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.
11 p.m.
Conservative
11 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Sometimes things can come up.
I want to thank our House leader for excellent work and that intervention.
I don't know if this has been done yet today, but I'd like to recognize all the staff here. In particular, my friend Sean Murphy is here. The Liberals wouldn't recognize him. He's the guy who does all the great work for us in the lobby. This is the guy you want to put on your dart board when we're doing very effective things in the House because he's the guy who's plotting it all out.
11 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I don't know why he's here because he works so hard all day in the House. Now he's back for more here—
11 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
While you're on that, a big hand for the interpreters, the House of Commons staff, and the technicians; they're staying late.
11 p.m.
Conservative
11 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
You're included in that, Mr. Chair. I think there is also one other person that you didn't recognize and that's yourself.
Through this whole thing, the hardest job of all has been yours. Staff can rotate in and out, and members of the committee are able to rotate in and out, but you are the chair and you're not able to do that. You've had some days where you've been here 15 hours.
11 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
On that point, Chair, you still look very fresh and easygoing.
11 p.m.
Liberal
11 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's good that you're being recognized. Part of this is about preserving your ability, as a private member, to bring back at some point that excellent bill on FASD. Hopefully, we'll get that passed.
I would like to thank the interpreters. It must make their job especially tough when I speak French.
I was speaking about the balance between the House and the Senate. I don't think any member here would disagree in principle that the democratically elected House should, in a certain sense, be the primary decision-making House. The purpose of the Senate is to provide that review and sober second thought, propose amendments, and send those amendments back to the House for consideration.
If we found ourselves in a situation where a person who was deciding if they would rather be a member of the elected House or a member of the Senate, and they thought, I would prefer the Senate because then I'll have more influence on policy, that would be a very unfortunate situation. It would have the potential to create all kinds of other perverse incentives, where members of the House of Commons would be, through their behaviour in the House of Commons, seeking appointment to the Senate. Yet we find ourselves in such a situation already, because of the desire of the Prime Minister to create a non-partisan Senate, and effectively, through these Standing Orders changes imposed unilaterally, a more partisan House of Commons. So then the role of the member in the House of Commons is weakened and more likely to be subsumed into the role of the party, while the role of the senator is strengthened.
I've described a case example, Bill C-14, in which effectively the same amendment became law because it passed in the Senate, even though it was rejected in the House of Commons. There are other examples. We had a change made in the Senate, I would argue a positive change, but nonetheless a change that happened in the Senate. I believe it was Bill C-4, which was the government's legislation with respect to unions. The amendment in the Senate was designed to protect the right of workers to have a secret ballot. Of course, in the House of Commons the opposition took that position, but it wasn't passed. Yet it passed in the Senate even though Conservatives don't have a majority in the Senate. That was a good amendment that passed in the Senate.
While we're seeing this trend towards a more non-partisan Senate, let's make sure we are strengthening and not weakening the roles of members of Parliament. Unfortunately we see, through all of the changes proposed to the Standing Orders, an effort to relatively weaken the role of members of Parliament and to strengthen the role of the government.
If we proceed under a framework established by the amendment, or under a different model, because, as our House leader has discussed, there's a range of different ways in which we could have this discussion that ensure there is a consensus of parties.... It could happen at this committee, in the form of the motion with the amendment. It could happen in a different forum set up specifically for that purpose. It is important that we ensure the protection of the role of private members. There are all kinds of ideas that are not at all touched on in this discussion paper, which I think, actually—
11:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Mr. Genuis, if this is a good time, there are just a couple of things I forgot.
Someone has left an iPad on the corner of the desk there. If it belongs to no one here, the clerk will take it at the end of the day. Does anyone know whose that is?
The other thing is, as for all our other late meetings, the buses will run half an hour after the meeting. If you leave here and you can get to the bus within half an hour it will take you to the parking lots.
Sorry, I didn't want to interrupt too much because I'm really excited to get to that book.
11:05 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Yes, I have a copy in front of me of The Complete Stories of Flannery O'Connor, which are always germane, I think, to our understanding of this issue, but more broadly to the human condition and how that informs our discussion of these issues. I don't know if I'll have time to get to Flannery O'Connor this evening. Members may have to wait for a subsequent intervention on the—
11:10 p.m.
Liberal
11:10 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Perhaps, yes. If, during the Easter break, members are interested in preparing themselves for that intervention, I would certainly recommend this volume, The Complete Stories by Flannery O'Connor.
Before I proceed to that, I want to talk about some of those changes to the Standing Orders that would empower—
11:10 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Do I have permission?
11:10 p.m.
Conservative
11:10 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
The Simms' protocol. I only do that to get my name up there, I suppose.
11:10 p.m.
Conservative
11:10 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
I'm beginning to think I do, subconsciously.
Not only that, but wait until you hear this one. I've got a better example than that.
He talked about a book that he said was “germane to the conversation”. I too would like to talk about a book that is germane to the conversation.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to turn your attention to Turning Parliament Inside Out, Practical Ideas for Reforming Canada's Democracy. It's coming out in a couple of months. It's edited by Michael Chong, Scott Simms, and Kennedy Stewart. I don't know where the camera is but—
11:10 p.m.
Conservative
