Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 22nd, 2013

[An hon. member]

Yes.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

—which means that we're not talking about an improvement in participation for members, but actually a way of curtailing the kind of debate that often should be held in the House of Commons.

Through you, Mr. Chair, I'd like to ask the clerk of the committee to inform us either now or perhaps at a later meeting—I think it's clear that we probably have to put off adopting or voting on this today—if the impact of this motion would be that members like Ms. May and others would be precluded from presenting amendments at report stage.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I'll allow you to answer. Or do you want to defer...?

She wants to do her homework.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Yes, and if you don't have an answer, you could bring that back for the next meeting.

I think it's pretty clear. I don't think we shouldn't be pursuing this today, because that's an important question that I think we need to have answered.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We'll get to that part in a minute.

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate Mr. Reid's response. That's why you take time with these things.

I did misunderstand. I thought you were opening it up to everybody who's just not a formal member of any committee. When you say “not a member of a caucus”, that obviously takes us right to where Mr. Julian is in terms of suggestions. Clearly, I would hope that at the very least there would be a tabling of the motion. We've already asked for an important piece of information, and the clerk said she needs to do a little research. That speaks to the complexity of this.

Any time it's complex procedurally, it's automatically complex politically, or it can be, so I appreciate Mr. Reid clarifying that for me. That does change the nature of it. I would just hope that a motion to table would be adopted to give all of us time to reflect on it and be clear on where we are.

If you would accept it from me, Chair, I would move that this matter be tabled until the next meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I think I have to accept that if you ask for it.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Well, I do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We could ask the group whether that's what they would like to do.

Mr. Reid?

The clerk tells me that this is not debatable. All right. I always like a good debate, though.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

All those in favour of the motion to table? Opposed?

(Motion negatived)

Well, I would say we're not tabling—

[An hon. member]

Really?

[An hon. member]

Just ram this through...?

[An hon. member]

I would say that it's a tie, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Well, I did see that Mr. MacKenzie, being the ancient person that he is, was slow in his hand, but he did get it there. He and I are good friends, so he doesn't....

I mean, I could do it again if you'd like, but I think—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Could we have a recorded vote, Chair? I'm rather taken aback. I mean, really, is that what this is going to be? Steamroller it through...? Come on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Since we've already had the vote not to table and we know the outcome of it, calling for a recorded vote now is kind of after the fact, Mr. Christopherson.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I was going to ask, Mr. Chair, if the government is in fact open to the amendment that would allow all members the opportunity that independent members are being provided.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Are there any further speakers on this one?

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chair, I'm a little perplexed. Mr. Christopherson asked quite reasonably for tabling of a motion. We don't have answers to the questions we've just asked. Mr. Reid was unable to answer. The clerk has asked for a couple of days. I'm very surprised that when a motion is brought forward and questions are raised, the government doesn't have an answer, and when the clerk very responsibly asks for time to get those answers, the government majority then decides they're not going to accept tabling.

It's a very strange precedent. I'm new to the committee, but I'm very perplexed. I thought Mr. Reid had presented this in good faith. We've now found, after a couple of rounds of questions, by Mr. Christopherson, Mr. Lamoureux, and Ms. May, that there are some real concerns about this. What this could indeed do is limit the parliamentary privileges of independent and non-recognized party members. If that is the case, if the goal is to limit, I'm quite concerned about the direction of the government. If the government is presenting this in good faith, which I hope is the case, then the government needs to support the idea of getting the information that members have just asked for.

I really don't understand why government members would oppose tabling when we've just heard from the clerk that we need a couple of days to get further information.

Mr. Chair, I have to question the real intent of the motion. If the intent is to further members' participation, which we all welcome, then that's something that I think we could all support, as Mr. Christopherson clearly indicated. That's fine, but we obviously need some more information, and we need to consider this at the next meeting.

If the intent is to try to ram this through, then I suspect the intention is very much to limit the participation of members like Ms. May. If what the government is attempting to do is limit the participation of non-recognized parties and independents, then I have real concerns. I couldn't support this motion if that's the intent.

It's very unclear. We have Mr. Reid explaining it one way and then the government voting another way. Please let us take the time to get the information that members need so that we can then have a fulsome debate and make a decision.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

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

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

Thanks.

This is actually in response to Kevin's question, or a general question, and David first raised it, as to why not open it up to every member. I'll give you my interpretation; I won't speak on behalf of Scott, because he was the one who drafted the motion. As we all know, if you are a member of a recognized party, in other words you have a legitimate caucus, you can sub in membership at any time. In other words, if a member of the NDP or the Liberals wanted to make an amendment on a specific bill at a specific committee, they'd merely have to sub themselves in and present it, but the independents don't have that ability.

I see this as being specific to those members who aren't in a recognized party because they do not have the ability just to come and vote and participate in a meeting, as every other member of a recognized party does.

So when you say “open it up”, in effect it is opened up to every member except the independents, as we stand right now, because we all have the ability to do exactly what the independents don't have the ability to do.

[An hon. member]

Well, not really.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Let's try to bring this one.... Is it a motion that we need to have finished today? We have other business that must be accomplished.

Mr. Lamoureux.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I appreciate what you're saying, but keep in mind that when you sit in a committee, and I will use the Liberal Party as an example, often a critic will be there, and you might have any one of 30-plus other members who would like to see some changes to the legislation, but we only have one spot on the committee. It can create, even within the whip's office, some difficulty with regard to doing the proper scheduling, the swapping in and out type of thing. More important, I would argue, is the fact that if we're saying to certain members of Parliament that there is something that is going to allow them the opportunity to come before the committee to express a possible amendment, that is something that should be universal to all members.

Some members might be challenged even to get their names onto a committee list in order to present an amendment. What I was going to do, Mr. Chair, was propose an amendment to (a), which would read as follows—