Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Dec. 10th, 2015

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Good morning, everyone.

This is meeting number two of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Today we will be considering committee business.

I'm going to state the obvious for some of you guys who have been here for a long time and you might be hearing things that you already understand, but there are some new members. We usually start all the committees with routine business. At the beginning of a session, committees normally agree to a number of routine motions to facilitate the organization of their work. These routine motions are generally the same in all committees, with some exceptions or variations. A committee can adopt whatever motions it wants; however, and if they wish, members are certainly free not to adopt them. We'll be doing them one by one.

We will now proceed with routine motions. We have a paper copy this time if you want it. It was also distributed to you in that briefing book at the first meeting in the attachment. We have paper copies if anyone wants them. We'll distribute them now.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

We're still trying to figure out [Technical Difficulty—Editor] the source and where it's going to, so my apologies.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay. The messenger is going to do it.

The ones we're distributing are the ones that were used as a base last time around. Obviously there will need to be a few minor administrative amendments, but anything the committee wants to discuss as well....

We'll do each motion separately. If anyone is using their iPad, the motions are in section 5 of the committee briefing book, which is accessible from the “other documents” icon. Normally, in the future, you will get all the documents electronically, so if you want paper copies for the committee, you should print them out and bring them.

Mr. Reid.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I must remember to call you that from now on, Larry.

I wanted to ask something. I'm not sure if you can answer this or if the clerks can answer this. Are all of these routine motions the same as they were as adopted—not as presented at the first meeting, but as adopted—in the last Parliament? Are there any changes from the way they were as adopted by this committee—they can be two different things—in the 41st Parliament?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

I'll let the clerk answer that question.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Joann Garbig]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yes, the text was extracted from the minutes of the meeting in October 2013 when these motions were adopted by the committee.

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

Okay. Is this a reasonable time in the meeting for me to raise specific questions with regard to individual items here? Should I wait for a different point in the meeting for the purposes of allowing the meeting to flow smoothly?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We're going to do each of them one by one, so when it comes to the one you want to talk about, then bring that point up.

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

That sounds fine to me. So this is literally what was adopted in October 2013.

[The Clerk]

Yes.

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

All right.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Chair, I would like to pick up on the structural issue of the parliamentary secretaries, just to finish that off. I notice that there has been some change from the last meeting. We're not at the full promise yet, but we've managed to go in the right direction at least three places. My question remains, Chair. I'm seeing six members. I think the government gets six. One of them is Mr. Lamoureux, who is the parliamentary secretary.

Correct me if I'm wrong, please. I want to get this clarified, because it affects all the committees. If you don't mind, Chair, this is the first one, and it matters.

Through you, I will ask Mr. Lamoureux this.

The commitment from the government was that you were looking seriously, if you hadn't outright committed, at pulling parliamentary secretaries off the committees, since, at least you could argue, having them on committees impedes the independence of the members, given that the parliamentary secretary can use the whip structure to, if nothing else, put pressure on the members to follow the parliamentary secretary. Goodness gracious, if people don't—trust me—there's going to be trouble. You don't have to comment, but we all know how this works.

I think it's a great idea to give the committees more independence. We supported it. I think we're trying to be more like the mother ship in Britain, where they're really seen to be a lot more independent than our committees are. We have a long way to go, but one of those first good steps was the notion from the government that it would pull parliamentary secretaries from the committees.

Again, I raised that the other day. Mr. Lamoureux said he was going to give me an answer. So far, the only answer I see is that he's a voting member of the committee, and he's moved down three chairs. I can assure you the whip effect of a majority government is not affected by whether he sits there or there.

If I could, I'd like to get some clarification from Mr. Lamoureux that the government is going to pull parliamentary secretaries off the committees, because it would seem to me that this is going to set the pattern. Given that the government says it wants to do more work by committee where members can be more and more independent, I fail to see how his presence today supports that goal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Christopherson, the House of Commons passed a motion regarding who is on this committee. Mr. Lamoureux is not a voting member of this committee. He's like any other member of Parliament. He's welcome to sit in. I'm the sixth government member on the committee.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Okay. I accept that. So he's not a voting member, but he's still here, and he still carries the clout of a majority government and the will of the Prime Minister.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Well, he's here, as are, I hope, all parliamentary secretaries, to provide information from the minister.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Are you going to defend him, now, Chair? Is that your role? Are you defending the government position?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

I'm defending that the parliamentary secretary is here to provide information from the minister.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

No, I'm sorry, Chair. Larry, I'm sorry. This is not going to work, man.

You're an independent chair. We'll battle out the partisan aspects, but I don't want to have to fight you too on a partisan issue. With great respect, sir—and I mean this—it sounds to me as though you're acting like a government member defending something the government is doing, when what you should be doing is refereeing us as we wrestle this issue to the ground.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Lamoureux.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Christopherson, I appreciate the concerns you have. I think that as much as possible, we need to be sensitive as to why we're actually here. I have a vested interest in this particular committee, and as do other members of the House of Commons, I have the right to be present.

I suspect that many of the things that take place in the procedure and House affairs committee will have some direct and indirect impact on the whole issue of what's taking place in the House. I'll use the Standing Orders as an example. I like to think my expertise might be of benefit to committee members.

I think you underestimate the important role as defined by the Prime Minister that committees have. He wants to see committees being more proactive and productive in engaging with all members. All members of this committee—all the Liberal members, and I'm sure you and the Conservative members—will contribute through healthy debate to whatever is on the agenda. If I can assist or contribute in any way, I look forward to doing that.

As one of the committee members, I can tell you that I have no intentions of voting. I am not a voting member of the committee, nor as a parliamentary secretary have I asked to be a voting member. I like to think I'm here to complement the members who are on the committee, and nothing more than that.

You'll find that the members on the committee representing the government are very independent in their thinking. If there are ways in which I can be here to support them, I'm more than happy to do that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Reid.

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

Mr. Chair, I just wanted to say a couple of things.

One, I can see that our clerk is right. These really are the motions that came from 2013. We'll have to read them carefully, because they do say such things as “that Dave Mackenzie be appointed” chair of the subcommittee on private members' business, which was what we wanted at the time; it was a government member. Another spot in there refers to the number of seats and kind of assumes that the New Democrats are here, the Liberals are there, and the Conservatives are over on that side of the House.

My point is that, yes, these really are what we adopted. That confirms, of course, that Mr. Lamoureux is not on the committee.

I have a couple of suggestions regarding Mr. Lamoureux' role. It's not my place to say how he'll choose to conduct himself, but I have a suggestion just for clarity.

Kevin, you don't have to do this, but I would suggest that you sit at that end so that it's clear that these are the members of the committee, and anybody can see that you're not actually on the committee. You're just sitting at the table to listen and so on. That's the system we had when Elizabeth May came to this committee to deal with private members' business. She sat separately. It became clear that she was there not as a regular member of the committee.

That's one thing, and it's just a suggestion. You don't have to do that. It's just an idea. It reflects informal practices.

The second thing, though, is that if you're not a member of the committee, I think you actually have to get the unanimous consent of the committee to speak every time. I could be wrong, but I think that might be the case.

I see that the clerk has anticipated me and is pointing to the rules, so maybe we could get clarification on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

One second: can you add Mr. Graham to the list?

[A voice]

Yes.