Evidence of meeting #16 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was report.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:15 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Justin Vaive
To Mr. Turnbull's question, it is ultimately the committee's report. Whatever you want to include in your report is perfectly fine. Ultimately, the committee needs to decide whether or not you would like that reference to appear in the report. You can also change it, if you want. You can decide to remove it, if you want.
There is no hard and fast rule, per se, that would necessarily prevent the type of reference that is currently in the draft report from remaining, if that's what the committee wants. If it's the decision of the committee to not have it in, it is entirely up to the committee to make that determination.
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Next up are Mr. Genuis, Mr. Richards and Mr. Brassard.
We're at 1:17 p.m. and we have many pages to get through. It looks as though we'll be going into another sitting. I obviously want a good product, and I'm not trying to say let's produce a bad product in terms of saving time, but I'm sure no one wants to sit for another three hours going in circles on these issues. Hopefully, we can resolve this.
Mr. Genuis.
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
It's interesting that you spoke about talking for three hours before I spoke. I can assure you that I'll be as brief as I normally am.
My concern, actually, is that we didn't have Mr. Brassard's full title before his name. I thought we should have added “the honourable” in this section.
In all seriousness, look, I understand that the Liberal members don't like having the names of people in reports. Maybe that explains why they didn't want to do a study of the Trudeau report at the ethics committee.
But you know, I guess the core point here is that—
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Yes, and I know members don't want to have that revisited—well, some members anyway.
The issue here is that there seems to be an implied argument by some members that there's a hierarchy of testimony between testimony given in opening remarks and testimony given in response to questions. Mr. Brassard asked a witness a question, and the witness discussed their view on that question in response to that question. If people have objections to the naming of members, it could just be emphasized that this specific issue was discussed, options were raised and the perspective was given by the witness.
I don't think this really turns on the issue of naming a member. That seems, in all seriousness, like a bit of a sideshow. The point is that a question was asked and some discussion was had. Yes, it was during questions and answers, not during opening remarks, but there's no hierarchy of testimony. It's the right of members to ask questions of witnesses that reflect the things they want to hear answered, and those responses constitute part of the testimony.
Maybe a way forward on this, Madam Chair, is simply to have the analyst come back with a more expansive explanation of what the witness said—the fact that these were ideas raised and that the witness responded saying, yes, those were ideas that had merit and potential. If the name were replaced with “a member raised this”.... It's fairly common that the things witnesses say in response to questions and the context in which those things are said are raised.
Let's not get hung up on a name. I think if the analyst can come back with that kind of more detailed, more expansive explanation of what was asked and what the response was, I hope that would satisfy everyone.
Thanks.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
As a similar point to Mr. Genuis's, I think I maybe have a specific suggestion, because I, too, don't think—and I'm sorry to disappoint your children, John—that it makes a lot of sense to name a specific member of the committee and what they said. I think there's a better way we could introduce this, because there was a witness who was asked about this and made a comment on it. I think that would satisfy the concerns I heard from Mr. Turnbull and Mr. Gerretsen to some degree as well. That would be something we heard from a witness, and everyone had an opportunity to question the witness on it, and in this case, that is in fact what did happen with Michel Patrice. I forget his title, but the analyst would have that. We could just indicate “House administration official”, whatever his actual title is, “Michel Patrice”....
What we would do is just replace everything in that paragraph before “considering”. We would just indicate instead, “[His title] Michel Patrice described as quite interesting the idea of”, and then carry on with “considering”, etc. from there.
I think if we do that in conjunction with what I suggested earlier, where we indicate some of the things that were done in the other provinces, it satisfies the concerns we were hearing from other members but still allows us to delve into a topic we were directed to study, and in a way that is in line with what members, in the discussion we just had, indicated they'd like to see.
I think it should satisfy everybody.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Okay, I think we're getting somewhere.
We'll go to Mr. Gerretsen, and then Mr. Alghabra. Then hopefully that's it, and we can move on.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Thank you. That's appreciated. It will save us all time.
Mr. Alghabra, what are some compromises or solutions you came up with?
May 12th, 2020 / 1:20 p.m.
Liberal
Omar Alghabra Liberal Mississauga Centre, ON
Following these points, I'd like to propose, Madam Chair, that perhaps we could explicitly say that the committee did not spend a lot of time examining alternative locations, and that in one of the conversations, a member of the committee asked one of the witnesses...and then quote the witness. I think we could leave it there.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Is everybody okay with that? I think it takes into consideration what everyone has pretty much said.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Excuse me, Madam Chair. Just to clarify, is the suggestion then that the suggestions I made about indicating what we're aware of in terms of other provinces be left out?
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
No, that was separate. I think this is just the issue of Mr. Brassard's comment in that second paragraph.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
In that case, I would argue that the suggestion I made satisfies exactly what Mr. Alghabra just suggested.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Yes. I think you both have come to somewhat of an agreement there, and that's what we can leave it at, thank God. Thank you.
Andre, you have that? Okay. Obviously, there are the previous points that Christine and Mr. Richards also made. I think those were the main points that were made in the quorum section, unless somebody wants to remind me if I missed something.
Is that what you have, Andre? Yes, okay.
All right, so we are on “Order and decorum”.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
On a point of order, Madam Chair, I'm just handing the floor over to Corey now.
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
Corey Tochor Conservative Saskatoon—University, SK
This is way better than QP, and there are way better answers, by the way.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Okay, we are on the “Order and decorum” section. In the English version, that's pages 42 to 44, Mr. Tochor.
It's a short section. Are there any comments on that? I'll look for a raised hand in the participants section.
Mr. Brassard.
I'm breaking my own rules. I keep calling on you guys when I see your hands.
Is everyone good with this section? Perfect.
On the next section, “Voting”, Ms. Blaney, are you raising your hand?
1:25 p.m.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
I'm raising my hand.
In paragraph 2, the second line, line 14 on page 45, it says “likely requires amending”. I think “amendments” makes more sense than “amending to sections 48 and 49”. It should be “likely requires amendments to sections”.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Andre, did you get that? All right.
“Voting” is good. I don't see any other hands raised.
On “Question Period”—
