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.
1 p.m.
Liberal
1 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
I appreciate it. Thank you.
If you want to speak for another three or four or five minutes, fine, go ahead. I don't have a problem with that. I don't think any other committee member does.
Talk.
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Okay. For now we'll extend for five minutes for Mr. Christopherson to make his comments.
1 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you. I appreciate the PMO allowing me to have a few words.
All I wanted to say in support of the motion was that it sounded as though there might have been a compromise in the works, and if there is, that would be excellent. That would mean that the government really is trying to make committee business different.
Here's my point. I'll tell you one of the reasons I would support this idea. I don't always support bringing in a minister, because the politics are such that you could always haul in a minister and play politics with it, but as a rule we do not. I try to be judicial about when I support calling in a minister, because ministers have their own table, the cabinet room, and this is ours, the committee room. However, in this case, given the importance of what's going on, how quickly everything happened, and the fact that there really hasn't been a lot of public discussion, I do.
I stand to be corrected if I'm wrong, but I don't believe there was a motion with a full debate in the House about this whole process. I don't believe there was a bill in the House with a full process that allowed full debate about it, so really, as Mr. Richards pointed out, this thing has been created in the dark, in secrecy. The end result is that the rules have been made public, but there's been no opportunity to have discussions on things such as why it's okay that a small group of people gets to decide what the definition of “diversity” is in Canada and why a small group of Canadians gets to decide whether someone's personality traits are such that they're going to be democratic and accountable or not.
Remember, Chair, that these are fair questions to ask when we're talking about appointing a chamber, each of whose members has more legal weight than each of ours does, because there are fewer of them.
I think it's fair for the official opposition to ask the government to bring in the minister to bring us up to speed. When we say “us”, we know, give or take some of the details, that means the public. Again I come back to the fact that this government said they were going to do things differently—that they were going to be more democratic, more transparent, more accountable—and I will not stop coming back to that fact. It's a reasonable motion to bring in a minister to talk about what the government has done so far, given that we haven't had the other usual opportunities, those being House discussion or committee discussion, to get at those answers.
Therefore, I think there's good reason to think this process here at this committee would serve the public interest. If we had the minister come in, we could ask some of the questions we have and the public has, before even getting into the partisanship aspect. They would just be legitimate questions about the process. We've had no opportunity to do that. I would argue that is legitimately Canadians' right, as well as the right of the opposition, particularly in light of this government's platform that they were going to be different and were going to provide accountability.
I heard Mr. Graham ask a minute ago if we would accept it depending on the minister's availability. That sounded like the beginnings of negotiations, an attempt to listen to what the opposition was saying and to try to accommodate it. I would respond to Mr. Graham that I certainly would be open to that kind of an amendment, as long as there's a deadline on it. Otherwise, guess what? The minister's never available, and therefore the intent of the motion would be negated through passive-aggressive measures.
Therefore, if the government said, “No later than five calendar days after returning” or something—
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
It could even be before the deadline. There's a deadline.
1:05 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
There's a February 15 deadline. Well, so be it. That's their problem, not ours. They created the process. We can't change the calendar. We can only do what we can do. If the government's actually looking for a compromise and looking for a little flexibility about when we would bring the minister....
I don't think you can say this is really a partisan attempt. In light of the fact that there's been so little public discussion, I think in this case you can legitimately make the case that the minister should come in somewhere in our democratic process and give detailed answers about why they did certain things, why they didn't do other things, and what the expectations of the government are. All those things are quite legitimate.
Before I go any further, Chair, I would just ask if Mr. Graham and/or any other members of the government are interested in trying to find a motion that we could all agree on, or whether we're just heading for a majority vote and the rest of it's just smoke and mirrors.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
1:05 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I was saying before that I was just seeking clarification from Mr. Graham, but I'll take clarification from Ms. Sahota.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I must state for the record that we are more than willing to compromise on the government side. We've shown this time and time again since this committee started.
First of all, a few days ago we were asked to bring in the chair of the committee for the advisory board. We did that with very short notice. I believe the official opposition wanted the whole committee to come in. We were more than willing to try to get as many people in as possible.
Today I witnessed that we had the chairman here, and the whole time, barely anybody was listening to her qualifications and her answers.
On the record, I want to state that as I sat here watching this process—I am new to this committee—I found it really interesting that the opposition was so interested in bringing somebody in to question their abilities, but then, when she was here, they didn't care to listen to her abilities. I found that a little bit appalling, actually.
Once again, I'm not opposing what you're saying, and we are more than willing to compromise on this one as well. I just hope that going forward....
We have another witness we were supposed to question today. He's been sitting here all day, prepared to give his answers and prepared to speak today, so we've been showing a lot of compromise.
I think we are ready to vote on this side and to continue to show that we are more than willing to cooperate and make things work on this committee.
Thank you.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I'm certainly willing to compromise. That's why I'm suggesting that we make it subject to the availability of the minister. We can't prescribe when that is.
1:05 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
You can't leave it completely open-ended, David. There has to be some kind of deadline. I mean, suddenly the minister is just never available.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
It's much more likely to happen if you give a deadline than if you don't.
I moved the motion, but I don't know how to make it go to a vote. Can I put the amendment to a vote?
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
1:05 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
That's fair, yes, as long as you don't try anything. Asking is fair.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Could you repeat the amendment?
I think we're going to have to agree to extend the time some more, because we're past the five minutes.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
It can't go too much longer, or we'll end up running into tomorrow.
The amendment was simply to add, at the end of the original motion, “subject to the availability of the minister”.
1:05 p.m.
NDP
1:10 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I would say we're probably close, but when you leave it to “availability of the minister”....
I just finished dealing, for the better part of 10 years, with a government that played every single game possible. I haven't seen a lot of indication that you will do things a whole lot differently, so I'm sorry: I'm quite prepared to accept that motion as one member of this side, but I have to hear a deadline. There has to be some kind of end to it, rather than just “availability”. Otherwise, the minister miraculously is never available when we're meeting, and as I said, it effectively negates the motion.
