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

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

I actually had my assistant prepare a bunch of sheets in both official languages, which were given to the clerk. They could be passed out.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Chair, I just have one question. I noticed you had a sign at the end of the table. I'm just wondering if you properly reported the cost of that to Elections Canada?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Since it was not a country-wide election, I'm not sure Elections Canada is involved in this.

Mr. Reid.

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

Mr. Chair, the purpose of this motion, as is fairly obvious from looking at it, is to accommodate members on the committee, MPs, who are not a member of a party with recognized party status under our rules in the House of Commons—although I worded it a bit differently and talked about MPs who are not members of a caucus.

Anyway, the purpose is to allow them a greater role. I could just read it out loud so people could have a chance to look it over and think:

That, in relation to Orders of Reference from the House respecting Bills, (a) the Clerk of the Committee shall, upon the Committee receiving such an Order of Reference, write to each Member who is not a member of a caucus represented on the Committee to invite those Members to file, in a letter to the Chair of the Committee, in both official languages, any amendments to the Bill, which is the subject of the said Order, which they would suggest that the Committee consider;

b) suggested amendments filed, pursuant to paragraph (a), at least 48 hours prior to the start of clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill to which the amendments relate shall be deemed to be proposed during the said consideration, provided that the Committee may, by motion, vary this deadline in respect of a given Bill; and

(c) during the clause-by-clause consideration of a Bill, the Chair shall allow a Member who filed suggested amendments, pursuant to paragraph (a), an opportunity to make brief representations in support of them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Excellent.

Mr. Reid has a motion on the floor.

Is there any discussion on it?

Madam Turmel, were you on my list, or was it Mr. Christopherson?

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

This is about another motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Go ahead, Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Congratulations on your return to power, Mr. Chair. I wish you well in your reign.

I'm leaning favourably towards this. I think it has a lot of merit.

I'm just curious. Through you, Mr. Chair, if I may, Mr. Reid, are there precedents for this in the Commonwealth that you've drawn from?

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

I don't know, to be honest. If your question is whether I have drawn on any, the answer is no. Whether there are precedents, I can't say.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Here's the thing. I think it's a great idea. I mean obviously anything that empowers individual members of Parliament, particularly those who aren't in cabinet, is a move in the right direction given that right now the tide is taking us in the other direction.

I think this is a good idea. I do think, however, that we might want to take a little time just to think it through, to research whether it's been tried in the Commonwealth, whether it was successful, whether it failed, or whether they needed to make amendments.

It has implications, Mr. Chair, regarding the procedures of the committee in terms of the kind of workload that can officially be added.

Quite frankly my personal view—and I'm just subbing in—is that this should be looked at favourably. I won't move it, Mr. Chair, because I'm not a permanent member. I would recommend that the committee think about tabling it just to give everybody a chance to think it through. It's the first time we've seen it, and that would give everybody a chance to consider the implications.

At first blush I would just say congratulations to Mr. Reid for attempting to go against that tide in which individual members, quite frankly, have a diminishing role in the parliamentary process. This is an opportunity to beef that up, and it should be looked at favourably, but I would recommend that we just table it and give ourselves a chance to do a little bit of homework before we make a major change into a new arena.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Lamoureux, you're next.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I appreciate the motion and what the government is suggesting that we might want to consider here.

Mr. Reid, I take it that part of this is to allow for members who might not otherwise have the opportunity to present at committee. It would then go to third reading or report stage and then they would propose amendments at that stage.

Is this so they wouldn't have that possible option? What's your reason or rationale for bringing it in at this point in time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I'll allow you to answer, Mr. Reid.

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

Thank you.

Let me try both of those at the same time. I was trying to make notes in order to be able to respond more fully, but my pen died on me.

To deal with Mr. Christopherson's question first, it's not people who are not members of cabinet, who have their own reasons for not actually being able to introduce motions, because cabinet acts as a single unit. Rather, it's people who are not members of a caucus. On this committee, as a practical matter, that would be a reference to Ms. May, for example. She's not a member of a caucus. I suppose there's a sense that she is a caucus. At any rate, that's who it's referring to. That's the very narrow meaning.

On the second point, regarding precedents elsewhere in the Commonwealth, I just don't know what there's been elsewhere. Casting our collective minds back, we can all remember that this spring the finance committee actually made use of a similar procedure. To be honest, I don't have the exact wording of what they did. They had a somewhat similar procedure. That, in essence, if you like, is the precedent for this.

To answer Mr. Lamoureux's question, this is just a way of creating a system, a structure, or a rule that's available in advance for allowing greater integration of independent members. Obviously, it's not just Ms. May but also members of the Bloc Québécois who are sitting as independents right now. There are a number of other individuals who were elected under one party or another who are now sitting as independents who would also fall under this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You still have the floor, Mr. Lamoureux.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Why wouldn't you make it more universal in the sense of any member of Parliament, with the possible exception of cabinet members or parliamentary secretaries? Even if you are part of a caucus, you may still have ideas. You might not be on the committee for whatever reasons, but you might have an idea that you would want....

Would you be open to allowing it to be more universal?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You may respond.

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

Thank you.

If a member feels that's the appropriate thing to do, they could try making an amendment and they would find out.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

If you're asking me to provide the amendment, I don't have it offhand. I would support this. I don't know what amendment would be appropriate. I look to the analysts or the clerk on how I would accomplish this so that it would be more universal instead of just independent members of the House of Commons.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We're at two points here.

We have a suggestion to table the thing for another meeting. We now have a suggestion on an amendment.

Mr. Reid.

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

It's up to the committee to decide on any of those things. I put forward a motion. Obviously, what I support is the motion. Anybody who thinks the will of the committee might be otherwise ought to put forward a motion as and when appropriate to see what the will of the committee is.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Since I'm having so much fun in the post-election party, Ms. May, our committee often has had independents at the meeting, but not often have they been allowed to participate. We will be talking about that later in this meeting as we move towards another study.

If you have a point on this, I'll certainly take it if it's short.

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

Thank you.

There will be no other precedents anywhere in the Commonwealth, because the specific rule that relates to members in my position having the ability to put forward amendments at report stage emerged in this Parliament only in response to earlier action taken, when the Liberals were in the majority, to prevent Reform Party members from putting forth extensive amendments at report stage, such as occurred over the Nisga'a treaty.

As a result of that, this procedure in the Canadian Parliament is unique in the Commonwealth. My discovery of that rule and subsequent use of that rule is, with all due respect to all members, the entire reason that the finance committee, and subsequently other committees, took to the process of inviting me to present my amendments to committee for their ritual slaughter before committee.

I will participate when invited. I have to say that I don't regard it as an extension or improvement of the rights that I had, because I only get a minute per amendment. That seems to be the way it's being treated, so I can't really discuss my amendments, or defend them, or even accept friendly amendments when they're suggested.

But I am obviously not in the same position as the rest of you. I accept whatever rules there are, but in trying to answer the questions that have been put forward here, I will say that the only reason we have this anomaly in the Canadian House of Commons that gave people in my position somewhat special access to the report stage amendments was because of earlier action taken to restrict the ability of members to put forward amendments at report stage, which is unique to the Canadian system.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you very much.

I'll take a couple of speakers, Mr. Julian first, and then we'll decide which route we're going with this.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair, and congratulations on your re-election.

I am a little concerned. I certainly understand Mr. Christopherson speaking very favourably to this, and I support the principle as well, but what I am sensing as this emerges is that what it actually does is cut off report stage amendments—