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

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

Thank you very much.

I thank the clerk, Mr. Chair, through you. We have a number of questions that we put forward that need answers. If the government is in good faith on this, and I'm assuming that Mr. Reid is, I think there will be another opportunity for the government to do the right thing. That's important.

That means allowing the clerk time to get the answers to the questions that we have now asked. If we don't have the answers—and Mr. Reid clearly does not have the answer—then it's clear that this has not been fully thought through. As a committee we have a responsibility to look at what the implications are, to hear back from our clerk and to hear back from the House, and thus to get the information. It's not rocket science. Anything that has a profound impact on House procedures has to be considered very carefully. So I presume that the members on the government side will do the right thing and table this so that we can simply have the discussion when we have the information.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Madam Turmel.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Chair, given the amendment that has been proposed, I would like to know whether postponing the discussion on that topic to Thursday is consistent with the rules.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

That's always up to the will of the committee. We have a motion on the floor that has been amended. Once that happens we tend to finish that process.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Yes, I can understand that, Mr. Chair, but new elements have been added. New questions are being asked. The clerk or the appropriate person cannot answer without obtaining the required information first. As I was saying, an amendment has been proposed. I think it would be fair and equitable for the whole House if we had some information before voting. We are talking about Thursday. We don't want to cause indefinite delays. If we proceed in this manner, we will have an opportunity to clarify the issue. In addition, Mr. Reid could obtain information about the intent and get back to us. You could answer our questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Lukiwski, did I see your hand?

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

Yes. I want to go back to my original comments to Kevin.

I appreciate the amendment you put forward, Kevin, but I don't think the motion as written pre-amendment would be as unwieldy or difficult even for a small caucus like the Liberals, inasmuch as we have seen before at this committee—and I'm sure at others where the Liberals may have only one member on the committee—that if there's a particular subject being discussed, they always have one of their critics or some other member sub in.

With respect to making amendments on any bill, I still think you have the ability with only one member on this committee. If you're discussing bills in your caucus before they're debated, as I'm sure you do, as I'm sure the NDP does, and as we certainly do, that's normal practice. As you know, from a House leader's perspective, we always want to make sure that the opposition parties are made aware of bills that are going to be introduced and when they're going to be introduced for debate, so that you have an opportunity at caucus to discuss those bills and formulate a bit of a strategy or a response. Then we go into debate. That hasn't changed.

Given that, any time a government bill is going to be introduced, your caucus would have I believe ample opportunity to decide whether you want to support it, amend it, or whatever. If a member of your caucus says they think they'd like to make an amendment on a particular bill because.... Whatever it is, they can funnel that through you, and you can present it on their behalf at this committee or any other committee at the appropriate time, or that particular member can sub himself in. If you have more than one member of your caucus and you only have one member on a particular committee, they can still get that information and the amendments to the person who does sit on the committee.

Similarly with the NDP, they have four members represented on this committee, and I'm sure that if they have amendments to specific bills that they want to bring forward to other committees, they can certainly sub their members in. While I appreciate what you're saying in that you want to make it available to all members, I think that right now members of Parliament, other than the independent members, do have that ability.

Again, I go back to what I know is a process of all parties. It's that you will debate government legislation as your own caucus, right? That's why we give you notice of when a particular bill is going to be introduced. When you have your Wednesday morning caucus meetings, your critic, probably.... I don't know how you deal with it procedurally, but that particular government bill will be introduced, I'm sure, at your caucus. Someone will give a recap of the intent and an analysis of what your critic or leadership feels about the bill. They will ask for caucus comments and then probably make a recommendation that as a caucus you're going to support the bill or oppose the bill.

I would also point out, particularly with respect to the NDP, something that I quite frankly admire from a discipline standpoint. It seems that whenever you take a position, whether it be for or against, your members vote 100% that way. From time to time in our caucus, even though we're being accused of being driven from the top down or are told that we don't have a voice of own, many times our members vote one way or another way, and we have split votes on our side. I've never seen that happen with the NDP. As I say, I admire the discipline.

What I'm saying is that whatever your position is as a caucus it will be represented at every standing committee that we have here. I don't see the difficulty in getting your individual members' viewpoints, because it will be a caucus viewpoint. It's been proven to be that way ever since you've been elected, since 2011. You speak with a single voice.

It would be a little different if you had a caucus whose members, as you say, truly had independent minds and would bring their opinions forward. Then there might be a bit of a disconnect from government policy or caucus policy. But you guys don't. I can see a bit of difficulty with the Liberals just because of the sheer fact that they have fewer members—

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

It was the case in my caucus this year.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Yes. The Green Party always seems to speak with one mind as well.

That's my point, Kevin. It's just that I think every committee would have the ability, with the motion as written, to allow their individual members a chance to bring amendments. The only people it disenfranchises are the independents. That's why, I believe, Scott wrote the motion the way he did.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We're still on the amended motion.

Madam Turmel, you had asked to come back onto the list so I'll let you go next.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Based on the information, I propose that the amended motion be filed, so that the clerk can provide us with answers to our questions later on.

[An hon. member]

That's a reasonable suggestion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

That motion—

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I call for a recorded division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

—has already been voted on and defeated.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

No.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

No, there was an amendment, Chair.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I said amended motion. I didn't say motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Just one second....

Could I have your bit again?

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I propose that the amended motion be filed, so that the clerk can answer the questions raised by the committee at a later date. I also call for a recorded division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I think the problem we're having is with the conditions on why we're tabling. So you may move a motion to table the amended motion apparently, but you can't put conditions on it.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Then I propose that the amended motion be filed.

I would also like to call for a recorded division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Apparently it's not debatable. I learned that the last time.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I don't think this motion is in order.

Truly, Peter, you haven't heard my argument yet, so I might not convince you, but I might.

I think it would be in order if it were a motion to table.... I'm not really sure. We're discussing the amendment so it's hard to vote to table the motion as amended, because the amendment itself hasn't gone through, so the motion as amended does not yet exist. It's merely a proposal. I don't see how you can table something that is not yet actually done. That's my concern.