Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 21st, 2017

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

I just have just a question. It's not a point of order.

David, are you going to be speaking at all after John? The only reason I'm asking is that I got a phone call that I would return now if somebody's going to speak for more than five minutes. It won't take me long for the call.

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

Tom, it's extremely rare that I speak for more than five minutes.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[An hon. member]

I could speak for him.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

You're not on the list.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Yes, you can take a 10-minute speech and—

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

Don't you fall for it. I'll hold the floor.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We'll let you back in, Tom.

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

That might be Xavier's opportunity to get involved.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay.

Last night we were captivated by Mr. Nater. We will continue that now, how many hours later...? It's 16 hours later.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Initially, I was not planning to return to retake the floor, but as I was going through different pieces of information yesterday, I did make certain commitments that I might return to the committee to provide that information. I wasn't planning to be here, so I'm probably messing with Luwam's and Kelly's PROC schedule—

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

We're glad you're here.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

—but I am happy to be here to revisit a couple of the points that were raised yesterday. One of those points came up when we were talking about private members' bills and how we vote on them, starting from the back row and then moving forward, which I think is important to show that we can allow backbenchers, individual MPs, to vote without the cue from the party members. I questioned it myself, and the committee seemed to be somewhat interested, so I thought I'd return with the answer about when that came into being.

My staff, being the good researchers they are—Keith Mitchell is sitting behind me—found the citation in O'Brien and Bosc. It comes from page 576. Note 316 says:

See the Thirteenth Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House on November 26, 1997 (Journals, p. 270) and concurred in on November 4, 1998 (Journals, p. 1238). Prior to concurrence in this Report, votes were taken in the same manner but starting with the front row. See the Twenty-Fourth Report of the Standing Committee on House Management presented to the House on February 14, 1992 (Journals, p. 1025), and concurred in on April 29, 1992 (Journals, p. 1337). See also Standing Committee on House Management, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, February 14, 1992, Issue No. 24, p. 17. Prior to 1992, votes were taken along party lines unless a Member sought and received unanimous consent to have the vote taken row-by-row.

That is where this comes from. It is from that committee's 13th report of the 35th Parliament in the second session. Actually, it was a subcommittee on private members' business that gave the instruction and made the recommendation during that Parliament. In the subcommittee report, there were a number of issues dealing with private members' business. It was a relatively extensive report. It was item number five of that report that made that recommendation. That recommendation is:

That, recorded divisions on Private Members’ Business begin with the sponsor of the item, if he or she is present, and then proceed beginning with the back row on the sponsor’s side of the House, and then the back row on the other side.

That's where that comes from. It is from 1998 that it came into being so it is, in the great scheme of parliamentary history, a relatively recent invention. Prior to 1992, private members' business was done by party line. When we're talking about the independence of individual members, this is one symbolic but I think important method. We've seen items in this Parliament and in previous parliaments where an individual piece of legislation on private members' business is undertaken along non-party lines, and we see members standing and not standing as the rows go on. That was the first point I wanted to bring back to the committee.

The second point relates to my previous attendance at the committee previous to that. I walked us through a bit of a history of the election of the Speaker in the Ontario legislature. I didn't get a chance to talk about the House of Commons. I'm not going to talk about it in depth, other than on an interesting point I came across that I wasn't aware of. I was reviewing Senator Forsey's treatise on confidence of the House, and I wanted to point out that initially the election of the Speaker was seen as a confidence measure of the government of the day. Even prior to the Speech from the Throne, the election of the Speaker was seen as a confidence matter. I wanted to bring that back to the committee as well.

Finally, earlier today, Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

When was it a matter of confidence?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

It was before 1986, before it was done by secret ballot.

The final point I wanted to make is was that I spoke with the real parliamentary expert in my family, my two-and-a half-year-old daughter, and she loves the idea of a playground on the Hill, Mr. Chair. In all honesty, I think it is something that would be a worthwhile undertaking for this committee and for the House of Commons.

With that, I want to bring my comments to a close for the time being and—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Through the private sector—

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Sorry? Through the private sector?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Yes, a private sector playground.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

A private sector playground.... I would point out that I am sitting next to Mr. Genuis. Mr. Genuis and I are current colleagues and we're actually former classmates as well. We're both graduates of the Arthur Kroeger College of Public Affairs at Carleton University and are the first two “BPAPMers” elected to Parliament. I'm a couple of years older than Mr. Genuis, but we were contemporaries at the time. With that—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I should interject, just for the reputation of the program, that not everybody who graduates is a Conservative. There were a few Liberals and New Democrats in our class, but clearly they need to pull up their socks.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

In fact, there is a Toronto city councillor, Joe Cressy, a New Democrat, who is also a graduate of our program, so we do have BPAPMers across this country.

I yield the floor now, Mr. Chair, and I thank you for your indulgence.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

I'm going to try to get you added to the committee as the only person who is supporting my playground.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I'm shocked by that.