Evidence of meeting #107 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was travel.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Good afternoon. This is the 107th meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. We are in public now.
After we deal with Blake's motion, the clerk definitely needs some serious feedback if we're going to travel. We have to finalize a lot of arrangements and get some feedback to the clerk on the rest of the process on this bill.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
I want to wait until Blake's motion. But are you talking about the Scott Brison motion?
Liberal
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Mr. Chair, I'll ask for a bit of advice from our clerk, because the problem that now arises in my understanding is that the deadline for us to confirm the appointment of a new CEO or not is June 7. Is that correct?
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Andrew Lauzon
Pursuant to the Standing Orders, it's up to the House to ratify.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
We can make a recommendation as to our thoughts can we not, if we choose?
The Clerk
The House can ratify the appointment without any input from the committee, independently of the appointment.
The Clerk
The Standing Order reads the committee may study the nomination for up to 30 calendar days, which takes us to June 7.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Okay. So if we wanted to have the House consider anything that we had to say it would have to be done prior to that date.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
That does present a bit of a problem, obviously, given the suggestions and discussions that took place last night about travelling next week. That would put us into a position where....
I guess the government in trying to rush through this elections bill, which they waited forever on, puts us in a position where we're not giving that bill anywhere near the due justice it deserves. I would argue, frankly, based on what's before us there, that we're not going to do our jobs properly as legislators on that piece of legislation. It simply is not going to happen. The fact of the matter is that we will not be meeting what I would say is our proper duty as legislators on that bill. At the same time, we are also going to say that we're not going to meet our proper duty as members of this committee in dealing with an appointment for a new Elections Canada CEO. If we put ourselves in a position to travel next week, we will be left with a situation where we actually cannot perform our duties by having the Minister of Democratic Institutions come and speak to the process.
This really, really is troublesome to me. Actually, I'll be frank that I'm at a little bit of a loss as to what to even suggest. That said, I suppose I'll still bring forward the motion and move it here. As a committee, I guess we can try to decide how best to deal with that. I think it's a travesty, frankly, that we're not going to give either one of these things due justice, but that's the reality. If the government chooses to force through this motion that they handed around to us last night, then that's the reality we're faced with. I guess we'll see how that goes.
Having said that, we can move this, and I will have some amendments to make to it. The reality of the situation is that some things have changed since the notice of motion was given. I'll get to those in a second. At the end of the day, I think we should still be trying to do our proper duty here. If the efforts that are being made by the government to ram through their Bill C-76 prevent us from doing our jobs properly not only on that legislation but also on this motion, and therefore the appointment of the CEO, I think at the very least we still should undertake to do our duty properly even if it is after the fact, which would be significantly unfortunate.
Having said that, I'll read the motion that I gave notice of, and then I will suggest what I think are the appropriate amendments. The notice of motion was the following:
That the Committee invite the Acting Minister of Democratic Institutions, Scott Brison, to appear within two weeks of the adoption of this motion, to answer questions regarding the appointment of a new Chief Electoral Officer, for no less than two hours, and that this meeting be televised.
There's an obvious amendment required here. I was unaware that the minister would be returning so shortly after this notice of motion was given. It was my mistake. I probably should have just used the title of the minister, and of course the acting minister would have come in place of the minister. I did not do that, and therefore I'll make that amendment now.
The amendment would change “Acting Minister of Democratic Institutions, Scott Brison” to “Minister of Democratic Institutions”. It would be replacing that wording for obvious reasons.
I'll make that motion for the amendment first, I guess.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I just want to find out if someone can amend their own motion in this manner. Do you have to get unanimous consent of the committee? How does it work?
The Clerk
Normally, the person moving the motion would not be able to amend their own motion.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Okay.
In that scenario, then, I'll move the motion as it stands and hope that one of my colleagues will take up the challenge to make the amendment for me.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
I'm assuming that the motion is now moved and you've finished your remarks.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Well, I would ask to be put back on the list, because I'd like to speak to it again, after the amendment is moved.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Okay.
I move the amendment that the words “Scott Brison” be struck out and that “Karina Gould” be—
Conservative
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Replace “Acting Minister of Democratic Institutions, Scott Brison”.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
I'll just read it. It will now read like this:
That the committee invite the Minister of Democratic Institutions, Karina Gould, to appear within two weeks of the adoption of this motion, to answer questions regarding the appointment of a new Chief Electoral Officer, for no less than two hours, and that this meeting be televised.
As the proposer of the amendment, if I may speak to it briefly, I would say that obviously this was done with good intentions, not realizing that Ms. Gould would be back as minister. I didn't know she was coming back as minister until I actually saw her in the House. I was very glad to see her back for a whole pile of reasons. First, I like her. Second, I think she understands this legislation better than Scott Brison does, and I mean no disrespect to Scott. He's a very smart guy and he at least pretends to like me, which warms the cockles of my heart, obviously.
