Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 21st, 2017

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Well, I—

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

—is not sort of preconditioning to excuse himself to continue to deny consent to televise and to have this meeting be accountable to Canadians. I hope that's not what he's doing here. If it's something else, then I guess we're all confused about his point, but if it is to try to deny that accountability to Canadians, I hope he'll think twice.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I'm quite happy to go on camera. I just want to make sure we have very clear rules once we get there, which is that when we want the floor in this discussion, we get it.

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

I think we're already there except for—

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

But the problem and the irony that I see is that you're telling us you would not want that in writing because we want to go on the basis of trust, and that's what we're saying on the original motion that Mr. Simms moved three days ago.

[An hon. member]

No—

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

I think what Mr. Kmiec is saying is that we'll follow the rules we've been following all along, which is standard procedure. I don't know what else you could possibly do. Of course, the speaker who has the floor always has the right to finish their point or whatever, and if unanimous consent is sought, of course a member has that right to deny it.

We can't speak for what someone might or might not do in the future. All we're saying is that we would intend to conduct ourselves the way we've conducted ourselves all along. The same rules have always applied. It seems to be what Mr. Simms is seeking. I'm unsure of your point here.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

My point is that you want us to proceed on trust, and I'm asking for the same thing. That's all.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Yes.

If I may, I'll add to that. I don't think it's—what term would I use?—courteous to challenge Mr. Graham's point. I think he's making a legitimate point. Situations might come up that haven't come up in the past, where someone takes the floor and the other side.... So far, it hasn't arisen, but it could arise that someone takes the floor, they stand, and the other side then would challenge and take the floor back. That hasn't happened, so we want to make sure, if we move forward in this way, that the person who is asking to speak will be extended the courtesy that has taken place thus far and will not be cut off prematurely. That's the courtesy that we're asking for in this.

With respect to Mr. Graham's point about Mr. Kmiec's intervention, Mr. Richards, I disagree with what you're saying, because if it was as is, then Mr. Kmiec wouldn't have made the intervention that he just made. He is asking us to go on trust, as Mr. Graham is pointing out. If you can't follow that logic or you don't agree with it, it's one thing, but to say that logic doesn't exist is another.

Mr. Graham is right in what he is presenting and saying, and I want to go on record as supporting that. We can disagree with the logic, but the point he's making is an absolutely accurate point.

Thank you.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I can't agree or disagree, because I didn't understand what he said.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I can't agree or disagree, which is not the point. David usually has very insightful comments. I guess that's why we're focused on it a little. I normally do understand, and they're usually original ideas and well worth considering.

I appreciate where my friend Filomena Tassi is going, but I want to come right back to what Mr. Simms was asking. What he wanted to do was ensure that we weren't going to harden up our lines of interaction between each other and that the process that we've been offering each other, which is to respectfully ask to just comment on a few things that were said or that sort of thing.... Mr. Simms was seeking the assurance that we would continue that respectful courtesy to each other.

Mr. Richards and I are indicating on behalf of our respective caucus that, yes, we would continue to act in the same fashion and show that discretion and that respect, but recognizing that my friend had just asked to be 100% assured that it didn't mean—which it didn't before—that if one of us is talking all of a sudden the government has the right to just stop us and take the floor away. While Mr. Graham was seeking a refinement, I think that Mr. Kmiec was seeking to do the same thing.

To come back to the point, Scott, yes, on the courtesy we've been showing, our intent is to show that, and we would expect you to call us on it if we don't.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Thank you.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Can we get the same assurance from Mr. Richards?

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

Yes. Obviously, we've been indicating from the beginning that the idea here is that we would try to work together, as we have been doing the whole time, and if there are points that someone has to make, many of us have given that opportunity, but I would agree that the point Mr. Kmiec was trying to make was that you can't allow for the ability of someone to choose to interrupt someone whenever they want.

There's common courtesy that could apply here, and obviously, to ask for the consent of the person speaking, which is what has been occurring all along, is reasonable. For someone to expect that there be this automatic right for someone to choose to usurp someone's ability to have the floor would be unreasonable. All we're saying here is, yes, we'll continue to conduct ourselves as we have, as the members of my party have.

I don't know if it was asked when you were speaking, Mr. Christopherson, but several members of my party have offered the floor to government members to make some points, out of reasonableness, and that's what we're trying to seek here. All we're seeking in our amendment is for the government to do the same in return when we talk about what the substance of the matter is. Clearly, that's the principle we continue to want to abide by, so you have my assurance of that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Ms. Tassi.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Just to clarify and succinctly say it: that permission will not be unreasonably withheld.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That is correct, as we've been doing thus far.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Does anyone else want to speak on this?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

No, as just a friendly suggestion—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

I think I've built a bookshelf shorter than this debate that took place.... I'm sorry. I didn't mean to be facetious, but yes, do vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay. Is there unanimous consent to televise, this afternoon after question period?

[An hon. member]

After the votes.