Evidence of meeting #19 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.
6:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I would challenge you, Mr. Christopherson, that I believe you did read something this morning. It probably wasn't out of the book, but it was a printing of it, I think.
But I'm going to let you proceed before I tell you I've already heard that.
6:40 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
It's not that long, and I won't even try to read footnotes. I'll just read what's here, Chair, and see where we are. This is the explanation of the tool available to the House of Commons after a bill is read for the first time. Rather than send it to second reading, at which we lock into our political positions in large part, and then send it to committee, this allows the opportunity to send it to committee first, in the hope that politics is left outside the door and will only re-enter after you've had a good, honest go-around without any politics.
I am reading from page 742, chapter 16. It is titled, “Reference to Committee Before Second Reading”.
Traditionally, adoption of the motion for second reading amounts to approval by the House of the principle of the bill. This effectively limits the scope of any amendments that may be made during committee study and at report stage. In order to provide more flexibility in the legislative process, the House amended its Standing Orders in 1994, instituting a new procedure that allows Ministers to move that a government bill be referred to committee before second reading. This empowers Members to examine the principle of a bill before second reading, and enables them to propose amendments to alter its scope. The procedure also applies to bills based on ways and means motions.
When the Order of the Day is read for second reading of a government bill, a Minister may, after notifying representatives of the opposition parties, propose a motion that the bill be forthwith referred to a committee before second reading. The Standing Orders are silent as to the manner in which the representatives of the opposition parties are to be notified.
Boy, you could get yourself into trouble on that one, but....
The current practice is for the Government House Leader to give such notice during the Thursday Statement, although it is not uncommon for a Minister to inform the House of the government’s intention at the time of the introduction and first reading of the bill. The motion to refer forthwith the bill to a committee is not subject to amendment, and debate is limited to five hours. At the end of the five hours, or when no Member rises to speak, the Speaker puts the question. If the motion is adopted, the bill is referred to a standing, special or legislative committee for consideration. In general, during clause-by-clause consideration of a bill, the committee follows the same rules and procedures as those that apply to the consideration of bills in committee after second reading. It may hear witnesses and receive briefs. However, the scope of the amendments that may be made to the bill is much wider, given that the committee study is not limited by the principle of the bill, the principle not yet having been approved by the House— which is what you do at second reading. As it hasn't happened yet, politics hasn't entered the process formally yet.
At the conclusion of its study, the committee reports the bill to the House, with or without amendment. The report stage of the bill may not commence prior to the third sitting day following the presentation of the report. After the committee has reported the bill to the House, the next stage essentially fuses report stage and second reading. Members may propose amendments, after giving written notice two...days prior to the bill being called. When consideration of report stage is concluded, a motion “That the bill (as amended) be concurred in at report stage with (a)...stage and read a second time” is put and forthwith disposed of by the House, without debate or amendment. Once concurred in at report stage and read a second time, the bill is set down for third reading and passage at the next sitting of the House.
I'm done.
I won't attempt to make the arguments over again, but I am underscoring that this would have been a very legitimate, positive, helpful approach. The government still maintains control all the way, because they have their secret weapon: the majority vote. You get the best of both worlds.
They could have given every opportunity for wide discussion and input, disagreement, amendment—quite similarly to the process, Chair, that we followed over the course of those two Parliaments when we studied the recommendations that came from the Chief Electoral Officer three years ago, or four, I guess, when we started. It would have allowed us to use that as a starting point. We wouldn't be having these kinds of debates, because we'd be so far removed from them.
Now, to be fair, Chair, those kinds of debates could still happen under that process. I'm not suggesting that it's all milk and honey just because we make the referral from first reading. But I am suggesting in support of my motion—and then I'll move along—that the motion wouldn't even have to be here if the government had shown some sincerity and had agreed with us to send it after first reading. It would have arrived here with no politics, nobody having said they were in favour or opposed. It would just be: here it is; let's start. Then we'd start going through it.
We can still do that. I don't sense any desire on the part of this government, but certainly procedurally and theoretically it can be done. Since we moved it the first time....
I see some brows over there crossed. I wonder whether the government would just acknowledge that the politics wouldn't be in it, and if they started to creep in, as I've already said, they have the majority and could have gotten away from that.
You can still do it, for the simple reason that by unanimous consent we can do anything that's constitutional. The committee, quite frankly, can do anything within its mandate by unanimous consent. We can set aside the existing rules and replace them with brand new ones specific to the moment. It happens all the time. I mentioned the Ukrainian vote last night. That's a perfect example of unanimous consent.
By unanimous consent we could reset this and be back here doing this the right way, which is to give an honest hearing and airing of the issues that are before us. I don't sense that this is going to happen.
6:50 p.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
I didn't mean to cut off my colleague, but I'm wondering, Mr. Chair, whether some of what he's just been saying might have found a purchase on the other side and whether there's any interest at all. If so, could you advise me how we could do this with some form of unanimous consent, to report back to the House that in fact this committee should be looking at this bill as the first reading committee and ask whether that's possible?
I know from page 984 of Bosc and O'Brien that the power of the committee to report is generally interpreted as being as often as we wish, and all that has to happen is that the committee has to agree and ask the chair to report back.
I'd like to have some direction, if I could, Mr. Chair, on whether or not you would be at all open to some form of procedure that would take seriously what my colleague, Mr. Christopherson, has been saying about why this bill would benefit from having its scope opened, and therefore from our sitting in a first reading as opposed to a second reading mode.
6:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
My understanding, Mr. Scott, is that for that to happen Mr. Christopherson would have to give up the floor on his motion, and we could have that discussion.
6:50 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I went down that road once before. I know where that got me.
6:50 p.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Let me just follow up, then. If he were to give up the floor for this, are you saying that any procedure of that sort is open?
6:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I would suggest that negotiations between parties happen all the time, Mr. Scott. You could as well as I, or perhaps better than the chair, check on that.
6:50 p.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Are you therefore not ruling out that if an agreement were made along those lines, you would not now be telling us that it would be out of order?
6:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
The chair would never tell you that a unanimous agreement among committee members was out of order.
6:50 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you very much, Chair. No, that's fine.
Shifting gears again, I've made a number of references, both domestic and international, to ways that by comparison make the government look pretty bad. It makes Canada look bad, but it's the government of the day, the Conservatives.
Our motion has specifically called for travel. You have been very clear that I can't use repetitive arguments that I've used before. Although you did allow me to give those examples, you're drawing the line at my going back and using those examples again because of repetitiveness. With much reluctance I accept that is the rule. However, I would like to add to the body of evidence that I've already presented by also giving new examples, new to this debate from the time I have had the floor.
The first example I'd like to give is the second sitting of the 36th Parliament. Aboriginal Affairs did a study of Bill C-9. They had 10 meetings from November 15, 1999, to November 19, 1999. They must have been working hard, ten meetings in four days. That's pretty good.
But my point is that they travelled to five cities: Terrace, Smithers, Prince George, Victoria, and Vancouver.
6:55 p.m.
NDP
6:55 p.m.
NDP
March 4th, 2014 / 6:55 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
There we go, a governance act and 52 days at committee.
Again, there are all kinds of examples. That's why I'm taking the time to do it, because it supports my motion as to why it's appropriate that we would travel, and why I continue to give examples of where committees have travelled and how that's benefited the committee and the people who had an opportunity to come forward. It's very fortunate that Mr. Martin just sat in beside me now, and actually was at that session and can speak and attest to the importance of giving Canadians their say.
We also had a special committee on the non-medical use of drugs. It was the study of Bill C-344. They held 20 meetings: December 3, 2001, to December 6, 2001; February 18, 2002, to February 21, 2002; April 15, 2002, to April 18, 2002; and May 21, 2002, to May 24, 2002. They went to seven cities. They went to Vancouver and Abbotsford, both in B.C.; Toronto, Ontario; Charlottetown, P.E.I.; Halifax, Nova Scotia; Edmonton, Alberta; and Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.
One gets the impression they really wanted to hear from people.
6:55 p.m.
An hon. member
They didn't go to Winnipeg.
6:55 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
People in Winnipeg...? There you go. Everything can be made better. That was 2001. Who was the government then?
Anyway, moving on to my third.... In the 37th Parliament, second sitting, the aboriginal affairs committee studied Bill C-7. Thirty meetings, thirty, and we can't get any. They got 30. From March 17, 2003, to March 26, 2003, and March 31, 2003, they went to 30 meetings. They went to 18 cities. Which ones you ask? I knew somebody would ask me which ones.
So that would be Red Deer, Alberta, lovely place; Nanaimo, B.C., good committee; Prince Rupert, B.C.; Prince George, B.C.; Fort McMurray, Alberta—you'd think there'd be some appeal from the other side there, they'd want to hear from Albertans but I guess not—Slave Lake, Alberta; Prince Albert, Saskatchewan; North Battleford, Saskatchewan; Regina, Saskatchewan; Sudbury, Ontario; Thompson, Manitoba; Winnipeg, Manitoba; Thunder Bay, Ontario; Toronto, Ontario; Halifax, Nova Scotia; Fredericton, New Brunswick; Montreal, Quebec; and Val-d'Or, Quebec.
That is a serious consultation. It's also very relevant because if you look at those cities, they are either areas where there are first nations reserves and therefore first nations people, or they are communities, urban centres, where aboriginal Canadians are living, first nations people.
I'm sitting beside someone who is an expert compared to what I might know about this. However, the issues for first nations people on reserve and in cities, while there are some overlaps of concerns in terms of ID and some of the formula there, a lot of it has to do with their rights in two different geographical settings. If I live on the reserve, it's one set. If I leave the reserve and I live in an urban setting, the rules are very different. Certainly my society around me affects me in a different way.
So that's why they went there. They could have made the argument the government is making here and said it's aboriginal affairs but we can bring in Chief Atleo and we can bring in everybody else we need and get a video link. Why do we need to go there? Why? Funny, nobody made the...and if they did make an argument then it wasn't the prevailing thought. The majority of them said no, are you crazy? We have a bill here about aboriginal affairs. It makes all the sense in the world that we better go out and talk to the Canadians that this affects. That's what they did. My colleague says respect. I said that word earlier and that's what's missing. That committee showed respect to the Canadians they visited. The government right now is not showing any respect.
Am I done, you ask? No. There are more examples—and all need to be mentioned to support my motion—that go on to explain and hopefully convince my colleagues why there are times when it is good for democracy for committees to travel. This is one of them. Another one was in 2003, citizenship and immigration again studying Bill C-18 and they held 29 meetings. They visited a dozen cities.
7 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
That's real democracy. That is democracy.
Where did they go, you ask? I'm glad you asked. They went to Toronto, Ontario; Halifax, Nova Scotia; Winnipeg, Manitoba—there you go, Kevin, they went there, they saw the light—St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador; Regina, Saskatchewan; Charlottetown, P.E.I.; Edmonton, Alberta; Fredericton, New Brunswick; Victoria, B.C.; Quebec City in Quebec; Vancouver, B.C.; and Montreal.
7 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
It's very thorough, a good representation of the country. Again I said wheels within wheels. It's one thing to say, well we have to go out and we have to listen to Canadians. But if you went to just one province, that's not going to cut it. So there's the whole politics of where you go so that Canadians across the country feel that you've been fair-minded. They know you're not going to come to every community in the country. They get that but they do think that a fair representation, a cross-section of Canadian life, Canadian living, Canadian perspectives, is important and shows respect.
7 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
There's no respect here.
My last example is that it's not always just the number of cities you visit that decides whether it's democratic or not, because not everything needs to go everywhere, i.e., for Bill C-15 nobody outside the Northwest Territories was pounding the table saying, you didn't come and see me.
Nova Scotia wasn't all upset that they didn't have a chance to make comment on Bill C-15. They may have had comments if it affected them in a government-to-government situation or could have constitutional impacts, but in terms of being the primary focus of who you'd want to hear from, I'd be surprised if there was anybody outside the Northwest Territories who was upset that no one was visited.
We've seen other committees that have pan-Canadian implications and those committees respected that, those countries respected that. Even Zimbabwe was on that list of governments that were willing to listen to their people. But it's not just the number, it's what's appropriate to the time, to the moment, to what's in front of us.
Let me give you an example that doesn't have a long exhaustive list, but shows how strategically they still left the Ottawa bubble to go and hear from Canadians. In the 39th Parliament, first session, the justice and human rights committee did a study of Bill C-10 and they had one meeting.
