Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Dec. 10th, 2015

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay. There is an amendment on the table for discussion.

Mr. Reid is next in line.

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

My question at this point simply becomes this.... I can comment on this, but I first want to confirm it. Is this actually a subamendment, or is it a new amendment that can only be dealt with as an item of business when the first amendment is disposed of, given the fact that it is not really an amendment to it but a replacement for it?

I'm asking for your advice on that before I go any further.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Arnold, I don't know your thinking, but you can accept it as a friendly amendment and move things along if you're in agreement.

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

I don't know if that works here. I think that's Robert's Rules of Order, not parliamentary procedure.

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

The old procedures weren't really a motion, so the first motion we were dealing with was Mr. Chan's motion, and we have Mr. Christopherson's first amendment, so we're debating the amendment.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Do we need a seconder?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

No. We don't need seconders at committee.

On the amendment, Mr. Reid.

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

I actually had a different suggestion.

David, this is not me speaking against your motion. It's simply that I was going to propose an amendment, and it's easier to debate your amendment in a fully informed manner if you know what my amendment was going to be.

I was going to suggest that it would be the chair and the two vice-chairs, and then after that we would just say “two government members who are both permanent members of the committee”. My logic in suggesting this was, and I guess still is, that this would ensure that it's people who are actually involved in the working of the committee and have some knowledge, that it's not some outsider. In particular, it rules out the possibility that one of those two members could be a parliamentary secretary.

The problem with Mr. Chan's original motion.... Arnold, this is not me trying to say there's anything nefarious about it. It's simply a door that remains open. It could be two government members who could be two members of the committee or two members of another committee who have no actual knowledge here and are simply there to impose the will of the whip. Potentially, it could even be one or more parliamentary secretaries, at least in theory.

This was designed to shut that down. I have to say that although Mr. Christopherson's suggestion doesn't fully shut that down, it accomplishes roughly the same goal.

That's my contribution. It's not an argument for or against Mr. Christopherson's original proposal. It's simply how I was thinking of dealing with the same subject matter. I throw that out for others who are debating this issue.

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible—Editor]

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

No, no. I just wanted to explain so that people will act in an informed manner when they're voting on Mr. Christopherson's subamendment; that's all.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Before we go on, Mr. Reid, when members are referred to with respect to subcommittees and things, it is always members of the committee.

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

Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

That's the convention, so your motion is redundant, just so you're aware of that.

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

I actually was not aware of that. Is that correct? I'm sorry. I'm sure that on private members' business—I know this for a fact—we've had members on that subcommittee, which is a subcommittee of this committee, who were not members of this committee. Unless there was some other wording that precluded that, I think that convention has already been breached, as it were, and the actual wording in the motion could be helpful to plug that hole in the dike, so to speak.

[An hon. member]

Do you think you're going to be open to that amendment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay. We have to deal with Mr. Christopherson's amendment. We'll think on that, okay? Who's next?

Mr. Chan is next and then we have Mr. Christopherson.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Chair, I just want to ask Mr. Reid a quick question.

I'm actually fine if you propose that as an amendment, Mr. Reid. The only question on which I wanted to get clarification from you is this. Let's say we needed substitution; if it's the two government members who are part of this committee, that precludes us, so if we needed a substitution, could it only come from the permanent members of the committee?

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

That's correct. That's what I mean, yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'm surprised they don't know, given the vast experience they claim to have.... But I don't want to be like that, so I won't say it.

Here's the thing, Chair: I think I get a sense of where this is going. You can see that my biggest concern is that the steering committee becomes just a mini-me of the committee, which really is pointless. I guess I'm seeking from you a clarification that my interpretation was the correct one, that you will use and that the clerk supports.

I had mentioned earlier in one of my soliloquies that the committee would not make recommendations that did not have consensus, where there wasn't unanimity, that it wouldn't be majority rule. Could I get a ruling from you on whether or not that is exactly correct? Or is there something different in terms of how that steering committee functions and how it reaches its decisions, and the relationship between those decisions and this committee?

For example, I had said that in my experience, only where there is unanimity do those recommendations come forward. Where there is not unanimity among, in this case, the three recognized parties, then it comes to the committee as an unresolved matter with no recommendation from the steering committee. Conversely, if the government were looking at the steering committee to actually win majority votes, and that would carry the strength of a positive recommendation...which is much harder to stop, especially if it's the government that's sending it and the government has all the votes here.

It's really important, in my opinion, Chair, to be clear from the get-go on whether or not the steering committee makes majority decisions that are then recommended to the committee. Or is it only decisions and recommendations that have unanimous support at the steering committee that come forward in that fashion?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

I'll ask the clerk for clarification on that, and then we'll go to Mr. Hoback.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Great. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

The clerk suggests it's up to the call of the subcommittee; however they want to work and what they want to bring forward, it's up to them.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Then, Chair, I would seek, through you to Mr. Chan, some assurance that we're not looking at changing things.

I mean, here's the thing: You're now telling me the committee will decide for itself. If the government wins the argument and they get two members, that means they're guaranteed to win every vote, so why wouldn't they go to the subcommittee to argue they want the rules that way? They have the votes to force them. Then there's the whole system I was talking about, where the subcommittee, or steering committee, becomes nothing but a mini-me version of this committee with all its political dynamics.

I'm not trying to pick fights, by the way; I really do like working together, but we have to get the ground rules correct. I need some clarification from the government, in light of that ruling, on how they're going to interpret that at the subcommittee, because it matters whether we give agreement or not to two.

Let me put my cards on the table. If it's going to be consensus, fine, bring two. I don't think it's helpful. I don't think it changes anything. It just gives somebody another meeting. Maybe you need that, with all the caucus you have. That's fair enough. But it doesn't change the dynamic. If we're into a situation where it's majority vote as opposed to consensus, then, number one, we've moved away from some of the more independent tools available to this committee to work together, removed from the government, which supposedly is your goal.

If I could get that assurance, it would certainly make it a lot easier for me as we go forward. Otherwise, if you tell me that you're going to take two votes, change the rules in this Parliament, different from the last Parliament, to beef up the government strength in a subcommittee that's supposed to be as non-partisan as possible, I'm going to have some real difficulty with that, and I mean real difficulty, because it affects everything we do going forward, and it may likely set the template for the rest of our committees.

I say, with the greatest of respect, that if we want to get through the rest of our work, the government would be well advised to be very clear on what their intention is. I hope it's on the small-d democratic side and not the capital-C control side.