Evidence of meeting #63 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 shall.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
There's a series. We're going to get to them too, but we'll start with subamendment 2.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
What this is meant to deal with is it's inserting four words. At new subsection 49.8(1) in the government's amendment G-4, where it starts “At the first meeting” it should read, “Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, the first meeting”. The reason for inserting the words “Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions” is it's technical in the sense that what we have here is a structure designed by Mr. Chong to have a bunch of prescriptive rules and they read like prescriptive rules. Now we're shifting into a structure that makes them optional, and what makes them optional is that each caucus votes on them. They're sitting at a very juxtaposed, almost contradictory, way and just as a matter of legislative drafting to create the sense of a transition, I would suggest adding those words so that we're signalling that everything that's gone before is now being governed by what's coming after.
I recognize that the government amendment does include subsection 4. You see that on page 5 of government amendment 4. It says, “The provisions referred to in each of paragraphs 1(a) to (d) apply only if a majority of all caucus members vote in favour of their applicability”. One could say that's indirectly an application clause. It basically says none of those rules beforehand apply, but really it's written as a rule to say what kind of majority is needed. It's not written as an application clause. Rather than inserting an application clause trying to figure out where that would be, we're on the record; we all know these are going to be optional rules, but I would just suggest a technical amendment that would link the two sections better than the current drafting does.
Conservative
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Very briefly, we don't believe the subamendment is necessary, Chair, specifically because the statute needs to be read as a whole, and it's certainly clear in the circumstances the provisions at issue apply when read in the statutory context.
The other thing I want to point out, Craig, in lieu of all of your subamendments, and I appreciate the spirit in which they were made, but quite frankly, we have spent an awful lot of time with Michael on this. We all want to see his bill passed, but we've spent an inordinate amount of time with him on some of the amendments that we brought forward. Michael has appreciated that. We worked with him very closely and we brought forward a package with which Michael is satisfied. To that end, frankly, I don't know if he's been made aware of any of your subamendments whatsoever.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
I've discussed my subamendments extensively with Mr. Chong, and he is supportive of all of them, more supportive of some of them than others. The transparency ones he believes add to his bill. He would want to see them adopted.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
That's where we are on this. I have a feeling of how this vote is about to go.
We can record that.
(Subamendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
That moves us on to government subamendment 1 which is the sheet of paper that has been handed out. This is where it will go after it will return to NDP subamendment 3.
On government subamendment 1, we'll need Mr. Reid to move it. Mr. Lukiwski can't move the subamendment since the main amendment is his.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you.
I'll pick each of you for something later on, just so you don't feel left out.
Would you like to speak to Mr. Reid's subamendment?
December 11th, 2014 / 11:20 a.m.
Conservative
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Just to continue with the previous conversation, because this is a collegial process and because it's a private member's bill where one has to take the sponsor seriously, as the government is doing as well, I am aware of Mr. Chong's wanting to see a subamendment like this. We will be supporting it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
All right. We'll vote on the government's subamendment 1.
Mr. Simms, I'm sorry. I didn't give you a chance to speak.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
That's quite all right.
(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Conservative
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Yes. This is a small one.
I'll be referring, if it's okay with everybody, to where the government is inserting proposed section 49.8, I'm now referring to their proposed subsection 49.8(5). This appears on page 5 and states:As soon as feasible after the conduct of the votes, the chair of the caucus shall inform the Speaker of the House of Commons of the outcome of each vote.
I would simply like to add at the end the words “in writing” in regard to “shall inform”.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Your chair should also share with you that NDP subamendment 3 will also apply to NDP subamendment 4.
Mr. Scott, the same explanation carries.
Is there any further discussion on NDP subamendment 3?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
It's consequential to subamendment 4. Whatever is decided on subamendment 3 would decide subamendment 4.
Conservative
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Yes. The reason is that subamendment 4, although it may be consequential in the sense of a necessary technical ruling from the legislative clerk, does add something significant. I'll read what subamendment 4 says. We'd be inserting a proposed subsection that would state: “For each caucus vote required after paragraphs (1)(a) to (d) where the caucus decides the relevant sections or subsections shall not be applicable in respect of that caucus”—for example, the caucus votes to reject the rule that says you elect your caucus chair—“the chair of the caucus shall inform the Speaker, in writing, what rules do apply within that caucus to the matters that are the subject of the rejected sections or subsections.”
I think that for everybody listening the reason for this is obvious. Without that clause, the transparency function of Mr. Chong's bill, having gone from prescriptive to spotlighting, will disappear. First, all that we'll know officially is that a caucus voted against a rule. We won't know in any official way what caucus rule is in place of it. Does this caucus still elect their chair? If so, how? Does this caucus have the chair appointed by the leader? We don't know.
The point is that the whole purpose of Mr. Chong's exercise has been to try to create the right kind of normative pressure and spotlighting, let's call it, on parties to make sure their rules on these points are transparent so that civil society, the media, and general political debate can pass judgment on whether each party is doing something that's democratically justified in terms of the rules of caucus governance.
Without this provision, we'll end up with a very stripped-down bill, as opposed to a bill which really plays the spotlighting role that going to an optional rules approach should require. That's why those two are together.
Conservative
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Yes, just quickly, we'll be voting against that. The whole intent of amendment G-4 is to provide some flexibility. Frankly, just by saying “in writing”, it denies the ability of the caucuses to determine by themselves which method they want to communicate by, both to their own members and to the Speaker.
Your subamendment says that it has to be done in writing as opposed to a caucus chair simply rising in the House and informing the Speaker of the outcome of the votes. We're saying that we're going for more flexibility as to this prescriptive “in writing” clause.
