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

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Reid, please carry on, but try to come to the amendment.

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

Mr. Szabo's intervention is very well taken, Mr. Chair, and he's right. I suppose I still feel a bit of frustration about that previous event. My point was to say that it related to my privileges and not to those of any other member.

But in this case, the Speaker was specific in saying that this relates to the privileges of all members of the House, and not just in the sense that we all lose our privileges when the privileges of any of us are affected. But it actually relates directly to the privileges of all of us. If that is the case, if each of us has had our own privileges affected by this—

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

A point of order. Mr. Chairman, I will ask again about the relevance of this to the motion before us now. If we permit discussion of the general nature of a matter referred to the committee with regard to general conversations of privilege, the scope of this debate goes way beyond reasonable. The members must deal with the specific matters before us or yield the floor.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Reid.

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

Thank you.

As I say, it affects the privileges of all of us and each of us, and that means that includes my privileges as a member of Parliament. Therefore, I feel very much that this is a highly relevant item to be discussing. It's not merely that it's the usual practice. It's highly relevant, and it's relevant, quite frankly, to me, Mr. Chairman, that we be discussing this matter of privilege, and that we discuss it in an expeditious manner—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Szabo.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Chairman, for the third time, respectfully, the word “privilege” is not the subject matter of the motion itself, or the amendment and subamendment, to the extent that they are dealing with timing, not with the subject matter.

[An hon. member]

Debate.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

I would say that the member has been asked twice already by you to become relevant; he has not. The member either has to move on to relevant points—

[An hon. member]

Debate.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

—or yield the floor.

[An hon. member]

Debate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I'll take care of it.

Mr. Reid, carry on, please.

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

Thank you.

This particular intervention by Mr. Szabo is not so well taken by me, as he seems to have forgotten that he's not actually the chair of this committee. I do remember his style of chairmanship from another committee I sat on, and I was—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Now you're moving just a little further from relevance.

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

All right.

Let me get back to what is relevant and point out that the decision to move—because he's also wrong in his facts—the decision to discuss and to encourage members to consider the importance of the other matter before us is highly relevant. The word “privilege” isn't mentioned in the original motion, but clearly the whole point of dealing with this is to discuss an item that came up and is highly relevant to us. And the fact that Mr. Szabo doesn't like that doesn't change the fact that it's highly germane to the discussion. We're all entitled to our point of view. I don't want to actually suggest his point of view is wrong per se, but it's a point of view. It's a point of view; it's not the only point of view.

So his idea that because he's raised something with you therefore means you serve as a transmission belt to chastise other members and that he has the de facto chairmanship of this committee has no basis in the procedures of this place.

I would add that I would have been finished earlier had he not continually intervened with his irrelevant and imagined points of order. That being said, actually I have come to the conclusion of my remarks. I think it is relevant that we deal with the item of privilege. It's relevant that we deal with it now. It's relevant that we return immediately to the important matter of this motion from the Liberal Party as soon as we've dealt with that, if it has not been dealt with by means of the consensus that is done through the House at these meetings.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Reid.

I have Mr. Albrecht next.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to make a couple of points. A number of them have been covered by Mr. Reid in terms of how this particular amendment does in fact impact on all of us here. The idea is for us to come to some sort of protocol that would spare all of us in this room from having to deal with this on an ad hoc basis.

But as it relates to the material before us, I think it's important that we do discuss it. The motion before us is important. I think there's value in it. We've had good discussion, but we have not heard from experts on this motion as to how it may or may not impact the rules of the House.

For example, have any other precedents been set that actually have a year and a date right within the Standing Orders? This is effective for 2011. Is there a precedent for that? What will the domino effect be if we adopt this motion without input from the Speaker or from the Clerk of the House? I would like to know some of that.

While this may be a good motion--it may be the best one there is--I don't think we've had adequate input from others who are well informed on Standing Orders. I'm certainly no expert on it. I would like some input from some people who spend their waking hours dealing with these kinds of intricacies, to be sure that this in fact is the best possible way forward and that we don't end up adopting something that could hobble us or create the unintended domino consequences that none of us, or at least myself, would not be able to see at first glance.

It's important that we have further discussion. I agree with the motion. I agree with the amendment that would allow us to present that, but I really agree with the subamendment that says that if we're going to respect the House, if we're going to respect the Speaker, this breach of privilege has been brought to us for study, and I think it's important for us to do that study and then move on to this other motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Lukiwski.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Further to what my colleagues Mr. Reid and Mr. Albrecht said, the intent here is not to do away with the original motion, which calls for changes to the Standing Orders with respect to supply days, but merely to put it aside for a brief period of time while we deal with--and hopefully dispense with--the breach of privilege issue that is before us, which I think, frankly, takes precedence over anything else we should be discussing.

As I mentioned earlier, the breach of privilege is dealing with an issue that affects the institution of Parliament, not just an individual member of Parliament. I think because of that—I also believe the Speaker was quite clear in his ruling that it is an institutional breach as opposed to a breach before an individual member. For that reason, I think we need to deal with this fairly quickly.

But back to the motion and the amendment on changes to Standing Orders with respect to supply days. Obviously this was a fundamental right, as I mentioned in my intervention last meeting, a fundamental right of all opposition parties to be granted supply days so they can put forward motions that they believe to be of great interest, not only to their party but to Parliament.

In that right that opposition days have, Mr. Chairman, we also have the opportunity—I point this out particularly to my friends on the Liberal side of this committee—that regardless of the motion brought forward by the Liberals on changing the Standing Orders, and regardless of their intent to try to get it through this committee, they would also, of course, have the opportunity in one of their allotted days to bring the same motion forward. They would have a debate throughout the day; a vote would be taken.

Quite frankly, our government--even if we opposed that--would be powerless to stop debate on that. In committees like this, of course, I can filibuster—if you want to use that term—or we can certainly talk for ages on this motion without ever letting it come forward to a vote. But it would allow the opposition members to bring forward the same motion—the identical motion—and a vote would be held, either the same day or at least in a very short period of time following their opposition day.

So there are options. My point is there are options for the Liberals, and any other opposition party for that matter, to deal with an issue like this in their own supply days. I mean, the fact of the matter is that if they want to have clarity and if they want to have certainty as to when their supply days would be held, they have options other than this committee to make those changes, pure and simple.

What I've tried to do here today--and, quite frankly, I've been having conversations with the NDP on this--is give some assurances that the motion brought forward by the Liberals will be dealt with. As I mentioned in the last meeting, I felt it was inappropriate at the time of the last meeting to try to push it forward in that manner because we really had no pre-knowledge of it and we merely tried to buy some time, if you will, so that the House leaders could continue to negotiate to try to come to some solution, some agreement, to this. That's why I did what I did in the last meeting.

My understanding is, quite frankly, that we're still in that process right now. I won't go into all of the details of what's been discussed, because some of those discussions have been taking place at the House leaders meetings; while not an official in camera meeting, there has been certainly a convention respected by all parties that discussions held in the House leaders meetings every Tuesday should be kept in confidence. That's why I really can't go into details of some of the discussions. But suffice it to say that there have been some discussions, and we're trying to find some resolve to the situation right now as I speak. I think there's certainly a willingness from the government standpoint to allow this motion to go forward and have a vote--straight up, straight down--and if the opposition parties collectively vote to support the motion, then the motion obviously will be adopted.

While there has been some delay, I'm not suggesting for a moment that we're trying to continue this practice of delaying the motion from coming forward in perpetuity. It's not going to happen. The motion will come forward, whether it's before this committee or in a supply day motion. But I suspect it will come forward to this committee, and it may very well come forward before we rise for our Christmas break. At least, that's the discussion we're having behind the scenes right now.

Frankly, until we get some clarification from the House leaders, I'm going to be compelled to continue this discussion. As my colleague Mr. Reid said, sometimes that's what happens, because there are others involved in the decision-making process who are a little higher up the food chain than any of us around this table. That's where it's at right now. That discussion is trying to get resolved as I speak in this committee. Once we have that resolved, one way or the other, I'll be the first to bring it to this committee and say,“Here are our intentions.”

I have no desire to try to obscure what I'm attempting to do right now. I have no desire to try to say one thing and do another. There's no sleight of hand here. I'm merely trying to point out to the committee that discussions at this level are best held between the appropriate officials. Normally they're between the House leaders.

I'm sensing some....

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'm just indicating to you that I'm trying to get out as quickly as I can. Keep talking.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Thank you.

I would point out as well that when it comes to supply days, it would be beneficial for all parties—particularly the Liberals—to examine any motions, whether it be the one currently before us or any future motions. With all due respect to my colleagues from the Bloc and the NDP, there are only two parties sitting around this table that will ever be government, at least in my lifetime.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

You don't want to shorten your lifetime.

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

Mind you, I'm getting a little older.