Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 17th, 2014

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

—and it replaces a regular meeting?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

—I have certain rules I must follow, and I follow them.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes, but a special meeting replaces a regular meeting, Chair. Is that how that works?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

All our meetings are special, Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Don't do that, Chair. Don't trivialize this. This is important stuff.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Knowing that it was a regular scheduled time, we were sure all of our members would be able to attend.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Right, and we had an agenda set for that day, which is today, that we set previously at a regular meeting. I want to know why it is that gets trumped by this letter. It ought not.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Well, I'm telling you it does.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Wait a minute. I want to be clear about this.

You're telling me that a letter that comes in signed by three or more members of the committee asking for a special meeting on a particular subject—fair enough, and I'm a chair too, so I deal with these things—you deemed that because you knew, conveniently we were all going to be here for a regular meeting, it made sense that since they're going to be here for a regular meeting, why don't we have them here for a special meeting.

That's just not how it works.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Let's just use our time—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That's not how this works. If you want to call a special meeting, it would be a special meeting. A special meeting is not during the time of the regular meeting when we already have an agenda.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I'm sorry you think that way, but it says right here in O'Brien and Bosc that the chair may agree to consider the request at a regular meeting of the committee.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Let's consider the request. That doesn't mean it bumps off all the business that we had already set. You add it to the agenda as something we may talk about.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Christopherson, on this point of order, I'm going to move on. I've told you what my ruling is, that a Standing Order 106(4) notice came to me, and I scheduled it during our regular meeting—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

—and you blew off the agenda we had all agreed on. How does that happen? How does an agenda we all agree on get unilaterally changed by the chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

On this point of order, I have Mr. Julian first, and then Mr. Richards, but let's move on, folks. We can argue about why we are meeting, but let's get meeting.

Mr. Julian.

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

Mr. Chair, I think Mr. Christopherson's comments are very important.

As you know, Mr. Chair, you moved concurrence and got it in the House, so that's a red herring.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You looked me in the eye and said “no”, Mr. Julian, after you said “yes” at this table. There's a matter of trust.

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

I said no to that day, and you presented it the next day, and you had said you were going to present it on Thursday. If you want to go a day ahead, that's fine, but you should flag it with the opposition when you do that. I think that is appropriate counsel. If you are going to do it on a day that is different from the day that's agreed to, that's your choice, but we ended up having concurrence on the day that we agreed to.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Let's get back to this meeting.

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

Getting back to this meeting, Mr. Chair, this committee is the furthest behind of any committee on Parliament Hill. We discussed a couple of weeks ago all of the outstanding issues, including what has been raised by the deputy law clerk as pretty egregious leaks from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. There was agreement to have discussions on that. There was agreement to have witnesses.

We have pressing deadlines that are coming up in just a few days. We have two committee meetings prior to the next expiry of a private member's bill. There are some real problems with this committee's functioning. I'm not a member of the committee. I come in, and I'm happy to be here, but the reality is the committee is far, far, far behind, and we're seeing committee meetings being cancelled unilaterally. We're seeing committee meetings being replaced.

It is not appropriate process, and I have to agree with Mr. Christopherson. The idea that we can have three members sign and replace any regular meeting of the committee is inappropriate. There are other venues for doing that, but the greater concern is the fact that this committee is so far behind. It keeps asking for extensions, but no work gets done because I think your government members seem to be more intent on a kangaroo court and a witch hunt than actually working on what procedure and House affairs should be working on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Richards, and then Mr. Lukiwski.

We'll get on with this meeting, please.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Chair, my understanding is you've made a ruling on this point of order, so I'm curious as to how there continues to be a debate on a point of order on which you've ruled. I think it's inappropriate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I'm trying to make it special for Mr. Christopherson.

Mr. Lukiwski.

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

Mr. Chair, just to underscore quickly what Blake said, obviously the NDP doesn't want to be here to discuss this issue because of its potentially damaging effect it has on them, having to repay $1.17 million. We want to find out exactly how we can best make that happen. That's why we're supposed to be here. That's why we requested this special meeting that can be scheduled during a regular meeting. If the NDP wants to continue to try to obfuscate and evade their responsibility of repayment, that's up to them, but we want to have a meeting on it, and you've made a ruling. If the NDP wants to challenge the ruling, let them go ahead, and let's get on with the meeting.