Evidence of meeting #1 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
It's actually very simple. You can just follow along and it will make sense.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
It would read, “(a) The Clerk of the Committee shall, upon the committee's receiving such an order of reference, write to each member”, and then I would cross out “who is” and replace that with “of the House who is not a member of”, and then cross out “a caucus represented on” and replace the word “to” with the word “and”. Then it would continue on as printed.
That would afford any member of the House of Commons what we're affording a handful of independents.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Before we have any further discussion, could we ask the clerk to read it as she understands the new wording.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Then we'll make sure it's what Mr. Lamoureux actually meant.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
11:30 a.m.
The Clerk
Paragraph (a) would read, “the Clerk of the Committee shall, upon the Committee receiving such an Order of Reference, write to each Member of the House who is not a member of the committee and invite those members to file...”, and the rest is the same.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you.
On the amended motion now, I have speakers from the previous...and I will ask them, but first, Mr. Cullen, did you want to be first on this piece?
October 22nd, 2013 / 11:30 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Sure.
I understand Mr. Lamoureux's intention here. What's going to be challenging either on the amendment or the main motion is that committee members, at the current pacing of this, are going to be asked to vote on something they don't understand the implications of.
11:30 a.m.
Some hon. members
Hear, hear!
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
What's passing strange for me is that I'm trying to understand the urgency of this having to be done this morning. This isn't, as you mentioned, Chair, a routine motion. There's nothing routine about this. This is new. It is a new way for the House to do its business, which is fine. We always look for new ideas to make the place work better, but for committee members to sit here and pretend that they understand what the implications are, having not heard from people who might understand what the implications are is hubris and dangerous, because this place is filled with unintended consequences.
While I appreciate what Mr. Lamoureux is trying to do here to improve the motion as it is, we still don't yet know what the implications would be of either the old motion or the one for which there is now an attempt to amend. To then go ahead and vote on it seems stupid. It doesn't seem like a good use of committee business.
My intention and understanding of the committee's coming together today was to do a lot of the routine motions that we were trying to carry out, so that we could get into the study on how the House conducts itself with respect to MPs' expenses, for example. I know that's where you want to get to, Chair.
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
It's too bad we are into this conversation, with the pressure also of saying that we have to vote on it now without understanding what it's going to mean.
This is a bad start for the committee in this new session if this is how we are going to conduct ourselves with the responsibility that we bear to all members of Parliament, regardless of whether they're independent or with the major parties.
The amendment is interesting, but it's impossible for me to vote on this not knowing what the vote is going to mean. I'm not comfortable doing that, and I don't suspect anybody else should be comfortable with that particular suggestion.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
11:30 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair. I won't be long because my comments are very similar to Mr. Cullen's.
As you know, Mr. Chair, in the past I've spent a lot of hours here working on some pretty important files. We've all gotten to know each other fairly well on a personal basis, with excellent relationships.
Mr. Reid, in my opinion, comes to this committee with an excellent reputation: he doesn't play games and often has a bit of an independent streak. If something is right, even if his party is a little offside.... We all respect when that's done, especially when it's done cleverly and allows one to survive within a caucus and still make it. I have to tell you that in my view either Mr. Reid is consistent with who he is and the role he's played and the ideas he brings before this committee...in which case it would seem to me to be reasonable to respect the other members of this committee and at least give them a chance to understand the implications of a significant change to our law-making procedure.
We've already had the clerk say, “I can't answer one of the key questions the official opposition has asked; I need to do a little research”. Given the fact that Mr. Cullen has pointed out there's no timeframe, there's nothing pressing on us to do this right now, maintenant, then one is left with only one conclusion. If they're not prepared to table the motion and allow some reflection and careful thought, then it would seem to me that what Mr. Reid is doing, which would shock me, is that he's just being a stalking horse for the government; that this is a key strategic move by the government and that they're prepared to ram it through and take whatever hit there is, because they think the benefit of making the change outweighs the negative of taking the hit for being so undemocratic in the process.
So in my view it's one or the other. Either Mr. Reid truly wants some reflection and thought put into changing the way we make laws and the role that members of Parliament play in that, or he's just a stalking horse on behalf of the government and quietly trying to bring in a key strategic bomb. Then, to mix my metaphors, they are prepared to come in here and just steamroller the whole thing through. There is nothing democratic about that. There's nothing even respectful about that, I say with respect, to you, Chair.
Our caucus is left with one of two things. Either the government truly wants this to be looked at as a potential improvement in the way we make laws in our country, or this is the opening gambit of the government's approach to this session of Parliament, and they're going to steamroller this through and it will be the tyranny of the majority and the minority will just be left on their own.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you, Mr. Christopherson.
Mr. Julian, I am starting to hear a bit of repetition, but give it your best shot.
11:35 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Actually, Mr. Chair, I have to profoundly disagree with you on that. I'm going to start with a question and then I would like to make comments after that.
My question through you to the clerk is, what impact on report stage amendments in the House will Mr. Lamoureux's amendment have? If the clerk is unable to respond now, could she let us know if she'd be able to get the information and bring it back on Thursday.
11:35 a.m.
The Clerk
This has been discussed a lot in the last few years. I know there have been decisions on this, so I want to make sure that I come back with the right information.