Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 19th, 2017

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

Let's find out if we have unanimous consent to go to NDP-1 first.

[Nicola Di Iorio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

No.

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

Okay. In that case, I move that LIB-1 be amended in the last line, by adding, after the word “subparagraph,”:

or any person appointed under subsection 128(1) of the Public Service Employment Act, and

My assistant has advised me that I'm doing this ineptly, so give me a moment. He wouldn't have reported it that way, but that is the intent of what he's about to tell me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

While you're doing that, I want to ask a question for curiosity's sake. If David were having a fundraiser and it didn't have to be reported because no one important was there, such as your leader—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

You've been to my fundraisers.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

—and we sent a minister, or if another party sent a minister, then you would have to report everyone, which would be a bit obnoxious.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Yes, and you'd have to advertise it five days in advance.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes. Then I'd have to throw you out because you'd screw up my event.

[A voice]

That would be the headline: you throwing him out.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

No, it would be worse than that, David. It would be worse than that because your event would become illegal if you hadn't announced five days in advance that they were going to crash your event, and that's why the loophole is there.

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

I have been duly chastised.

Here is the amendment that I would have given you, had I been Dennis.

Voices Oh, oh!

The amendment contains two inclusions. At line 5, after the word “state”, we would add:

, or a parliamentary secretary,

Mr. Clerk, I'll be giving this to you so you can see it afterwards.

Then in the last line, where the word “subparagraph” is followed by a comma, we would insert the words:

or any person appointed under subsection 128(1) of the Public Service Employment Act

I'll give this to the clerk so he can see it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Have people heard the terms of the amendment?

Is there any debate?

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

It's hard to follow that way. I'll just explain what I've done.

Now that we're debating this, I'm hoping that will provide Mr. Christopherson with a point to explain the merits of NDP-1. The purpose of this amendment is to allow him to have his moment before the committee to explain what he's trying to accomplish.

However, my understanding is that the wording of the relevant clause does not include some people who are actually the kinds of people who are in a position to either make decisions on their own or to assist in the making of decisions that could result in benefits accruing to people making a donation to be at the event. Hence, those people should also be included for an event at which they are the headliner, or at any rate are present, headlined or not, because their presence can be conveyed by means other than widely broadcasting the fact that they'll be present.

This includes parliamentary secretaries who do, after all, meet regularly with ministers. In a sense, they serve a role within the parliamentary context similar to that which an NCO, a non-commissioned officer, serves within a military unit to the commissioned officer. Likewise, persons appointed under subsection 128(1) of the Public Service Employment Act would include individuals who are effectively political staff, if I'm not mistaken. Mr. Christopherson can correct me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Go ahead, Mr. Christopherson.

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

I believe that's the goal of this amendment.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

You've done a better job than I was going to.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Do you want to say something else about it?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

No, as a matter of fact, I thank you very much, Mr. Reid. I appreciate that very much.

I won't do a whole speech, but you'll recall that I've had experience in this area and I know the kind of impact that a chief of staff and senior policy adviser can have on a minister. To leave the influence line at just the elected person does not, in my view, capture all the influences on a minister when he or she is making decisions. In a nutshell, that is my rationale.

I'd go a little longer if I had a chance of converting anyone. My odds of that look slim to none. I try to live in the real world.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay, can we go to the vote on the subamendment that we just heard? I think it's pretty clear.

All in favour?

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

Can we get a recorded vote?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Andrew Lauzon]

The vote is on the subamendment.

(Subamendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

The subamendment is defeated.

Now we go to the amendment.

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

I've just got one comment. The proposer has already spoken.

I just wanted to say that I'll be voting for this amendment. I am disappointed by what just happened. We are trying to deal with the merits of each clause on its own. I think that we have a somewhat rarified concern that Mr. Christopherson—sorry, Mr. Graham—expressed. Nonetheless, it's a nice housekeeping measure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Is there any other discussion?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

NDP-2, 3, and 4 are withdrawn.

We go to NDP-5.

David, would you like to present this amendment?