand why something has been brought forward and what the urgency is, especially in light of the fact that it's being dealt with in another forum. I try to understand that.

Then, when issues were brought forward today, people challenged the relevance of those issues. We talked about past situations and about how past governments have used opposition days to their advantage to try to railroad, if you want, legislation or limit debate or limit the opportunity for the opposition to bring forward their disappointment or concern about certain actions by the government. It's very relevant for me, being a relatively new member, not only of this committee but of the House of Commons. I don't have that past history to reference personally. I need to understand fully the implications and the impact of a decision of this committee with respect to this motion. It's not in my interest, as a member of Parliament, and it's not in the interest of Canadians whatsoever, for me to make a judgment or vote without having all the information available to me.

That's one of the things I raised the other day. I'd like to look at this. I'd like to understand it more clearly. Today this committee has gone no further in understanding this issue than we did the other day. Other than the interventions we've heard in debate today, which have been challenged as to their relevance, there has been no new information brought forward.

The only issue I have heard that speaks to the urgency is the timeframe mentioned in the motion. I believe, Mr. Chair, that the timeframe is December 10. We still have several days left, as Ms. Foote pointed out. Today is November 30. There are still ten days left. A lot can happen in ten days. Agreements can be reached. And I have no doubt in my mind that agreements will be reached. There have been many cases in the past when issues have gone to the eleventh hour and a decision has come forward.

There's a quote that says, “There's nothing like a hanging at noon to focus a mind at dawn.” I believe that's how it goes--something to that effect.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

I think it's the prospect of being hanged in the morning; it's not simply a random hanging at mid-day.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you for the reminder of relevance, please.

[Rodney Weston, Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Well, I thank my colleague for that correction, because that certainly shows the benefit of having other information brought forward. It certainly does speak to what I was trying to say here, that we're no further ahead today than where we were the other day when we discussed this motion. We're no further forward in that sense. Even, Mr. Chair, if we go back to the situation with the Speaker bringing forward an issue that he declares is of great importance, and he has directed this committee to look at that...I certainly take the Speaker at his word, and I think that issue is more urgent. Certainly, we're being overshadowed here, Mr. Chair. I think somebody is moving in on us.

I think that certainly takes precedence. I truly believe that. I think this issue is something that can be dealt with in the other forums.

You saw some discussion taking place today around the table, Mr. Chair, although I know it was outside of what was on the record. I guess that goes to show, to make the point I was trying to make earlier, that things do happen rather quickly when we're faced with a deadline. Things happen rather quickly when we need to make a decision, and I do appreciate that, Mr. Chair.

However, having said all that, I really do believe that this committee should take the time on this issue, and I haven't said at any point in time that I would not be in favour of the original motion. I haven't said that. I've never said that I wouldn't support the original motion. I've only asked what I think is reasonable. I've asked for more information. I've asked for a better understanding, and going forward, Mr. Chair, I think it's reasonable that we all ask that, as members of Parliament sitting around this table. I think it's reasonable as a committee, when we present a report to the House, that it is clearly understood and it is clearly studied. I don't think the House of Commons would expect any less of us.

Having said all that, I do appreciate the time to make this intervention here this morning, Mr. Chair, and once again, it's still up in the air for me with respect to this because.... Perhaps it's my cynical side that keeps coming back, that I keep looking at, but I am still perplexed at how the opposition members can cry foul about our filibuster when they spent over 25 minutes in this hour holding this motion on the floor today, Mr. Chair.

I don't know if you have the same powers as the Speaker, Mr. Chair. If you could see the clock at one o'clock, I think you'd probably be doing quite a service to the committee, because I really don't think we are going to finish debating this issue today. I certainly understand that there is a lot of work taking place behind the scenes, and I hope we'll see that come to effect.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

A point of order, Mr. Murphy.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Chair, in my time here, I think this is the first time I've ever seen an entire committee filibuster, so for that honour and distinction you should be congratulated.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

It's going well, too. I'm quite pleased. Everybody is participating. It's good to see everybody on it.

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

On a point of information, Mr. Chair, I'm sure if Mr. Murphy's point was that he's worried he won't be able to jump in if we don't--

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

No, I'm fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We'll save a spot for him. We have time yet.

Mr. Reid, you are up.

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

Oh, am I ? My goodness. Oh, wow!

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Well, I'm actually going to have to be reasonably brief because I have to go to the Subcommittee on International Human Rights, which I chair, and they begin at one o'clock. I don't want to be late for that, but I wanted to--

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Relevance?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

I was going to explain why I have to speak briefly, rather than taking more time. I know that every time I wrap things up too quickly, it pains Mr. Proulx.

I want to go back to a number of what I thought were quite interesting points that were made by Mr. Laframboise in his comments earlier. I thought he dealt with them with considerable erudition, and I wanted to come back to just a couple of the things he said.

He was talking about how he thought it would have been more appropriate for the government side to introduce a motion to amend the orders of the day for this committee, rather than proceeding in the manner we've done. Procedurally, this seemed to him to be an odd thing to do. I can see why that would appear to be the case, except for one very important consideration, which is that when this began, we were effectively launched directly into a discussion of this motion.

We all may recall that at the very beginning, Ms. Foote said on a point of order that she was introducing a motion. I of course objected to that, and we more or less got into things that way. So on the opportunity, procedurally speaking, to move to amending the orders of the day, I actually stand to be corrected, but I don't think we could have said let's do that, and have it rise higher up in the order, in order to let an attempt to deal with that trump what we were on.

However, I stand to be corrected, and I'm hoping that perhaps, with an eye to the future, to our next meetings, if this matter hasn't been resolved, we could actually get some clarification on that. If that is the case, then I would like to proceed in a manner that meets with the appropriate criteria that are deemed acceptable. So it may be appropriate and procedurally acceptable to effectively trump a discussion on the motion before us by moving to, effectively, a motion to amend the agenda.

I guess I'm encouraging you, Mr. Chairman, and the clerk, to get back to us on what the appropriate manner of proceeding is for our next meeting, so that we may all be fully in compliance with the strictest interpretation of the spirit of the Standing Orders. That is one thing.

Something I wanted to point out was that in his discussions he said the government has lost control. It's the opposition, effectively, that's now in power. I actually think that's a reasonable way to describe things. There are times, and indeed there have been many times in this Parliament, where the opposition effectively has been in power. I think Mr. Laframboise....

I believe you have 10 years' experience as a parliamentarian.

Ten years, I think? Yes.

My experience has been in the last 10 years. The first three and a half were in a Liberal government, where actually the government won every vote on everything, even procedural votes. It was very important to the political culture at the time of the Liberals to win every single thing and never allow the slightest procedural vote to be lost. There has been a minority government in which the Liberals were still able to win most votes.

This government, I think if you actually go back and examine the record, has probably lost more votes in the House than it has won. It hasn't lost votes on confidence matters, or I wouldn't be here anymore, but on other things. It happens all the time, and that reflects, in a sense, a bit of a transition from the normal pattern in Canada, where you have majority governments punctuated periodically by minorities, to a period of what appears to be long-term minority governments, perhaps with the shifting of parties in power, but nonetheless essentially with no one having a majority.

And we can see the culture changing, so that winning every vote is not the key point. But it also means that sometimes the government is in the minority on individual issues and will act as a minority acts; that is, using the procedures to its full advantage in order to protect its ability not to be run roughshod over. That's not a well-constructed sentence, but you get the point, and that's really what's going on here today.

I do have to stop, unfortunately. There is so much more meat there to dig into in his comments, and also in some of the others that have been expressed. But as Scarlett O'Hara said, tomorrow is another day.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

And Thursday may be one after that.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Albrecht.

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

I just want to come back to a point that Ms. Foote made regarding the rationale for this motion. She said it avoids the risk of having all opposition days pushed back to the end of the session. I think it's important for the record that all Canadians need to recognize that this government has never used that tactic. This tactic was used by a previous Liberal government, and I would agree with her that that would a horrendous way to treat a democratic institution as important as this one.

She also indicated, Mr. Chair, that this was an attempt on our part to change the channel. I would just like to point out again for the record that the channel was changed not by this committee, but by the House of Commons. It was the Speaker of the House of Commons who forwarded to this committee a matter that is of serious importance to every member of this committee, and indeed, Mr. Chair, to all members of Parliament.

We had a situation where a staff member divulged information that shouldn't have been divulged. Here we have an opportunity to possibly establish some rules, some protocol, that would protect members of Parliament, protect Canadians, protect the institution of Parliament. As the Speaker indicated in his ruling, that's really the interest. I think it's important that this committee seriously consider this amendment that's before us. I know Mr. Proulx is really interested in hearing this, but it's really important that we set this matter that's been referred to this committee by the Speaker as something that is of urgent importance.

I want to go back to a couple of other statements Ms. Foote made. She said this motion that's before us is exactly what we have right now. What we have right now, as I understand it, Mr. Chair, is an agreement among all parties to handle supply days in this manner. As I understand it, there is nothing written in the Standing Orders, and I think that's where the big difference comes in, that we are here putting something in writing that, as I pointed out earlier, could hobble this committee as it relates to whether or not this is the best way to deal with the change in the Standing Orders--not just a change in practice, but a change in the Standing Orders.

Again, it comes back to the point that the way it was handled previously by the Liberal government is not in the best interest of democracy. I totally agree with that. I agree with previous speakers who said we do agree this needs to be studied.

Mr. Chair, as Mr. Proulx is trying to get me to hurry here, we do not agree that we as members of Parliament should come to any meeting and suddenly adopt a motion that's put before us without adequate study. I was elected by the members of my riding to represent their interests. Mr. Chair, if I just come here and glibly adopt motions that are put before me, without finding the background, especially as someone who hasn't been around here for a career, like many of the people across the way.... It's important that I have all the information at my fingertips. My constituents expect no less. They expect me to study the issue, to get all the information I can collect, and then make an informed decision on their behalf. I think to do anything less would be a disservice. I assume that all my colleagues feel the same way about their responsibilities here. We don't take it lightly, I don't think any of us do. So why would we, on this particular matter, somehow suddenly just throw out all the expectations that our constituents have sent us here with? I don't think any MP around this table should take it that lightly. I'm puzzled as to why the other MPs sitting here would not want to, as the committee--