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

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Before Mr. Chan goes ahead, when Mr. Christopherson comes back, I wonder if the committee would consider, if we're not in agreement with this yet, putting it to the bottom of the routine motions here and seeing if there are some we can agree on. You don't have to answer that yet.

Mr. Chan.

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

Let me first address Mr. Christopherson's point. I think we're more preoccupied by form than by substance. You're proposing a change in the composition of the committee. We have every intention of working co-operatively, but there may be times when we ultimately can or cannot agree. All we're proposing to do is to simply remove the parliamentary secretary and replace that person with a government member. That was the practice we were basically adopting.

I want to turn to the points that both Mr. Reid and Mr. Richards raised with respect to the substitution question. My concern is that I think the intention here was to remove the parliamentary secretary as being one of the potential substitutes. I have some trouble with the idea that they must be only the permanent members of the committee. Sometimes one of us is sick or away for a protracted period of time and we need the opportunity to substitute somebody else in from the government caucus to represent us so that we have our six on this particular committee.

I don't want it to be so restrictive that we can't actually bring in someone else to replace us on this particular subcommittee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We have Mr. Christopherson, Mr. Lamoureux, and Mr. Reid, in that order.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'm prepared to defer to others. I've had a lot to say. As long as I can maintain another spot on the speakers list, I'll let the others speak now.

I heard your suggestion. I'm not really there, Chair. A lot of it, again, is goodwill. I want to bring goodwill, but I'm not getting any from the government. I don't see how I can just set that aside and pretend it's there and have goodwill for everything else. Either there's goodwill on this and the government is serious about changing its ways, or it isn't.

I'd like to get back on the list. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We have Mr. Lamoureux, Mr. Reid and Mr. Christopherson.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Chair, like Mr. Christopherson, I have had the opportunity to sit on PROC for the last couple of years. I've also had the opportunity to sit on the subcommittee, and in my experience, there has been a very high sense of co-operation and consensus. I cannot recall there ever being a vote on the subcommittee. I have found the subcommittee to be very helpful. It does have its meetings; they are fairly straightforward. They then come back to the full committee for a vote.

I think what we need to look at is what we're actually debating right now. I say this in my capacity as a person with first-hand experience having sat on both committees and having seen how both of them actually operated.

I look to you, Mr. Christopherson, to provide comment, as I'm sure you will, in regard to this. Can you ever recall over the last two and a half years an incident where there was controversy at that subcommittee? I don't think we need to read something into something that's just not there.

If we look at the change that's being proposed, Mr. Christopherson, you continue to question the integrity of the Prime Minister's willingness to seek changes on standing committees. You're in the opposition. You can do all you want in regard to that. It does not diminish the attempt by the Prime Minister to make significant, positive changes to the committee. He is also making committees more open for dialogue.

This amendment, the change that's being proposed, does one thing: it takes the parliamentary secretary [Technical difficulty—Editor]. You've made reference to the importance of the procedure and House affairs committee. It is one of those senior committees to which other committees will often go. It is something we should be taking very seriously. I for one am taking it very seriously.

I listened to you, Mr. Christopherson, when you talked about, well, why was I sitting where I was? In order to try to show goodwill on my part, I thought, okay, fine, I'll change the location of where I sit, if that happens. I don't intend on being here at every meeting, per se. I'm not exactly sure of my role; I'm trying to better define my own role on it. All I know is that I do have an interest in it.

We have very capable individuals sitting on the government side, and we should not be questioning their integrity or their experience. It's much like many of your caucus colleagues who come before committees, many of them for the very first time. I don't believe you'll find Liberals questioning their integrity or their capabilities to perform.

I understand and I can appreciate that all members, including Liberal members, are anxious to see committees get to work to get the job done. Then, I believe, we'll get a better sense in regard to what role other members will be playing, including parliamentary secretaries. But I think we have to provide the opportunity for time to pass and to see what kind of work committees will be able to do. I'd like to think that a year from now you'll be looking at it and saying that these committees are in fact more productive and members are able to actually contribute by bringing forth amendments, and that you'll see amendments being accepted. At least that's what I would anticipate.

I'm very much aware in terms of what it is and many of the arguments that you've put forward, and I respect them. Having said that, if we go right back to the core rule, to what it is we're actually trying to do today, I don't think it's that much.

I had intentions of providing some comment today, because there were House leader discussions that involved all three House leaders. I was hoping to be able to share some of those thoughts. Maybe if we can pass this through, we will be able to get that opportunity. I'd like to think, because of the discussions that included your own House leaders, we'd be able to enter into at least some discussion on that, nut in order to do that, we have to go through these rules.

Now, my experience of going through rules, and I've done it on more than just PROC, is that for motions of this nature, it's typically fairly quick. There's no surprise. In the documents before us that we're expected to pass, there aren't going to be any surprises from us.

No one should have been surprised that we're taking the parliamentary secretary off the subcommittee. That's all we are doing in this particular amendment. There is no other change to it. It is the government's intent that the representatives on that subcommittee be members of PROC. There is absolutely no change.

My suggestion—and that's all it is; it's just a suggestion—is that maybe if we could get through this motion we could then enter into a discussion, if it's the will of the committee and the chair to have some sort of discussion on agenda, because I know you were very concerned about the coming agenda. We were hoping to be able to do that, because today will likely be, or could be, our last day, unless the vice-chairs and the chair get together and reconvene the committee.

I'm hopeful that you'll appreciate that there is no hidden agenda here. What we want to do is to just see the motions pass, to take into consideration taking me off the subcommittee, and to make sure there's a different membership because of the switch in places inside the committee, with the Liberals, not the Conservatives, now being the government and so forth. That's it.

Then we can continue on and we can even have an open debate, possibly, if that's what the committee wants, after the rules have been passed, but that will be up to you. We're not going to...at least I don't think the chair or members of the committee are going to attempt in any way to shut you down.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We have Mr. Reid, Mr. Christopherson, and then Mr. Angus.

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

Mr. Chair, I want to respond first to something that Mr. Lamoureux said, and then to a prior comment Mr. Chan made. They're different subjects, but that's how it works.

With regard to Mr. Lamoureux's comment, he invited Mr. Christopherson to think back over the last three or four years, and he said, “I don't recall any controversy at the steering committee.” First of all, I want to add a little plug for my former government, which gets beat up on so much as being so awful in so many ways. I mean, oh my goodness. That was at the time when we had a majority on that subcommittee. We actually acted responsibly and consultatively. A Liberal member has actually just said so, alleluia, choruses of angels, and peace to all men, yay. It's Christmas. It's Hanukkah. It's all good. I just had to say that.

More substantively, my experience on this committee goes back 11 years. I was here with Ed Broadbent way back in the day. I feel a bit like one of those grizzled poilus who entered the French army in 1914 and somehow were always in a different place when the shells landed and were still there in 1918, having gone through multiple generations of others. It was not always sweetness and light with regard to the subcommittee. There were significant problems, not so much back in the very beginning when it was the Martin minority government, which was when I first came on, but during the two Harper minorities, there were problems with the subcommittee.

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible—Editor]

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

What was that? Were there votes in the subcommittee? I wasn't actually on it, so I can't tell how it worked. My point is that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

I'm sorry, but on a point of order, we're not in camera right now and subcommittee meetings were in camera, so you can't really disclose what happened.

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

In all fairness, I actually can't tell whether there were votes, so you needn't worry. I was not there.

What I can tell you is that the agendas they came forward with were not always those that matched with.... They had not been arrived at in a manner that appeared to indicate that from those of us watching it—and our meetings were not in camera so they're on the record—and we had a lot of punch-ups. I think our clerk may have been there at the biggest punch-up.

You weren't doing it yourself. You were just watching.

They weren't literal punch-ups, but they were the next closest thing. We actually dissolved into complete disorder. There was a vote of no confidence in our chair. He was replaced by Joe Preston, who then immediately.... You may remember this.

Were you on the committee then, David?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I remember. I came in after, but I know the battle, yes.

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

All right. It's sort of legendary.

He then refused to actually convene the committee or chair the meetings. All of this was over a number of different things. It was over an attempt to find the government in contempt of Parliament, which we thought was an illegitimate use of the committee's mandate and authority, and also an abuse of the facts, to be honest.

In the end, the Canadian people backed us up when we had an election on the subject back in 2011. The point I'm driving at is that there was not this consensus and there was considerable division.

Historically, just to establish that record, it has been an issue. That does not mean to suggest it would occur again. My sense, if we're talking about whether it would be consensus or not, is that there is a different dynamic in majorities than there is in minorities and you probably wouldn't get it. But I want to make sure that everybody understands the full record, that it is not something that has happened every single time.

Having said that, Arnold, with regard to your comments.... To be honest, I don't have as clear a memory of your comments as I had at one time. Mr. Lamoureux's comments were so long that some things have now faded away.

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

My point was just on who could substitute on the subcommittee. I asked you a question to clarify whether it had to be one of the permanent members, and your answer was “yes”. I indicated then that I had a substantive concern with that, because I feel it restricts our ability in terms of substitutions and that it should be a government member.

In the past year, as you know, I suffered from cancer. If I was away for a protracted period of time, this would have just made it much more difficult for us to substitute me. We're all busy people. We're not suggesting that we don't want one of the permanent members. They're simply more familiar. But I don't want to preclude that capacity of our sometimes, on occasion, having to bring somebody else in as a substitute.

The key point for us is the removal of the parliamentary secretary, with which we would be fine. If you want to explicitly say that, I'm fine with that. I'm more concerned about our inability.... It's our intention that in most instances the substitute would be a permanent member of the committee because we are more familiar with what's going on. However, I don't want to fetter our ability to put someone else in, just in that circumstance where we don't have a permanent member of the committee who's available to come in and substitute and we must draw on somebody else. That's all.

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

There are two things about that. Number one, what Arnold and I are discussing is, strictly speaking, not relevant to Mr. Christopherson's amendment. It's relevant to the amendment that I haven't made yet, so I'll respond to him and in the event that we get through Mr. Christopherson's amendment and move on to mine, I will simply refrain from repeating these comments.

With regard to the substantive point that Arnold's making.... I'm now copying my colleague, Tom Lukiwski, because he always refers to everybody by their first names. With regard to what Arnold's saying, I disagree when it comes to this subcommittee—not other subcommittees, just this one—for the following reason.

We have subcommittees in various things. I chaired a subcommittee that dealt with the Ethics Commissioner and her mandate to adjust our code of conduct and Conflict of Interest Code, which I suspect we will return to. When we get to that particular item or others like it, I will not be suggesting that it should be a permanent member of this committee. In the past, we had people who were not permanent members of the committee and that was fine. It was people who had a particular understanding of the issues related to conflict of interest.

On this one, however, I think that actually being involved in the committee and having an intimate personal knowledge of what's going on is really key to being on the steering committee. That's the reason that, on this particular subcommittee, just the steering committee, I think it's essential to have permanent members. I always thought that this was a problem in the past whenever we veered away from it, including when my government veered away from it and introduced people who didn't have an intimate knowledge of the problems.

I also want to point out with regard to this discussion that the private members' business subcommittee is dealt with. I said in earlier comments that I've seen members who are not members of the standing committee on the private members' subcommittee. It turns out, and the clerk pointed this out to me, that there is a separate standing order, Standing Order 91.1, that deals with membership on the private members' business subcommittee. It has a different set of criteria for membership that has nothing to do with our normal rules. Nothing we do here will relate to that. We can continue to have non-members of this committee on that subcommittee. That is fine, and I agree that it's fine because a knowledge of how that business works doesn't really relate to what we do here. Appeals from there come here, but we could argue that it's better to have someone who's not a member of this committee because you shouldn't be hearing an appeal to your own ruling.

I just wanted to get that clear. The steering committee is the one exception.

Arnold, I do take your point about people being ill, but there is a pretty large number of government members. It is actually more of an issue for us and especially an issue for the New Democrats. I am vaguely hopeful that Mr. Christopherson will hear my point on this because it relates to him, and I hope that he'll think about it. There are five government members, excluding the chair, on this committee, so you'll have people to draw upon if you need to. There is a tiny bit of an issue for us, as we have three Conservatives in opposition, but there's only one New Democrat. It's conceivable that, effectively, if we do what I've been recommending, where only permanent members go on—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I wouldn't have a substitute.

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

You wouldn't have and that could be an issue. Arnold put that thought in my mind. I'd be interested in your comment on it, but if you don't want to do it now, because we are dealing with your subamendment, not mine, that's fine.

I'll stop now. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Christopherson and then Mr. Angus.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Chair, I'll pick up on Mr. Reid's last point just while it's fresh in my mind, and I have a number of other thoughts from previous speakers.

Mr. Reid, through the chair to you, your point is well taken. I think what would mitigate it in a huge way is exactly the issue I'm trying to get resolved. If the steering committee didn't have the political majority control power to control a motion that comes here, in the affirmative or in the negative, then it wouldn't matter as much because there would either be total agreement.... If you're not on there, you run the risk that you don't know what's going on, but for the most part, if somebody is on there from somewhere else, if it's by consensus, it's not as big a problem. There are two big issues, as I see them, with your point. If you get somebody on there who doesn't really know what is going on at the committee, it's a little difficult to be part of the steering committee that looks ahead, especially if you're in a bit of a jackpot and you're trying to get out of it. It's very difficult if you're not one of the ones who are there, but it's a lot easier for us on this side of the House, the other recognized parties, if there's a consensus model so that at the very least it's not being partisan-driven that way, and then when it comes here we still have the opportunity, but your point is well taken.

If I might, I would say just a couple of things, Chair. First of all, both Mr. Lamoureux and Mr. Chan have been sort of urging us to get on with things and to watch the clock, since this may be our last day. I want to remind colleagues that it was on Tuesday when we assembled all the things it takes to pull a committee together that the only thing we did was elect a chair and two vice-chairs. We had an hour and three-quarters or an hour and a half available, and I was ready to start working, but the government had no interest at all, so, I'm sorry, but the argument that the NDP caused major problems because they backed up the committee and the work couldn't get done isn't going to wash. The government has to remember that on Tuesday it shut us down after we did the least amount of work possible. I leave that with you.

Second, through you again, Chair, with respect to Mr. Lamoureux, I hear what you're saying and I don't necessarily disagree, Kevin. I think Scott was right that there actually were a few examples in which there were problems, but I agree with you to the extent that most of the time it's not an issue. When I link that with what the government has said it wants to do with committees, it reminds me of my old negotiating days back when I was in my twenties negotiating collective agreements and how whether an employer said “may” do something or “shall” do something could cause a strike. On the one hand, “may” means they might or they might not depending on how they feel that day. “Shall” means there is an obligation.

Unfortunately, Mr. Lamoureux, you didn't quite get your notes in order, because while you were arguing that we're always going to get along, Mr. Chan is on record as saying—I'm paraphrasing—that's likely to happen, but sometimes we'll disagree. There's the big “but”. Either the government wants the PMO to have the ability to control the committees or it does not. I again put forward that the government already has control.

I'm going to acknowledge that there's about a 99.9% certainty, if not 100%, that other than in some freakish scenario, I'm going to lose votes and the government's going to win. That is going to happen 10 times out of 10 whether it's in any committee or in the House, and, Chair, I'll be the first one to say that under our current system, as flawed as it is, that's the way it needs to be. I accept that. I'm not trying to rewrite the election results; as much as I might like to do that, I'm not trying to do that.

There's backup control for the government, and I do get that, but at the end of the day, you have that at committee. No matter how many times I place a motion or the former government members place motions, we're going to lose if the government decides it doesn't like those motions. That is just life for us. The government gets to win every time the government wants to win.

I've been there. It's glorious. It's great. It's wonderful walking into a room, whether it's the House or a committee, knowing that 10 times out of 10 you're going to win. It's a great feeling, but you have that, and you made a promise that you're going to do things differently, so arguments about what we did in the past carry only so much weight when the government came in on an agenda of change. Arguing status quo really is arguing against your own agenda.

If you want to have two members on there, fine. That's not a hill I want to die on. However, if you're going to say that those two members are going to use their voting clout to force things through, that's not the intent of a steering committee. Even if the government doesn't get its way at the steering committee and there's no recommendation, the government lead—possibly Mr. Chan, if we're going by seniority and the fact that it won't be a parliamentary secretary, so it could be Mr. Chan or anyone else—is going to put forward a motion that reflects the argument that was made at the steering committee. They didn't win it at the steering committee because the rules of the steering committee provide for as much consensus as possible. The structure is meant to provide that. Then, when we don't have unanimity and we come here, Chair, I can all but guarantee that the government lead is going to move a motion that, just coincidentally, reflects everything that the government members wanted to do in the steering committee.

I don't have a problem with that. You're going to place that motion. The most we can do is debate the hell out of it and delay things, as I'm doing now, to make a point on something. We can do that, which we're entitled to do, assuming that you're not into railroading mode yet. You still have that backup at this committee.

Again, if you wanted to change things, this isn't even that big. I'm really quite surprised, Kevin, that you're letting us get this far down the rabbit hole, because this isn't going to reflect well on you either. This thing should have been boom, boom, boom, out of here. We could have been done on Tuesday.

All I'm trying to do is to help the government. Let's turn this and look at it differently. I'm trying to help by facilitating your agenda to make committees a little more independent. They're not going to be totally independent, because you have that majority vote. Fair enough. Again, nobody's arguing that. You have the right to make the decision. We can squawk and complain all we want, but you have that power. They used to have it; now they don't and you do. Okay. However, if you really want to change things and you want us to feel that committees are more independent, that we're actually reflecting what we think rather than what we're being told from on high....

That still applies to our parties. It's not as tight when you're not in government, but we all have leaders, whips, and House leaders, so those things still come into play at this committee. Other than the parliamentary secretary not being on the committee, there's not a lot of change to the power structure. It's a good start, but it doesn't really change the dynamic, and nobody's pretending it should. I'm not saying that you're evil for not doing that. That's the way it is. You get the final say.

However, if we really want to make things more independent—and this is not new; most of the steering committees I've sat on have operated by consensus. If we couldn't agree, the matter was bounced over to the committee with no recommendation. The government members would have done their homework, and Mr. Chan, for example, if he were the lead, or Ms. Taylor, if she were the lead, would put forward a motion that would exactly reflect what the government was saying in the steering committee. We would be fully expecting it, and then we'd have our array of measures and tools to respond, such as discussing and talking and holding things up and all that other stuff. That'll all come into play here, but at the end of the day, you win. Fair enough. But now a government that says it wants to do things differently wants to control the one place in committee work where there are no cameras and nobody sees the transcript, except for a very few people who have to get permission. It's like Maxwell Smart's cone of silence. Nobody knows what's going on.

They're fun meetings, quite frankly, because people are intelligent and they're funny in their work. If you've been around a long time, as I have, you actually get more of a thrill when you try to work together instead of fighting, because fighting is just the same old same old. Working together is a lot of fun; it really is, especially if you have serious challenges and you're working together. That's done a lot better in a collaborative relationship without the partisan aspect of power voting.

Mr. Lamoureux, you just finished saying that you didn't expect it to be a problem. I don't disagree with you, but I have to listen to your colleague who sits besides you, who said that there's going to be occasions where...and that as soon as we get there...even if it's just one time.

I say again to Mr.—

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

On a point of order, Mr. Christopherson, could you please not repeat yourself. You can't keep on repeating the same argument and keep the floor.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

How am I repeating myself? I'm talking about the dynamics that are happening in a steering committee that show why my argument is the one that I think should prevail. Help me understand where I'm repeating myself, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

You've said that a number of times.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'm allowed to say it as many different ways as I want, as long as I'm saying it in a different way; I'm not using the same words.

I mean, really? Is that where we are? Anita is trying to shut me down. Now you're trying to shut me down. Here we are, with you telling us it's a whole new era, and all I'm doing is making arguments that we actually change things—like, really do it rather than talk. Come on.

I'm willing to relinquish, if you're tired of hearing from me, as long as you have other speakers and I can go on the list. I'll be glad to do that. But if that's not the case, Chair, I'll continue to talk about the things that I think are relevant to the matter in the motion that I put before us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We do have other people on the list.