Public Safety Committee on Oct. 29th, 2013

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Through you to other committee members, I have a couple of comments based on what I've heard.

I've heard that this amendment is an infringement on democracy. Quite frankly, I think it is just the opposite. It increases our democracy by allowing independent members, who have never been given or had the right to make amendments before committees where items are discussed, to do so.

There was also mention made that they don't know what we've done on committee so how could they possibly put amendments, because they don't have the information the committee has. Well, to the best of my knowledge, all the business of the committee, with the exception of that which is in camera, is readily available to members of the public through the blues. They would almost within 24 hours be privy to the information the committee had and can, if they wish, be in the body of the room when witnesses appear, if that particular independent member has a desire to be fully apprised of what the committee is saying, or what witnesses have to say, or the dialogue that goes on between members of the committee.

I've heard also that the committee doesn't have the authority to do what we are about to do. Well, my comment on that is that I've heard the Speaker say ad infinitum that committees are masters of their own domain. The committee can do a great many things, and the only arbitrator as to whether or not the committee can do it in the end, I would suggest, is Parliament itself and/or, depending on the circumstances, the Speaker.

I don't think this restricts an independent member's ability to exercise his or her democratic right as a member of Parliament. I think it expands on that by allowing them a venue which they didn't have before to put forward their opinions or amendments, or even have a dialogue. When I say that, this permits that at the committee level.

It was also mentioned that if someone comes here with all these amendments, using the example of 200 or 400 amendments, the committee will sit too long. Well, in actual fact, the House sits a long time when these amendments come up, so irrespective of who is sitting a long time, eventually you are going to sit a long time to discuss them. I might add, at this particular time these amendments are generally grouped by the Speaker, so we could as a committee group them and exercise the same duties that the Speaker does when he's dealing with these amendments. In that way we could somewhat shorten the time the committee meets. I disagree that it restricts an independent member's ability. I think it expands it.

Mr. Rousseau wondered what the real intention is. I think the real intention is quite obvious. The real intention is to expand the rights of independent members and not restrict them. When Mr. Rousseau mentioned that he is prepared to sit at two in the morning, he has sat actually longer than that. He sat for almost 48 hours, or for however long we sat before in the House of Commons. I don't have a problem with that. I used to work double shifts.

I won't belabour the debate by quoting Mr. Churchill's statement, but I'll paraphrase it, that in a democracy, action is one of the most cumbersome, terrible things, but there is nothing better that we have come across so far. Sometimes democracy can be a little on the ugly side, and we are prepared, as I know Mr. Rousseau is—when I say “we” I think I can speak for most Conservative members—to ride the bumps and blemishes and warts of democracy, because in the end that's the right way to do things.

When we talk about independent members having the ability to put forward their motions in both official languages, yes, each of us is limited by our budgets, but we have something that's very valuable. Our analysts work for the Library of Parliament, and I know for a fact that independent members have access to the Library of Parliament to make sure that the linguistic requirements of this Parliament are upheld.

We talk about the blocking of amendments. We have the same democratic rights at committee in many respects as a member of the House of Commons, so once again I do think that this expands rather than restricts the ability of an independent member.

I know that the opposition always is fearful that the evil government is doing something bad, and the government thinks that whatever the opposition does is bad. At this committee, many times I've heard people say that this isn't a partisan issue. Everything that happens in this place is partisan. If somebody blinks an eye, someone is trying to have a partisan slant to it or they're doing something, so let's not go down the road of “we're the true saviours of democracy”, because we all have our partisan coats on when we're in this place.

I do think that this motion actually expands the right of independent members and gives them and the people who elect them even more stature here in the House of Commons.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you.

We have another speaker now.

Madame Michaud.

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

Could I have some clarifications?

I would need to understand a bit more something about the Standing Orders, because I don't understand exactly how this motion can actually be in order in this committee.

I will once again read the quote from O'Brien and Bosc that my colleague read. On page 1018, it says: “The Standing Orders specifically exclude a non-member from voting, moving motions or being counted for purposes of a quorum.” My understanding is that it is up to the House of Commons and the Speaker to amend the Standing Orders. It is not our committee's responsibility. I don't see how our committee could pass a motion that violates the already established Standing Orders. Could someone tell me?

I really don't understand how this is in order if you read the Standing Orders right now. I would need clarification on that before we vote, because if you read the Standing Orders correctly, I don't think we should be voting on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much. The chair will comment briefly on that before we go to the next speaker.

The chair does not have a full understanding of whether it would or would not be. I certainly will discuss this with the clerk. The only point I would mention is that it has been declared in order at every other committee that it's been at, including PROC. Whether we are the exception to the norm under that with your question, I don't know yet, but we'll certainly go to the clerk for advice on that.

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

On that same point, before we decide to vote on this motion, could we have a clarification from the chair before we put this to a vote? I'm not comfortable voting if you yourself admit that you're not sure if it's in order or not. I'm not sure that I'm comfortable voting on it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

That's fine, but I will have a discussion with the clerk. We will proceed with the line of questioning in the meantime.

Madame Doré Lefebvre, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In fact, I would like to echo the comments made by a number of colleagues in the debate on this issue. My colleague Ms. Michaud has raised a major point. I agree with her. I am also more or less comfortable with the idea of voting on a motion that should not perhaps be voted on in our committee.

My colleague's question is very relevant. The quote from O'Brien and Bosc's reference work on procedure is very relevant in this case. I don't think it is necessary to rely on what the other committees did or didn't do, decided or didn't decide. Every committee is master of its own decisions. For some motions, I think it is very important to give full consideration to the laws that govern our parliamentary system and to rely on them. That is the duty of parliamentarians.

I would also like to echo the remarks made by my colleague Mr. Norlock, who is on the government side. We had a number of good discussions and heard from various witnesses in this committee. The clash of ideas is extremely interesting. I think it is important to go back to what my colleague said about partisanship. This is the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. So it is perfectly normal for parties like ours with differences of opinion to hold discussions and not always agree. In our election platforms based on which Canadian voters elected us, we must not lose sight of why we were elected.

I would not call it partisanship. This has to do with doing a good job representing our communities and our values. In this committee, we have always done so with great respect. Since my colleague has sat with us on this committee since the first session of the 41^st Parliament, he knows we have a very interesting clash of ideas and it is normal for us to disagree on some issues. This is a democracy and we are here to express our views. We do so with respect and we sort of set our partisanship aside in our debates. We defend our viewpoints while respecting each other's. That is what I really like about this committee.

I just wanted to reiterate the point raised by my colleague Ms. Michaud. I would like us to look at the rules on that. Once this point is clarified, we will be happy to vote on the motion.

I appreciate all the comments on this issue.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Now we have Mr. Easter, and then Madam James.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Was I not up next?

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Oh, excuse me. I missed you, Mr. Norlock. I'm sorry.

You're correct, sir, you're up first.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I have two items.

Madame Doré Lefebvre, on the true meaning and the true ability of parliamentarians to get along, I call it the big word “respect”. Thank you for mentioning that. I've been on this committee for going on seven years, and having sat on many other committees part-time and full-time, I can say that you're right. This committee has functioned well because even though we may disagree, at times vehemently, we do treat each other with respect, and I hope we never lose that.

Mr. Chair, this particular amendment has passed other committees, but I think the most important point to make here is, if I recall correctly, when the House of Commons was debating the so-called omnibus bill—I like to call them comprehensive bills—the Speaker did rule because I think there was some disagreement or debate over the independent members’ being able to put forward all the amendments, etc.

If we read the Speaker's ruling, and I'm going by memory so that can be dangerous, he said that it was definitely—if I recall correctly, and I'm paraphrasing—within the power and ability of committees to hear amendments from independent members at committee level. If I remember his ruling correctly, committees—and once again I go back to “we are masters of our own”—make the determination whether they want to hear amendments from independent members.

When we talk about who in the end will have to rule on this, of course Parliament in the end can vote, and I suspect that even when the Speaker disagrees, if Parliament says it's going to do something, it does, but before we get to that stage, the Speaker has ruled that it is within the power of committees to allow this procedure to occur. I suspect very strongly, and I don't want to belabour the exercise of democratic rights, that the Speaker would not have ruled thus if he felt that this in any way infringed on a member's democratic right.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

The chair is actually prepared to rule on this. However, we have Mr. Easter and Madam James, if you'd like to speak.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I think Mr. Norlock makes a valid point, Mr. Chairman. I really am looking for some clarification on the impact of the motion. It's still up in the air whether an independent member can speak to each and every amendment before committee.

Could the promoter of this amendment tell me what the net effect of this motion would be if an independent member were to forgo the right to file amendments on business before this committee? If they haven't done that, does that deny them the right to put amendments in the House of Commons?

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Ms. James, go ahead.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you for the question.

The motion before us is related to this committee and this committee only. I'm not going to talk about anything outside of the committee in this particular motion, which is really to give other parties and other representatives across this country who do not have a say in any of the committee’s business right now because they do not have official party status.

There's another thing that's interesting with some of the comments I heard earlier. When I think of this committee and the knowledge sitting on this committee, and the fact that we have heard from witnesses, and we're preparing a report, and we're putting forward our own amendments, this would be the place and the people around this table would be the ones who should hear amendments coming from other independent representatives across this country.

We're the best ones to take a look at those amendments. Some of them might fall in line with some of the things we're proposing. This is the right place to hear those amendments. It gives the people who normally do not have a say a better opportunity to voice their opinions and be part of what goes on.

Again, the motion before us is related to this committee only.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

That was a point of information, so you still have the floor.

Go ahead, Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Through you, Mr. Chair, it still doesn't answer my question. We need to know the impact.

Sometimes when you speak to amendments at committee, it's not public, and sometimes it is, but if you were to move amendments in the chamber, it definitely is public. We certainly need to know this. If someone doesn't accept this, and it is considerably different from how parties operate, if somebody doesn't take the offer to put amendments at committee, then how does that impact their rights in the chamber? We need to know that before we vote on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Madam James, do you wish to respond?

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I don't need to respond. I have already stated the position we have on this side, the government side. To give more independent individuals the opportunity to have a say in bills that are passed, we're extending that out. It's a good thing, and this committee is the place where we should hear those amendments. We are the ones who are the experts. We are the ones who have heard the witnesses. We are the ones who ultimately have to decide on those amendments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you.

I will just bring forth the ruling, and then if there is further discussion, we will have that.

I thank Madame Michaud for raising the issue looking for some clarification with regard to admissibility, etc. The chair has investigated and the ruling is that once an issue and/or a motion or an amendment is deemed to be moved in the House, it is allowed, and committee is no different. This has been duly moved and duly seconded, and so it is an order.

Go ahead, Madame Michaud.

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

I am looking for the same clarifications as Mr. Easter. For the time being, we cannot have an answer on the real impact of this motion, including the time allocated to independent members of Parliament for debating a motion.

Given the non-answer from government officials, am I to understand that it would be up to the members of this committee to decide together on the time to be allocated to independent MPs? Are we going to vote on that the way we voted on the routine motions passed today? Will that be done in the same way? It is also possible that the time allocated to those members has already been determined and we will not have all the information we need to cast an informed vote.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Is there any further comment?

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

It is not a comment, but a question and I would like an answer from the government through you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Okay, the question is put. Is there any answer forthcoming from the government, or do you feel it has been answered?

The parliamentary secretary, Madam James.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you.

The motion itself is pretty clear: “an opportunity to make brief representations in support of them”. Obviously, on a case-by-case basis, we could determine what “brief” meant, but we all know that “brief” is not something that is going to be permitted to go on for days and days and days. Everyone here has a common knowledge of what “brief” stands for.