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.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
We have a list of five members, so he will finish answering the question.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just to do a very quick response to Mr. Christopherson, we had a witness here today. I did not even ask a question. At least four members of the committee asked the question. I wasn't the one who moved the motion to ultimately call upon the witness. I didn't move the motion, David.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
12:50 p.m.
NDP
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
So in good part I'm responding to a question currently. I raised the issue earlier, prior to the question, based on my experiences from the chamber and the committee.
This is what I'd like to go back to, Mr. Chair. There are changes.
Mr. Richards, you raise some valid points, but the points you raise are more on policy and process. If I understand what you were saying in your last statement, you're saying we need to have a better understanding of a number of issues in order to be able to question the qualifications and the competence.
If that is the case, then in all likelihood maybe we should not have called for the appointed individual to come before us, since the official opposition was not actually questioning the qualifications. You were right when you made the statement that you're not questioning the qualifications or assessing whether or not that person's qualified. I think we heard—
Pardon me?
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
We want to assess the qualifications. It doesn't mean we're questioning them. That's different. That's a very big difference.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
We want to assess the qualifications, not question them.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
And there's nothing wrong with that, and that's the reason the government members on the committee had agreed to it. It's not only that particular member. If you will recall the discussion we had within the last 48 hours, it was about seeing if we could get some of the appointments to come before the committee, and that it would be better to have it Thursday, even if it's one or two, as opposed to waiting the extra period of time so we might be able to get a larger number. That was the compromise.
At the end of the day, once it's all said and done, I think the first hour was fruitful in the sense that it provided members of this committee—as Mr. Chan had put forward in a motion—confidence that the person who's chairing it does have qualifications and does have the competence to do the task that has been asked of her. In regard to the process, well, let's debate that. Let's debate it in the House of Commons. Let's debate it in many different venues. I'm just not convinced this is the venue in which we do that, unless the committee ultimately decides they want to do this.
However, keep in mind that what we do in PROC might have ripple effects that affect other committees. Then you could have other committees saying they want Minister Y or Minister Z. There are occasions when different committees will get those ministers, whether it's the estimates or legislation or something else.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
I get the impression that Mr. Lamoureux, who is not a member of this committee, is engaging in a filibuster designed to take us past our concluding point. I couldn't help notice that you were looking at the clock. You must have the same inquiries. Therefore, I wonder if you could wrap up his comments and let us proceed.
Mr. Chan. I'd be happy to forgo my comments if we can come to a vote on this motion. There are only five minutes left. Alternatively, we could agree to extend the time that we are meeting today in order to provide a more extensive discussion. One way or the other, let us deal with this motion.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Our list is Mr. Chan, Mr. Reid, Mr. Richards, Mr. Christopherson, Ms. Sahota.
Mr. Chan.
You were finished, Mr. Lamoureux?
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Arnold Chan Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
I want to back up quickly because I recognize the time here. The government side is prepared to drop all our comments on this motion before you and bring the matter to a vote, but let us simply note that it's weird that we're in this situation. We're in this situation because your government didn't deal with 22 appointees for over two years, and now, constitutionally, we have to fill those vacancies. Otherwise, at a certain point the Senate simply cannot function.
That issue aside, at the end of the day a constitutional requirement sets this body in the Constitution. It needs to operate. It was getting to the point where it was becoming dysfunctional because the previous government chose not to fill those vacancies.
That issue aside, can I simply ask the clerk to read back the motion again? On this side we're prepared to vote on the motion right now.
February 4th, 2016 / 12:55 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Ms. Joann Garbig
The motion reads:
That the committee invite the Minister of Democratic Reform to appear before it to respond to questions concerning the Independent Advisory Board for Senate Appointments.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
We have not yet determined whether it fits in the mandate of the committee, but....
Mr. Reid.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, with regard to the mandate of this committee, which is laid out in Standing Order 108(3)(a):
Procedure and House Affairs shall include, in addition to the duties set forth in Standing Order 104, and among other matters:
Then it has a list. The “among other matters” means that we have a mandate that can be interpreted as expanding to include not merely the narrow objects laid out in section 108(3). In other words, there's no problem in hearing from the minister.
I'll just point out, Mr. Chair, that under our Constitution from time immemorial, or at any rate since the development of responsible government both here and in the mother country, all ministers have to report to the House of Commons. The House of Commons has oversight over all of them. The Minister of Democratic Institutions and her predecessor, the Minister of Democratic Reform, always reported to this committee. That's an established practice, so that is the authorization for doing this.
I have a final comment here on a somewhat different subject. It's critical that she be invited here—so this is going to you, since you're in charge of timing—to meet with us during the break week, unless she can meet with us tomorrow, because of the fact that the phase 1 appointment process closes. It's a process that I'm arguing is unconstitutional. I asked her about this in the House of Commons, and she did not answer when I said I thought it was unconstitutional and asked if she had legal advice.
That process closes on family day, on the Monday before we reconvene, so this must be a special meeting. Therefore I am imploring you, as chair of the committee, to set a special time between now and February 15 and not wait for our regularly scheduled meeting, which will be too late. Our regularly scheduled meeting will be on February 16, after that process, which may be unconstitutional, is closed, and after the damage done by following that process has been done.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
I'll forego my spot, although I will point out, Mr. Chair, that I really believe it's important for us to deal with this motion and have a vote on it before the conclusion of this meeting. If that requires a little extra time, we should take it.
12:55 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Chair, in that regard, I have a few things to say—I really do mean a few—but I would like to get them on the record. If we can agree on a small extension, my purpose would be to come to a conclusion and have the votes.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
We're at the time when we need a committee decision on whether we're going to extend the meeting.
Are there any comments?
