Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 19th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Good morning. This is meeting number 23 of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for the first session of the 42nd Parliament. This meeting is being held in public. Our first item of business is the proposed change in Standing Order 28(3) concerning the meeting time of the House in an emergency situation. Members received a note on the subject, and on page 3 of the note there's a motion for consideration. Members working from their iPads can find the note with the documents for today's meeting.

The second item, then, will be the drafting instructions for a report on the initiatives towards the family-friendly House of Commons, which will be in camera.

The next meeting would be on Tuesday, May 31. The acting clerk and law clerk will return to answer questions on the question of privilege concerning premature disclosure of the contents of Bill C-14.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Did you say that will be the Tuesday right after the break?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Yes, it's our first meeting back, May 31.

Is there a mover for the motion?

Mr. Chan.

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

I want to discuss the matter first. We talked about this earlier with respect to the first item on the agenda, Mr. Chair. I think that, given the circumstances with respect to members' privileges, we should look at everything as a totality, as a package, in terms of its impact on members' privileges. Therefore, I might suggest that we simply defer the first matter on the agenda for future discussion.

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

I'm not sure [Inaudible--Editor].

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

This is the emergency motion that was referred to us by the Speaker.

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

Arnold, I think you're worried that it would take up some time. I was just going to make the modest suggestion that we can actually probably dispose of it in under five minutes. Would that be acceptable? For the queuing of an item, it's just out of the way.

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

Given the context of what's happened with respect to issues of members' privileges—and this also has an impact with respect to members' privileges—in retrospect I'm basically saying that now maybe we might want to think about this within the totality of members' privileges as a whole.

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

Okay, maybe I'll just get on the record—

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

You had also spoken, Scott, with respect to your seeking some instructions from your House leader on this.

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

Right.

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

I'd be curious to have a sense of where you're going on this.

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

That's all I wanted to say. I did speak to our House leader, of course, the former speaker of the House, and this was after he had spoken with our chair and they'd reviewed it together. He confirmed to our chair that he could see no improvement that he thought was needed to the wording as submitted by the Speaker. Notwithstanding my trusting nature, I wanted to go and confirm that independently, so I did that and I can report back that as far the government House leader goes—who knows more than anybody on this side of the House—there is no need to change anything in the wording.

That's all I wanted to get on the record.

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

Do you mean the opposition House leader?

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

Yes. It's a force of habit, sorry.

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

No problem. I appreciate your updating us with respect to Mr. Scheer's position. I simply raise the concern that it's just popped into my head in the last little while, especially given the context of what happened yesterday, and the activities of the past week. I think we should look at everything as a total package.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thanks. I don't know about the total package stuff. I don't quite fully understand what's being referred to there. I understand what he's referring, but I'm not sure what he means by the “whole package”, and what context this should be put in. I'm more than willing to listen and consider what's being said.

The NDP has had an outstanding problem with the language around consultation from the beginning. We've identified it that way. There has not been a resolution to it, so we're not in a position to give our support to it until we get that resolved, Chair.

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

Rather than moving to the question, Mr. Chair, I would propose that we simply defer the matter, especially given that we now also have a member of the opposition who has some concerns as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

There's a proposal to defer the matter.

Scott, and then David.

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

I'm not sure what Mr. Christopherson meant by “consultation”. I just want to ask him to explain.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Fair enough. The language proposed, if you take a look at “Key Elements of the New Standing Order”, says, at the third bullet point, “Consultation with all officially recognized parties is necessary for the Speaker to exercise this power”. Our concern is consultation in these kinds of situations often amounts to just telling. We're looking for a bigger commitment than just consultation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Did you want to come back with other proposed wording for the next time we discuss this?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'm in your hands as to procedure. This has been our concern. It's no surprise. We've had that there for some time. It remains, and I'm open to any process you want to offer up, Chair, that will help us resolve it. I just can't give my support to agreeing to it today for that reason. Mr. Chan has other reasons. It looks to me as though it's not likely going to carry.

The question becomes what we are going to do with it so we can dispose of it, given that we're talking about one singular item that shouldn't get us this tied up in knots.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Why don't we, if everyone agrees, take this off the agenda now and we'll bring it back when there are a few minutes?