Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 15th, 2017

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

I didn't put the question quite the right way. Let me put it this way. You could give notice of motion to have his appointment through the House before you've had a favourable report back from this committee. Do you commit not to do that, not to override this committee?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Reid, I believe that everything I've been sharing since taking on this role has been in good faith. I believe knowing that we're having conversations in good faith amongst parties shows you and demonstrates that my door has always been open, and that's why I think it's important work that committee members do. I encourage you to do that important work.

When I tabled the nomination of the candidate, I tabled it with all required documents, including biographical notes. We have brought in a new process, an open, transparent, and merit-based process, where the—

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

I'm not questioning the documentation you gave. I'm asking this specific question. You could introduce a motion in the House of Commons that bypasses the process here and simply causes a vote to occur without debate or amendment in the House of Commons before we rise for the summer.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Point of order, Chair.

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

Will you do that without having had the prior consent of this committee to that nomination?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We have a point of order, and there are 20 seconds left.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

I believe there's a motion on the table. We still need to have the committee decide on that. It's not the place of the House leader to answer that question before the committee has even engaged in a discussion of whether that motion...and whether we're having extra meetings.

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

We want a debate.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

It's just not relevant at this point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay. The minister has only 20 seconds. We'll let her use that and go on to the next questioner, if she wants to.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

I would say that we went through a process. It's a tough position to fill because of the qualifications. We know what important work the Clerk does. It was not an easy decision, but I do look forward to hearing about the discussion you will have with the nominated Clerk following my presence.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Dubé.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Chagger, I have a question about the expression “political will” that you used.

In my opinion, political will is necessary for these substantial changes. However, what drew our attention most is the process. I am talking on behalf of the NDP, not on behalf of my Conservative colleagues.

Do you at least recognize that this apparent lack of will is mainly attributable to the fact that we were not able to have a process that reflected the tradition of Parliament and the need to have a consensus, as has been the case in the past?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

I believe that we can improve the way in which we work together. We should exchange our views. That was the goal, after all, when I tabled the working document and asked for us to have a conversation.

As you know, the House leaders of the three parties, including myself, have been engaged in discussions.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

My next question is on this idea of themes in omnibus bills. This seems to be the direction that the government wants to go in and that you want to go in.

I'm a little concerned about that, because in looking at Bill C-44, for example, a valid argument can be made that something like the infrastructure bank fits into a theme of the budget, but when you're talking about arguably the most fundamental change in how we fund infrastructure, certainly that merits its own legislation. While it might fit into that omnibus bill and your vision of how that legislation should work, is that not an argument against trying to prescribe how omnibus bills are used and for just simply outright getting rid of them?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Bill C-44 is the budget implementation act, which has gone to the Senate. When it comes to budget legislation and the definition of “omnibus”, budget legislation is often seen as omnibus. When it comes to the budget implementation act, every measure in the BIA was in the budget. There was nothing added to the BIA that had not already been approved by Parliament in the budget that was introduced.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Except that the infrastructure bank is a completely new institution that is being created. When you're looking at how fundamental that is, at the need for further study, and at this notion of respecting Parliament and making sure that you have the opportunity for parliamentarians to look at this and to study it in committees—for which there was not, unfortunately, an opportunity—and where someone can get up on a 10-minute or 20-minute speech, that piece of legislation alone warrants a speech of that length, if not more.

When it's such a fundamental change, is there not an argument to be made that if we really want to respect that process.... Because there's a spirit of things too, right? I understand this notion of trying to prescribe an appropriate way for use, but even then there would be exceptions. Is this not something that would be an exception in that case?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

I believe that when it comes to legislation, yes, you're choosing one, but there are different pieces that are very important to Canadians in general, so whereas your priority might be the infrastructure bank, for another Canadian it might be a different matter. I believe we need to have those important conversations. I believe members of Parliament are elected to have these tough conversations.

When it comes the infrastructure bank, it was in the budget—

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

That's a great argument for having a debate on separate bills, then, because some members might be more engaged on one piece of legislation and others on another one.

My time is limited so I do want to get to another point.

I would like to talk about prorogation.

You said that the House was going to have the opportunity to decide whether a decision to prorogue is a good one. I assume that the government should then submit a report. In that way, it would show a degree of transparency.

When you say that the House would be able to decide on the validity of that decision, are you talking about a motion of censure? Would the report be subject to a vote in the House in order to determine whether or not prorogation was being used appropriately? What accountability mechanism do you foresee in that case?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

At the moment, when a government decides to prorogue Parliament, nothing is done. Under our proposal, if the government wants to use that option, it has to come to the House and show all members and all Canadians the reason for the decision. That is something that is not done at the moment.

The House of Commons belongs to all Canadians. We all work there together. So it is important for the government of the day to show all members of the House of Commons the reason for the prorogation.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

So we are just talking about a report. There would be no vote or no particular method, beyond a simple statement that could just as easily be made in the House or through the media. Is that the idea?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

That is one idea we proposed. We are having discussions with all parties and we are going to continue those discussions.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

The next question I have is about parliamentary secretaries at committee. The essence of the title “parliamentary secretary” is that this is essentially the minister's secretary. It's an odd term to use, I suppose, but that's what it is. They're the people who stand in or stand up for ministers in the House.

We could arguably say the same thing of committees. It's not just about voting or presenting motions. Is there any recognition on your part of the fact that you essentially have someone who, as their job, stands in for the minister and is nonetheless able to be present in committee and actively participate, even if they can't vote?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

This is exactly why I believe part of the mandate we've been given by Canadians is to strengthen our institutions. A parliamentary secretary not only stands in for the minister but has access to information that would benefit members of the committee. That's why I'm suggesting that the parliamentary secretary be able to share that information. They could be equal members of the committee but not vote and not move motions. That way, they could travel with the committee so that information is being shared with all committee members, which I believe would contribute to the level of discourse and decision-making that takes place here.

The challenge with parliamentary secretaries voting on committees is that oftentimes we see them as just the voice of the minister of the government of the day, and oftentimes there is this perception that you need to vote exactly the way the PS does. That shouldn't be the case.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

That also applies to any speaking spots they may take or to their mere presence. It's not just about votes, If the parliamentary secretary is sitting there, it doesn't matter whether they vote or not. It's like the minister is there. Is that not something you can acknowledge?