Evidence of meeting #2 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 committees.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Standing Order 119 reads as follows:
Any Member of the House who is not a member of a standing, special or legislative committee, may, unless the House or the committee concerned otherwise orders, take part in the public proceedings of the committee, but may not vote or move any motion, nor be part of any quorum.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Thank you.
Just to be clear on that, if you don't mind, that then means that when we're having discussions like this, Mr. Lamoureux or presumably anybody else—or even, in theory, everybody else—can turn up here and seek a.... We'd need a big table for this to be done, but they could get a place at the table, put up their hand, and be recognized by the chair to participate in discussions like the one we're having right now. Is that correct?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Yes, unless the House or the committee orders otherwise. So if we say no, the committee can deny them.
As you know, your having been on committees for a long time, any member of Parliament can come to any committee, and can participate unless the committee decides no.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
My understanding, when it comes to things like questioning witnesses, is that it only occurs in a case where a member is substituted in for somebody else in order to participate in the questioning and to then take their place in the normal rotation.
I don't think you're disagreeing with me. I see that you're nodding in confirmation with me. Okay.
But in a debate like this one, you would simply recognize anybody who is at the table who is a member of Parliament to participate in the discussion.
Liberal
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Unless the committee orders otherwise. All right.
I don't want to seem uncollegial here, but that does present us with a problem that I can anticipate. The problem is that the committee consists of a majority of members from the government party; so Liberals can show up and participate, including slowing down any proceeding they don't like, by just coming along and participating in the debate.
In all fairness, history shows that you don't really need to draw on other members when you have Mr. Lamoureux at your disposal, because he has a remarkable capacity to offer voluminous thoughts on almost any subject on no notice whatsoever, and I mean that in the nicest way. Nonetheless, if anybody from any other party does the same thing, that will be shut down, and I think that is an issue.
I don't have any specific thing I'd propose right now, but I'll probably come back to this at our next meeting in January with a thought as to how we could modify this. I'll suggest a motion to be adopted by the committee which effectively would say that any intervention ought to involve the consent of the committee at any given time. The government, if it really wants to do something like this, can still override this, but I think there ought not to be more widespread participation.
This doesn't say that Mr. Lamoureux shouldn't be here, that he isn't welcome here. In my mind, he is very much welcome here. I just wanted to say that I think this is a problem, something that could be subject to misuse, and we want to prevent that from happening.
Liberal
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Well, I might want to.
Through you, Chair, I'd like to begin in terms of the comments from Mr. Lamoureux.
Most of what you said, Mr. Lamoureux, would stand if we were at two weeks ago and were having a blank slate discussion, but the problem is—and you can't erase the history—that you did arrive here at the last meeting and took the helm position, and you were the only member who spoke. Clearly, there was an intention that you were going to lead things.
Not only that, but normally, as a rule, this committee is staffed by, if you will, or has members on it who have experience, because of this sort of leading role that this committee plays in many of the activities of the House. That's why it has certain special rights. We always meet at the same time. We don't rotate. For the other committees, a lot of their stuff goes through that. There's all that kind of thing.
This is a very important committee, incredibly important in terms of the House, so for Mr. Lamoureux to be here.... Mr. Chan has some experience, I grant you that, but not much—I think a year or two after a by-election—and virtually everybody else is new. If you're going to throw newbies onto the committee, it makes sense that you'd bring in a seasoned veteran who would lead it.
Where would that seasoned veteran be? Oh, it's you, so any sense that this is just you dropping by because you're interested really doesn't hold any water. The fact of the matter is that you're here to ride shotgun on behalf of the PMO to make sure this committee does exactly what the Prime Minister wants, and guess what—that's the way it was the last time.
I raise this because the government is the one that has made such a big deal about wanting to be seen as the vehicle for change. I support that, and for some of the changes they want to make, I support those things. What I'm having trouble with is the words of the government versus the actions of the government. So far, when it comes to parliamentary secretaries on committees, there is nothing about their actions that link up with their words.
Mr. Lamoureux has every right to be here according to the rules, but I want to remind him that his Prime Minister stands up every day and talks about transparency, accountability, sunny ways, and how things are going to change, and so far, all we've seen from this government vis-à-vis PROC is the same old same old same old.
I would like to know as we're moving forward—maybe Mr. Lamoureux can point it out to me—when he's taking actions that support the government's words, because so far, they don't.
Liberal
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Mr. Christopherson, I would just like to know if you consider Tyler to have no experience.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I've spent many years sitting behind you next to your assistant, and I'm wondering if that makes me have no experience whatsoever.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
As a member of Parliament? Come on, David, you've been around long enough. Don't do this. You can do better than this as your starting gambit.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
If you're going to take a position, make sure you can defend it, David. If you're going to act like a veteran, then you had better make sure that you're going to be dealt with like a veteran.
Now come on. Nobody here has any real experience on this committee. Come on.
December 10th, 2015 / 11:20 a.m.
Liberal
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
I do want to address that issue, because I think that's a slight against members of this committee. We may not have experience on this committee or in this Parliament, but I for one was the director of parliamentary affairs to the government House leader, and I've been an adviser to a number of parliaments on parliamentary reform with the Global Programme for Parliamentary Strengthening in the United Nations Development Programme. I think you will find that we are not as easily cowed as you think we will be, and I think you'll find that we will contribute fully to this committee.
Liberal
Arnold Chan Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
I want to address Mr. Christopherson's comments.
At the end of the day, this is part of the overall discussion. We still have to ultimately look at what the role of parliamentary secretaries will be. That is the actual function of this particular committee. Let's have that particular conversation, right? At the end of the day, we will determine—