Evidence of meeting #23 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 excuses.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:10 a.m.
NDP
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
11:10 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
If you want, I can throw the language on the floor for people to chew on. The language we're looking for is, “agreement of all parties”, rather than “consultation with...parties”.
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Okay, so people can take that back to their parties and we'll bring that up when we....
11:10 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
It's “the agreement of all parties” as opposed to “consultation with”.
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
It's in the second bullet.
We'll discuss that option when we bring that back.
Mr. Richards.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
My understanding is that following the break, your intention, all things being as they are now, would be to proceed with the point of privilege that was raised and referred to our committee. Obviously, in light of yesterday's point of privilege, it sounds as though quite likely it will be referred to this committee, given its seriousness. They're both serious, obviously, but given the very unusual and highly precedent-setting kinds of circumstances that we saw take place there, and the fact that there was actual injury to a member of Parliament.... I'm not referring to the physical injury of the Prime Minister elbowing the member. I'm referring to the injury caused by her having to miss a vote as a result, and therefore the injury cost to her constituents. That's obviously quite a significant event. I would assume that it may be given precedence over that other matter.
Obviously we can't deal with something that isn't before us yet. I understand that.
In the event that things remain as they are now, and that's the point of privilege that we will be dealing with, I had asked a couple of times in the past about one of the witnesses I believe we should have, which would be the Minister of Justice. Obviously we've had some issues getting ministers of this government to appear at committee in the past. They've cited scheduling challenges. I wanted to just get a sense.... I had asked that we prescreen the dates and determine the availability of the minister so we don't get those excuses again. I'm wondering what the result of that has been.
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
May 19th, 2016 / 11:10 a.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Ms. Joann Garbig
Thank you, Chair.
I did advise the department that the committee may invite the minister and her officials in June.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
What was the response? My understanding is that we were looking to make sure that there were not going to be excuses. We wanted to check and make sure the availability would be there. Was there any indication given? I'm really quite concerned, given the past experience we've had with the Minister of Democratic Institutions, that we're going to get excuses for her not being available. I don't think that's acceptable and I want to make sure we have indicated that she needs to make herself available. We're not just saying, “We might call you.” We need to know that she is available.
The problem I have is that, in good faith I think, we as opposition members have said that we have a couple of things we're trying to finish dealing with, and that's great, let's do that. But a point of privilege is an important matter and we made it clear that those would likely be the witnesses we would call. I don't think it's appropriate for the Liberal government to then say, “We didn't really realize the minister needed to appear”, and create excuses. That's what I'm concerned will happen.
I just want to make sure that we've been clear that we intend for her to be here, and that we should be giving her this committee's schedule and saying, “Give us the dates you're available”, so we can pre-clear that.
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
The committee asked that we advise the minister that we would be calling her in June. We did write that. I can't remember the wording of the letter.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
We should immediately ask for a response in terms of her availability during that time.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
I'm not sure the committee has confirmed that we're inviting her.
Mr. Chan.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
Arnold Chan Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
That was exactly the point. I appreciate the point you're making, Blake, but I think at the end of the day we're dealing with a hypothetical. Let's see what we're dealing with. I recognize that we are seized of that particular issue of privilege before this committee. Let's have our meeting with the law clerk on the 31st, and we'll proceed from there. The clerk can advise us if we have a response from the Minister of Justice's office.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
We just better not get excuses. We've had them in the past. We don't want to see excuses again. I would certainly hope that is not what we're going to see from the government side. These things need to be dealt with. Excuses and delays are just not acceptable, so I hope that's not the intention here.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
I can tell you from any conversations I've had—probably more than you've had, but not a lot—there's been no intention to do that.
We'll move on to the drafting instructions for our Library of Parliament analysts in camera. We'll have to suspend for one minute.
11:15 a.m.
NDP
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Okay, moved by David, seconded by Scott, we go in camera. Anyone opposed?
(Motion agreed to)
[Proceedings continue in camera]