Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 13th, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Richards, would you be okay with that suggestion?

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

Maybe we can just have her repeat that. I'm not sure I completely understood it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Ms. Normandin, go ahead.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

I suggest that the vote be held in three stages. That would be representative of our current debates. We could hold a first vote on creating parallel regulations for emergency measures, a second vote on the requirement for unanimous consent in order to trigger the implementation of those procedures and, if that proposal was rejected, a vote on the fact that majority consent would then be required.

Ms. Blaney's proposal on unanimity was actually the first one presented for discussion.

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

Okay, I'll respond to that in three parts as well.

On the first part, I'm opposed to the idea of our looking at ways we would trigger these kinds of things in the future. At this point, I think what we've been directed to do by the House of Commons—and what we should do, as well, at this time—is to deal with what we're doing in the current circumstances. When things return to somewhat normal, we as a committee should then study what we would do in future circumstances. At that point—I would be completely in agreement with you—we should be doing exactly what you've suggested in the first part of your suggestion. I just don't think that now is the time for that.

Having said that, I also recognize that I appear to be in the minority on that. I'm not going to hold up or prevent that from being decided today, if we remove this aspect that I have the most concern about—and that's the second part of your query—this idea that somehow this could be triggered through a majority, or rescinded or not rescinded in that way. That's where I have a real problem, because I see that as a threat to democracy—a very dangerous threat to democracy. I would never allow.... As long as I felt there were enough votes for that to pass, I would never allow it to come to a vote. I'd do everything in my power to ensure that didn't happen, and I think there are other members who feel as strongly as I do about that. We won't be getting anywhere if that's the path we're going down. I don't do that lightly. I only do it because I think this is such a threat to democracy that I couldn't live with myself if I didn't do everything I could possibly do to oppose it.

Then, to your third question, obviously we wouldn't even get to that point, because as long as I feel there's enough support to have a vote that would allow this to be done by a majority, I'll go to the wall on that one. That is how important it is that we protect our democracy from that kind of a threat.

I hope that clarifies where we're at. If we were to somehow divorce these two things, the first one may be able to come to a vote. However, as long as I feel there's any possibility that there's enough support for it to pass, there's no way I will allow the potential for our democracy to be removed from us in that way.

Does that clarify the questions?

I guess the floor is still mine, or—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes, it is.

Can I just clarify one thing?

You stated at the end that your opposition overall is to looking at any future emergencies, but the sticking point seems to be what triggers it and what triggers it for us to come out of the virtual setting.

Correct me if I'm wrong. You said it should be agreement of all parties that triggers going into a virtual Parliament, but the opposition of even one party would undo the virtual Parliament and bring us back to the regular Standing Orders. Is that correct?

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

Correct. That would be the intention. I could come up with the wording. The idea is to try to satisfy the concerns that some had, and I think they were legit concerns. They just weren't concerns that I had considered previously. There could be a very legitimate situation where all parties would agree—and I think this would have been a circumstance of that—to the idea of going into these emergency standing orders or whatever you would want to call them, which could potentially give, not knowing what they are, because we haven't even come up with what those are....

Again, just on a sidebar here, that speaks to why we shouldn't be considering the future now. We haven't even come up with what those are, and we certainly haven't done anywhere near enough study to come up with what those are. We haven't given ourselves the benefit of looking at the current context and what we've done, and what other countries and other legislatures have done. We would be making a huge mistake, I think, to go down that road, but my sense is that others want to do that. I think it's a mistake, a huge mistake, but it's a mistake that others appear to be prepared to go with.

The problem is that without even knowing what those are, we're suggesting that we would allow these things to be put in place through this amendment by a majority vote.

Even if we were to stick with the idea of its being unanimous—by all the recognized parties—to go into these situations, the circumstance that has been raised here by Mr. Brassard and maybe one other is the idea that, if this is to be rescinded by a unanimous vote, it could allow one party—and the most likely circumstance you could imagine is that it would be a governing party—to prevent the rescinding of these emergency measures. They would be doing that because, one would assume, they find that they're liking the idea of the extra power—or the lesser accountability—it gives them.

That is also a concern. It's just one that I hadn't had, so I was trying to find a way.... Although it isn't perfect, and I think we should be taking more time to consider this, if we're being forced to go down this path, which appears to be where we're at, I'm just trying to find a way to make it so that our democracy is protected in the best way that it can be. The idea would be that all parties would have to agree to go in, and that as soon as one party felt it was no longer appropriate, we would come out of it. That prevents, on either end of it, a government either taking that kind of power for themselves without other parties agreeing that it's necessary or keeping that power for themselves although other parties don't feel it's necessary.

I don't think one has to think real hard to find circumstances where there are governments in power in countries that have gone from a democratic situation to something that's less than democratic, and where this would have been a real easy way for one of those individuals to take that kind of power. That's why I have that concern.

I hope that clarifies things. I guess what I'll do at this point is indicate that for me these concerns are grave enough that I don't intend to allow a vote until I get some indication that others have rethought the lack of concern they have here. If at any time, whether it be Mr. Turnbull, who feels the willingness to pull this amendment, or if others who have previously expressed support for it.... I'm only assuming the support of the other government members, because I haven't heard anything from them to the contrary. Well, most of the other government members.... I guess Mr. Alghabra has sort of indicated his feelings, and he is supporting it.

At the end of the day, if one or two members, or others, feel that they can see clearly that we're not getting anywhere here, or they have a change of heart and realize the threat this causes to democracy—and I'll speak and make the points I need to make to try to convince others of this situation—just simply put your hand up, do a point of order and indicate that you feel that way, and I can stop talking to try to convince people.

Until then, I will try to do everything to convince them that there is no way we should be going down this dangerous road of allowing our democracy to be threatened in such a way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

If I may just interject for 30 seconds, how about Madame Normandin's suggestion that we not talk about the contentious issue yet and perhaps move to the first recommendation as is, rather than getting into what does or does not trigger it?

Could we call for a vote on the first recommendation as it is in the draft report?

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

I suppose that's a possibility. You know where my thoughts are on it. What you're suggesting, Madam Chair, is a vote on LIB 1, or what are we suggesting?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes, we have LIB 1, then CPC 2, and then BQ 10.

This was brought about only because it seemed as though some suggestions were similar, so we were trying to combine them, but we don't have to, necessarily.

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

This is something I might have raised as a point of order, but since we're having a back-and-forth exchange anyway, I'll just ask the question. How do we reconcile this? We deal with LIB 1, and maybe the clerk will have to give you some advice on this, Madam Chair, because there are such similarities between LIB 1, BQ 10, and NDP 2. I will also point out that NDP 2 also includes the way these would be put into force and rescinded, which I favour of the three. I don't like any of them, but I favour it of the three because of that. If there were to be a vote on LIB 1, what would then happen to BQ 10 and NDP 2? Would they no longer be voted on because they are similar? What would become the status of those?

That's important for members to know if we are to go to a vote on this, because maybe the Bloc, the NDP, Conservative members, or even some Liberal members might prefer one of those suggestions, and if we vote for LIB 1 and those are thrown out as a result, we could be going down a road that maybe people didn't intend to go down.

We need to get some clarity. Where we have these similar recommendations, what happens then when we vote on LIB 1? Does BQ 10 get thrown out? Does NDP 2 get thrown out? If that isn't the case and we then vote on BQ 10, does that take precedence over LIB 1 and it gets thrown out? We need some clarity as to what actually happens here with the votes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Absolutely. I think some of those technical decisions are made when we're looking at legislation, but let's have the clerk weigh in on this one, and you can still have the floor, Mr. Richards.

[The Clerk]

Mr. Richards, the chair is correct. Those tend to be the types of considerations that come into play. For example, during a clause-by-clause meeting when the committee is considering various amendments, occasionally when an amendment gets adopted, it has the effect or the impact of knocking out other ones.

There's a lot more latitude when it comes to a draft report. It's really up to the committee to determine what the recommendations are. Procedurally, if the committee wanted to adopt multiple similar types of recommendations for the report, it could do that. There might be issues of consistency or inconsistency because of that, but procedurally speaking, there wouldn't be anything stopping it. It wouldn't be, as the chair indicated, the same situation in which, if the committee were considering amendments in clause-by-clause to a bill, there would be an automatic impact if some amendments were adopted and others would need to be dropped.

Essentially, it would be in the committee's hands to determine if any other recommendations needed to be adopted, even if there were some, or quite a lot, of overlap in them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

It wouldn't have that effect, and we could carry on into the others.

What I was saying the other day was that the purpose is to have a report that makes sense stylistically, so that we're not repeating ourselves over and over in the report, but essentially we could continue down and not make the amalgamation.

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

Okay, I understand the clarification we just received. However, I will point out that although it's possible to have three recommendations that say something similar or the same, it's quite awkward, to say the least. I would suggest that members might want to consider that problem before voting.

I'm not sure how to even deal with that situation. If you wanted to do a straw poll and get a sense of which one of the three recommendations has the most support, and then maybe deal with it first, rather than going in order like that...because I don't really know where others are at in terms of whether they would prefer LIB 1, BQ 10, or NDP 2. Maybe we need to get a straw poll to give us some sense of that, and then proceed with the motion on it, if that's what we are going to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Richards, can we get an idea as to which one you prefer out of LIB 1, BQ 10, and NPD 2? I think that might move us along.

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

Certainly, from my perspective, NDP 2 is the preferable one. It's only preferable because.... I disagree with the other idea, that we have a modified set of standing orders for future situations. I think that's something we should analyze later, in a second report. If we're going to go down this path, I want to ensure there are some rules around how those standing orders would be put into force and rescinded. In my mind, there still would need to be an amendment to the NDP one to make the change about how they would be rescinded, possibly. However, I think the principle that the NDP is trying to accomplish on that part of it is still....

I would be interested to hear Ms. Blaney's thoughts on the proposal I've made, in terms of whether she would agree with that idea. I hadn't even considered the possibility, and maybe she hadn't either, of a majority government deciding to hold those emergency powers by being the one party that doesn't agree to rescind.

I would love to hear Ms. Blaney's thoughts on that, if we could. She's saying “the agreement of all recognized parties” for it to come into force. Would she agree, then, that it would only remain in force as long as all recognized parties agreed? In other words, if one party decides to pull its agreement on it.... I would assume that the only way a party could pull its agreement would be through some kind of a motion. The bottom line is, would she agree on that principle, that it would come into force and stay in force only as long as all parties agree?

I want to get her thoughts on that, if I can, Madam Chair, and then I might be able to make some decision on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Ms. Blaney.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

On a point of order, Madam Chair, we've been listening to Mr. Richards for some time now. I think we know where he stands.

He's interested in hearing where other members of this committee stand. I think, in fairness, if he wants answers to those questions, he is going to have to yield the floor and let them share their views, as we have been generous enough to do with his time.

Mr. Richards has been speaking for some time now, and we have a motion before us. He has presented—I've lost count—at least four suggestions on how it might be amended or improved in his opinion. He's now asking for other people's input. Procedurally, the only way he can do that correctly is if he yields the floor to let other people speak.

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

I can respond to that point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

It's a point of order for me, and so—

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

Yes, but other members have had an opportunity to respond to a point of order and give their input, so I would like to do that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay.

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

I will point out to the member—and I think he must be a new member; I don't recognize him—that he's probably not aware that members have the right to speak in committee, and to speak at length if necessary. I am simply doing what I'm doing—and you're allowing that, Madam Chair—in the interest of trying to move forward with something.

My reasons for doing what I'm doing, asking the questions of other members, are to get some sense.... I don't want to yield the floor, and there's a very obvious reason for why I don't want to do that. I don't want to see this principle that's been introduced through the amendment to the amendment come to a vote, because I'm quite concerned about the threat it causes to democracy.

I'm trying to get a sense of where we're at with other members without yielding the floor. I'm doing that out of the best interests of the committee. If Mr. Maloney does not want to allow that, then he should be prepared to listen to my voice for some time to come.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I'm going to answer as to the procedural issue, since I've heard from both members.

What I was in essence trying to do was make some progress here. In the previous Parliament, and in our last report—not that we have to comply with it; it's not procedural, really—we had a way of operating in the past where we would allow for short and small answers or interjections if there was consensus by the committee to carry on that way. If I'm seeing now that the committee does not entertain it or does not allow me to use that flexibility, then I might not do that anymore.

I was doing it also, Mr. Richards, just as you were saying, in order to maybe find a compromise or a solution to this, because I do understand and I do recognize that you have the floor and that you could carry on if you like. But if things are not moving forward, then maybe the Simms protocol is no longer of value at this moment. That is up to the committee, really. Usually, it was just latitude that we had given in the past when all members seemed to be in agreement that it would help.

If the committee members don't feel that this is helping to move us forward, then it really is up to the committee, I guess, and it's up to you, Mr. Richards.