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

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Very well. I'll be glad to defer.

Madam Clerk, would you put me to the bottom of the list again. Thank you.

I'll relinquish the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Reid.

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

On a point of order, this is not to question.... Well, it is to question something you've just done, but it's not to question the integrity of what you've done. I just want to find this out for clarification and future reference, because I have a feeling that the issue of relevance may come up again; I'm just saying.

As chair, are you actually allowed to call people on relevance, or do you have to wait for one of the members of the committee, on a point of order, to raise the issue of relevance? This is just so that we know that it gets done in the right manner in future.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

It's in the judgment of the chair.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

As I think committee members know, you can't be repetitive or out of relevance.

We have a long list now: Mr. Angus, Mr. Richards, Mr. Chan.

Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome back. The last time I saw you was in a bookstore in Yukon, when I thought you were retired.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

I was.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I hope in your new capacity you won't be calling points of order on me in my attempt to help things along.

I also want to say welcome back to Mr. Chan. I'm very pleased to see that you went through your treatment and that you were elected. I would have preferred a New Democrat here, but I'm very happy to see that you're in good health, and so it's good to be here.

For the new members who might find this very tedious—I see a little rolling of the eyes—the issue before us today is the idea of “Trust us. We're great. This is the new era.” Mr. Lamoureux, on the question of whether my friend was questioning the word and the integrity of the Prime Minister, far be it from us over here to doubt the Prime Minister's word, but I wouldn't take it to the bank.

I say that because I've been here since 2004. I've served on good committees and I've served where it was a little toxic. I've served on committees in which we had a constitutional crisis and members actually interfered with the separation of the roles of the legislative branch and the courts, and we had to sometimes filibuster almost all night just to re-establish some of these basic rules.

How did that happen? Well, committees are made up of personalities. In politics there are sometimes big egos, and we're very partisan by nature. No matter how much we say we're going to be sunnier, this is the nature of it, and sometimes these committees can break down.

What is really reassuring from the Prime Minister is the message that he's taking the parliamentary secretaries off the committees. Mr. Lamoureux, it's great to see you in the House; it will be great to see you off this committee.

Those were promises. We've talked about this, and I've heard this for many years. Because of the power that the parliamentary secretary holds, I didn't actually believe a prime minister would do it. This is a really positive step, because the fundamental failing of the committee structure in the Canadian Parliament is that we are reduced sometimes to very juvenile status and to voting strictly along partisan lines. When the parliamentary secretary raises his or her hand, all hands go up on one side and all hands go down on the other side.

When I was over in the U.K. and sat in on a parliamentary committee hearing, I felt so silly as a result of the experience I've had in five Parliaments here. I couldn't figure out who was on the government side and who was on the opposition side. I was stunned that they were working together, and this was on an international affairs committee. I thought of how much our committee system has deteriorated, to the point where we have become a mirror of the House of Commons and we vote along whipped lines. That the Prime Minister has said that we're going to remove the parliamentary secretaries is a very powerful thing. With the Liberal majority, I don't think anybody is going to be voting for me to be chair of the aboriginal affairs committee that I'm on, but that we can choose a chair is a very powerful thing.

One of the things we need to look at, though, again goes back to the role of the subcommittee. In 2004 I was completely naive. I had no idea. I believed in the peaceable kingdom and I believed in trust. I've learned that unless you actually have it in the rule book, trust lasts sometimes as long as a meeting, sometimes not even that. However, I've had some really good chairs who saw their role as trying to build consensus so that we could actually work together and get something done.

Why this is really important for PROC is that PROC plays a very special role. It's where MPs of all parties have to look to deal with some very substantive issues, so its non-partisan nature—not that it is non-partisan, but to the extent it can be—is much more important than, say, on the ethics committee, which was sometimes like a WWF cage match in terms of its political toxicity. I get that. Some of our committees are more partisan than others. I wish you all very well and I'm very glad I'm not on it.

However, this is a committee that is entrusted. All parliamentarians put our faith in you, even though we know, as David said, that 10 times out of 10, if the Liberal members vote one way, that's how it's going to pass. However, within the subcommittee the idea of consensus has always been the one area where the chair could bring some sense of whether we could get a working plan, take that plan and come forward. If we don't have that consensus, it comes back here anyway in whatever motion gets brought and how people want to debate, and the majority vote wins.

I think what's really important for my colleague is consensus. I've sat beside David in the House, and when he whispers he's as loud and as opinionated with his own party's members as he is with you, so for you new members, don't take anything personally over there.

David is very passionate about this. What I'm hearing, and I think it's a very coherent argument, is that it's not the number or the membership but the idea of consensus. If we're not going to get consensus at the subcommittee, it goes back. The majority will rule. Our motions will be defeated or accepted and Conservative motions will be defeated or accepted, but it's the power within the subcommittee that changes the dynamic of the working relationship.

I would love to trust you all. I'd love to trust the Prime Minister. These are very early and sunny days, but I've been in five different Parliaments and I've seen that sunny ways lead to stormy ways. We get bogged down in issues. In some of our committees, our personalities don't work. I've seen some chairs who are extraordinary, but in the case of other chairs—not you, Mr. Bagnell—I don't know how they got the job. No names will be mentioned.

This committee sets the example that the Prime Minister's word is really going to change the nature of committees. I think that when this change comes out of here, it will send a message to our other committees.

I have to say that in the last Parliament, I became a lot more partisan than I ever was in my previous political life. I want to ratchet that down. I'm tired of it. I want to get something done.

We're not going to build the peaceable kingdom here so you can go back and do what you're going to do, but I'm appealing to my colleagues here to recognize that if we can just incorporate the principle of consensus into the subcommittee, we can get this thing passed and we'll all be going home for Christmas.

It is a principle that has ramifications beyond just this committee. It will send a very clear message that the Prime Minister is serious about his word. I think all of our backs are going to loosen up and we'll start to find ways to find more consensus. We're going to start to see committees doing the job that Canadians expect them to do.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you, Mr. Angus. It's good to have you here.

Go ahead, Mr. Chan.

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

Thank you.

First of all, Mr. Angus, thank you so much for your very kind comments. Please give my regards to your better half, Brit, whom I haven't seen in a while. Tell her I said hello.

Look, my only real point, and the point Mr. Christopherson raised that I want to get back to and address, is that we're all members of Parliament. First of all, again, all we're trying to do is remove the parliamentary secretary. My point is that we shouldn't fetter the independence of each particular parliamentarian in doing what they ultimately decide to do, even at the steering committee. Our intention is to arrive at consensus, but what you're saying is that it's actually trying to predetermine whatever's discussed at the steering committee. That's exactly what I'm saying: we shouldn't prejudge the outcome and say what might happen if we don't arrive at consensus, because all it takes is one member to filibuster at that point and force it back to committee.

I take the point that at the standing committee we can ultimately do whatever we need to do in order to get an agenda set. It is our intention to come to consensus, so watch how we practise. That's my point: watch how we practise over the next little while. Let's just get this passed. If it really becomes a problem, let's bring it back up at that time.

We're not doing anything other than presenting the intention of removing the parliamentary secretaries and beginning the work, so let's begin the work.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Richards.

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

Mr. Chair, this is probably almost long forgotten at this point, but in his last intervention prior to this one, Mr. Chan made a point about the proposed amendment, if we ever get to it, that Mr. Reid was looking to make.

In regard to that argument, I want to point out that as it sits now and as we were suggesting it would sit in the future, the motion actually says that the subcommittee would be composed of the chair and the two vice-chairs. What that actually means is that no one can substitute for the chair, no one can substitute for me, and no one can substitute for David. The three of us would have to be there, so actually there is more flexibility for the one or two government members, whatever the case might end up being, to substitute, with the change forcing them to be a permanent member of the committee.

There are actually far more options for those government members to substitute somebody in, given that there are five of you. There may be three or four potential substitutes, so I actually don't see that being an issue at all. I think that can be accomplished and not cause any issues for government members in being able to substitute in. It would be the three of us, the chair and vice-chairs, who would actually....

There's never been a problem in the past with it that I can recall. Certainly in my experience on this committee and on other committees on which I've sat on a subcommittee, we never had an issue. We were always able to find a way. You can find a time to meet when those members can be available. I don't think that's an issue at all.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Christopherson is next, and then Mr. Lamoureux.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

On the off chance that Mr. Lamoureux is going to respond to my concerns in a positive way, I'd be prepared to defer to him and speak after him, or I'll take the floor now.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I will be very brief.

I have actually been enjoying the comments. There were many things that made a lot of sense. One of the things that I might suggest, David, when we talk about trying to set the agenda, is that maybe one of those agenda items could potentially be a study of our standing committees. That could turn into a positive thing for us all, not only for our committee but for other committees. It might be an option worth exploring when we talk about future agendas for the PROC members who are on that subcommittee list.

I don't think it has to be controversial. I think there are a number of good thoughts with regard to how subcommittees or committees can work for the Parliament of Canada, and we should approach them with an open mind.

I would just emphasize here that I can appreciate your concerns. I'm going to go back to my experience with the subcommittee, which was actually fairly encouraging. I'm not going to prejudge what's going to ultimately take place. I'm not even going to be on it, because I'm the parliamentary secretary, nor do I have a desire to be on it, but I would be interested in hearing the outcome, if it's possible. If you don't think we can pass the rules today, then fine. We can continue having this discussion now. It might be better if we passed the rules and then got right into the discussion we're having right now and sent a couple of recommendations to the subcommittee. One of those recommendations could be to look at how we can enhance committees so that all parliamentarians feel more genuinely empowered, as well as to come up with some sort of report. That could be a report for us.

I was involved in some House leader discussions today which I was hoping to share with members. That's one of the reasons I came today, but maybe the House leaders can disseminate that information to individual members on PROC at a later time if it's not possible today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Go ahead, Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I didn't really hear what I wanted, but of course the government won't just come out and say “absolutely not.” They're still hoping they can get through this.

Look. I hear what you're saying and I appreciate the tone and I appreciate the respectful discussion. I'm enjoying it too. I would enjoy it more if we could bring a little more democracy to the whole thing.

You and Mr. Chan have repeated a number of times, and I'm sure your other colleagues agree, that you have every intention of reaching consensus. I don't question that. I truly honestly do not. I believe that's what you intend. I even believe it may be that way most of the time.

However, as my friend Mr. Angus has pointed out and as those of us who have been around here for a while know, you'll find that idea will quickly fall by the wayside. Let's face it: the government does have an agenda and they have to deliver on it in order to get re-elected in four years. Fair enough. Therefore, there will be times when they're going to want this committee to do certain things and go in a certain direction. Fair enough. You have that control here at the committee. However, maintaining absolute control of the steering committee tells us that the government will utilize it whenever it suits their purpose. As we move on and have more arguments and get more entrenched—and Mr. Lamoureux and to a certain extent Mr. Chan know this—things take on a life of their own, and you can't always separate the politics of what's happening in the House of Commons with what's happening here. As a result, sometimes we can really get into it here at this level.

Again I come back to the government's statement that they want things to be different. If you want things to be different, then you have to do them differently, and maintaining this power structure that allows the government to lower the boom when it suits them is the antithesis of a body that meets with a goal of consensus.

I think a reasonable person looking in from outside the Ottawa bubble would understand that if the government gets absolute control at the committee and absolutely everything from the steering committee has to go to the full committee, the government maintains 100% control. We're not arguing with that power structure, but what we are saying to anyone on the outside looking in is that the steering committee is where we're trying to agree on the rules of how we proceed, what witnesses to have in what order, and all the things that can take forever if ten of us sit there. You know the old saying about ten people writing a letter. That is in contrast to a smaller group without the political attention, without the cameras, without the games. You can't even win a vote. It's just working together. If we put that in place, at least we would have a little more democracy and a little more independence. It's only a little, but it matters. It matters when the government says that sometimes they'll have to. Well, all it takes is that one time, and the whole idea of that model is gone. It's either a consensus body or it isn't.

I wouldn't normally have made as big a deal of this with the previous government at the beginning of various Parliaments. I might reaffirm it at the individual committees, but clearly we're making this a big deal. I am making this a big deal on behalf of my caucus, because we believe in the idea of more independence for committees. We believe that independently ourselves. We believe it, so we support the government's initiative to do it, but you're not going to get a pat on the back just for a nice speech with a nice smile. It has to be more than that, and this is little. There will be a lot of people who watch what happens here who will be paying an awful lot of attention. It will not be the general public, but there are people who pay an awful lot of attention to what goes on. They understand very clearly how important these internal matters are, and given that PROC is the first committee, it really is setting the template.

I know my friend Mr. Angus will be going to his committees and arguing for the same thing. If he can use PROC as an example and say, “Look, they clearly made it understood that it is consensus only, so how could we do it any differently here”, it's going to carry a lot of weight. I would think that by then the government's message would be that they're at least going to loosen the PMO's control over the steering committee, where we get along anyway.

Most of the rules of the committees are like that. In public accounts it was always that way, until the government eliminated the steering committee. That could be your next step, but it also would be the antithesis of what you were saying, so I come back to my argument again and say to the government that this is not a big deal. I think, Mr. Lamoureux, you're making a big mistake, unless this is another example of same old same old and this committee really is under marching orders and they've all been told to do what Mr. Lamoureux tells them to do and we're going to see that applied at all the committees.

If that's not the case, I don't know why on earth, Mr. Lamoureux, you are allowing this issue to become a big political deal, because if we don't get it resolved, it's still going to be hanging over us in the new year. It's not as though we have an unreasonable position. All I've asked in order to support your motion that there be two government members is that we stay with a consensus model. If you want to say that's not where we were last time, I don't care how you word it, but that's where we go now.

I want to do this. I have been impressed so far. I don't mind telling the government members that I was impressed, Mr. Lamoureux, that you responded as quickly as you did to the concerns I raised. As you know, when we did that in the past, we'd be heard out impatiently and then ignored, and they would move on. That was not by Randy, but there were those who would do that to us, so I do appreciate that you responded. I appreciate that. I continue to have to push you, but you do continue to respond, and that's good. A lot of us were absolutely flabbergasted that we actually had a real, open vote for the chair. In the past we used to call it an open vote, but when the government benches only put forward one name, it was kind of hard to find where the democracy was versus the command and control model. It looked the same, and in reality it was.

We were no better. We knew who the official opposition lead was going to be for vice-chair and we knew the third party vice-chair, which was a given. In the past we all knew those things ahead of time. This time the government said it was going to do things differently, and it did, and it was a thrilling exercise in democracy. I know Mr. Chan didn't take it personally, because I think he already knows the respect those of us who have seen him in action have for him. It was more a matter of experience. I keep saying that and I know it rubs the wrong way and I get that, but nonetheless, I think you'll come to agree over time that having someone with a lot more experience is actually to our benefit.

That's the way we saw it. Either way it's a Liberal, and when I go home at night, it doesn't matter to me which one of you is in the chair. However, it does matter in terms of how the committee meeting proceeds, and I think experience is an advantage. It's the same with the Speaker. I voted for the current Speaker. Of course everybody would say that now, but I did. There were some good candidates, but it was based on that experience of having sat on all sides of the House. When I became a deputy speaker at Queen's Park, I had been on the government side as a cabinet minister, had been in the third party, and had been a House leader, so I felt equipped. Whether I was up to the task was for my colleagues to determine, but I felt equipped to take the chair knowing and understanding where everybody was coming from.

All of that is to say those are good improvements. They are little teeny-tiny changes but good ones, so you get an attaboy or a happy face or a gold star or whatever you want. That was great, but it's small. Now we're starting to move into the area of power, and in a democracy, power is determined by a majority, a clear majority of 50% plus one. That is a clear majority and that's how we make decisions.

You still have that control here, but now you want to maintain it even though you say you won't use it. At least the Conservatives, to their credit, would say, “No, we're the government and nothing's coming out of that committee that we don't control. Next argument.” You were left making your arguments, but they didn't go anywhere. It would drive us crazy. Some might argue that's why the configuration of the House is now the way it is: because of that kind of attitude—present company excluded, of course.

Now we have a new government that says it wants to do things differently. You've done that tinkering around the edges. We've given you the full credit. No one's trying to deny you your right to be complimented for the fact that we have an elected chair and we actually had to have a vote because we had two names on the ballot. Do you remember the old Soviet Union? They used to say they had a great democracy, except that nobody else except their choices could run, and they'd call it an election and say they won. That's what we used to do around here. You've changed that. Congratulations, but that's the easy stuff. That's the low-lying fruit.

The tougher stuff—and this is why it's easy to make the pledge but not so easy to honour it—is that we're actually talking about power. What I'm suggesting here doesn't alter the power alignment. The government still wins every vote 10 times out of 10. The only thing we're talking about is whether the PMO still has a grip on the throat of the subcommittee of PROC or it doesn't. You don't have to give up...you're not losing anything other than a command-and-control power technique that should be the antithesis of what you have said you're going to bring for change. If all you do is change and tinker around the edges but at the end of the day the power play is still the same old same old, then the wrapping may be different, but it's still the same lump of coal as a gift.

Again, the government wants to continue to receive accolades and to be patted on the back for what they're doing because they've made a good start, but it's only a start, and it is not unreasonable.... I was so glad my friend Mr. Angus talked about Britain. I wish we all had a chance to either go there or have a presentation on it. I've never been there, but I've certainly watched a lot of their committee meetings through different committees. It's amazing. It's a whole different world.

I like to think that's where the current Prime Minister is looking, that it's to that kind of independence, where a committee is a committee and you don't lose your chance to be a parliamentary secretary or a cabinet minister by opposing something the government has brought forward, or questioning it, or by supporting an opposition amendment that just, in your gut, in your experience, makes sense. It sounds like that's what should be happening all the time. In the past, you didn't have to be here too long to realize that's not necessarily how things function when the rubber hits the road.

Again, the government is not going down the road of the previous government and saying “Too bad, so sad.” They're saying, “No, we're still maintaining that we want to be different, that we want to open up the committees.” Here's the first chance where it really matters. All we're saying is to let the subcommittee act in a non-partisan way. Where it comes to agreement, which is most of the time, and when it comes forward with positive recommendations, you in the government still can change your mind and kill them if you want to. You don't lose anything other than hyper-control.

Hyper-control is saying as soon as the thing starts that you have this issue by the throat and you're not going to let go until you get the outcome you want. That's where we were. This government says they're going to take us somewhere else, and yet the first time we talk about power at committees, you're right back where the government members were, and there's no real argument for it except, “We want control, super control, maximum control—all control.” We've been there. You ran against that.

This is an easy one. It really makes me wonder about some of the other changes you want to make. Are you really that serious? All we're saying is to let the members of the steering committee come together.... In many ways it's the grunt work of committees, because you're sitting down and hammering out which witness can't make it at such a time because the clerk says they were contacted and they can only do it at that time, so how about if you need a special meeting to do that or you need to change the times.... These are the kinds of variables there are when you're working together.

You're not thinking of the agenda. You're really not. Unlike the other committees, it's not just policy where the government agrees, the opposition disagrees, and there are a few exceptions. We deal with an awful lot of things here that are not partisan. For instance, if any one of you or any one of our colleagues—my friend Mr. Angus knows more about this than I do in terms of the process—is accused of acting in an unparliamentary fashion or of denying privileges to other members, or if there is anything to do with a member, with ethics, and it goes to the Speaker, as soon as the Speaker thinks there's an issue, guess where he sends it. Here.

I don't know about the new members, but I'm pretty sure I know the former government members and my own colleagues well enough, and I have to tell you that if it's my reputation hanging by a thread, I'd like to know that at least the consideration of how I'm going to be dealt with is going to be decided in a non-partisan fashion. I'd like to know that when there is an agreement about how to proceed about my integrity, my reputation, my political life, my representative on that committee agrees that the process is fair. That's why this matters.

I don't need the attention. I don't need the headlines. Like all of you, I just got elected, and for better or worse, I'm here for four years. You'll find over time that I get far more enjoyment out of working together than fighting, although I do it. I'm kind of good at it. I'm from Hamilton and that's what we do, and when it's necessary I try to rise to the occasion, but after all these decades, it's not my favourite thing. My favourite thing is that when we have a huge problem, we all have an interest in finding a solution that's not partisan. Trust me, that's when you really feel excited, because then you are really making a difference.

As you know, on a lot of committees, especially those like public accounts, we try to come up with unanimous reports. If we get a unanimous report where it's positive for the government, it's deserved, and where it's negative, it's deserved, because everyone has supported it. If it's just a report that says the government says the Auditor General was wrong and the government is wonderful, while the opposition members say no, the Auditor General was right, they're all wrong, and it's horrible, what have we achieved? It's the process, but what have we really achieved?

When we have agreement, then we're getting somewhere. Again, Chair, the whole idea is to make this committee work. I know that members are getting tired of hearing this. They're thinking, “My God, how long can that guy go? Is this really that important?” But I'm going to tell you that what we do right now.... I thought it was interesting when Mr. Chan, I believe, said that if it doesn't work, we can bring it back in a few months. Well, It doesn't work like that. Whatever rights the opposition fails to get in the early days of setting the rules are rights they are never going to get, because what happens is that the politics of the day take over. We each get entrenched into our situations.

If you think it's hard to let go of power now when you've really just started to get control of it, wait till you see how difficult it is six or twelve months down the road when you've been exercising that power and are glad you got it because the pesky opposition is making your life difficult and you see how nice it is to be able to step in and make them go away. That's the reality.

So with the greatest of respect, Mr. Chan, the whole idea that we could bring this back for review sounds good, but in the real world, it doesn't work that way and doesn't hold.

Let me try this. In the interest of trying to find some agreement in these dying moments, Mr. Chan, rather than six months of going with the government having all the power, maybe we could set it up in such a way that it is consensus and we revisit it in six months. Do the consensus for six months and let the government experience what it's like when the oxygen of democracy comes into a steering committee. Then, if they still believe that we're stifling their electorally given right to govern, let's bring it back and hash it out in public and we'll talk about what our experience has been. I suspect that our experience will be exactly the experience that Mr. Lamoureux has talked about in the past, which I've affirmed, and which Mr. Reid has commented on, which is that usually we do get along.

If that's the case, Kevin, this is a slam dunk, man.

I can't believe you're going to let this committee go in a couple of minutes without this being resolved. You're going to report back there, and your one responsibility was to make sure that this committee got its independence, and got set-up out of the way, so that you could actually leave the stage.

You have to go back and report, “I failed. Oh, and by the way, we're now going to have a big issue about whether or not the Liberals will demand to have control at steering committees.” Really? That's really what you want the narrative to be going into the Christmas break and into the new year? Because that's where we're heading.

I've offered you a reasonable response. I've just offered you another reasonable amendment. The only way I could be more reasonable in your eyes, it would seem, would be to completely cave and collapse. That's not going to happen, because this is important.

I don't know why you're letting it become a cause célèbre. There are people out there who care about these things. Ever heard of Kady O'Malley? She knows these things better than most of us in this place. They matter to her, and she has a great ability to convey to the outside world why it matters to them.

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

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I apologize, but I see by the clock that it's past our stopping time of 1 p.m. I just wanted to draw that to your attention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Noted.

If we come back at the next meeting, you will have the floor and we'll continue with this topic.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Very good, Chair. I appreciate that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay.

The meeting is adjourned.