Evidence of meeting #136 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 whether.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
12:20 p.m.
Hamilton Centre, NDP
Yes, absolutely. We used to have a rule for that provincially. I don't know what it is here.
Yes, let's take a couple of minutes and give everybody a chance to regather.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Welcome back to the 136th meeting. We will have discussion and then a vote. People want to continue in public.
Is there any discussion?
Mr. Graham, you brought a list.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
As I said to David, this comes from a very personal place for me as a minority in Quebec who wants French to spread across the country and English to be protected in Quebec. I spent my whole life in a position where I was, quite frankly, being pushed out of Quebec. The culture's changed in Quebec and that's not the case anymore, so it allowed me to be an MP in my home area.
This is all about undoing the protection the Constitution has given us. At the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business, our job is to follow the four criteria that the members of PROC approved last year. If we don't look at something, ask if it's constitutional and if it's not, reject it, then what's the purpose of that process in the first place? Why do we even bother with the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business? Let everything go to the House and don't worry about it.
That's my final comment on this. When you're going to go after minority rights in this country against the Constitution, I will be there to protect the Constitution and I'm ready to vote on that basis. Thank you.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
I've been sitting here for the past hour and a half as the proverbial sponge to take it all in. As I meandered my way through the arguments, I'm going to be quite honest with you, it was a fantastic discussion in many regards.
Mr. Christopherson brings up some really salient points about who we are and what we need to do, not only to represent our constituents but on our shoulders comes the responsibility of governing a nation as parliamentarians—not an executive, but as parliamentarians. We keep them in check, but by the same token, we also have given to us, thank goodness, by the sheer grace of this wonderful democracy, that we can put together a private member's bill to be understood by everybody and voted on by our peers and which eventually may or may not become the law of the land. Thank goodness for that.
Let me go to Mr. Graham's argument. There is a process in place by which the protection or the reputation of the Constitution is not held in contempt by anyone's private member's bill. At the core of it, some of that needs to be changed because it just might be too overly prescriptive in how we filter through these bills, who gets to go to the House and who does not.
The standard is set at a certain level. Maybe that standard should be—I know this is going to sound terrible—lowered to the point where we defer to the sheer respect of a member of Parliament to bring a law to this land.
Mr. Christopherson, I'm with you all the way, but this gentleman here has got a point about the system that exists right now. I'm going to have to defer to that, but in the future, I'm going to look at it with a closer eye and say maybe we're just being a little overly prescriptive in how we may be.... We're not allowing a member of Parliament to freely do their job, not as a partisan, not as an executive, but as a member of Parliament who has rights and privileges.
I'll leave it at that. Thank you.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
There's nothing to stop the committee from better defining the criteria in the future.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
If you want to change the process we have now, that's a discussion we can have.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
On my overenthusiasm earlier on for the appropriately named Simms rule, which I just unilaterally invoked and extended its reach, I apologize to Mr. Bittle for that. My comment was really for Mr. Bittle. If I came across as being in any way intentionally disrespectful, then that was not my intention and I enjoy his interventions.
Finally, as someone who has spent time living close to Mr. Graham's riding in Saint-Jérôme—his riding is so freaking large there's not much that isn't in it—I think we disagree on the point but I appreciate his sincere sentiments.
12:35 p.m.
Hamilton Centre, NDP
Just to pick up on the last point, I enjoyed the respectful stimulating debate. These things are tough and they do come down to judgment calls. At the end of the day, you have to be comfortable enough in your own skin to go back to your own riding and feel comfortable that you made the right decision as you see it.
This is the kind of thing I am truly going to miss. When people ask what I am going to miss in politics, it's exactly this. Things that really matter, debated by really smart caring people who are trying to do the best they can and trying to prove that there are other ways to resolve massive differences without being violent, but that you can still make important points on important matters.
I just want to say again how much I respect everybody here, and I enjoyed the debate. I found it stimulating. Chair, we don't give enough credit to you, because you have a very low key way of doing things, but it's incredibly effective. You do set the tone that allows us to have these kinds of debates, and that comes from your deep respect for everyone at the table and the institution we serve. I want to thank everybody. I've enjoyed this, separate and apart from the outcome. This is why it's a great country, the greatest country in the world.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
A recorded vote has been requested.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
The subcommittee's decision is sustained.
We're going to suspend for a minute while we go in camera.
[Proceedings continue in camera]