Canada-China Relations Committee on Jan. 20th, 2020

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

I think I was talking when you called the vote. I would point out that, in the spirit of what Mr. Oliphant was explaining, I personally could live with either one or the other, as long as things are done in the spirit of collaboration. However, I see that I have the deciding vote. I will be siding with my colleagues in the opposition.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The motion to amend is carried, so the motion is now amended.

(Amendment agreed to)

Now we're back to the main motion as amended. Is there any further discussion on the motion as amended?

Mr. Oliphant.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I would like to further amend the motion. I propose that the new period be changed to a comma, and it would say “and that the subcommittee on agenda and procedure will work in a process of consensus decision-making.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Madam Alleslev.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Can you give us an idea of what you mean by consensus?

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Mr. Oliphant.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Consensus means that we will work as a committee in the best interests of the tasks at hand, the five mandates that have been given to this committee; that we will work to present a unified voice to this body, which will then vote on and agree or not agree; and that we will strike very early in this process a collaborative spirit and work by consensus to attempt to find our meeting schedules, meeting times, witness lists, and whether we choose to have or not to have a report or interim report. If we can work that out by consensus in the subcommittee, I think for the work of this committee, even if it comes to a vote that is overturned in this committee, that will establish a routine way of working. If we can get those five people to agree on something, we will do better work and Canadians will be better served.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Ms. Alleslev.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

I would like to add a further point to the concerns of our opposition colleague.

We always work in the spirit of collaboration to have a unanimous voice and be respectful of all our fellow members. However, it would be inappropriate to pass a procedural and routine motion amendment that would keep us from presenting both sides of the coin when we come back to committee. It would not serve us well and is not within the mandate of a subcommittee or a committee.

We will discuss and try to reach a consensus, but if we cannot, for example, if the issue is too important or the situation too critical, we would like the opportunity to restate our arguments and present both sides of the argument before the entire committee.

Therefore, I cannot support the amendment to write this down in black and white in our procedures. Nevertheless, we will aim for consensus.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Ms. Blaney.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you, Chair. Congratulations on being appointed to this very important role on this very important committee.

I appreciate the discussion that's happening right now. I understand we're in a minority government. I've never done this before, so I have a lot to learn and I'm excited to do so. I believe that at the end of the day, Canadians are sending us to this place to work together collaboratively to get things done, and I have a great appreciation for that. What I'm curious about, though, is whether this is the usual practice. I have never seen this brought forward in routine proceedings before. This is only my second term. Is this something that's happened before? Is this something that is more reflective of a minority government? I need a little more information before I make my decision.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Mr. Albas.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Thank you.

I also agree that Canadians want parliamentarians to work together, particularly on a committee that's supposed to be rather germane in terms of scheduling.

I personally don't believe we need to have it. In fact, the one committee that does operate by consensus in this place is the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, which is for both the House of Commons and the Senate. Members work by consensus.

The problem is that if there is no consensus—and I've been in some of those meetings—you will go around for an hour on a simple “Should it be a comma or should it be a semicolon?” if there cannot be a reasonable way to decide how to move forward, and that's by democratic vote.

I suggest that if the Liberals are truly concerned about consensus-building at the subcommittee, they send someone who is reasonable, and who not only has reasonable decorum but also brings forward proposals that people can get around. That's how you get people to agree, by listening and by doing that. You don't need to put that on a piece of paper; you just need to do it.

I would suggest to this group that we carry on. Let's let the subcommittee form. Let's see how they do. If someone is not behaving, and not getting things done or being a block, you either have a vote or you come back to this committee and say, “We're not working well. Send us some new members”, and we'll do that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Mr. Fragiskatos.

Mr. Bergeron will then have the floor.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

To Ms. Blaney's point and to what Mr. Albas just said, there is a precedent for what Mr. Oliphant has put forward, which I think is very reasonable. It's not as if it's seeking to establish a precedent for how subcommittees work.

A subcommittee of the foreign affairs committee is the international human rights committee, which has operated throughout its history by consensus, exactly along the lines Mr. Oliphant has described. I don't see why we can't take a path towards consensus in the way we've heard here. I think this is an opportunity to work collaboratively, in a way that Canadians would expect.

I go back and say that this exists. We have a subcommittee. I know Mr. Albas just talked about a committee of Parliament, but it's more apropos, to my mind, that we look at what precedent could exist on a subcommittee level in this Parliament, and that's the subcommittee on international human rights, which, as I say, has operated by consensus. I don't believe that principle has been broken for at least 10 years. My memory could be wrong on this, but it operates on consensus very well, and I think we could do the same here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Mr. Bergeron, you have the floor.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to voice my concern.

This is the second routine motion and we are already struggling to agree. If we are serious about working collaboratively and in the spirit of consensus, we're going to have to make it easier to find ways to work together. Personally, I did not really have a problem with the word “consensus” because consensus is not unanimity. For me, there is a very clear distinction between “consensus” and “unanimity”. When Mr. Oliphant said “consensus”, I took it to mean “in a spirit of collaboration”.

But I feel like we're in a situation where we are going to have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I don't like that at all. I don't know if, in a spirit of collaboration, Mr. Oliphant would be open to the idea of replacing the word “consensus” with “spirit of collaboration”, so as not to lose everything in the end.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

We will now debate the subamendment Mr. Bergeron suggested.

Mr. Oliphant, you have the floor.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I agree.

I think it is absolutely fine to have that there.

It is clear to me that there's a difference between unanimity and consensus. Consensus generally means I may not agree with it but I can live with it. That is what has been my history. My history comes from the United Church of Canada. We work on a consensus model and we've done that for the last 35 years. It means that we work towards something, we reach an opinion, we share an opinion and we hear each other. We may not agree with it but we can live with it, and we present it as such to the broader committee.

As to Ms. Blaney's comments, I worked on subcommittees for public safety, national security and citizenship and immigration. I was chair of those committees, and we did not take votes. We worked until we could reach an agreement, and I think that is something that is very good to do. However, I can also live with the sense of "in a spirit of collaboration”. That is also fine with me.

I would be supporting Mr. Bergeron's subamendment to change that from “consensus” to “in a spirit of collaboration”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Is there further debate on this subamendment question?

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

I just want clarity on the wording.

Is it “in the spirit of collaboration”?

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

What Mr. Bergeron proposed was to remove the words “consensus decision-making”. It would say, “the subcommittee will work in a spirit of collaboration”. That's the key change.

Mr. Albas.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

I would support that.

I would imagine anyone we send as a vice-chair or as a designate from the government would be looking to work with the others on our planning. I really don't think the juice is worth the squeeze here but I appreciate that my colleague has improved Mr. Oliphant's original intent.

I will be supporting the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Is there further debate on the proposed subamendment?

(Subamendment agreed to)

In the spirit of collaboration, the subamendment was passed unanimously.

Now we are now back to the main motion.

Is there any further debate on the main motion as amended?

(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The motion is unanimously carried. We're off to a great start.

Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, this routine motion relates to reduced quorum:

That the Chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence and to have that evidence printed when a quorum is not present, provided that at least four (4) members are present, including one member of the opposition and one member of the government, but when travelling outside the parliamentary precinct, that the meeting begin after fifteen (15)minutes, regardless of members present.