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

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

Is there any opportunity for the government, on this point of order—committees are masters of their own fate—through Mr. Lukiwski or Mr. Reid, who seem to be the ones speaking to this, to simply indicate that yes, this makes sense—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I've often seen you go over to speak with them, or them go to speak to you, and I'm sure that could be what would happen.

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

Okay, outside of the bounds of this conversation, let me just make the offer directly to Mr. Reid or Mr. Lukiwski, that if they'd like to do one of those offline conversations, I'm absolutely open to finding some reconciliation to this rather than having the government hold up the other work that has to go on through the House of Commons.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Cullen, it's not a true point of order, but I understand what you want to accomplish.

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

You understand my intention, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I'm going to give the floor to Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Okay, Chair. I'll just give a moment maybe for the government to see if they want to pick up on the offer of my House leader to try to have some discussions to find a way....

Really, Chair, all we're looking for is an opportunity to do the right thing. The right thing here is to set this aside for two days, get the information we need, pass all the other motions and let Parliament get on with its business.

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

Chair, I think I saw Mr. Reid's hand go up.

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

No, I was just going to ask him when he was going to start again, but that question has been answered.

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

Oh, I see. Well, the offer has been made.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Christopherson, you're still it.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, it becomes more and more disappointing as every moment goes by. It's unbelievable. What I can't get is how the government figures they're going to win the politics of this. How? How much more reasonable can we be, other than to point out exactly the procedures that we will support in the next 21 minutes that would allow us to do the business we need to do and have a better process, or a half-way intelligent process, for dealing with an amendment that changes the way we make laws?

If I may, my House leader just pointed out to me something that is very pertinent. I had mentioned earlier that this is sort of the committee of grown-ups. This is the committee that the House looks to when there's a shemozzle out there and nobody really knows what to do with it. You just kind of get your arms around it, throw it to PROC and they'll sort it out. Last night, unanimously, one of the clauses contained this quote:

in order to bring full transparency and accountability to House of Commons spending, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to—

It's evident that this committee is seen as the steering committee of Parliament, the executive of Parliament if you will. Yet, we see in front of us a government that's prepared to ram through...well, no, that they would like to ram it through and they're going to end up not getting at the end of the day. They're going to have to walk outside this door and explain to the media and the public why it was so important to have this pass. They were willing to let all the business of Parliament be held up so they could ram through a motion that changes the way we make laws in Canada without fully understanding all its implications. That, to me, is the exact opposite of the kind of work and leadership Parliament expects from this committee.

I sit here amazed at the government believing they're going to win this. Did you think this was just going to slip by? Did the government think that we would feel the pressure of getting things done when the responsibility is the government's because we've given them a path but they won't give us the votes? It amazes me as much as it disheartens me that this committee would be prepared to deny the official opposition an answer to the primary question from Mr. Julian to the committee clerk: if this is passed, what are the implications for other procedures that exist in the House vis-à-vis the way we make laws? I can't imagine a more pertinent question to this motion. I'm sure there will be other good questions. I can't imagine one more pertinent to the issue before us.

Before we even get into how this will work in and of itself, the question is what are the other potential implications. Mr. Julian is not making wild accusations. He's not jumping up and down on the table and lighting his hair on fire. He's merely asking a question.

[Lukiwski]

He did it at least once.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

There were no cameras then.

That's what I mean. We can have good spirits here and that's what makes this committee work. I quite enjoyed my time on this committee. It was hard work. It wasn't always the most scintillating. It was always challenging and stimulating. There were always intelligent, experienced, members of Parliament working together to try to find rule. Mr. Chair, I'm referring to the work we did on the changes to the election laws. It was fun. I enjoyed it. Like Greg, I've been around a long, long, time. Some might say too long.

What I get a thrill out of these days, especially at committee, is when we actually find a way to set aside our partisan differences and truly work to find a way to make something work. That's why I so love being on public accounts and sharing the work that we do. When we do come together on that committee and it works, it's exciting. It's fun. It's stimulating, and it does incredibly important work for Canadians. That's the work on the Auditor General's reports. That's what public accounts does. I so enjoy it. I've spent enough years in enough parliaments, this one and at Queen's Park, at committees and in the House fighting and fighting and fighting. I can do it. I still rise to the challenge, as you can all see, and I love nothing better than a good engagement, but I have to be honest with you that what really turns my political crank at this stage of my life is when a lot of us set aside our differences and try to find a way to do the right thing. That is so fulfilling. It's so stimulating and interesting.

That's what this committee, for the most part, tries to do. At least that's the impression I get when I'm on it, and certainly it's the view of those of us who are not permanently on this committee but are looking inward from outside. These are responsible members, senior players, people who have the ear of the ultimate decision-makers in our Parliament, people who have the ability to make deals and find compromise whether on substantive matters or on procedure and process, and there is so much respect.

That is the key that makes everything work. If we respect each other individually and as adversarial teams, we can do so much, and that is Canada. That is who we are. That's the way the world sees us. That's the way of our country. That's the reputation we like to carry. We don't have the biggest army in the world. We don't have the biggest economy, but we have the second largest land mass and we have more of a reputation than any other country in the world except, I would say, for Norway, which has taken our place as one of the top countries in the world, the ones to go to, the honest brokers. We are there to help.

When I go internationally and walk in the door, I don't get a sense that somebody is saying, “Oh, boy, here comes Canada. There goes the day”, though that's beginning to change in some places—

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

At the climate change talks.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes, at the climate change talks it is changing. But that reputation is so powerful that even the Prime Minister and his government have not been able to tarnish it to the point that it can't be brought back. It might sound like, “What the heck is he talking about regarding the international stage and everything else?”, but all that stuff internationally comes from what happens nationally, and that takes you inside someone's capital and then into their parliament and then into the workings of that parliament, and that's right here at this committee. So that reputation that we have in the world as a beacon of democracy, as a role model for many other emerging democracies, is defined right here, Chair. I wouldn't say it's in large part, but in small part.

That's what I've always enjoyed and respected about this committee. The chair is one of the finest chairs of committees in which I've ever served, and I've been on committees for more decades than I want to admit to. This chair does a fantastic job. In fact, when I became a standing committee chair, I paid him the greatest compliment by copying some of his style, especially his particular use of humour at certain times and a good sense of knowing when to push, when to pull back, when to let the committee go crazy, when to stop them completely. I say this with all sincerity and not just as filler, Mr. Chair. I've told you personally that I have the greatest respect, even when you rule me out of order. I respect the way you approach this, and to me it's indicative of why this committee works.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I have one from Mr. Cullen first. Sorry, I wasn't looking your way.

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

As we go ahead with this, we're interested in clarifying the subamendment by Mr. Lamoureux right now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We're on the amendment.

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

Excuse me, it's the “amendment”. I'm just looking procedurally at this—and this is for the benefit of other members as well. One of the questions that has come forward in the debate to this point is around the timing and the urgency of having the vote either today or tomorrow.

I wonder, through you to the clerk, whether it would remain in order if I were to seek an amendment to Mr. Lamoureux's suggestion that would actually state that the committee would come back. I've not seen an amendment like it, so I look to you, again through the clerk, to ask if an amendment can be included in what Mr. Lamoureux has suggested. We don't do friendly amendments as such at these committees, but that would include the idea of first receiving evidence back on the implications of these changes and then allowing the committee to decide. Would that be something, in your or the clerk's estimation, that would be in order—before I start drafting and consider its introduction?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Before we discuss that one, could I go to Mr. Lukiwski's point of order in the interim and see if anything else happens with Mr. Lukiwski?

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

Absolutely, and then if it's okay, I'll work through the clerk to see what the wording would actually be. I'm trying to find out what the procedure would be.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

It can't be done as a subamendment, but we'll hear the other one and then we'll move on both.

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

Thank you, Chair.