Evidence of meeting #4 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 things.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Andre Barnes  Committee Researcher

12:45 p.m.

Liberal

Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON

It was inclusive Parliament.

12:45 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

“Inclusive Parliament”, I like that better.

If we just focus on that as a starting point, we can broaden this quickly if we want to. That way, we'll come to a meeting and we'll all be ready with our thoughts on that. That seems to be the one that we're most interested in, because it affects day-to-day life. We want to get it in place, try it out, and amend it down the road if we need to.

Maybe we'll do just that one item, Chair. It's complex enough.

12:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Mr. Richards.

12:45 p.m.

Conservative

Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB

I certainly agree in principle with the approach being suggested here. My only concern is with logistics.

As our member on the subcommittee, I would really find it difficult to get the input I would need from my caucus that quickly. Obviously, we meet once a week as a caucus. That would probably be a good opportunity to get that so we would be able to do that next week and come with the input from my caucus, but I don't really feel that I'd be doing it proper justice.

Maybe we want to look at doing that right after the break or something.

12:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Okay. We're going to have a break week, so why don't we schedule for next Tuesday and Thursday some obvious witnesses that we can come up with on the point the House leader made? Then, before the Tuesday after the break, we'll get some feedback from House leaders, whips, or larger caucuses, and that will determine our agenda for those weeks.

12:45 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

That's probably a good idea, because it will also help inform us as to what is doable and what isn't, and we would be equipped to talk to our caucuses and then have a knowledge-based discussion. I like it.

12:45 p.m.

Liberal

Arnold Chan Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON

I would just remind you that we still have to deal with your motion.

12:45 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

I appreciate that.

12:45 p.m.

Liberal

Arnold Chan Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON

My point is that it might eat up a significant part of Tuesday.

I want to get back to my earlier point. I was just saying that there are very specific ideas within each of the inclusive Parliament concepts. I'm saying let's limit it to no more than three concepts that each caucus would bring to the table.

One other idea I just want to throw on the table is whether we also want to invite any sort of deposition coming from members who are not part of a recognized party. I'm just putting that out there for everyone to consider.

12:50 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Do you mean in public, if they want to come down and make a submission?

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Arnold Chan Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON

That's exactly my point. We all have the same privileges as members.

12:50 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

I know. I'm saying that maybe we should invite other members who want to come forward to make presentations and talk about their personal issues, so they're not just speaking to their own caucus but actually speaking to all of us about their issue. That would include the independents.

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Ms. Sahota.

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON

I agree. I think it's important to have that perspective. I agree that we should have the clerks here, but the members are the ones who are living it, day to day, and they have the personal experience and knowledge behind it. I think somebody who's been here for years could speak to it properly, and then someone new could, so we would get a good cross-section of members.

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

What if we invited to the Thursday meeting next week any member of Parliament who wanted to appear before us on these types of topics?

Before we leave, though, I would want to refine down what that type of topic is.

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

I think we have to be somewhat careful with that, in the sense that I could envision getting a number of Bloc members, for example, coming in and saying that what they want is party status and they want to change the standing order to reflect that party status. What they want, even without the party status, is to have Bloc representation. It might take us off the focus in terms of what it is that we're really trying to do.

If the idea is “family friendly” or other terminology, whatever is best for the committee, I think we need to have a better idea of what we want. We can always open it up for everyone to provide comment on this; then at least they have a sense of the package if they want to add further comment. My concern is that it becomes very convoluted really quickly. At some point, the Bloc and all people should be engaged in it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they should be excluded from the process, but I think we need to have a better sense of the direction that we want go in.

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Ms. Sahota.

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON

I think there are ways around solving that problem, such as maybe getting past parliamentarians. As Mr. Reid was asking Mr. Christopherson earlier, “Have you been both in the legislative assembly and an MP on the Hill?” Maybe it's about finding people with both experiences or perspectives. Somebody who is not currently serving might help alleviate that problem.

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Mr. Graham.

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC

I have a very quick idea to throw out here without having thought it through that much. What about inviting some spouses to come and speak about the real experience of being married into this crazy job?

12:50 p.m.

Voices

Oh, oh!

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Mr. Reid.

12:50 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON

It's an interesting thought, actually. A number of the people who retired at the end of the last Parliament surprised me. I'm not going to mention names because it may be that in some cases health concerns were the real driving force. But they were people who would have been re-elected—they were in essentially secure seats—and they seemed to be enjoying their jobs.

There are people from not just the last Parliament but a number of the previous Parliaments who might be able to shed some light on this. With a bit of judicious searching, I'm sure we could find some people who could explain what the particular stresses were that they faced and caused them to leave. That's a possibility.

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Just so we don't run out of town, I mean time—

12:50 p.m.

An hon. member

Is that a Freudian slip, Chair?