Foreign Affairs Committee on Oct. 13th, 2020

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Chair, this is related, although I'll leave it up to you to decide whether we should discuss this now. I have a real concern that my chief of staff cannot join this meeting via Zoom. I don't understand the concept of that, because she could be in my meeting if we were all in the same room.

I think we all agree that we want to make this virtual session as close to a true parliamentary session as possible, so I'd like to get some answers on that and find out whether or not our main staffer can join us in these committee meetings.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you, Mr. Diotte. We'll get clarification on that question.

I have Mr. Oliphant, Mr. Bergeron and Mr. Harris.

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

With respect to the third vice-chair position, my understanding is that there has not been consistency about this. Obviously, with Canada-China we do have that. It is a special committee and there are different rules that apply to a special committee. My understanding is that the financial arrangements are such that there is compensation for the chair and for first and second vice-chairs, but there would not be compensation available for a third vice-chair.

My concern is that we should have consistency among the standing committees on this. Again, Garnett will be surprised that I'm sounding like a fundamentalist, but I think the Standing Orders are there and should be respected. My understanding is, and I could be corrected, that the Board of Internal Economy did not add any more financial resources for a third vice-chair. I know it's been brought up at a couple of the committees, but not all of the committees, so I think there's an inconsistency.

That doesn't mean we don't want Mr. Harris's full participation all the time. However, I think calling it a vice-chair would be premature, in my personal opinion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Mr. Oliphant, thank you.

Let me quickly circle back to Mr. Diotte's point.

Mr. Diotte, I'm advised that the arrangement with respect to chiefs of staff or staff colleagues was made through the whips. The primary constraint was one of technology, in the sense that it really puts an additional stress on the system at this point that may render it vulnerable, as surprising as that may seem, given that we have a large number of people joining in the House itself, but that is the constraint at the moment. Your point is certainly taken on board. If that changes, we will advise.

Mr. Bergeron, you have the floor.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

I'd like to raise three points.

First of all, Mr. Chair, the process for my election has begun, and I don't believe it has been completed. Am I to understand that I have indeed been elected? I'm asking because before the election of the second vice-chair was confirmed, we moved to another question, a legitimate question, from Mr. Harris.

What am I to understand, Mr. Chair? Depending on your answer, I'd like to speak again later, if I may.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bergeron. I believe you were elected to the position, but I will check with the clerk.

Should we resume the discussion on the potential election of Mr. Harris?

[The Clerk]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The question was never put on Mr. Bergeron's election, so if you'd like to do that, you may.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Madam Clerk, if I can, I will exercise the prerogative of the chair to put the motion forward that Mr. Bergeron be elected as vice-chair of the committee.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I don't want to pre-empt a ruling by you at the request of the clerk, but there were two nominations. What I said was that if there was no agreement to have another vice-chair, I would turn down the nomination, but that was conditional.

I'm not trying to play games here; I just don't want to have an election now and say we're not going to talk about this anymore, because I have something more to say about it. I will not stand in the way of Mr. Bergeron becoming the second vice-chair, nor will I cause an election. However, we did enter into this discussion and, since I was on the speakers list, I don't want to pre-empt having the final say, having been cut off by a ruling for which we don't yet know the outcome.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Mr. Harris, point understood and point taken. That was my comment to the clerk, that the discussion about a potential third vice-chair was continuing but that, at a minimum, we would elect Mr. Bergeron. I think that's the will of the committee. You have my commitment that you will come in and make your point after that.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you. That being said, I will ask that my name not be put forward for a position as vice-chair in this particular election.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you, Mr. Harris.

Are there any comments, remarks or opposition to Mr. Bergeron being put forward as a vice-chair of the committee?

(Motion agreed to)

Madam Clerk, we will declare Mr. Bergeron the second vice-chair of the committee.

Congratulations, Mr. Bergeron.

I will pass the word back to the committee.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

May I continue, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Yes. Then it will be Mr. Harris's turn.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank all my colleagues. I'm sorry Mr. Chong found himself in a difficult position with regard to Mr. Harris and me.

This isn't the first time Mr. Harris and I have been in this situation. I would like to remind the members of this committee that, in the previous session, we had indeed decided, as a committee, to add a third vice-chair position, which was held by Mr. Harris. I understand there was an agreement in the previous session of Parliament that there would be a third vice-chair from the New Democratic Party.

Accordingly, Mr. Chair, I formally nominate Mr. Harris as third vice-chair of this committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Madam Clerk, we have a motion on the floor that we elect Mr. Harris as third vice-chair.

I made a commitment to give the word back to Mr. Harris.

Please go ahead, Mr. Harris.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Bergeron, for your motion.

The issue of pay seems to come up every now and then, but there's no effect on pay in this particular matter.

Number one, I'm already a vice-chair of the Canada-China committee. If you're vice-chair of one committee, there's no necessity for or interest in the pay for a second situation like this.

We have no interest whatsoever in making money an issue. It's an issue of your involvement in the committee and the role you play in the committee, in terms of both helping to set the agenda and being part of the committee on agenda and procedure to represent your party.

I think the idea of being a vice-chair is an important one with regard to how you represent yourself to the public, and I think it's a good recognition. We feel that it's been very useful in terms of developing policy and working with other people and working with stakeholders.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you, Mr. Harris.

I think I have the order right. Mr. Oliphant is next, by a physical waving of hand, and then it will be Ms. Sahota, please.

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

I just want to check the normal composition of the subcommittee on agenda. Maybe the clerk can help us with that. I know we haven't set our routine motions yet, but I think there is a convention around that. I just want to know how many there are and what our representation is on it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Madam Clerk, would you like to intervene briefly on this point?

I think it's in the routine motions, but it may be different in the routine motion that we passed last time from what the actual convention is.

[The Clerk]

Thank you.

The routine motion that passed last time was that the subcommittee on agenda and procedure contain five members: the chair and one member from each recognized party.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

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

If I could just clarify then, what is the benefit of being a third vice-chair? What are we really trying to decide on if the position is already at the subcommittee? I'm truly and genuinely asking that question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Mr. Oliphant, thank you.

We'll leave that question hanging for the moment and go to Ms. Sahota.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Thank you.

Of course, I understand what Mr. Harris is saying; it could be advantageous to have that position, for many reasons. However, it's true that if you are still included in the subcommittee on agenda, what happens by creating this position is a logistical mess.

I understand that Mr. Harris is saying it's not about pay. Technically, it's not not about pay because, according to the Parliament of Canada Act, they would have to pay anyone who is in the position of vice-chair, whatever that extra bump is. Not doing so would go against the act. The administration could not do it. There is no exception made in the act that you could have a third vice-chair who wouldn't get paid. Right now, it would just be the position of a vice-chair.

Either there would have to be legislation brought in or the act would have to be reformed, but none of that was something that anyone seemed to want to do in the last session. We're still in a position where, if we were to vote in a third vice-chair today, the administration would have to abide by the act and give that wage increase.

That is my understanding, so it does complicate matters. Although the title and the position may have some benefits, I think there's no real practical benefit. In terms of what Mr. Oliphant also said, practically you would still be able to participate and do everything that any of the other parties can do. Having that title would complicate the matter of pay. That's my concern.

Is that what you want to go forward with? I think we should perhaps get an idea from our parties—and perhaps from PROC as well, I don't know—as to whether committees are going to move forward with this position and how we can deal with that element of extra pay.