Evidence of meeting #57 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 security.
A video is available from Parliament.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Thank you.
We have some more time for Mr. Schmale if you want.
Then, I want to talk about what we do at the next meeting.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
May 9th, 2017 / 12:55 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
I have just one question, and it's more to seek your comments.
The process of this privilege debate took a unique turn. It actually stands in my name, rather than your names as it ought to have. Privilege is an ancient concept. We can trace it back to 1689 to the English Bill of Rights, and certainly our British North America Act, the Constitution Act, 1867, section 18 preserves it.
If you review the journals from the day of the Speech from the Throne, there is an elegant statement of the Speaker reasserting privileges of Parliament to the crown, to the Governor General of that day, so it's an important concept.
There was this unfortunate incident where both of you were denied your right to vote because of these matters. Then the issue was never dealt with in the House of Commons. The ability to vote on your initial question of privilege was denied by a vote to proceed to orders of the day, which is unprecedented in Canadian history, causing us to revive it through an alternate means.
I would like your comments on that, that is, how that affected your thinking on this matter. Your privileges were violated, and then they were almost further violated by the inability to vote on this important question of privilege.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Lisa Raitt Conservative Milton, ON
When you rise on a question of privilege, part of it is because you're personally affected; therefore, you feel the need to bring it forth to the House of Commons. The second part is that you don't want it to happen again. You rise as a member of Parliament to ensure that whatever procedure or process caused it is redressed and that you can move on.
I'm grateful, Mr. Nater, for saving us and making sure that we could have this discussion today. I think we'll have very good outcomes if only for having notifications on the timing that is left for those who work for us and protect us at the security checkpoint. In this way, there will be a greater awareness that there is not only a place or people to protect but also a process and an institution to protect.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Maxime Bernier Conservative Beauce, QC
You're right that it is too bad that we were not able to have this debate in the House. However, we're having this debate here, so that's very important. I'm looking forward to your recommendation.
What's most important for me is that my privilege, as a member of Parliament, has been denied. We must know what happened, and I don't want that to happen to another member of Parliament in the future.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Are there any other quick questions from anybody before we go?
Thank you very much. I think this has given us the exact details we need to make good recommendations. We appreciate your taking the time during this busy leadership race. Good luck to you both.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
12:55 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
I want to make sure of what we do at the next meeting. It looks like we can have the estimates a week today. Next Tuesday both the Speaker and the CEO from Elections Canada can make that, so Thursday we'll go on with this as planned.
We'd like to get the reports. The Speaker said we could have the reports, so we'll have those. Hopefully we can get the video, as Blake asked for from PPS. I assume we want PPS to come back on Thursday.
Maybe with all of that, we could give some—
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Would that be possible? Maybe we can give directions for a report after that if we start at 10 and go to 1 again.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
The one o'clock time time frame is when many members have question period preparations to do and whatnot, so that's a bad idea.
12:55 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I can't do that. I'm filling in for somebody else on another committee.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Mr. Chair, I would think there is a high likelihood that there could be other witnesses as well, so I don't think we're going to get to our report.
I think two hours might be sufficient for what you've described anyway. Why don't we just do that? Then if we need another meeting, we'll have another meeting.
1 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
We could fit more in on Thursday in that one hour.
Who knows? I mean most of the people we want to talk to are on the Hill anyways, so it's a lot easier to get here without notice.
1 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
But we don't know who those other witnesses will be yet. That's the thing. We won't really be able to fit them in on Thursday. It will probably require a different day, right?
1 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
It went fairly smoothly today timewise, so let's give the two hours a shot.
We're probably going to need at least one more after that anyway.
1 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Yes, I think that makes sense.
I mean, even though we may be viewing video or looking at a report in part of that time, there may be questions that arise from the video or from the report that they can help us with. I think it makes sense.
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Because we're going to be hopefully looking at the video and the report, maybe we'll start in camera, as we agreed earlier today, because of security reasons.
1 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
As long as we're doing security, that's fine.
Is that when we would be viewing the video too?
