Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 16th, 2019

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Before that, though, we have Mr. Nater.

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

I'll be very brief.

I think we could genuinely work on a consensus model.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Yes, I agree.

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

I've spoken with Mr. Baylis on this. His suggestion in our conversation—I'm not telling tales out of school—was that we work on a consensus basis on this.

From our official opposition standpoint as a party, there's a lot of information in here that we would genuinely like to study. There are going to be elements that we may not agree with on the overall direction. Mr. Christopherson may not agree with it, the Liberals may not agree. There may be hills that we may be willing to die on and we may not be.

However, regarding the approach, I'm genuinely interested in this.

I would go one step further. I hope we can also, in parallel, finalize our second chamber study as well. I would like to see that hopefully reported to the House. There is some overlap here, but I don't want to see that study not go forward, because I think we've done some good work and research on that one as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Right now, reviewing the second chamber draft report that the researcher has done is on the first Tuesday that we get back.

Ruby Sahota, did you want to speak on the amendment? You were originally on the list.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay.

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

I have two things.

One, it's always been our preference that any changes to the Standing Orders, just like election laws, would have agreement of all the parties. That's the first point. That is sort of our default position.

Two, this is new, and it potentially changes the power structure. It's not going to go easy, and it's not going to be straightforward. At this point, I would take just about anything that is not wildly unacceptable as an amendment, if we can get a unanimous consent to have this heard. To me, that's the key thing.

Those are the two points: one, the preference that any changes like this, or election laws, where we're talking about the referee's rules, should have, in an ideal situation, the support of all the parties involved, including the independents for that matter, given that they're affected by these things too.

Two, it's really important that this be heard, that it be given the light of day. As much as possible, I think we should be bending over backwards to accommodate that. Quite frankly, if that's the only amendment that it takes for us to get unanimity in sending the message that we want this to be heard and we want to provide a venue for our colleagues to express their concerns and recommendations, then by all means, I accept the friendly amendment and appreciate the sincerity with which I believe it was put forward.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Christopherson, to your point, I'd like to apologize to Mr. Bittle. With regard to the spirit that my response to Mr. Graham was in, I would have felt it to be more insincere for me just to say yes. My intention was greater sincerity, if you will, in qualifying that.

Mr. Christopherson, you're right. I believe in completing the study. I believe this is how information is largely disseminated to the media and to social media. These ideas are heard, and this study will allow them to be heard. There is the possibility for these ideas to go into the public and into Canadian society, just in being heard here.

Thank you for your recognition of that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Is there any further discussion on the amendment?

(Amendment agreed to)

Now we'll go back to the main motion.

Mr. Graham.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I obviously support this motion very strongly. I think it's very important that we go through this.

Nobody is asking us to take the entire text of the changes and approve it in bulk. It's very important for all of us to look at each item one at a time and ask whether it make sense. It's having those proper discussions without wasting time, but really considering each one properly and trying to get this thing back on time to have it adopted by the House, so that when we come back next year—hoping that most of us do—we are able to have those rules in place.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Ms. Lapointe.

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

There is a very wide range of things being proposed. As far as establishing a parallel debating chamber is concerned, we conducted a study on that. I believe we are reporting on it and that will address that aspect.

People need to come talk to us about it. For example, we are talking about the power of the Speaker and I would like to hear from witnesses on that topic. We are talking about committees. I would like to hear from people who have experienced this and might be able to relay the advantages and disadvantages.

It is one thing to do a clause-by-clause study of the motion. Personally, I need to hear people talk about different topics.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I think we're all singing from the same page. I'm not going to say anything that might derail that. I think we're in a good place, and I hope it carries.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Reid.

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

This is a meaty motion, to put it mildly, at 19 pages. I think we have to assume that we are committing ourselves to saying that most of the remainder of the time we have before this Parliament comes to an end will be devoted to this subject. In order to make sure we don't waste any of that time, I wonder if it's possible for representatives of the various parties to chat with each other and with you, Mr. Chair, about how we're going to structure that time to make sure we use it effectively.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

I would never commit our future time. So many things come up in this committee—questions of privilege, etc. Obviously, right now it's in the forefront. Any discussions that happen would be great.

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

It would be nice to be off and running as soon as we get back from the break week.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Any further discussion on the motion to study this?

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Was that unanimous?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Yes.

We'll put that on the agenda as soon as we can.

Now we go to Mr. Reid's motion. We had a study. There are three ways we can proceed. First of all, we approved his motion, so we could just send it to the House. Second, we had some great witnesses and a lot of information. We could ask our researcher to do a report, to which we would attach the motion as a recommendation. Third, we could modify the motion. I'll just mention one small concern I had with it, and there may be more. It's a very technical motion. I think we all agree with the concept that PROC should study this and continue to study it. That's the idea of the motion.

It seemed to me that the way it was written we would have to get consent every year to have that part of PROC's mandate. It's hard enough to get consent from the House in procedures and get things done on our committee, because we're so busy. If we're going to agree it's in the committee, I would suggest that we just put it in the committee if the House agrees to that.

I'll go to Mr. Reid.

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

Mr. Chair, if you want to remove that particular provision...the purpose of that is just to make sure that part of the standing order comes to an end when the Centre Block renovations are complete. That's the logic. In all fairness, maybe that's far in the future, and we shouldn't worry about it.

It would be a simple matter to have that removed from the Standing Orders. I think that particular provision could be excised with these. I know as chair you're not supposed to propose amendments, but if someone else wanted to suggest that amendment, I would certainly be completely open to it. We could then go and see—

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We've already passed your motion so we can't amend it.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Why not?