Evidence of meeting #6 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 process.
A video is available from Parliament.
12:20 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
But we're not there yet. We're still on the first part of this meeting.
In other words, we had the witness, and there was a motion that flowed from that, and then that's when we broke. Are we in camera now?
12:20 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Are we in public? Yes. We're still public. Okay, that's what I thought.
You had a break for a moment, as the witness excused herself, and now it seems to me that we should be dealing with the motions in the proper order, or we would say that we're finished with that part of our agenda and we're moving to the second part, in which case we'd pick up at the next meeting where we left off, and that would be the placement of the motions in the proper order.
I'm just a little unclear where we are, Chair.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Thinking about what David just finished commenting on, the first part of the meeting's over. The second part was to settle on the agenda. We deal with that, and after that's dealt with we go into new business, at which point in time I understand that there's the potential for a couple of motions. Even Mr. Christopherson had something that he wanted to potentially get on to the table.
In fairness to Mr. Christopherson's comments, I think we should just continue on with the pre-set agenda.
12:20 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Sorry, Chair, can I ask for another clarification?
The motion that was moved by the government was that this committee—I'm paraphrasing—affirms or agrees with the appointment. Do we have to deal with that motion before we have concluded our business with this witness?
The other question is whether the process of ultimately appointing senators hinges on this committee giving this approval, or is this something that runs parallel to the actual process of them sitting down and doing their work, and what we say is maybe interesting to somebody but doesn't have any role in the trigger point of decision-making?
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
To answer your second question, if the committee makes a motion—sometimes they do and sometimes they don't—it doesn't have any effect on that. It's just giving feedback from the committee, but it doesn't have any effect on whether the appointment goes ahead.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
As you probably know, after having such a witness in an order in council appointment in the past, sometimes committees have made a motion saying that they had the person before them—
12:20 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
So if that motion failed, it would have no impact on the process?
12:20 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Interesting.
Just as a matter of housekeeping, then, when are you suggesting that we would deal with that motion and Mr. Richards' motion?
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
I think it's up to the committee, but my suggestion would be, in respect of the researcher who's done this work on the report and who was expecting to start at 1 p.m., that we do that and then we do all of those committee business types of things in our next agenda at the end.
12:20 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Very good. What I would leave you with is just this thought. It sounds as though it doesn't matter whether we pass that motion or not. Fair enough. However, Mr. Richards' motion was critically important, because it spoke to us wanting to have a second step in our process of approval vis-à-vis inviting in the minister to talk about the context of the appointment.
When would that be dealt with? Do you not see us dealing with that now?
Here's the option, Chair, and then I'll shut up. We can deal with that now, as a continuation, because this hour of the meeting is ours to control. It's our staff reporting to us. It's not like we're tying up witnesses or there are timelines that we have to meet.
I would leave with you one suggestion: that there is some merit in at least seeing if we can deal with those two motions to put paid and finished to the file on this witness, but I leave it with you and, obviously, the will of the committee.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Arnold Chan Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
I would propose that we deal with my motion first, then.
First of all, let me ask the question. Did you receive my motion? You suspended right after I moved it.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Mr. Chair, obviously, that would be inappropriate. My motion was moved first; therefore, it would be first in the order of precedence.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
My preference is, as I said before, to go on with the report. I don't think Mr. Chan's motion is time sensitive, but your motion and a number of other things we have are part of potential committee business, so we have to do that today. I'm not saying we won't do it, but there are a number of other things related to it. We could do that all in the discussion at the end.
Go ahead, Mr. Reid.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
We're down to 35 minutes before the end of our meeting. I suppose we could agree to continue on past one o'clock. Failing that, I suggest that we actually deal with motions first, and then with Andre Barnes and his report later.
I apologize, Andre. I guess you're used to our doing stuff like this from previous parliaments.
I would strongly recommend that. There is a matter of urgency here. Of course, unless we create a special meeting, which I'm going to recommend in an amendment to Mr. Richards' motion, it would be impossible for us to meet until after the phase 1 process is completed and all nominations are in, which, as you know, is very important. I say we stay on the motions.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Are there any other comments? The other thing we can do is have a subcommittee meeting. We have a lot of potential agenda items now. Mr. Richards, we have your motion, and then we have the electoral officers item and a few other things.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Richards, can you provide us with a copy of your actual motion? Did you move the motion already?
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Arnold Chan Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
Can we have the clerk read back the original motion, please?
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Madam Clerk, do you want to read the motion back? Do you have it?
Mr. Richards, maybe you could read your motion again.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
I'm glad to do that, certainly.
The motion I would move is:
Given that the committee is unable to properly examine the qualifications and competence of the appointees of the Independent Advisory Board for Senate Appointments without first knowing the full mandate and process involved for the new Independent Advisory Board for Senate Appointments; and given that the full details of the transitional and permanent Independent Advisory Board for Senate Appointments' process have not been made public; that the committee ask the clerk to invite the Minister of Democratic Institutions to appear before the committee to answer questions and give details regarding the Independent Advisory Board for Senate Appointments' process.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal