Mr. Chair—
Evidence of meeting #55 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 opposition.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #55 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 opposition.
A video is available from Parliament.
9:25 p.m.
Conservative
9:25 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I had thought of something I wanted to say in French, but then I forgot it.
Mr. Berthold, that is an excellent point. The fact that the government garnered 39% of the vote is perhaps an example of the tyranny of the minority and not of the majority.
As to the tyranny of the majority, we can say that factionalism is the central problem in democratic systems.
Can democratic systems represent the common good, the values and interests of a whole society and not just those of a majority? That is a very important question. That is why we have the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Senate. Different democracies have created various institutions to protect the rights of minorities. The rules of the House also protect those rights. The work of de Tocqueville should be considered, as should The Federalist Papers from the United States, which address the same topics in an interesting way. This is very relevant to our discussions today.
9:30 p.m.
Liberal
Filomena Tassi Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Genuis, for letting me intervene.
I would just like to speak to this question of privilege in the House that you're raising, with respect to the motion that was raised and the process there. I feel compelled to speak, as the member who moved the motion to bring the question of privilege to this committee and to have it studied at this committee. The reason I brought that motion is that we know that PROC is the committee that the question of privilege that was raised would be brought to.
As I have said in the House, this is an important question that we need to look at, and one that we need to spend some time on, because the issue has come up in the last couple of years a couple of times. We know that whatever we've done in the past is not enough to correct the situation, so it is a situation that we do need to turn our minds to at PROC. We know that parliamentarians are working so hard. Oftentimes, those who are working even harder, who may not have the time to get here because they've taken an extra appointment or whatever, need to be assured that when they do make an attempt to get here, they are unfettered and can get here to exercise their vote on behalf of their constituents.
I first want to say that this is an important matter that we do have to look at. That's why I brought forward the motion to bring it to this committee.
The current status of this is that the Speaker did make a ruling that a prima facie case of a question of privilege was there, but then there was an amendment to that motion. The amendment was that it would take precedence at this committee. The result of that would mean that we would stop what we are doing right now and that the motion would be discussed. It would circumvent the business of this committee.
Then, further to that, as I understand it, another subamendment was passed, which put an end date to the time that this committee had to study that.
The point I want to make about that is that I believe it's important that committees be the masters of their agendas. The committees know the work that's ahead of them. They are the ones that should be organizing the order in which they study things, and the priority in which they study them.
I don't know of any other committee that doesn't do that. The concern here is that we don't want to usurp the ability of a committee to determine what it is studying by having a motion brought from the House mandating to committees the order in which they have to study things, and mandating to committees how things are to be done.
I just wanted to get that on the record. I did not bring the motion forward because I didn't think it was an important issue. It is an important issue. But I think it is equally important that committees be the masters of their agendas, that committee members be able to speak and dialogue, and that the committee as a whole decide on what matters they are going to hear and the order in which they're going to hear them.
9:35 p.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
I just want to add that I think what Ms. Tassi brings forward is valid, but I would respond by saying that instructions are given to committees all the time by the House. The House is supreme and paramount in this. Indeed, committees are creatures of the House. Yes, they get to organize their internal affairs, but when bills are passed at second reading, an instruction is given to a committee to commit further study. Furthermore, sometimes motions in the House instruct a committee to do studies on certain subjects. There are many precedents where the House gives specific instructions to committees. If the House so chooses, through a majority vote, it can do that.
That's what I would like to add.
9:35 p.m.
Liberal
Filomena Tassi Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON
Mr. Chair, may I add one quick thing in response?
9:35 p.m.
Liberal
Filomena Tassi Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON
I think it's different for the House to say that they want you to study this than it is for the House to dictate when you're going to study it and what deadline you're going to meet. Yes, the committees do study things, but if we start setting precedents where the House can dictate what things can be usurped.... If you're in the middle of a study and they say, “Drop that study, we want you to do this study,” then now I think we're embarking on dangerous territory. I think the committees have to have that vote. They are the ones that are looking at the studies. As a whole, they can discuss it and then determine the priority.
I understand what you're saying. Yes, issues are directed to committees, and then the committees do in fact have to take a look at the issues that the House directs them to take a look at. I appreciate that.
9:35 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
I have something to add, Mr. Chair. I'd like to know why my colleague is bringing this up right now and taking umbrage with the House's instructing the committee to undertake a study, with or without a deadline attached. That does, after all, reflect the will of the House, further to a vote. I think there are plenty of precedents here, so it would not be a first.
Nevertheless, the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, which I am the vice-chair of, received something I see as much more troubling. It was a letter signed by two ministers—the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard—strongly encouraging the committee to undertake a study of the Navigable Waters Protection Act to review the previous government's changes to the act.
Not only, then, did the government use two ministers to impose a study on the committee, but it also imposed the outcome of that study on the committee. Quite frankly, that is outrageous. I think all committees should stand up and fight, doing everything in their power to keep that from happening.
Unfortunately, however, we know all too well that, when a committee receives such an instruction, most of the time, the government majority throws its support behind the ministers and agrees with their decision or recommendation. That's what happened. Despite the opposition's objections, the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities was forced to study the Navigable Waters Protection Act for the purpose of reviewing the changes made by the previous government.
As a committee, we were directed by ministers to not only undertake a specific study, but also steer that study towards a specific outcome. I will let you guess what the government recommended in the report on the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
I understand where my colleague is coming from, but I think some instructions are much more worrisome than those that come from the House, to which all members belong. When an instruction comes from the executive branch, forcing a committee to study an issue that is not even on its work plan, and all of the committee's work gets disrupted because of that request from the executive branch, well, I think that is cause for greater concern than a request from the House.
9:40 p.m.
Liberal
9:40 p.m.
Liberal
Filomena Tassi Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON
Thank you for that question, Monsieur Berthold. You've asked me to respond to two points.
First, there is a very clear difference between strongly encouraging or asking a committee to study something and mandating the agenda of the committee. So yes, committees of course are listening to the House and saying, yes, we're going to take on that study. Absolutely. That's the way the House works. Then committees go back to the House and give them information on the study. But for the House to have the ability to come here, stop what we're studying, drop another study on top, and tell us the order in which we study—in other words, they determine our agenda—is very different from the House saying that we want you to look upon this.
So that's the first question. There's the distinction between encouraging a study or asking a committee to undertake a study, which is what we're here for—that's what we entertain and that's what we do—as opposed to saying that you're studying this, and you're studying it now, and you're going to have a report by June 29.
I'm bringing this up for two reasons. One is that Mr. Genuis brought it up today, but he's not the only one. It has been brought up over the past 500 or whatever hours we've been on. Over that time, this issue has been raised a number of times with respect to the question of privilege at this committee. I think as the mover of the motion in the House, it's important that I go on record as saying that this question is important. I don't want it misunderstood that I don't think it's an important question. It is an important question.
So I wanted to explain that, but also to offer a bit of concern with regard to the way in which the motion was put forward, because I think in terms of some of the criticism we're getting, you're doing the exact same thing. There's the mandating with dates. For example, in Mr. Simms' motion I think there was a date. We're criticized because there's a date, but then in your motion there's a date too.
I don't want to start getting nitpicky, because that's not what this is about. It's not about nitpicking. I just want to go on the record with why I put that motion on and the concerns I have with the motion that the Conservatives put forward in response.
Does that answer your questions?
9:40 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Yes, in part.
Do you agree that, when ministers ask a committee to conduct a study, they can require the committee to carry out that study, and, in the letter to that effect, they can already recommend that the committee's findings be geared towards a specific outcome? As I see it, that is much more troubling.
That said, my comment is based only on what happened. There are two ways to proceed. The House can give an instruction, which comes from all members. That is one way to give work to committees, which, in my view, have to supply the House with information. I believe the role of committees is indeed to inform the House so that members can make sound decisions. From time to time, the House needs committees to study certain matters so that members can, then, make laws and regulations—basically, do their job as members.
My concern, however, is that committees could become the minions of the executive branch. That is why I wanted to distinguish between requests that come from the House and those that come from ministers. The opposition has a duty to bring these problems to light and let the public know what is going on so that they can see that there is really a difference between the work that parliamentarians do and the work that ministers' offices do. Ministerial staff carry out the work of the executive branch, whereas we, here, carry out the work of the legislative branch. I just wanted to end our little discussion on that point.
9:45 p.m.
Liberal
Filomena Tassi Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON
On that other matter, I don't have any knowledge of that. I haven't seen the letter. I'm not on that committee—
9:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
To wrap this up, because I want to get back to Mr. Genuis's main arguments, on committees, from page 994 of O'Brien and Bosc, there's a whole paragraph, which says about studies that they are:
...sometimes mandatory, but are usually permissive. A mandatory instruction orders the committee to consider a specific matter or conduct a study in a particular way.
These are all possible.
Mr. Genuis, let's get back on track here.
9:45 p.m.
Conservative