Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 13th, 2020

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

Before I get back to the comments I was making—and you may want to go further with this—I may be able to help with a suggestion.

First of all, I want to make it really clear that although, as I've outlined, I am opposed to the idea of looking at future situations, I'm not trying to hold up a report from the committee. I recognize that I'm in a minority in that viewpoint. I believe in democracy, and I can clearly see I'm in a minority in this situation. I might disagree, and I would certainly vote against anything, but I want to make it clear to Mr. Turnbull and others that I'm not trying to hold anything up and filibuster or anything of that nature.

Where I have a concern is on the second amendment he made, which was the idea of having a majority vote. That's where I feel there is a real threat to democracy. A couple of other members, from two parties at least, have expressed similar concerns. I'm not sure their concerns are as grave as mine, but they've certainly had concerns. Clearly, there are members here today, representing parties that hold somewhere in the neighbourhood of almost half the seats in the House of Commons, who have these concerns, so I think it's something that should be taken seriously.

I will say two things.

First, if you want to return to Mr. Turnbull, Madam Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes, I do.

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

—what I've said might give him better clarity as to my concerns and may give him some comfort in what he would suggest we do.

Second, I suggest to you, Madam Chair, that you might want to use the powers that you have. I had said to Ms. Blaney that maybe it would be good to hear her perspective on my suggested amendment to NDP 2, for example, which would enable what she was suggesting, and then have one of the parties able to pull their.... Canvass her on that one, because I think there are two things we have to figure out here. First, we have to figure out—

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

I have a point of order, if that would be appropriate at this moment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Absolutely. I was going to move on to you, Ms. Blaney.

What I will say, as Mr. Turnbull has said, is that the original amendment may not be completely accurate, but it is a fair combination of three different recommendations.

Would you be willing, Ms. Blaney, to consider the first version of the recommendation that was amalgamated?

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

First of all, let me thank Mr. Richards for talking earlier about what a kind, gentle person I am. I appreciate that, and I want to let him know that I certainly know when it's time to fight. I thank him for recognizing that friendly British Columbia spirit.

The first recommendation that Mr. Turnbull put forward, which combined the three motions and included the part that of course I stand by very steadfastly, about making sure that all the parties have power in this, is important to me. I want to clarify that I do not want to see those sections of the motion separated. I don't think they belong.... I can't vote for the first one without the part added to it, which says that all recognized parties will have the power to work.

I think it's important to reiterate that this is what we have seen. It has not always been perfect, but what we've seen is that over this period of time, all recognized parties have found ways to work together. I would like to see that continue. I think it is absolutely essential for democracy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Ms. Blaney.

Mr. Turnbull, it looks like Mr. Richards and Ms. Blaney are saying that the original amendment you proposed is least offensive, at least in one case.

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

Madam Chair, on the point of order, could I comment quickly before Mr. Turnbull, if that's okay?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes.

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

The only reason I want to do this is that I'm still not clear on where Ms. Blaney is in terms of the rescinding. I feel like we might be close to having something the committee could pass, even though I wouldn't support it. Ms. Blaney has made it quite clear that she wouldn't support anything that doesn't have some indication of how they would come into force and how they would be rescinded. There might be some agreement there, if Mr. Turnbull chooses to go back to his original, but I still suggest that my concern about—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Let's ask Ms. Blaney—

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

I'm sorry, but can I first just make sure that it's clear what I'm asking?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

It is.

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

What I would be asking her is, how does she feel about the principle of rescinding it? Does she feel that a majority vote would be okay to rescind it? Does she feel that it needs all parties to rescind it?

That would obviously bring into question the concern Mr. Brassard raised about one party holding on, a governing party deciding to hold on to those powers, even though all the other parties feel that those powers need to be rescinded at that point. How does she feel about the amendment saying that in that circumstance one party withdrawing its agreement would then be the requirement, rather than a majority vote or all parties on the rescinding side?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Ms. Blaney, do you agree to the modification to your original ending? Your original ending was consistent with how to invoke and how to rescind.

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

I thank the member for that question, and I actually can answer it. My concern would be.... I think the pressure is pretty strong from Canadians about that level of collaboration, but I do understand the concern of one party holding the power. We've actually seen some demonstration of that in the last few months as well, where if a party doesn't agree, it means everything returns and it means calling in all parliamentarians.

I think that's something I would be willing to debate. I don't quite feel that there's the thoughtfulness required for me to amend it at this point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay. I think at this point we could go back to the original proposal of the amalgamated three of Ms. Blaney's suggestion originally, Ms. Normandin's recommendation, and then Mr. Turnbull's recommendation, all combined together.

Could we go to a vote on that recommendation as being the first recommendation of this report?

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

No, Madam Chair.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I'll just clarify, if I may, Madam Chair, that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes, I guess that was a question for you, as to whether you would be willing to go to a vote on that, with the original without the friendly amendment.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I thought so, and yes, I would be amenable to that. I think it would be fine to go back to the original.

I can read it out again, if necessary, but I think you have it. The ending is “rescinded at the agreement of all recognized parties”. It includes—

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Tochor.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Is there a way that we could get an emailed copy of this? I'm not having the best audio and video today. Could we take a break and have someone from the clerk's office, maybe, email us the actual motion and amended motions? I can't follow along with all the amendments that have been made.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I don't know.

Justin, could you...?