Evidence of meeting #88 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.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Joe and Tom and I were all here, and I don't think anybody else in the room was here, but when that occurred that was at the end of the 39th Parliament, I think, right?
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
You're still a young man.
At that time it was a highly confrontational environment. We had been given some business that profoundly divided the committee on government versus opposition lines, and it was a minority government so the opposition had control over any vote they wanted as long as they presented a united front, and that included finding no confidence in the chair, which occurred. Mr. Goodyear was voted out.
If I recall, it was very indecorous and I think I was one of the least decorous people in the room at the time. There is a Hansard of all of this, so you can decide that for yourselves.
But what happened was, one limit on.... I think the problems that were created by that—and it was very problematic and we stopped sitting—we became completely dysfunctional. We were in the context of a House that was completely dysfunctional as well, I should add, but at least they had to choose a member from among the government members. The rules say that the new chair must be a government member chosen from within this committee. At least when Joe was chosen he had some knowledge about what was going on from personal experience and some of the nuances.
This is a concern that I've had as I've listened to the discussion. At that time the rational strategy for the opposition would have been to pick some government member from outside this committee and drop that person into place. That option wasn't available. I think, in this particular case, that limited the problems that arose from the fact that we were being pushed to deal with issues that would ultimately decide the confidence of the government. The trouble is, that kind of hothouse environment, infrequent as it is, is the moment at which it is most critical to have a set of rules that work and at this point I'm just not sure that I know the implications.
Perhaps in Britain they've had some relevant experience, but I do worry about that. That's why I'm very interested in what you have to say.
Noon
Conservative
Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK
Mr. Reid, just listen very carefully to what you've said. You had a dysfunctional committee under the current system. If you have a dysfunctional committee under the current system, I don't believe my system will necessarily fix every element of the dysfunction going forward.
But what you and the chair have both admitted to me is that the current system had problems that were almost insurmountable. So if I have to deal with some of the theoretical, almost insurmountable, rare circumstances in my proposal I'd also like the members to think about it in the current system because they are extremely rare but as you pointed out, they were very difficult to deal with.
Now, we could argue that Mr. Preston, because he knew the committee, was the best person to be the chair, or we could argue that someone who didn't have the emotional issues that the current members had might be better to be brought on side as someone who could start afresh. Those are arguments that can be made, and it would depend on the very details of your situation. But if you have dysfunction, it almost doesn't matter what mechanism you're dealing with. We've had issues like that under the current system, and we'll have issues like that in the future system.
As I said in my earlier remarks, when you have a committee chair whom a portion of the opposition has chosen, they have a sense of ownership of the chair too. It may not be a very great sense, but they do have a sense of ownership with that chair too, so they would be impeaching their own choice as well, not just the government's choice.
I think while that may not be a technical answer, it does provide some moral protection for the chairmanships under my proposal.
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Super. Thank you very much. We're going to end it there.
Thank you, Mr. Trost, for your input today. We have to discuss a report on this issue and the rest of committee business, so we'll be going in camera.
[Proceedings continue in camera]
[Public proceedings resume]
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
We're back in public.
Thank you, Mr. Lamoureux, for your kind words.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Maybe I could take this opportunity to reinforce the fact that over the years, I think it goes without saying that I've had the opportunity to witness you as the chair and that I think you've done a phenomenal job of making sure the committee is functional and moving forward. I want to wish you the very best in the years ahead and I really appreciated your comments in your S.O. 31 the other day. It was in sync and very professional and touching.
We wish you the very best in the years ahead.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
To add to what Kevin was saying, let me get a little bit more personal, only because you and I and Scott—I guess the three of us—have spent a lot of time, many years, together on this committee.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
It's been almost the entire time. I think I've had 10 out of my 11 years on this committee. I think you and Scott have been here that entire time. We've seen a lot of things happen. We've talked about the Gary Goodyear thing, what happened there, and I recall I had about a six-and-a-half-hour filibuster going on at one time, which precipitated, I think, the vote of non-confidence in the chair because he shut it down.
We've seen a lot of highs and a lot of lows, but one of the marks of a very good chairman, Joe—and I'll call you “Joe” just because I do consider you a very good friend—is the ability to try to reach consensus when it appears impossible to do so. You've been phenomenal at doing that. You've also had the ability to lower tensions when need be, but you've also had the ability to be very firm and disciplined when need be as well. I think David could attest to that on more than one occasion.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
It all comes down, frankly, to the fact that you have to have the ability to inspire the members around you to work with you. We've all been here long enough. We've all seen chairs that, frankly, no one on the committee really wants to deal with, no one likes. At times they just throw up their hands. Even though they may all be on the same team, they still don't get along well with the chair.
You've avoided all that, Joe. You've really done a tremendous job, and I think it speaks well to the fact that this committee, more than any other in Parliament, is supposed to be the committee that deals with issues in a primarily non-partisan manner. We deal with so many issues that affect all parliamentarians. At times that's impossible to do because we get into game play; we all know it; we all do it.
More so than anything else, we've dealt with issues. Particularly, when I look back to the last several months, we've had issues that I think we've worked together on pretty effectively. Positions have been taken by members of all sides of this table which have been well argued and well reasoned, and those arguments have won the day. We've put aside, I think, partisan hyperbolic arguing and chest thumping and all that sort of stuff and have really worked well together. Again, that's a testament to your leadership and what you've done here in this committee.
I could go on for a long time, but strictly from an objective standpoint, I think you've done a phenomenal job. I think your talents as chairman are obviously extremely good. Your bona fides when it comes to chairing this meeting and the subcommittee on sexual harassment, I think, go beyond the pale when it comes to what normal people have to put up with. On a personal level, Joe, you've been a great friend to all of us here, and I say that sincerely. I think you are going to be missed by all of us, not just because of the role you've played as a chairman but just because of you as a person. You've really made our lives a lot easier and I've enjoyed coming to committee with you at the helm.
Thank you for everything you do. I know you're going to be successful. I know you're probably going to be expanding your fast-food empire when you get out of this place. Good on you. Don't make yourself a stranger, because you're going to be more than welcome to come back here at any time. On behalf of myself and all my colleagues, and, in fact, the entire government caucus, thank you for everything you've done. You've just been a tremendous friend and a tremendous chairman.
Good on you and good luck and God bless you.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
12:20 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I want to join in with my colleagues and only marginally less than Mr. Lukiwski, because no one is perfect and there are times when I've been infuriated by rulings that you've made, as you know, especially when they affected me in relation to relevance or repetition.
Joe, you and I go back to when we were both rookies. We were in Taiwan together, early on.
12:20 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I think it was within the first year of our mandate. So we've known each other for quite some time, being from the same province and area within the country.
You really have been an outstanding chair, Joe. It's very difficult. I have no doubt that along the way there has been pressure from the government, as there is going to be on any chair, particularly this one. But you've been sufficiently insulated from that to the extent that when it was time for you to make a judgment call, I always had a sense that it was your judgment, and based on fairness. Quite frankly, if it ruffled a few feathers in your own camp, you were prepared to suffer those consequences. That means a lot to the opposition. That's not to say that when there are times to hard-line it, because the government has a position.... You are a government member, and under the current system, notwithstanding the previous discussion, it's still decided in large part by the whips.
To pick up where Tom...and I'll try not to be repetitive.
12:20 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I think the way you handled meetings.... When I became a chair here, I tried to take some of the lessons I saw from you, especially your use of humour—often self-deprecating. But often you were able to lower the temperature because of your sense of humour and the people skills you have. I don't want to get maudlin about it, but I have to tell you, Joe, I think you should be giving classes and instructing others. I'm keeping in the back of my mind, if the opportunity is ever there that we're looking for someone to chair meetings, regardless of what...because of what you bring to it.
Not only that, having been a chair, you also are more than willing to step in to make sure that it's being steered in the right direction; we didn't just sit there and stare at each other. When there was nowhere to go, you would, in consultation with the clerk, quickly come up with some path that would let us move forward. Often that's the trick here, just to keep moving forward and not get bogged down.
I just think it's been a tremendous term for you. This is my second long-term commitment to this committee. I've enjoyed it. I've been in politics 30 years now, and as much as it might look as though I still enjoy our getting up and yelling at each other, and I do to some degree, it really doesn't bring me near as much joy as when adversaries lay down their arms and work towards a common goal. After all these years in politics, that excites me, because that's when we're really getting something done. But it can't be done without leadership, and that's what you provided.
I also want to offer up my thanks to all the members, quite frankly, but a special thanks to Tom—notwithstanding a couple of tough spots we had. But those are bound to happen. I think we rebounded from them. What I've always enjoyed, and I'll end on this, was that when it came time for the politics to come into this, as it had to, it never came in through the silly-bugger door. It was always right up front. It was “Okay, we're going in the ditch; this is going to be political”, or “That's where we are, and that's just the way it is.”
12:25 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Tom, you're very straight-up that way, a man of your word. The only time I had to question that, I knew in my own heart it wasn't your doing; it was from on high. And on a personal level, I think you know that's my feeling about it.
I've enjoyed working with you. You're an honourable man. You're not afraid to take risks. When you give your word, it means something. The lack of any games is what really helps. I've enjoyed this. Aside from chairing my own committee, this is where I've actually had the most fun, notwithstanding the hard work we've done.
But back to you, Chair, all of this is because of the chair that you provided. You've done a great job. I do hope that in some fashion or another you'll still play some role in public life, because I think you have a lot to offer. I think there's still more of it that you could give to the Canadian people that we would benefit from.
Joe, thank you, it's been an honour.