Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Feb. 16th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

That's on the understanding it may be a longer than shorter debate.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

There's an indication that it could be a bit lengthy, yes.

The government is more co-operative than I expected, so I'll remain optimistic that it will be short: they're going to love it and agree and we're fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Reid.

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

I'm not sure if this is the appropriate time to discuss it, but I want to inquire about the attendance of the other members of the advisory committee, the two members we're bringing in.

Is it two members?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

It's two federal appointments, yes.

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

Two federal appointments.

Okay, is this the appropriate time to ask about the substance of their appearance? I'm not challenging their timing or anything like that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Well, it's just what's in the Standing Orders, which we read out several times at the last meeting.

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

Well, yes, but I was deeply frustrated at the last meeting at the restraints that were put on me. I couldn't help but notice that they weren't put on anybody else...about sticking exclusively to discussing whether they were qualified. I mean, they really were not applied to anybody other than me. It was deeply frustrating. Frankly, the frustration is not that they weren't applied to others; it was that they were applied at all.

I have no problem with these people's qualifications. It is reasonable to want to ask how they've been conducting their jobs, not to inquire as to the things that have been made secret. I disagree with their being made secret, but that's not the fault of these individuals. However, it is reasonable to want to ask certain questions about the appointment process, the phase one process, which by that point will presumably have been out of their hands in advice sent to the Prime Minister. Those are questions about how many applications they had, what kind of breakdown from different sectors they've had. These are reasonable requests, and to have those shut down would be unreasonable.

My question is, would you shut me down if I asked them questions of that nature?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

I'm going to get the standing order again because we can't go against the Standing Orders. It's not in our authority. I'll get the clerk to read what we're allowed to do on these appointments.

Mr. Chan.

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

That was exactly the point I wanted to make, Mr. Chair. It's with respect to the scope of the standing order. Some of the questions that Mr. Reid raised in the previous meeting from my perspective are appropriately raised in a different forum, not necessarily appropriate—

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

There is no other forum and you know that. This is the only forum and you won't let it happen. That is the point. The point is to shut down any openness by not allowing us to engage in reasonable questions and then blocking any such forum.

Mr. Chan, if you're willing to let it happen, I would be prepared with a motion to bring them back to discuss the actual mandate they had and how they were performing it, and we'll see whether the government goes for that or not. Right now what I hear is the government trying to shut down any openness, any discussion of this process.

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

I actually had the floor, so I let you have your rant, Mr. Reid.

At the end of the day, from my perspective again—you didn't even let me finish my point—my point is that you can raise the issues in the House of Commons. You challenge the issue of constitutionality. There are other appropriate forums to do that. It is not done here at PROC.

Again my point...and I was going to ask the clerk to read what the standing order says. If you don't like the standing order, I am prepared to allow you to propose an amendment to the standing order. However, we were there to look at the qualifications and abilities of the particular individuals to discharge their particular functions.

I take the other point you were raising with respect to the nature of that function, but with respect to the further substantive issues you were raising with respect to the details of who has applied, how many people have applied, the deadlines, from my perspective that goes beyond the scope of what the standing order permits us to do.

I yield the floor now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

These witnesses would be here under Standing Order 111, which states:

(2) The committee, if it should call an appointee or nominee to appear pursuant to section (1) of this Standing Order, shall examine the qualifications and competence of the appointee or nominee to perform the duties of the post to which he or she has been appointed or nominated.

Anita.

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

On the basis of some of the questions from the last meeting, I don't think it's fair to bring somebody here who is prepared to talk about her qualifications and then talk to her about things that are better questions for the minister. I recall that after that you requested that the minister come. I think there's an opportunity to ask a lot of those similar questions of the appropriate person and that would be the minister. You will have that opportunity.

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

Are they unqualified? [Technical difficulty—Editor] the information? Are we revealing secrets? None of these things are true. The only thing that is true is that we are restricting ourselves unreasonably in order to shut down information that should be made public.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We're not restricting ourselves; the Standing Orders are. Are there any other comments on this?

On the subcommittee report, are there any comments on the suggested agenda going forward? Could I have a motion to approve that?

[An hon. member]

I so move.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

It is seconded by Mr. Christopherson and moved by David.

Is there any discussion? All in favour?

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We have a half an hour, so maybe we should move on to your motion.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Do you want to go for it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Do you guys want to do that?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Chair, I thought I'd start by reading it and remind everybody where we are. It's a notice of motion:

That the Committee adopt the following procedures for in camera business:

That any motion to sit in camera should be debatable and amendable, and that the Committee may only meet in camera for the following purposes:

To review:

(a) wages, salaries, and other employee benefits;

(b) contracts and contract negotiations;

(c) labour relations and personnel matters;

(d) a draft report;

(e) briefings concerning national security; and

That Minutes of in camera meetings should reflect the results of all votes taken by the Committee while in camera, including how each member votes when a recorded vote is requested.

The only thing I would add, Chair, is that it would be my intention—if I ever got to the point where there was support for this—to add to the last sentence,“that minutes of in camera meetings should reflect the results of all votes taken by the committee while in camera, with the exception of report writing”. As we're going through report writing, and people are moving various clauses and words and ideas in and out, to me that doesn't need to be captured by what I'm putting forward. That's part of the give-and-take of report writing, which is a separate process in and of itself.

That's my motion. If I can, I'll begin giving my rationale for it, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Go ahead.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Beginning with the issue about debatable and amendable, what has happened in the past—and I know the government's going to tell me they don't see the world that way, and they're going to be wonderful, and they won't do those nasty things. I say , fine, I believe you believe that now, but I also have a good idea where we're going to be. Going down the road, two to three years from now, all those niceties will be forgotten and we'll be into the give-and-take of the day-to-day partisan aspects of what we do.

What would happen is that as soon as the government of the day got in any way uncomfortable with what was going on, they would just throw a motion on the floor to go in camera. Under the rules, you couldn't debate it. You had to go to an immediate vote. There were no criteria to stack up against, in terms of whether or not it was allowed. There was no guideline. You could go in camera. You could just go in camera with no debate, no discussion.

What happened was that the government, whenever it suited them, would just—boom, in a flash—throw out a motion to go in camera. Before anybody even really had a chance to gather their thoughts, it had to go straight to a vote. There's no debate. You can't amend it. Boom, boom, inside three minutes we went from having an interesting, dynamic, public discussion, maybe even a debate about whatever, and all of a sudden, minutes later, we vaporized from the public view and went into this rabbit hole from which we only emerged when we decided.

My first concern is for that.

Chair, I don't know how you want to proceed. At some point I'd be interested in getting an early indication from the government whether they have a willingness to entertain any or part of this. If they did, it could save us a lot of aggravation. I don't know how you want me to proceed. That was the first point. I can move on. I'm in your hands.