Evidence of meeting #156 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 commissioner.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Matthew Shea  Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services, Privy Council Office
Allen Sutherland  Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Machinery of Government and Democratic Institutions, Privy Council Office
Andre Barnes  Committee Researcher

Noon

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON

Thank you.

Noon

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Shall vote 1, under “Leaders' Debates Commission”, carry?

LEADERS' DEBATES COMMISSION

Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$4,520,775

(Vote 1 agreed to on division)

Now that we've done the debates commission, the House of Commons, PPS and the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, shall I report the votes in the main estimates to the House?

Noon

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Noon

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Thank you very much and thank you for coming. It's great to have you again.

Noon

Liberal

Karina Gould Liberal Burlington, ON

It's always a pleasure.

Noon

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

We will suspend for a few minutes while we get ready for committee business.

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Welcome back to the 156th meeting of the committee. I would like to remind members we're still being televised.

There are just a couple of things on the agenda. We have Mr. Christopherson's proposed motion for a study on the Standing Orders, and also, potentially, Mr. Reid's motion. Now that we've done a study, hopefully we can finalize his motion sometime soon.

There is another committee coming in here, so we will end exactly at 1:00. I'd like to go in camera for a very minor thing right at the end, at five minutes to 1:00.

Mr. Christopherson, your motion is on the floor. You've already introduced it. I see you've submitted two documents to the committee, though, that help clarify and simplify it. It's a very large package, so this is a good summary. The floor is yours.

12:15 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Very good. Thank you, Chair. I appreciate that.

Just to pick up on where Ms. Sahota left off, we could be done in 10 minutes. My sense of this is it could go either of two ways. One is we're going to be done in 10 minutes, and everybody will say yes, we'll study it and give some respect to the people who did all this work. We could decide how much of a study that is and so on, once we make that decision.

If we're not going to say that, then there's a distinct possibility this discussion will go on for a period of time. It seems unreasonable for us not to give this group of colleagues the opportunity to at least be heard.

This is running parallel to another motion in the House that has similar effects. We just have to let those two paths unfold as they will. The issue for us is whether we want to study it right now. Whether we'll be done or not and how extensive our study will be are details we can deal with after the fact.

Chair, I think I ended my brief remarks last time almost on the same note, in that I'm looking to get a sense of where colleagues are. Either this is going to be real quick, and we'll decide we're going to do it and just need to talk details, or we're into a different world where.... Well, I'll be optimistic and hope we don't enter that world. There's no need to describe a world that I'm optimistic we won't enter.

Again, I would just plead—literally plead—with colleagues. There's frustration on the part of a lot of backbenchers about the continued sense of backbench involvement in decision-making being watered down. More and more power over the decades has accrued in the PMO. There have been presidents in the United States who have said publicly they would give anything to have the amount of direct power that a majority prime minister has in our system. It's understandable. I'm speaking to the leadership of all the caucuses in the House when I say that at the very least, if this safety valve is not triggered, these frustrations aren't going away. They're only going to get stronger.

I've described publicly a couple of times what I think is going to happen going forward. As the public demands democratic reform because they don't see it responding to their current needs, they're going to elect people who have a mandate to go and fix things. This is not going anywhere. It has to be dealt with. Either it's going to be dealt with by the majority of members opening their arms to change and being fair-minded, or we're going to be facing blockages and thwarted attempts to be heard. That's just going to lead to greater and more extreme actions on the part of future MPs. I don't see how it could not result in that.

Again, I want to remain optimistic. I haven't had any indication from colleagues on where we're going on this motion, either privately or publicly.

I would ask that my name be put back on the list as I relinquish the floor. I would be very interested to hear from colleagues. Again, in my view we could be out of here in a few minutes, or we're going to be wrestling with this for far more time than we ever thought.

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Thank you.

Ms. Kusie, then Mr. Graham, then Madame Lapointe.

Did you have your hand up, too, Ms. Sahota?

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON

I did, but don't put it down yet. We'll see what everyone says. It might not be needed.

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Madam Kusie.

12:20 p.m.

Conservative

Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB

I have to be very sincere and say that certainly some of my colleagues even here contributed to this study. As well, some of my Conservative caucus members who have been members of the Conservative caucus for many years and even ran for the leadership are in support of the consideration of changes such as these.

I think it would be inaccurate for me to say that there is not an interest for some of these ideas within my caucus. That would not be true. There is an interest because certainly our membership, as is clearly indicated for the membership of the NDP and the Liberals, also have an appetite for the reconsideration of—for lack of a better term—powers.

I do feel there is an interest and an appetite in the consideration of the proposed ideas within this motion, but perhaps I'll just move a friendly amendment that the motion be amended by adding the following:

provided that the Committee shall not report any recommendation to the House without the unanimous agreement of this Committee.

I know that there has been the indication previously of the importance of some of the members, if not all the members—well, some of the members, better I leave it at that—of this committee to have unanimous agreement of items such as this, so I think that this amendment is in keeping with the spirit and the genre of that desire of other members of this committee. As I mentioned, it would be inaccurate for me to say that there's not an interest within our caucus in the discussion and the exploration of these ideas.

I will move this friendly amendment.

Thank you, Chair.

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

I'm going to go to Mr. Graham, but just before I do, could I get a one-word answer from Mr. Christopherson as to whether he accepts that as a friendly amendment?

12:20 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Could I hear that again, please?

12:20 p.m.

Conservative

Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB

We'll distribute them, Chair, and pardon me for not doing that previously. My apologies; that was my fault.

12:20 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

That's okay. It's not a requirement.

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Okay, we'll go to Mr. Graham, and then we'll get back to you.

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC

This is just a quick comment. Ms. Kusie, I don't oppose your amendment at all. My one concern, my one request—and I say this very sincerely—is that no member obstruct any recommendation for the purpose of obstructing a recommendation, so that they're considered honestly and in good faith, so we don't have a situation where we say, yes, we're going to go on the consensus model, and then one person sits there and says, “No, no, no”, because that would be really unfortunate.

I want to make sure that we have an assurance from you on the record saying that will not be the case, that the consensus model will be sincere, and that everything will be considered. If that's the case, I'm very happy to support that amendment.

12:20 p.m.

Conservative

Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB

Would you like me to respond?

Perhaps I don't understand exactly what you.... I would say that, if you are making reference to the.... I guess the only word I can think of is the “spite” of an individual member to withhold something. Obviously this would require assurance from all members of the committee, not just from me.

I see no reason to spite any of these proposed changes specifically. I don't think it's a secret or unknown that I will have to stay in communication with my caucus in regard to the items discussed and the direction of the study, but as I said, there is a sincere interest that I have seen in the exploration of these ideas. If my caucus is committed to the consideration of this, as their shadow minister for democratic institutions, so am I.

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Okay.

On the amendment, Madame Lapointe.

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC

Do I have to talk about the amendment or can I make the comments I wanted to make?

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

We are talking about the amendment.

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC

Very good.

I would be okay with unanimous recommendations.

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Okay.

On the amendment, Mr. Bittle.

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON

I was in favour of it until I heard Ms. Kusie's explanation, which could have been an easy “yes, we will genuinely consider all of these proposals”, but we then got a pretzel answer.

I guess I'd like to hear from Mr. Christopherson before I make my decision on the amendment.