Evidence of meeting #66 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was commons.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Charles Robert  Clerk of the Senate and Clerk of the Parliaments and Chief Legislative Services Officer

11:30 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

A short answer, Minister.

11:30 a.m.

Liberal

Bardish Chagger Liberal Waterloo, ON

I would say, though, that there's an opportunity to strengthen that role so that members are able to receive information that they might not be privy to otherwise. Also, parliamentary secretaries are not just the minister's secretary; they also are the people who work with colleagues and share information. They make announcements. They do the whole nine yards. They are privy to information that all members don't have. This would allow—and I believe strengthen—committees to have access to that information.

We have heard it said a couple of times during this Parliament that “the parliamentary secretary was there, they knew what the government was doing, and we were wasting our time”. We don't want you members to waste your time. We know your time is valuable. We have important work to do here. I believe we can strengthen that role on committees to ensure that members have access to the information that they are looking for as well, if the PS has it.

11:30 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Thank you, Mr. Dubé.

Mr. Chan.

11:30 a.m.

Liberal

Arnold Chan Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON

Thank you.

Thank you, Minister. I really appreciate your presence. I simply want to put it on the record that it is an honour to work with you and your entire House team on moving the government's legislation forward.

I want to follow up on some of the very early line of questioning from Mr. Dubé related to when you first issued your discussion paper that proposed changes to the Standing Orders. He raised the issue of consensus. One of the motions that was brought forward before this committee, in response to Mr. Simms' original motion that had tried to move that discussion forward within this particular committee, was the notion that all of the recognized parties actually needed unanimity for any changes to move forward in the Standing Orders.

I wanted your thoughts on that particular concept between the notion of consensus and unanimity, on whether it is in fact appropriate that no changes can move forward unless all recognized political parties agree to those particular changes in the Standing Orders. I find that this kind of threshold would be exceptionally difficult to meet, and that it would ossify the Standing Orders. They are, from my perspective, a living document that needs to evolve with practices in the reality of the House in modern times. I wanted your thoughts with respect to the difference between the notion of consensus and the notion of unanimity. I think the latter in fact suggests that it essentially grants a particular veto to one political party, which I think is a very high threshold to meet.

11:30 a.m.

Liberal

Bardish Chagger Liberal Waterloo, ON

In the work that committees do, there are decisions to make and move forward on in the way that they choose to. I know that we all come with various levels of experience, knowledge, and perspective, so I believe in having meaningful debate. I believe in having tough debates, tough conversations. There are times when there is consensus, but that does not imply that everyone agrees. It means that we've worked together to get to where we need to get to in order to serve in the best interests of Canadians and to ensure that the House of Commons is functioning.

There is no doubt that we can improve the way we do things. On that, I want to take a moment to commend you for the work you've been doing . It's a pleasure to work with you. I really appreciated your words in the House this week.

11:30 a.m.

Liberal

Arnold Chan Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON

Thank you, Minister. I appreciate your kind comments.

A large part of your opening statement dealt with the subsequent aftermath after things sort of fell.... As I said, I think there was probably a willingness to discuss substantively the aspects of the discussion paper, because even during the filibuster much of the conversation centred on the issues we were trying to engage members on. The only unfortunate part was that we had wanted the opportunity to bring expert witnesses, particularly from other jurisdictions, who I think could have helped inform this committee, with respect to different ways in which we could approach the operation of the House and the operation of committees. But whatever happened that...whatever occurred, it subsequently occurred.

What I'm more concerned about, Minister, is that we subsequently moved to a discussion about the areas that we were committed to in the electoral platform. It is your position that we have a mandate to move forward on those issues, regardless of whether there is consensus or unanimity among all of the political parties, because we were elected on that particular mandate. You eloquently laid out the different aspects of those items—the prime minister's question period, prorogation, estimates, omnibus bills, and the operation of committees.

Many of those aspects, with the exception, I think, of estimates, do not necessarily require a change to the Standing Orders. They can basically be done by practice and by convention. Do you have a particular view on why it's important, for example, for there to be codification of these other aspects in the Standing Orders—like the prime minister's question period, like prorogation, like omnibus bills, and like the operation of committees—that would strengthen and improve accountability of future parliaments?

11:35 a.m.

Liberal

Bardish Chagger Liberal Waterloo, ON

I think you answered the question at the end. It is about future parliaments. It is about future governments. A lot of what we're proposing we have put into action under the leadership of our Prime Minister, but what we need to do is ensure that any strengthening that takes place continues to take place for future governments as well. That's why the Standing Orders are reviewed at the beginning of every Parliament, so that we can have a fruitful debate and conversation on what's taking place, we can improve them where there is the ability to do so, and they can be updated. That's important.

In terms of what we are suggesting, you have to remember that we were the third party, not the government, when these ideas came to be. It was really a very different perspective. Yet we continue to know that this will help all members of Parliament. This will improve the House of Commons. It's about today and tomorrow.

11:35 a.m.

Liberal

Arnold Chan Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON

I sat in that 41st Parliament. Let's just say that it was part of my living experience with respect to some of these aspects. I've found that at least in most aspects—maybe not in the last few months, but certainly in large part—we've tried to be far more open in terms of our approach and to allow for more fulsome debate.

I don't really have a critical question left with respect to any of the other elements, but I do want to note an example this past week with regard to the New Democratic Party. One of the opposition motions that had been tabled in the House dealt with changes to the Standing Orders, and yet there was complaining about the fact that we shouldn't be able to move a motion to change the Standing Orders without consent from this particular committee. I found there was a little bit of an ideological disconnect taking place this week.

Do you have any other further thoughts on what you think might change the actual approach and tone of the House? One of the other things you ultimately did when you issued your second letter, after it was clear that the filibuster would go on indefinitely if we didn't change tactics, was indicate that we unfortunately would have to use more time allocation motions. Unfortunately, that has had to take place. Those are, of course, the rules that we have at the moment in terms of advancing the government's legislation. Is there another way in which we could do this without the necessity of that particular process? I'm like everyone else; I find it unfortunate that this is the mechanism we have to use, but it's the only mechanism the government has if there is a complete stalemate between the political parties.

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Minister, you'll have to answer later. Our time is up for this round.

We'll go to the five-minute round with Mr. Richards.

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB

I was listening to Mr. Chan talking about this idea that somehow the government is really focused on trying to be open and having full debate and these things. I find it so ironic, because following this portion of the meeting, we're about to have a very rushed process pushed on this committee to appoint a Clerk in the dying days of a parliamentary session. No consultation took place with opposition parties prior to this decision being made.

Then, of course, my colleague Mr. Reid gave the minister a number of opportunities to answer a question on whether she would proceed with a motion in the House without having first heard back from this committee on its thoughts on this. He got no answer and no commitment there at all. That sure doesn't sound to me like a government that's open and trying to have full debate and discussion on an issue. It's actually the complete opposite.

Having said that, I recognize that the minister was given a number of opportunities to answer that and chose not to, so I'll maybe move to something else that I think I would like to approach the minister on and get her thoughts and comments.

This past Christmas, the Prime Minister took what I will quite charitably describe as a questionable vacation, flown by a private aircraft to an island in the Bahamas owned by—

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Ms. Sahota.

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON

On a point of order, how is this relevant to the subject that the minister is here on?

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Do you want to defend the relevance?

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB

If the member will allow me the opportunity to ask the questions I have, I'm sure she'll see the relevance.

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Okay. We'll go on. Let's hear the relevance.

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB

I'm not certain it's really the member's responsibility to police the content of my questions anyway—

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON

Seriously—

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB

—but she seems to have taken that role on herself. I think that role is rightfully with you, Mr. Chair.

This is despite the Prime Minister's own “open and accountable” government rules—I use those in quotes, because I'm not so sure about them—which say that “ministers and parliamentary secretaries must not accept sponsored travel”, which includes “all travel, non-commercial, chartered or private aircraft for any purpose except in exceptional circumstances” without the approval of the Ethics Commissioner.

The Prime Minister himself has stated that he didn't consult with the Ethics Commissioner prior to the trip. Finally, on May 15, after months and months of questions from the opposition and an open investigation by the Ethics Commissioner, Kate Purchase, director of communications to the Prime Minister, released the following statement:

Effective immediately, the Prime Minister has recused himself from all matters related to the appointment of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, given the ongoing inquiry into the Prime Minister's family vacation this past Christmas.

In the Prime Minister's stead, Minister, you have been made responsible for all matters related to the appointment of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, or at least that's what the Prime Minister expects us all to believe. Having said that, as we know, the Governor General appoints the cabinet, which is chosen by the Prime Minister. That is, Minister, you serve at the pleasure of the Prime Minister.

Can you explain to us exactly how, and I hope we can do it without platitudes, you intend to screen yourself from the Prime Minister on choosing this appointment for the Ethics Commissioner, given that he has the sole power to be able to choose whether you remain in cabinet or not? How can we be expected, in what world can anyone be expected, to believe that he's not the one actually calling the shots?

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON

A point of order.

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Yes.

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON

I think I've given leeway so that Mr. Richards could get everything he wanted to on the record, but it's not relevant. I still don't see the relevance to the Standing Orders. I know that we've given leeway as to the Clerk appearing in this session today, but the Ethics Commissioner and the appointment of that commissioner have no relevance to today's subject matter at hand.

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB

Mr. Chair, I will point out that the commissioner does in fact have responsibilities under the Standing Orders, and that is why it is relevant today.

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Minister, once again, this isn't why you were called here today, but there's a minute and a half left, and if you wanted to provide any response, you could.

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

Bardish Chagger Liberal Waterloo, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for your statements, which I feel were important for you to put on the record.

I will remind you and every single member that I was elected by the good people of the riding of Waterloo. First and foremost, that is my duty. That is my responsibility, and I take it very seriously. I think I should get the opportunity to respond because I've allowed you—

11:45 a.m.

Conservative

Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB

I will allow you that opportunity, Minister, but I'm only going to point out that you were elected by the people in your riding, yes, but you were not chosen to be a member of cabinet by those people. The Prime Minister has the sole ability to appoint you to cabinet and to remove you from cabinet, and that's why it's relevant to this question. No one doubts that you were elected, but that position is at the sole discretion of the Prime Minister.