Evidence of meeting #56 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 clerk.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC

March 23.

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

Arnold Chan Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON

Yes, so we would need to see the clock now, finally, at May 4.

We have some substantive business, particularly the matter that has been referred from the House. Can I seek my colleagues' consent to perhaps have a bit of a discussion on how we move forward, given that we now have an empty table? All the dates that we had previously filled in on the calendar, obviously, have now passed us and we need to have some consideration of how we move forward.

Sorry, Mr. Graham. I'll cede the floor to you.

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC

I'm just going to ask one quick question of my colleagues. Given the motion we passed at the beginning of PROC, do you want to proceed with this part of the discussions in camera or in public? I leave it to your discretion.

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON

We're essentially moving to dealing with agenda, so that is a good question.

11:10 a.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Given the nature, though, of the matter we're dealing with, which is our access, and everybody knows what it is, could I suggest maybe that, rather than just immediately diving in camera, we can at least start talking about the structure? I think we did that the last time. In fact, I believe the whole thing was public the last time.

I stand to be corrected, Chair, but my understanding is that we did the whole thing publicly, and then it was only when we were doing our report or our deliberations that we went in camera. At the very least I would suggest that we talk about the structure of how we're going to approach this. I would suggest that, unless we run into something that suggests that we need to go in camera—and this is the point at which we would normally find it—there is no reason to immediately go in camera. Given that—to again repeat myself—we did the whole process last time publicly. There's no reason we shouldn't at least start publicly, and if somebody wants to make a case along the way that we should go in camera, make your case.

For now there's no real reason to go in camera, so let's get at it.

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

Arnold Chan Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON

I agree. I'm fine with staying in public.

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Is everyone fine with that?

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC

I think we're all on the same page. That's fine with me.

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Okay. Good.

Just while everyone is so flexible and happy, could I go a little bit off the schedule, just for a second?

If we want to make a comment on the estimates, we have to do it before May 31. We should agree on what day we might try to get those witnesses, because we need the Clerk of the House, protective services, and electoral officer people.

11:15 a.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

I have a procedural question, Chair, to you and the clerk. I don't know the answer to this.

Given that it's an order of the House, and the House has actually directed that we deal with this, are we allowed to move off it to deal with anything else, given that the House is supreme to us? Even though technically we're the masters of our own destiny, the House is the boss. Could I get clarification on that, please?

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

That's a good question.

The clerk thinks that because this is a precedent, and because there is this extreme deadline on the estimates, that if we agreed unanimously it probably wouldn't be a problem.

11:15 a.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

That's interesting, so by unanimous consent we can thwart the will of the House. That's good to know.

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

The House has also given this other deadline for estimates.

11:15 a.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Yes, so technically we'd go back to the House to ask which one is the priority.

I don't want to get lost in the weeds on this, but it's an interesting question when we're dealing with dictating our agenda.

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Yes.

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC

We already set a precedent a second ago when we unanimously withdrew another motion. That was by unanimous consent outside of the scope of what we're supposed to be doing.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON

My understanding is that, whenever you do something by unanimous consent, part of what happens is that you are not setting a precedent, so that gets you around that difficulty. I think that in a sense that's a fiction; you actually are setting a precedent to some degree.

I think what would happen is that, if we were to do something that was actually egregious in the eyes of the House, someone could raise it in the House and say, “This represents a separate violation of privilege”, if there was some kind of ongoing problem with privilege that was being held up. Since this was actually Mr. Nater's point of privilege, and the rights therefore.... I realize that he was not the one who was delayed, but it's his point of privilege so he probably could speak to that. What I'm getting at here is that there is an avenue to deal with that, and my suspicion is that we won't have a problem in the House with someone raising that which we can get confirmation on.

11:15 a.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

I don't think it's going to be a problem. It's just interesting for those who care about these things. But I agree. I think by unanimous consent we can do just about anything. If we're all in agreement, who up there should have a problem? Things would have to be pretty wacky.

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

Arnold Chan Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON

My only point, too, is that it's theoretical. It depends on how long we think we need. We should have a conversation on how long we think it's going to take to dispense with Mr. Nater's privilege motion. My suggestion is that we might want to submit witness lists by, let's say, this Friday.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON

Is that tomorrow?

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

Arnold Chan Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON

It's tomorrow. This is not the first time. This has happened before, so we already have a sense of it. Even in the previous Parliament, there were two specific instances of similar incidents, and we knew what the witnesses.... We called the Speaker. We called the head of the PPS.

11:15 a.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

It's only 24 hours. That's pretty tight.

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

Arnold Chan Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON

I don't think it precludes us from adding additional witnesses after that.

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC

If the witness testimony takes us to more witnesses, I don't think anyone's going to have a problem with calling more witnesses. What's the grounding? Let's get the first few meetings planned here.

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

Arnold Chan Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON

We just have to figure out what to do for next Tuesday.