Public Safety Committee on Oct. 29th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

I appreciate your observation, Mr. Easter.

We will go now to the vote on the routine motions. It has been put forward by the parliamentary secretary, Ms. James, that the motion be adopted as previously passed in the first session of the 41st Parliament.

Do we have a unanimous vote on this? We do not. Then we will call for a vote.

(Motion agreed to: yeas, 6; nays, 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The routine motions have now been adopted and I do believe now there is a motion on the floor.

Ms. James.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'm not sure whether I need to read this out in its entirety or whether copies have been passed out.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

I will check with the opposition.

Does the opposition have a copy of this? Then if we have a chance to pass around a copy, we would do so. If not, we will certainly read it out and/or do both.

Does everybody have a copy of it now?

I have a quick little comment from the chair. Most people should recognize that this same motion is before a number of different committees. I think it's reflective of, I suppose, the challenge we all faced in the last session of Parliament. The chair will not comment any further on that, as this is the purview of the committee, but this is obviously not a one-off situation. I think most members are aware of that and the content of this.

I will ask the parliamentary secretary to read it into the record, please.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, on the copy that you have, the first line may be slightly cut in half, so I'll read this starting with the first line. The motion reads as follows:

That, in relation to Orders of Reference from the House respecting Bills, (a) the Clerk of the Committee shall, upon the Committee receiving such an Order of Reference, write to each Member who is not a member of a caucus represented on the Committee to invite those Members to file, in a letter to the Chair of the Committee, in both official languages, any amendments to the Bill, which is the subject of the said Order, which they would suggest that the Committee consider; (b) suggested amendments filed, pursuant to paragraph (a), at least 48 hours prior to the start of clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill to which the amendments relate shall be deemed to be proposed during the said consideration, provided that the Committee may, by motion, vary this deadline in respect of a given Bill; and (c) during the clause-by-clause consideration of a Bill, the Chair shall allow a Member who filed suggested amendments, pursuant to paragraph (a), an opportunity to make brief representations in support of them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very, very much.

Do we have unanimous approval to pass this?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

We do not, so we will have speakers both for and against it, as is due; first, the parliamentary secretary proposing the motion, and then we will have an opportunity for the opposition.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you.

It's a rather long motion, the result of which is very short. It would basically allow members of the House outside of this committee, those not represented on this committee— we're obviously Conservatives, NDP members, or Liberals in this room—an opportunity to have a say on bills that go through this committee.

In all fairness, because they do not have a voice on committee, I feel it is actually extending an opportunity for them to be part of something that they normally would not be. I can't see why anyone in this committee would disagree with that viewpoint. If there is disagreement, I'd like to hear what those reasons are.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

First, Madame Doré Lefebvre.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The proposed motion would significantly change how the House operates and I think it will certainly have an impact on the rights of MPs. If I may, I will quote from O'Brien and Bosc, which is rather clear. On page 1019, it states:

It is the House, and the House alone, that appoints the members and associate members of its committees, as well as the Members who will represent it on joint committees. The Speaker has ruled that this is a fundamental right of the House. The committees themselves have no powers at all in this regard.

Furthermore, on page 1018, it states: “The Standing Orders specifically exclude a non-member from voting, moving motions or being counted for purposes of a quorum.” In other words, the committee does not have the power to make this type of procedural change by itself. This power belongs to the House and the Speaker.

In my view, that would completely change the legislative procedures in our Parliament. Those changes are too significant to be made in committee. We should deal with this issue in the House. That is partly why we are very much opposed to this motion, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Now we have Madame Michaud.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to echo the comments made by my colleague. Yes, the motion we have before us contains some major changes. This motion deals with the rights of independent MPs. Yet they cannot even sit here to debate the motion with us. This motion has also been introduced in a number of other committees that have no authority at all to make those types of decisions. That is another breach of democracy.

The suggestion has been made that the rights of independent MPs are not trampled. They are allowed to introduce amendments, but they are not allowed to participate in the study at hand and to vote on the amendments they propose.

Finally, our dear government has introduced omnibus bills in the House. Independent MPs have introduced a number of amendments to those bills, which has forced us to sit very late in the House. I understand that it is an inconvenience, but that is how our system works. Independent members of Parliament are not allowed to be active participants in committee studies. Now, they are asked to proceed in a new way, which, honestly, is rather a way to violate their rights and the rights of the opposition. In order for an independent member to introduce amendments, one of the members of the opposition must agree to give them their seat. In addition to limiting the rights granted to independent members through the usual House procedures, we would be restricting the rights of the members of the opposition by partially excluding them from debate in order to avoid any House procedures that the government might find unpleasant.

That is not really the way to go. We think this amendment is completely unacceptable and it shouldn't be discussed in the various committees as is currently the case. Our committee does not have the authority to make decisions that have such an impact on our system. The other committees that have dealt with this issue so far do not have that power either. I do not understand why we are debating this motion today, unless the goal is to further limit the rights of MPs.

I cannot understand how someone can be in favour of this motion. I would have liked to hear more convincing arguments because, so far, I have not heard one good reason to convince me to support a motion like that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Madame Michaud.

Now, Mr. Easter, please.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, I want to speak to this, but first I have a question for the parliamentary secretary on how this works. Under paragraph (c), I assume this applies to all members of the House, including independent members. Is that correct?

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

It's actually for members outside of those represented by the three parties here in this room.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

So it's for independent members.

With paragraph (c), if during clause-by-clause consideration of a bill, an independent member put forward 10 amendments, would they be given the opportunity to come before committee to speak to each of those 10 amendments?

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

They would have the ability to bring their amendments to this committee, because otherwise they would have no ability to participate whatsoever in this particular committee. If the amendments come in from a member who doesn't sit on this committee but who is in the NDP or the Conservative Party, they would obviously filter through our committee members who are present, but for someone who is not in one of the three parties recognized within the House, it would give them the opportunity—

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I understand that.

If an independent member puts forward 10 amendments, or as was the case with the omnibus bill, 400 amendments, would that independent member have the right to come before committee and speak to each and every one of them?

That's my question.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you.

They would not necessarily get half an hour or 10 minutes on each amendment, but they would have the ability to bring those amendments to committee.

The thing to remember as well is that it's the members who sit on this committee who actually have the ability to debate and vote on those amendments. Regardless of whether you agreed or disagreed, you would actually have the opportunity to vote. The person coming to the committee to present an amendment, to offer their input, does not have a voting right on the committee. Again, the actual work that's being done in this committee, the results, the amendments that are actually passed or not passed, come from the people who are recognized on this committee as the official members.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

You're still missing my point.

I think we really need to know, and I think even Conservative members who seem to be supporting this need to know what this really means for a committee. To be honest with you, if I were an independent member and I had an axe to grind, and I could find a way of making 200 amendments, then I'd make the 200 amendments. I'd ask for my right to come to committee and speak for as much time as I was possibly allowed on each and every one of those 200 amendments.

There's no question I'll speak on it, Mr. Chair, while they're trying to cook up an answer there.

I'm definitely opposed to it. In all honesty, Mr. Chair, while the parliamentary secretary put this forward in terms of how could anybody not support it, as if we're giving a privilege to independent members, I think this is a consequence of the last omnibus bill on which an independent member, because they couldn't put forward amendments in committee, was allowed, and rightly so, to put forward amendments in the main chamber, and each of those amendments had to be voted on in the House of Commons. I think this is a sly way of trying to get around that.

I do think there needs to be a way for independent members to somehow have a say at some committees of their interest. I can think of a couple of members who are extremely good members on committee who now no longer have the right to speak out at committee. That's a loss, I believe, to Canadian society.

The way this is worded.... Independent members are not here; they're not having a say. I believe these people were elected in their own right by citizens in their ridings. I believe this is a violation of the rights of independent members in terms of what they can do in the House because they've been given this opportunity to put the motions to committee.

I do think this needs a little more thought, Mr. Chair, because I think that in the government's desire to try to solve the problem over the amendments in the omnibus bill, they may be digging themselves a quagmire here and they may eventually realize they've caused themselves more problems than they envisioned.

On the basis that I think it's taking away the rights of independent members rather than giving them some, I will certainly be opposing this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Mr. Easter. I appreciate your directing your thoughts through the chair.

We now have Mr. Pilon, Mr. Rousseau, and Mr. Norlock.

We'll start with Mr. Pilon, s'il vous plaît.

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Since almost everything has been said, I will be rather brief. I would still like to go back to the fact that the Conservatives rejected our amendment. In their view, using the word “only” would deny the rights of parliamentarians. They are now proposing a motion that takes away the rights of independent members of Parliament. In my view, they are talking out of both sides of their mouths.

I would also like to quickly respond to the statement that a third opposition party is not allowed to participate. I don't know if that has happened in the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, but in the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, we invited a third opposition party that wanted to propose amendments. That is democratic.

I think this motion is completely useless.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Fine, thank you very much, Mr. Pilon.

Mr. Rousseau, the floor is yours.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

It would be nice to know the true intentions behind this, even if it has to do only with the time those people will have when they come to introduce and discuss the amendments. We will be spending a lot of energy on those issues when they should be referred to the House, where this debate should take place.

I personally love sitting until the wee hours of the morning. This room is filled with great energy. It is also unbelievable to see the synergy and friendships that develop sometimes despite the heated debates.

In addition to all that—and this is what I am trying to get at—they are asking that the document be submitted in both official languages when that is a challenge for us here. We were often not able to have access to documents because they were not available in both official languages. Yet those people will have to introduce amendments in both official languages. That is a lot of work for independent members. In addition, it is a loophole. They will be able to hold up the work of a number of committees by introducing all sorts of amendments. They will be left on the agenda and, after a while, someone will ask to go in camera. At the end of the day, we will be spinning our wheels once again.

Debating bills in this way is not democratic, especially when we are constantly dealing with omnibus bills and secrecy. We have no way of debating those issues properly for Canadians across the country to see. That is not how we are supposed to represent the people. We were elected by the people in our ridings to get the job done in the House of Commons. Our leader and our team have appointed us to sit on committees because they trusted us and believed we were capable of addressing the concerns of all our colleagues, even independent members of Parliament sometimes, so that we could talk about our concerns with respect to bills.

Once again, the government is trying to hide things from us, and this way of doing things is undemocratic. It is insulting to see that democracy is once again being thwarted by the Conservatives.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Mr. Rousseau.

Now we have Mr. Norlock, please.