Evidence of meeting #10 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was senate.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Daniel Jutras  Federal Member, Independent Advisory Board for Senate Appointments

1 p.m.

Liberal

Arnold Chan Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON

Getting back to the point that I was making, at the end of the day, we have a constitutional requirement to have a functioning upper chamber so that laws of this land can ultimately be passed. That is what we're going through right now, to get a process in place that ultimately attempts to create greater confidence in Canadians with respect to a chamber of sober second thought, meanwhile respecting both the constitutional practices and the conventions that associate themselves with respect to the appointment of senators, so that we don't get into the situation Mr. Reid had previously noted, that we are somehow violating or engaging in a process that is ultimately ultra vires.

With all due respect, at the end of the day we're obviously trying to work within the confines and the framework of the rules that are presented here with respect to the Standing Orders. I would also note, too, that we've been open in terms of allowing witnesses to appear before this committee, including the three federal appointees. By the way, it's something that the previous government never allowed. They shut down every single motion to call witnesses before committees for review, because they didn't want their witnesses to be subject to that kind of scrutiny. Ultimately, we are dealing with the terms that are set out under Standing Orders 110 and 111. That's the situation we're faced with.

Again, as I said earlier, as we go through the process, this committee will ultimately have the opportunity to review the Standing Orders. If you don't like the way they're written right now, we can make and propose those changes through that appropriate process.

Let's not rewrite the rules now simply because you find them inconvenient because you have a different political point to make.

Also, to answer your question with respect to what is competence, I think if you actually listened carefully to the witness we had today, Dean Jutras, he made it very clear: “Look at my historical practice. Look at the kinds of circumstances and situations in which I dealt with these particular types of issues.”

1 p.m.

Conservative

The Vice-Chair Conservative Blake Richards

Pardon the interruption, Mr. Chan. We are at one o'clock. I have had some members tell me they do have other meetings they have to get to. I think we'll probably have to end here for today. It doesn't appear as though we'll be able to have a vote today.

1 p.m.

Liberal

Arnold Chan Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON

May I just conclude my comments and then cede the floor?

1 p.m.

Conservative

The Vice-Chair Conservative Blake Richards

How much time do you need, Mr. Chan?

1 p.m.

Liberal

Arnold Chan Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON

No. Actually, I'm prepared to now cede the floor to Mr. Graham, but we'll take it up at the next meeting.

1 p.m.

Conservative

The Vice-Chair Conservative Blake Richards

What I was going to suggest to help the committee with this, it appears as though we won't be able to have a vote today, unless we have consent to continue for some time. I know I do have members who need to leave.

Mr. Graham, do you wish to have the floor or can we proceed to a vote?

1 p.m.

Liberal

David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC

I'd be happy to start at the next meeting, if you'd like.

1 p.m.

Conservative

The Vice-Chair Conservative Blake Richards

It doesn't appear as though I have consent from Mr. Graham to cede the floor to enable a vote, so we'll have to continue this.

I have a suggestion as a potential option. I see that on March 8 we have the other order in council appointee set for the first hour, and the supplementary estimates scheduled for the second hour. If the committee felt that we could shorten up each of those two things, go to 45 minutes or something along those lines for each of those two items, we could leave ourselves a bit of time at the end of that meeting to continue with this motion and have it dealt with.

I know there is some timeliness to it, given that it requires witnesses to be here prior to the end of March. It might be a good idea, given how little time we have in committee in March to try to deal with it.

Would this be agreeable to the committee, that we shorten those two to 45 minutes per panel, and then we could dispense with this during the March 8 meeting?

It sounds as though it would be agreeable, so we'll make that suggestion, and our clerk can make the necessary adjustments to the agenda.

Thank you all.

The meeting is adjourned for today.