Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2017

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Even in your comment about the cable box, I'm part of a generation that doesn't have cable. I don't have satellite at home. I exclusively use other devices to view, so I don't use a remote to find things on TV because I don't use TV. I don't want to belabour this issue because I do have a short amount of time.

I have a very simple question for Mr. Fox. You mentioned that the IRPP at the end of the report mentions their willingness to host potentially another colloquium. Is that something you're planning, and is that something that could happen in the future?

[Graham Fox]

We're not actively planning just yet, but we're absolutely open-minded about it. I think we are waiting for the issue to evolve a bit. I think what you're doing as a committee will contribute a lot to that, so watch this space.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

On the need to be flexible, the need to be nimble, I think that's a worthwhile comment.

Bearing this in mind, then, from a report standpoint and what we're going to be asked to report on, what side of things would you encourage us to report on in terms of recommendations? How prescriptive ought we to get? Should we simply recommend a commissioner structure, and leave all that to the commissioner, or should we be presenting some degree of rules in terms of participation, in terms of a threshold, in terms of an actual debate itself?

I'll leave that for anyone who is interested.

[Jane Hilderman]

Well, at this early point—and maybe I'll revise my comments after we hear from more witnesses on this study—I think the answer is probably have some guidelines for the commission so that they have something to also point back to and say, “This is my job, and I'm doing my job here”, but not too much in the way of overprescribing in the sense of exactly.... I think there needs to be some discretion, some flexibility in the system.

On your first question on platforms, we may get to a point where Facebook or Netflix do want to be involved as a carrier of the debates. Why not? I think we need that openness because the legislation, we find, gets set. It does not get reviewed always, so there needs to be some thought about the framework of what could apply in a decade, 15 years, or 20 years from now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We really appreciate all of you being here. We're going to end the formal time, but I'm sure you would all be willing to stay a few minutes because I think some of the individual committee members might want to talk to you. You had some wonderful input.

Yes, go ahead.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Chair, I just have a point before you conclude the meeting.

Given that we're talking about democracy and participation, I had raised the issue before, although I don't think we took a decision. You will recall that in 2013 we reviewed the BOIE. Again, because that represents the interests of all members of the House and the three political parties that are recognized, it doesn't cover everyone in the House. We still have independents. The issue of the Green Party—let's call it what it is—in the debates or out of the debates, as Mr. Reid has noted, has often been a point of controversy in the past.

I'm wondering, in the 2013 example, the language we used was that one member who is not a member of a recognized party be allowed to participate in the hearings as a temporary, non-voting member of the committee.

Rather than going to a motion and creating any possible division, I just wonder how colleagues feel about adopting that and allowing the independents to have that opportunity for a say here. They would be members, and they have every right, but they can't vote. Just in the element of fairness I wonder what people's thoughts are, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

That was a decision of the House, would you say, Mr. Clerk?

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

Correct. That was an order of reference from the House.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

From the House. Okay, but could we still adopt it if we wanted to?

[The Clerk]

Yes, the committee is free....

Well, the question of membership does not belong to the committee, but participation is something the committee could accommodate.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'm in your hands, Chair. I just seek some means of giving those who aren't represented here, given that this impacts on them as much as us, a chance to have a say. That's all.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Bittle.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

I know Mr. Christopherson wasn't here last meeting, but Ms. May did participate and did ask questions. Perhaps we can continue as a respecting, understanding group and, should they wish to participate, we can continue to allow them on a going-forward basis.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Sorry, but if I may, the downside of that is it ends up being a charitable case. One of us has to give up our spot to the poor little member who doesn't have all the rights that we have. We're talking about democracy and fairness right from the get-go. It affects those other folks. Could we not just find a means where they would have a spot in the rotation of questions in their own right, rather than the crumbs of charity from other partisans?

I'll make a motion. I move, Chair, that a member who is not of a recognized party be allowed to participate in our hearings with all rights except that of voting. Word it whatever way you want, but so that they get a right to be in the speaking rotation and participate fully, but they can't vote, obviously.

But I'm open to amend that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Ms. Sahota.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

There would be a member from the Bloc and Elizabeth?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

They'd pick one collectively. They did that before. They worked collectively together to represent—

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Would the two parties pick one representative?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes. I think there may be independent, independent, but....

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Bittle.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Is it in keeping with the Standing Orders? Are we permitted to do this?

[The Clerk]

The Standing Orders allow for members of non-recognized parties or independent members to attend all public meetings of the committee. It is up to the committee to decide whether or not they are allowed to participate. If the committee wanted to, they could adopt a motion to assign so many minutes per meeting or change their rotation for the questioning of witnesses. That is up to the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Richards.

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

This raises a lot of questions, and there are a lot of answers we can't provide, not here at this moment in time anyway.

There are questions about how the one person who will participate would be selected. What happens to the rounds of questioning? Whose time is lost? This raises all kinds of questions. Maybe it's something that we should reserve for a future date. I don't know how we resolve it, if it's at a steering committee or during committee business in the future or something like that, but at this point in time this raises a lot of questions that we don't have answers to at the moment and wouldn't be able to come up with in the next two minutes or so.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Reid, then Mr. Simms.