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

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you. We have Mr. Hoback, and then Mr. Chan, Mr. Lamoureux, and Ms. Vandenbeld.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Chair, in the spirit of moving this along, why don't we just deal with his subamendment and vote on it? I think Mr. Reid would have an amendment that he would like to make also. I don't think we're going to see any more discussion that's going to bring any more wisdom to the discussion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Do you want to call the vote on the amendment?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

As a point of order, you can't shut down debate in a committee. I want the floor, please, if nobody else does.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay, we're going to the other interventions at the moment. It's Mr. Chan, then Mr. Lamoureux, and then Ms. Vandenbeld.

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

Mr. Christopherson, it really comes down to our actual practices and how we conduct ourselves. We absolutely agree that the point of the steering committee is to operate under consensus, and if we can achieve that, that's exactly how we should proceed. We have every intention of working collaboratively with the other parties with respect to establishing that.

All we're proposing to do is to put into effect the replacement of the parliamentary secretary, within the standard past practices of the composition of this particular committee, and to replace that simply with a government member. That's all.

What you're proposing, really, is to change the composition of the committee and to change the actual membership balance.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I had a question, Mr. Chan, and my question was very clear—

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Lamoureux, you're next in the order. Do you defer?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay, then we have Ms. Vandenbeld.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Chair, just to be realistic about the purpose of this amendment, you see that the only real effective change is replacing a parliamentary secretary with a government member. The reason for that is so that the parliamentary secretary is no longer a member of the subcommittee. Everything else remains exactly as it always was and there's no reason to think that the behaviour of the subcommittee or anything would be any different than it has been. The only effective change is replacing the parliamentary secretary.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

The government can go so far saying “the way it used to be”, but you came in here saying you were going to change things, make them better and more independent, and give us more independence.

I hear all of the arguments. I say to the government members, with the greatest of respect, that I asked the chair whether or not it would be majority rule or consensus. I've been around here a while; you listen to every word. Mr. Chan said that they were going to try to achieve consensus, but what I have not yet heard is whether or not only decisions that are unanimous will come forward to this committee. If that's the case, we don't have as big a problem. In fact, I don't think we have a problem. I don't like it, but I can live with it.

However, if the government is going to say the chair has now recognized the subcommittee has the right to decide whether it's going to be a majority decision or unanimous consensus building as a requirement, and that this has not been decided and will only be decided by the subcommittee.... I'm asking, in the spirit of the new sunny ways and openness of the government, whether it is saying that it is interested in keeping things the way they were and having less control from the PMO in terms of the work that we do. I just need to hear crystal clear that the subcommittee will not make recommendations to this committee that aren't unanimous.

If I get that assurance, we don't have a problem. If I don't have that assurance, you might want to settle in.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Are there any further interventions?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'd like the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Go ahead.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I had asked for some clarification. I now have the floor again. I'm asking, through you, if whoever's in lead over there would give me the assurance that, indeed, the decisions of the steering committee will be unanimous and that it's not going to be a partisan arena, as it hasn't been in the past. I'm seeking that clarification.

If the government's not willing to follow that aspect.... We've already been through some dancing with the parliamentary secretary. It only took a week and a half and suddenly the words aren't lining up with the actions. This is important. The work of the steering committee is crucial, especially in a committee like this, which often has a huge workload.

Mr. Chair, as you know, one thing that was very helpful the last time was the character and personality of the previous chair. I voted for you. I was hoping that the same sort of thing would happen. We need to be able to work together, because we do deal with a lot of issues that are not partisan. If the very core driving our agenda is not being decided in a consensual manner, but rather is being decided by a majority vote, it is legal but it is not sunny ways, and it is not openness, and it is certainly not an improvement.

I'm having trouble even understanding why they're having so much difficulty with it. The whole idea was that they wanted to give committees some independence and the first thing that we're wrestling with is to get them to let go of control so we can have some of that independence.

Either the PMO is going to run all of the committees the same way that it did for the last decade, with all due respect, or you're actually going to do things differently, which means that we do things differently.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Are there any further interventions?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I still have the floor, and it looks like I'm going to have it for some time, because I want an answer. I'm entitled to an answer.

It's not an unreasonable thing for me to ask a government that says they're going to be open to tell us how the heck they're going to be running the steering committee or whether the committee is going to be allowed to run it, and so far, the silence from the government is deafening. It tells me that they still want control. They want to grab control of this committee by the throat and wrap it in some nice sunny ways and words and all that, but at the end of the day, here's the problem for the government.

I think I'd better settle in, because this is going to go on for a while. Here's the problem the government is going to have: slowly but surely, you're going to find out that every little deviance, especially when it comes to independence and some of the things you talked about in the House, is not going to go away. If the government wants to have the trappings or use it as a cloak but says “We're still in control and nothing has really changed”, this is exactly the way to do it.

I see an honourable member shaking her head. I have been over there too. I understand, but the fact of the matter is that we deserve some assurances, not just words about sunny ways, but real, concrete action.

People in Canada were tired of it. This government promised something new, and a lot of people I know and like and respect agreed with that idea and voted for them in order to have that change. The cameras aren't on in here, but those people wouldn't be very impressed with this. This is not impressive for a government that says they are not trying to control committees and that in fact, conversely, they want to make sure that committees are more independent.

All we're asking for, all I'm asking for, is the assurance that when we're at the steering committee, it will not be the PMO that's driving the agenda. The way we do that is to say that the steering committee is non-partisan. We represent partisan interests at the committee, but we're trying to reach a non-partisan agreement, an agenda.

Let's say we're doing hearings on a report and we're going to decide how many witnesses to have, how much time to allot, and the order of witnesses. Those things really aren't partisan, unless we're really fighting, and that's a different matter, but most of the time on this committee we aren't. Those are the sorts of things we'd be dealing with at committee. Our defences are down and we're working together.

However, it's a whole different ball game if, at the end of those discussions, the government gets to dictate the agenda by virtue of a majority-controlled recommendation from the steering committee. Guess what? When a majority-controlled recommendation comes from the steering committee, the government members are going to vote for it 10 times out of 10.

Now, some of you can go on the record and say that's not going to be the case. Be very careful. I caution you about doing that, because this is how things will be.

The only way they could be different is if we sat down in a steering committee and at the end of the day, if we hadn't come to an agreement, we would have failed. I would have failed my caucus; the Conservatives would have failed their caucus, and so would the government members have failed their caucus if we couldn't come to an agreement, given that our job is to put together a non-partisan agenda that the committee could then endorse. Then the politics of what we do would take over in between, but to leave it the way it is with the government unwilling even to clarify makes it pretty clear that this government has no intention of doing anything different from the last government.

I have asked for the government members to respond. I'm not getting any signal yet that they are, so I'm going to be a little while, because I want this clarified. It affects every one of our committees.

I still—

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Hold it. We have a point of order.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Chair, my point of order is on relevance. My understanding is that the subamendment that the honourable member is putting forward is on the number of members of the committee. He's suggesting only one government member as opposed to two government members. However, the discussion is about whether that subcommittee would operate on consensus or not, which is not relevant to the actual subamendment that was put forth.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

What he is talking about is somewhat related to the amendment, so I will let it continue.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair. I appreciate that. They know me. We'll be here awhile.

Again, that would be another attempt to shut me down by Madam Vandenbeld when we're in camera, which I would tell her, and which David would know, was a technique of the government all the time. When it couldn't win an argument, it would shut down the person who was making the argument.

Again, despite all its intentions, it's not as easy as you would think to deliver what the government promised or quite frankly, somebody would have done it by now. The fact is that it's difficult, and when you're the government, it's tough to let go, but then you're the one who made the promise to do that. You're the government and you're not doing that. You want to hang on to the ability to control the committees through majority votes at the steering committee and majority votes here. You attempt to shut me down on my debate because you don't like the arguments.

I have to tell you that I know you feel this is all right and that I'm way out of line, but that's exactly where the previous government was. It may have had different motives. It may have enjoyed trying to shut us down more, but the fact remains that it was trying to shut us down, just as my friend Anita across the way tried to do with me.

I come back to my main point, Chair. People can make me stop talking really easily. Just give me an assurance that we're not going to have partisan majority control politics at the steering committee. That's not an unreasonable request for an answer, which I'm not getting. I'm not getting even a “no”, and I have to tell you that all of this is symptomatic of what the last government did.

For all of you who are new here and who are thinking that all of your words and good intentions alone change things, I don't question them, and I believe with all my heart that you're all here for the right reasons. You really do want to change things, but what I'm putting in front of you is that you're acting exactly like the previous majority government.

I still have the floor. Mr. Chan would like to speak, and I'd like to get back on the speakers list.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

On the speakers list so far we have Mr. Richards, Mr. Chan and then Mr. Christopherson.

Mr. Christopherson, I have been a bit lenient, but some of your arguments have been repetitive, so when you come back, please say something new.

Mr. Richards.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Having been a member of this committee for the last couple of years of the previous Parliament, I can see both sides of the argument here. I was actually a member of the subcommittee, as was Mr. Christopherson. I believe Mr. Lamoureux would have been there as well at that time. I think it worked reasonably well in the past. Of course, things always come back to the committee for a final decision anyway.

However, I do understand the point Mr. Christopherson is making about one member. There is certainly some fairness in there, so I am a little bit torn on this one. I would be comfortable either way. I think the important point—and this is where I wanted to go, and I think Mr. Reid gave important context earlier—is that we ensure that they are, in fact, members of this committee. Mr. Christopherson's concern, despite the government's promises, is with the idea that the parliamentary secretary would sort of direct how the committee would function. Despite the government's promise to the contrary, I think both parties in the opposition are really seeking to avoid having the parliamentary secretary, on behalf of the Prime Minister's Office, directing and controlling what the committee does. That certainly is the concern Mr. Christopherson has been raising. I think Mr. Reid's suggestion that we ensure they are permanent members of the committee is the more important of the two.

I am hopeful that the government will seek to address some of the concerns being raised here and to find a way to compromise, because I do believe that's the important point here.