Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Sept. 8th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Reid.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, if we're going to turn, as I think we would have to do at this point, to debating a proposed amendment to the motion, I just want to confirm that Mr. Cullen never actually was going to introduce the motion, and that effectively this is the motion. Is that correct?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Yes.

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

Okay. That's the first thing.

Secondly, you talked about the first three lines, but it's actually added to the end of the motion. Is that correct, that the additional words are at the end?

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

The additional words are in italics, added to the end of the motion. When I talk about the first three lines—

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

I just had this handed out to me. I'm sorry.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

The first three lines reference was to how the first three lines are just a tiny bit too general.

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

Okay. Now I understand. Thank you. That explains everything.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Are you fine on that now?

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

I am. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I have Mr. Cullen next, and then Mr. Lukiwski.

We are now speaking to the amendment.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

That's right.

This reiterates in black and white what Mr. Lukiwski just confirmed to the committee, the assurance that the government has maintained the political will over the summertime to continue the work that we unanimously agreed to in the spring. It provides specificity and assurance to Canadians that this work will continue.

I take the assurances from Tom just with regard to the committee's work. As soon as we get through this motion—I think we're almost there—I'd like to get into some of that discussion today so that the work can begin in advance on witness lists and whom we would call, with some suggestions made already, and the pace of work. As I've suggested already, while the goal is quite clear, getting there will be somewhat subtle and complex in changing the very, very old institution of Canada's Parliament, specifically the Board of Internal Economy, how to bring the Auditor General in properly, and those kinds of things.

This motion I think it just confirms the assurances that Mr. Lukiwski talked about. I think it should certainly confirm and give validation that the Liberals seem to be seeking. It allows the committee to know exactly what the work is about, and puts it in your hands, Mr. Chair, so that on day one the government House leader can introduce this. Of course, we will agree and we'll move forward, and the committee will have its marching orders to complete its work on that specified date.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Lukiwski.

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

I just don't have a problem with this. As I said verbally, our commitment is to do it. I've said so in public now, and so if this committee wants to instruct you, as chair, to write a letter requesting that we reaffirm the motion we have already passed, we don't have a problem with that. We are fully committed to having the study.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Super.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Can I ask a procedural question?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Sure, but be very brief.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Just procedurally, I want to confirm technically that a prorogation of the House, which we have not had yet, would nullify the motion we passed in the House in the spring. Is that correct? I wonder if we can just—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

That would be correct.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Yes, I think that's correct. I ask because people might be wondering why we have all of these assurances. That's because it doesn't exist. The moment the Prime Minister seeks prorogation from the Governor General, the motion we passed in the House in the spring won't exist, so this is a very public confirmation that even though technically that's procedurally true, when we come back we'll have exactly the same wording, in advance, already confirmed by this committee and others.

I just wanted to assure my colleagues and others of that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

All right, I have no one else on the speaking list, so shall we call the vote on the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

(Amendment agreed to)

(Motion as amended agreed to)

Fantastic. That accomplishes a good combination of motions today. Thank you very much. That's great.

Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

As I said in my very last comments, I wonder if the committee could seek to set a date by which we must submit our proposed witnesses. The reason I'm doing this, Chair, is that, as you know, for the people working on behalf of this committee, that can take a number of weeks with juggling schedules and what not. The uncertainty of when Parliament actually will resume is a challenge, so the second consideration I'd like us to interpose, unless the Prime Minister confirms quite soon when Parliament is meant to come back, is that we as a committee consider setting dates today regardless, because we do have the power outside of prorogation to set committee dates.

I'm not creating suspicions as much as addressing the reality that if the Prime Minister chooses the beginning of November as the best time for Parliament to reconvene, suddenly we're looking at a month with some witnesses with incredibly busy schedules. My concern is that we're going to run out of time and not do our proper work. So on those two fronts, would the committee consider setting a date today by which we should all submit our witnesses—and I suggest that date come quite soon, within a week or two—and begin to consider some potential dates for meetings, regardless of whether or not Parliament has resumed?

Those are the two questions I put to committee members.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Your chair was going to suggest the first part of that today anyway, that we get started with collecting witness names. I'm not going to put a finite end to it, Mr. Cullen, because you've seen how this committee can work. One witness can give us an idea that leads to our talking to another. So rather than putting a hard lock on a witness list, let's start it today. If you have any, by all means let's start talking to the clerk and getting the witnesses forward. Of course, some are mentioned in the House motion: the Clerk, the Auditor General, and the chief of accounting. We'll certainly have to talk with them anyway.

I recognize that through the summer, knowing this motion was there, the analysts started some research on this project. We didn't leave it and assume we'd just wait until we got back. We've already started a lot of the research. I'm not prepared to talk about it yet, because it's not collected yet, but it has been happening.

That being said, Mr. Cullen, you also know that this committee is able to move large boulders uphill when it has to, and so I'm not worried about that finish date. If we have to, we'll get it done. We showed last year, given the redistribution, how we're able to finish on time and on schedule.