Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 29th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Do you want to speak to the main motion now?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

No, I'm good.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay.

Mr. Richards and then Mr. Reid.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

The first thing I'll do is point out the very brief, dismissive comments made by those on the other side, that this motion simply consisted of, well, there's no point in having the minister come in here and say she won't comment for an hour—or for two hours, I guess, at that time. We saw that happen yesterday.

Whether it's privacy issues or otherwise, that may well be the case, and that may be what she chooses to do. However, that doesn't mean there shouldn't be the opportunity to ask questions of her. It doesn't mean we shouldn't do our jobs as committee members. If the minister refuses to do her job and answer the questions, then Canadians will judge that. That doesn't mean we as a committee would say, “Oh, well, there's no point in doing it because she won't answer anyway.” If that were the case, we probably wouldn't have question period every day, because there would be no point then either. I don't think that's true. I think there is a point to it, and if people choose not to answer, that is something people should be judged for. If she chooses not to answer questions, that's her right.

Of course, if we're talking about legitimate privacy issues, fine; that may be the case. However, there are a lot of things in this process that certainly would not qualify for the excuse that we can't give you an answer to that because of privacy. For example, I'll start with....

To be frank, Mr. Chair, I intended this to happen quickly, but I'm a little angry now by the dismissiveness on this motion, on something so important, so it may not be so quick now. It's unfortunate, because it should have been quick.

To follow up on the consultation process that Mr. Cullen mentioned, the type of so-called consultation that happened with his party, the letter that said “Here's our appointment”, it didn't ask what we thought about it. It's the same letter we got, I'm sure. I didn't see their letter, but I'm sure it's the same. It was simply, “Here's our appointment.” It wasn't, “What did you think? You have until x date to let us know your thoughts.” It was that this is the appointment they made.

Essentially, that's what the letter consisted of. It was the one name, which has been linked to the media, obviously. I think it was two or three weeks later that another name came. It was very much like the kind of comments we had from the other side today. It was very dismissive. It was sort of, “Well, other candidates have been withdrawn and here's the new candidate.” It wasn't, “What do you think about that?” It was, “We're just letting you know.”

I don't think that is in the spirit of what this government promised it would do. It was always going to work with other parties. I don't see that happening, so let's answer to that. That doesn't cause any privacy issues; that's something the minister should answer for. It's a decision that her government has made or she has made, so let her answer to it.

In terms of the memorandum that was drafted for the Prime Minister on this issue, which was obtained through access to information, it says right in that memo that one of the things that should occur in this process, and I quote from the memo to the Prime Minister: “Consultation would occur with the Procedure and House Affairs Committee to ensure transparency and to capture its views.”

According to the very memo that was given to the Prime Minister of this country, this committee is supposed to be consulted with. How is it supposed to be consulted with to ensure transparency and to capture its views? If we're going to ensure transparency, doesn't that mean the minister should probably answer some questions about the process? That would seem like transparency. Maybe this government views transparency in the same way they view openness to amendments, when we heard from the minister yesterday, “Oh, we're open to amendments, but we won't accept them.”

Okay, great. They'll give us the chance to put forward our amendments, but they won't accept them. That's quite open, much like the type of transparency we're seeing here. Capturing the views of the committee, I would assume means the committee would be asked for its opinion. It wouldn't just be, “Oh, here's the second appointment after we withdrew the other one for who knows what reason. We'll bring him in and the committee can ask him some questions for an hour.”

How does that capture the views of the committee? It doesn't, does it? Maybe the government should follow its own words and capture the views of the committee. In order to do that, they have to let us do our job properly, which means the minister needs to come here and answer.

Beyond all that, this process has taken about two years. Why, I don't know. Who might be able to answer that question? The minister, perhaps? One would sure hope, but if we don't have the minister come to answer the questions, how will we know, and how can we properly make a decision, and how can we share our views? Does the government want to capture our views, as it claimed it did in this memo to the Prime Minister?

The idea of why bother having the minister and it's a waste of time because she won't answer the questions anyway, as the government member said, is not right. She should come here, and if she chooses not to answer the questions, she should be held accountable for that.

Now, if there are legitimate privacy issues, fine, but there are plenty of things, and I've just outlined a few of them, that can be commented on here. Frankly, this is an officer of Parliament, someone who is supposed to serve this Parliament, as was mentioned already, for 10 years. It's the person who runs our elections in this country. It's a very significant and important role. If the government messes up the process and refuses to answer questions about that process, then how can this committee do its job? Remember, it said we're supposed to capture this committee's views.

Well, we don't have the answers. We don't have the information required to make an assessment and properly give our views. It seems to me as though what we're hearing from the government side is that they don't really care about trying to do that job and that they don't really care what the views are of this committee.

Well, I want to do my job properly. I want to ensure we're doing what we're supposed to do as parliamentarians. If you don't question the decisions, and I don't care what side of the House of Commons you sit on, you should care about doing your job properly and questioning the decisions of the executive. That's our job as members of Parliament. We should all want to do that.

I'm really quite offended by the comments that were made that there's no point having the minister come here because she won't answer the questions anyway; she can't answer questions. Well, she darn well should. I will be appalled if this motion doesn't pass. I thought it was an easy no-brainer. I really did. Why would we not want to do our jobs properly? Why would we not want to ensure that the Prime Minister lives up to his own words? I would sure think, even if I were sitting on the other side, elected under the banner of the Prime Minister, that I would want to make sure he keeps his word. I would think that would be helpful in getting re-elected, if I were on that side. If the Prime Minister chooses not keep his word, I would take that fairly seriously. I certainly do over here, and I know my colleagues do as well.

I sure hope that we will be given the opportunity to do our jobs, that the minister will be expected to do hers, and that the government will be expected to live up to its word. The only way that any of that will happen is for us to pass this motion, and I will point out we very generously made the offer to amend it, to cut the time in half, to help facilitate this. I get the jam that the government has put itself in here. Let's hope that members on the other side choose to take a second thought to this and not be so dismissive of it.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order. I would point out that we are at 1:01 p.m., which would be the normal hour of adjournment for this committee. I look to you, Mr. Chair, as to whether we will be adjourning at 1:01 p.m.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

The committee chair cannot adjourn the meeting without the consent of the majority of the members, unless the chair decides that a case of disorder or misconduct is so serious as to prevent the committee from continuing its work.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Chair, I would like to follow up on that point of order.

Would it not be incumbent upon you, as chair, to then canvass the committee because we are past the time we would ordinarily adjourn. Would it not be incumbent upon you to canvass the committee for its thoughts on that, and perhaps put it to a vote?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

You can move to adjourn the meeting, if you want.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

You as chair would not do that? Someone would make a motion to adjourn?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

They could.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Is that how it would work? I'm trying to understand the procedures.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Is there general...?

There doesn't seem to be general consent to adjourn.

As I said earlier, if we're going to travel, we'll have to have a lengthy discussion on that, because we need a budget.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

If I understand correctly, you're saying that the meeting would continue. You wouldn't canvass the members. It's only if someone made the motion to adjourn. Correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

I just did canvass, and I didn't see a majority in favour, so, yes.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, am I on the speaking list after Mr. Richards?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Yes, you're after Mr. Richards.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

I think I have concluded my remarks.

I hope we can go to a vote on this. I sure hope that the other side will choose to be far less dismissive of trying to do our jobs properly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Reid.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Were you going to move adjournment?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

No, I want to see a vote on the motion.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

All right.

I come back to the issue of consultation and secrecy, but actually, before I do that, Mr. Chair, with your permission, I actually meant to raise this as a separate point of order. I hope you'll indulge me.

The issue of adjournment in these kinds of proceedings is, of course, a bit touchy in this committee. There's an interesting history, and as we are engaging in essentially the same process once again, I'll just suggest that what we do with respect to determining how to adjourn and the search for implied consent will have more weight with those who are trying to figure out how to revise House of Commons Procedure and Practice—What is it right now? It's Bosc and Gagnon—than will what has happened elsewhere.

So I would like to make the suggestion that the practice of looking around the room and seeing if there is consent, and taking one's time in doing this, as you just did, ought to govern us just as much when the—I don't know how to put this any different way—party of which the chair is a member would like proceedings to wrap up as it does when the party of which the chair is not a member would like things to wrap up. There was an inconsistency last time. I think the process of looking around the room, seeking consent, and taking at least several seconds to do that is appropriate.

I can't remember how much time you took. Maybe it was 10 seconds. That, I think, is a reasonable thing to do, to see about consent. Consent implies “I'm looking to see if there's a consensus”, and not “I'm looking to see if there's a majority.” That could be dealt with by means of someone moving adjournment. That's where you establish majority and so that's why I asked Mr. Richards if he was going to move adjournment. We then would have found out where the majority sits. There would have been a vote.

In the absence of a vote, presumably the assumption is that any one member can deny a consensus, and everything we do is structured around that basic assumption that you have to move to an actual vote in one form or another in order to establish that the majority is in charge. I'm just saying that so that we can make sure we're consistent, should we be here for some length of time, in the way in which we wrap up these proceedings, when the government decides that they would like the proceedings to be wrapped up.

Let me now turn to the issues of this very expansive definition of secrecy and of privacy in particular. I find that there are certain buzzwords that point to salutary and widely accepted concepts but in a fuzzy way that permits the same word to have different meanings at different times, based on the convenience of the speaker—I don't mean the Speaker of the House; I mean the person then holding the floor—around terms like privacy and dignity. These are terms that, when narrowly constructed, have unanimous support of everybody, the vast majority of Canadians. When very, very broadly constructed, they are used as a way of withholding information, disclosure, access, democracy, and so on. We saw the term “privacy” being used today for that purpose. The implication of Mr. Bittle's words was that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Do you have a point of order?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

No, I just want to go on the list.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

You want to go on the list. Okay.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

The implication of Mr. Bittle's words was that there's some piece of information that would be embarrassing to somebody—I got the feeling that there was a little subtle implication that it was embarrassing to the initial appointee to the position—that has to be withheld from us.

So out of that, we are deprived of a series of pieces of information that, I think, are legitimately our right. We took an extraordinary length of time to arrive at an appointee, regardless of which of the two appointees we're talking about.

What is the name of the fellow from Saskatchewan again?