Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 7th, 2019

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

The point of order I wanted to.... You remember when this came up. We had a committee meeting on April 11. The bells were ringing and we had a witness, I believe, so you opened the meeting and sought unanimous consent so that we could hear some testimony from the witness. You obtained unanimous consent as soon as the meeting was in session. We heard from the witness and then people went off to votes in the House.

My own interpretation of the Standing Orders is that the chair of a committee cannot have unanimous consent to begin the meeting. Therefore, it is out of order to begin a meeting when the bells are already ringing. By way of contrast, if the meeting is already taking place, it's an easy matter to get that note.

The practical significance of this—it's not a vast significance—was that a number of people, me included, did not come to the meeting on the assumption that it wasn't happening. This really was a good faith misunderstanding or a different interpretation of where the rule lies.

I think my understanding is correct. I'm prepared to accept that my understanding might be incorrect, but one way or the other, I'd like to see it resolved.

The problem we face is simply this: In this committee, in any committee, you can't make a decision that locks the House in place. We always say we are the masters of our own affairs in committees. Of course the same is true in spades in either direction, but I think it would be helpful to try to figure this out. I'm not exactly sure of the right mechanism for doing that, for getting a yes or no answer to my own interpretation of the Standing Orders. I simply throw that out to other members to think about.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

I'll give you two options, Mr. Reid. I'll give you the short answer or the long answer. The short answer is that there's nothing in the Standing Orders that precluded me from doing that. There is a thing in the Standing Orders precluding me from doing it if the bells start during a meeting, which would leave us two choices.

We cannot do anything, but there are two choices. We could make a suggestion for a change in the procedures of our committee so that it's clarified or we could actually do a report to the House and try to get it changed for all committees.

The long answer is that I could read out what I just said in great lengthy terms as prepared by the clerk, if you would like.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Is it an option? You sound somewhat reluctant.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

No, I'm fine.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

The other option, as I said, is that you could circulate it. It would be helpful to have that in writing.

Ultimately, as I've said, I'd like an instruction from the House to have the standing order explicitly say it means this or it means that; either is satisfactory. Having it explicit is what I'm really after.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We could solve it for our committee quite easily by making it something here. If you want it to go to to the House for all committees, then that's more problematic, but we can do that.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

I only want to suggest that if committee members are willing to do that. I may be the only one who's fixated on this, and if that's the case, then I would be wasting people's time pursuing it. Could we actually start with getting a sense of what other people think, and whether this is just my own fixation as opposed to a real issue? If they think it's a real issue, then we should, I think, look at taking it to the House, and if they think it's just me, then I should just let the matter drop.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay, that's a good point. Just so people know what we're talking about. This is Standing Order 115(5):

Notwithstanding Standing Orders 108(1)(a) and 113(5), the Chair of a standing, special, legislative or joint committee shall suspend the meeting when the bells are sounded to call in the Members to a recorded division, unless there is unanimous consent of the members of the committee to continue to sit.

That's what happens if the bells ring while we're here. However, it's silent on what happens if they ring before. That's what we could clarify either for our committee procedures or propose to the House for all committee procedures, because it's not clarified. But as Mr. Reid's asking what the thoughts of the committee are generally, we'll open it up for that.

Mr. Caron.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I am reluctant.

What I am trying to avoid in this committee are unforeseen adverse effects. I think that if the bells start to ring and the meeting has not yet begun, it is the responsibility of the chair to reconvene the meeting sometime after the vote the bells signal has taken place.

The possibility of beginning the meeting while the bells are ringing may raise various problems, and different strategic tactics could be used by certain parties, subsequently. I would have trouble accepting an interpretation according to which the chair would be authorized to begin a meeting while the bells are still ringing.

Consequently, I do not agree, not necessarily for reasons I can explain right now, but because of the potential use of that provision as a probable loophole later.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Yes, I think that's a good point.

Just to let you know the context of this particular one, it was a minister who was here on the estimates and ministers are really hard to come by, so we wanted to at least get their opening statement because we might not get it. All the representatives who were here from each party agreed, as well as the two vice-chairs, so that all the parties had agreed at the time, but we did not make the effort to contact Mr. Reid or others who weren't here, which was probably a mistake. That's just to let you know the context.

But you've made a very good point that you wouldn't want that type of interpretation to be misused.

Are there any other thoughts?

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

I would say that we hopefully can get some Liberal feedback of some sort. They're not normally shy about contradicting me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Graham is never shy.

Go ahead.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

My own instinct is that if the chair has the consent of members of all parties, then I don't see a problem. That's my own personal opinion. If any of the parties objected, I totally get it. It shouldn't happen, but when people from all parties present say, yes, we can do it, I can't find a reason not to allow that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Bittle.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

I wasn't there for that meeting. Who was in attendance when the meeting started?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Ms. Kusie, do you remember? You were here and Mr. Christopherson was here, I think.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Yes, I was here. At the very beginning, no one was here except the minister and me. Then it was Mr. Christopherson and I think Linda trickled in at some point. I don't....

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

There was a quorum.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

There was a quorum and there was consent. I guess that's the question I have. There was quorum and there was consent to hear the witnesses. Even if there were a rule in place, would that have been acceptable?

I appreciate it and I'm happy to just proceed going forward that, in the absence of consent, we wouldn't start a meeting if the bells were ringing. I appreciate Scott's concern. I don't think it was malicious. It was to get a minister's statement in. I guess I don't have strong opinions either way on the subject, but I understand the concern. There seemed to have been, from my understanding, consent to proceed. Even if there were a rule in place, the seven minutes or eight minutes allotted to the minister still would have gone forward. I guess I leave it to the committee. Again, I don't have strong feelings either way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Part of the point in that particular case was that we'd come back after the bells, for sure, but there may not have been time to ask questions of the minister. By getting her statement out of the way, it certainly made sure that when she came back there would be time for questions. It was more of a functional thing—we were just checking out if everyone was okay—rather than a procedural thing.

Mr. Reid.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Again, I emphasize that I think everything was done with the best intention of conforming with the Standing Orders as they were sincerely believed to be in the minds of those who were present. It was unanimous consent. You asked for it and they gave it. Clearly, everybody who was here thought so, and that was the majority of the committee, which means, ipso facto, that the impression I've had of the Standing Orders is a minority impression.

One thing that's clear is that there's not an enormous appetite to discuss this at this time. We've now had a chance to discuss this, and it's a public meeting, so it's on the record. I don't think we're going to be in a position to make recommendations to the House as a whole. Maybe we could just conclude the subject by getting an indication from you as to how you would act in a parallel circumstance, should it arise between now and the end of this Parliament, and we'll know whether to head for the House in such a situation or to head here.

Before I ask you for that, I'll just say that it's not as problematic for this committee. We are meeting directly below the House of Commons, which is one floor up. It would obviously be a more serious practical matter if it was a meeting that was taking place in the Wellington Building, say, or the Valour Building, which will never arise for us but does arise for others.

That's not to push you in either direction, because nothing you do here will have a precedent for anybody else. It is simply to point out that you can validly go one way or the other, as long as you are clear as to which practice you'll be following, we'll know.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

My sense, from the comment we just had, is that there didn't seem to be a problem if all parties that have a seat on the committee were in agreement. I think that on the next occasion I would also endeavour to do not only that, but also, if possible, send a quick email to every member of the committee so that one of the few people, like you, who didn't come to the room would know that we were going to proceed that way.

I don't think this would happen very often, but that's how I would proceed.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Is that okay with everyone? Is there any further business before the end of this meeting?

For Thursday, can you can come back with your ideas for the researcher on our report on parallel chambers, including recommendations to make sure that it doesn't fall off where it goes from here.

Then, on Thursday, May 16, the minister will be here on main estimates on the debates commission.

Mr. Caron, is Mr. Christopherson coming back?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I'm sure Mr. Christopherson would actually know that. You said the one hour for the minister. Do you usually have officials also presenting if there are any further questions?