Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Jan. 30th, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Ms. Blaney is not here.

Mr. Brassard.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

I think I was also on the list.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

You can get back on the list.

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

I was on the list to begin with, was I not? I moved a point of order. I didn't give up my spot on the list to do that.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Well, it's a motion, and now we can debate the motion, right?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

On a point of order, Madam Chair, since Ms. Blaney is not here, can we maybe suspend for a bit till she comes back?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Would everyone agree to take a recess for a few minutes?

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

I just want to be clear, though, that I was next on the list.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

You are. You are on the list.

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

I'm not concerned about that. I just wanted to make sure that I didn't drop off the list. It was a point of order I moved. I didn't want to give up my spot to do that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

At this point, it seems there is consent from everyone to have a quick recess.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I call the committee back to order. I hope everyone has had an opportunity to have some fruitful discussion on the motion brought forward by Ms. Blaney.

I believe we all know that there are some routine motions we want to get to today as well. Some of them are very important for the functioning of other committees and the House. I want to have fulsome discussion on this, so we'll give it some time, but I want it to be on your mind that we do need to get to those at some point if possible.

I believe Ms. Blaney had the floor, so first it's Ms. Blaney, and then we'll go to Mr. Richards.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you so much, Chair. In the last opportunity I had to speak, I forgot to congratulate you on being appointed chair. I wanted to make sure to do that. Again, I apologize for having to leave the room and have some discussions.

At the end of the day, this is an important motion for me and for all of Parliament, I believe. We were very careful in the drafting of this motion to make sure that it doesn't change the Standing Orders. It really looks at the reality of this current Parliament and is respecting, really, the work the Conservatives did in their Canada-China motion. This is a motion that just allows for a role for all the official parties in the committees to do the important work they have to do. This is about making sure there's an equal voice and giving an opportunity for all voices to be heard.

Again, I want to reiterate that this is really about this specific Parliament; that's why we worded the motion.... I hope that people can move forward and support this motion so we can get to the important work that needs to be done to begin the committees in this House, which are waiting anxiously to do the important work before them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you.

Mr. Richards.

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

Thanks, Madam Chair.

Obviously, at this committee, essentially a senior committee of Parliament, what we do has some impact that ripples down. That's already been made pretty clear. I believe both finance and trade met yesterday and had a discussion about something similar. The decision made at those committees was to wait and see what occurred here at PROC. That quite clearly demonstrates the impact. It affects all of the committees. That's well known.

Given that, I was only made aware of this proposal this morning, and I would assume that many of my colleagues on other committees are not aware of it at this point. We are talking about something that effectively, as the chair has ruled, will change the Standing Orders, at least for this Parliament. It is a very serious thing to change the Standing Orders.

As you may recall, in the last Parliament you and I both sat here for a meeting that lasted for six weeks. It was because there was a proposal to change the Standing Orders, and it was being done without the consent of all parties and all members. On that very fundamental principle we held quite firm. From there on out through that Parliament, that was sort of how things operated, that changes to the Standing Orders would be done with the consent of all parties. What's being proposed here is that we do something different. Given that, it's not something I am prepared to make a decision about today. I think all members of my caucus need to have an opportunity to be consulted. I would hope that other parties would feel the same way and extend that same right to the members of their caucuses. That opportunity needs to occur. It impacts all of those members. It impacts the members on other committees as well. In order to do that, that's what would need to happen.

Obviously, it's not going to happen in the next hour and five minutes. I'll make it really clear now that there will not be a decision made on this today. We will do what's necessary to make sure that occurs. Some conversations need to occur, and those will occur one way or the other. Members here can choose. I will be making a motion to adjourn on it. I am not doing that now, but I will be doing that. I just want everyone to know that now, so that they can give some thought to it. I will be moving a motion to adjourn the debate. That's what I'll be doing.

The reason I'll be doing that is that, as you have indicated, some routine motions need to be dealt with. I think they should be dealt with today. In order to do that, this will have to be disposed of one way or the other. That's why I will be proposing to deal with it in that manner, so that we can move to those routine motions. Again, that then impacts what will happen at other committees. I don't want to see that delayed. If members choose not to allow the debate on this to be adjourned, that's what will happen, unfortunately. I don't want to see that, but it will be the only option left and that's what will occur.

I really believe, and I appeal in good faith to everyone here, that obviously this does, as I have indicated, have that impact on all other committees. Therefore, that conversation should happen, and I know it will happen. One way or the other, it will happen. If people will entertain the idea of adjourning debate on this motion, we can deal with the other things that are important to get other committees up and running. I think it's critical that we do that. Then those conversations can take place. The outcome will be whatever the outcome is, but the outcome will be determined after the opportunity for all members and all parties to have some say. I would hope that as members of this committee, which is essentially the custodian and guardian of Parliament and the rules that govern this place and the order of this place, we would all understand that this is a critical thing that occurs in order for those kinds of changes to be made, and would therefore allow those conversations to happen.

I won't even get into, at this point anyway, my thoughts on the motion itself. I do have some thoughts, but again, I think others should have that opportunity. It impacts all the members of this Parliament, so all parties should have that say-so.

I'll ask now that I put my name back on the bottom of the speakers list. If the decision is made to carry on with this, I want to make some comments on the motion itself.

Given what I've just said and the fact that we really do need to deal with those other routine motions so that things can get up and running, I move that we adjourn debate on this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

All right.

Shall debate be adjourned? Perhaps I can have a show of hands.

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

Can we have a recorded vote, Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

We can have a recorded vote.

This is just to end debate on the motion on this matter. Everyone understands that, right?

(Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

The motion was defeated. Debate will continue.

I believe Mr. Brassard is next on the list.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair. It's a wonderful day in the neighbourhood, as Mr. Rogers would say—the other Mr. Rogers.

I know the motion speaks specifically to this 43rd Parliament, but I also recall in the last Parliament how this committee was seized with the issue of the changes to the Standing Orders. In fact, if I recall, it went on for several months. Due to the legacy of Mr. Christopherson, who spent a tremendous amount of time standing up for the rules of this institution, it's important that all of us really understand what the issue here is. It is that to change the Standing Orders in this regard is unconventional, to say the least.

I understand Ms. Blaney's argument on this. I understand the value of the work that goes into these committees, certainly the work of the chair and the vice-chairs, and the subcommittees as well. In fact, I would argue that the NDP does have a position and does have a standing on the subcommittee and can play a key role in the direction of this committee. Oftentimes today it's been referenced that the China-Canada committee did something very similar to what is being proposed here, but the reality is that it was a committee that was set out by a vote of Parliament. It's not a standing committee. The standing committee rules are very clear on how the vice-chairs are selected. To use that as a suggestion that somehow we change the entire rules....

I mean, they're not just the rules for this committee. It's every single committee that is constituted by Parliament as a standing committee. This change Ms. Blaney is proposing, if supported, will have a cascading effect right down the line for all of the committees.

I'll use the example of yesterday in the health committee and the vote for the vice-chairs. Certainly I understand the responsibility of PROC to deal with these changes in the House, but the health committee yesterday utilized a provision, which they're allowed to do under the Standing Orders, to hold a vote, a secret vote. Perhaps I can get clarification from the clerk as well a little later. They held a secret vote in which—maybe I stand to be corrected—I believe an NDP member was selected as the vice-chair in addition to a Conservative member. Every committee that is constituted as a standing committee of Parliament has the option to do that.

Why we're proposing, why we would even entertain any thought of a proposal to change the Standing Orders to allow a third vice-chair, when in fact if a member of the third party wants to run as a vice-chair of a standing committee, they can do what we all do.... Put your name forward and formulate an argument as to why you should be the vice-chair. In a situation like Mr. Davies', for example, he has a tremendous amount of institutional knowledge on the health file. The members of the committee, at that point, deemed that he was the right choice, by secret ballot, to become the vice-chair. Why we're moving away from that and the opportunity that every single committee has....

It's going to take a lot more convincing for members of this committee to change my mind that this is not an option, because it is for members of the committee.

To draw the comparison that Canada-China is somehow similar to a standing committee of Parliament.... I think you're cherry-picking at that point. I think you're utilizing that argument to support and prop up an argument that the standing order should be made in this manner, and I truly believe that it's not a good comparison, quite frankly. That was a special committee of Parliament. It was voted on by Parliament. Parliament decided, and the committee, within its own structure as constituted by Parliament, determined that was the way to go. This is much different from that, Madam Chair.

The other thing I would suggest as well is this. We're not going to move the motion today. We will likely put a notice of motion on the table for the consideration of this committee that I believe will open up accountability and transparency within this Parliament. It will be up to this committee to decide that.

We've proven over the last several sessions of House sittings, with two opposition day motions that have received consent and were voted on as appropriate by the opposition parties, that we really truly hold the government to account. On the motion we're going to propose and put on notice, if anybody votes against that, I think it would call into question the ability of the individuals and parties to really hold the government to being accountable and transparent. I want that to be considered as we look at this motion, because transparency and accountability are fundamental to the institution of Parliament and how we operate.

This motion.... Again, on the principle of changing the Standing Orders, we're not going to lose sight of the fact that this does create a bump-up in pay for those members. I believe it's $6,200 a year. All 24 committees will receive that $6,200 a year. While we have to be aware and cognizant of the fact that we are accountable to taxpayers for that money, the principle of the fact that we are fundamentally changing the manner in which the Standing Orders are constituted and are proposed to be changed here is what really is my position on this.

The convention around this place is that we've agreed to the Standing Orders. They haven't been unilaterally imposed on us, and there's a reason for that, so it's that convention alone that causes me to pause to consider what we're doing here. If this happens, then what's next? I think it's a valid concern on the part of all parliamentarians, certainly the members who sit around this committee table, to consider the consequence of changing the Standing Orders in the manner in which that's being proposed today.

I really want us to consider this. I was hoping that Mr. Richards' motion to adjourn the debate on this would really cause this to be kicked up the chain, if you will, so that the leadership team of the Houses could discuss what the implications are with respect to this motion and how it goes against the very convention by which these types of decisions have been made in the past.

While I'm disappointed that the motion to adjourn debate wasn't passed, I still want to see us operate in a spirit of co-operation, and the Standing Orders have always.... I've only been here since 2015, as some of us around this table have, but the convention of this place is that the Standing Orders, and certainly any proposed changes to the Standing Orders, must be and have always been agreed to by parties.

I'll go back to my point earlier about Mr. Christopherson and other members of the PROC committee who sat around this table sometimes for hours upon hours during the day doing the work, but also defending the institution and defending those conventions. While we appreciate the understanding and the work that certainly NDP members do on the committees, we also very greatly respect the institution and the convention by which these decisions are made.

I may have more to say about this going forward, depending on how this debate plays out, but I do want to say that I will need a lot more convincing to change my mind on this issue. I hope that members of this committee really understand the implications of this, not just of this change, but also, as we go forward, of the notice of motion that we are going to put forward and really how that's going to impact the accountability and transparency of the government by producing documents that in some cases may be uncomfortable for them to produce and that may be very newsworthy as well.

I would encourage at least my fellow Conservative members, and certainly the members of the Bloc and the NDP, to consider all aspects of what this means, Madam Chair. I do reserve the right to speak again.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you.

Ms. Blaney.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I always appreciate a robust discussion. I believe that's an important part of the reason we're here. I appreciate the most considerate mention of Mr. Christopherson, who was an amazing member of Parliament and someone I considered to be a mentor to me. I'm very proud of the work he did in this place and I miss him.

I just want to be really clear, though, that this is not about moving a motion that will fundamentally change the Standing Orders. This is for the 43rd Parliament. I just want to put that out there again as a reminder. This is very specific and clear about this Parliament. It's not a fundamental change. It's one that will take place during this Parliament.

The precedent has already been set through the motion that was put on the floor for the Conservatives. I will remind everyone that that motion was not unanimously agreed to in the House of Commons, and yet here it is in practice, and that is the case in some of these situations.

I'm not sure what happened, but in good faith we did reach out to every office of the other parties. If there was a miscommunication, I would love to hear how we could do better in the future. I leave that to the Conservatives to let me know. At the end of the day, I believe that this is a Parliament in which we know Canadians want to see a spirit of co-operation, of collaboration, and of respect for the parties that were sent here. This is our way to move forward to have better outcomes.

We know that yesterday in the finance and trade committees the decision to defer the vote for the vice-chairs was unanimous, as far as I heard. Obviously there was already understanding that there were some discussions happening, and I just want to appreciate that. One of the things that need to be understood here is that this is really about allowing space for all parties so that there isn't debate and discouragement between the two other opposition parties about who should be in what role. This is about respecting all parties, and I think this is one of the best parts about a minority Parliament.

Of course, as you all may know, I am a strong supporter of electoral reform and would have loved to see a different format. That's not where we're at, but we are in a minority situation with three opposition parties. This motion allows all of those parties to be recognized and respected in that role. I'm sad to see this debate go on. I was hoping that people would see the sense of collaboration and move forward. Hopefully we can move forward to a vote and get onto the important business that we need to do to ensure that the committees in this place are up and running as soon as they possibly can.

Thank you.