Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Feb. 4th, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay.

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

Could we have a recorded vote?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

It will be a recorded vote on the amendment.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we are back to the original motion that Ms. Blaney put forward, and we have a speaking list for this motion. We will resume debate on that.

I can add you to that list, Mr. Richards.

Mr. Gerretsen, go ahead on the original motion.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I don't have anything to say at this point, Madam Chair. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Brassard.

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

I don't have anything to say.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Richards.

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

Thanks, Madam Chair.

I have another amendment to make. It was unfortunate that the committee—other parties—chose not to agree to the amendment that would have clarified that this is not about money but simply about recognition. Now that is left being called into question, certainly, and that's unfortunate.

I hope we can all agree at least that the situation that can now arise, and almost certainly will arise, is that we could see some MPs being eligible for two additional salaries rather than simply one additional salary that they voted for themselves. We want to try to make sure we don't create further inequity here.

I would suggest amending the motion by just adding the following:

That a vice-chair eligible for more than one additional salary under sections 62.1 to 62.3 of the Parliament of Canada Act shall only receive one of the additional salaries for which he or she is eligible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Our version isn't like that. I just want to clarify that the motion be amended by adding the following:

That a vice-chair eligible for more than one additional salary under sections 62.1 to 62.3 of the Parliament of Canada Act shall only receive one of the additional salaries for which he or she is eligible.

Is that correct?

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

That's correct.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Now we're going to distribute that to everybody. I just wanted to clarify whether that was even correct, but the additional word needs to be added in.

Have you added the word in?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

As this is being distributed, can we suspend just for five minutes?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Is everyone okay with that?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay. We're suspending for five minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Order.

I believe everyone should have the new amendment before them. While we were on recess, perhaps the members got to discuss and take a look at and reflect on this new amendment. We've definitely discussed it.

We're resuming debate on the amendment that is before us. There are concerns that, once again, are very similar to the concerns about the original amendment as to how this would practically play out procedurally. It is before this committee, so procedurally this amendment can be moved at this committee and can be debated.

Perhaps I would suggest that, upon reading the act, once again, on the salaries when you hold a position, it says that you “shall be paid” the salary that is listed in the act, so I believe this faces complications similar to those faced by the first amendment. We could pass it here at this committee. Even if the House were to adopt it, it would essentially not have the effect of changing the act, so we have that same problem.

Of course, that is something you can debate, and it probably will help you in making a decision as to whether you're going to vote in favour of this amendment or not.

We'll resume debate on this amendment. Those are the things that you can discuss and decide.

Mr. Therrien.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Let me say one thing. I am House leader of the Bloc Québécois and a vice-chair of this committee. As I understand it, then, if the committee agrees to this amendment—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Can I ask you a practical question, then? We were discussing that up here at the front.

We don't oftentimes see a member who is chair of two committees or vice-chair of two committees. As the leader in the House and a vice-chair, will you be receiving two different salaries?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

It's supposed to be, but....

That's why I wanted to comment. I was told that I would receive two salaries, one for my role as House leader and one for my role as vice-chair, if I'm not mistaken.

Since this motion applies to me, which puts me in somewhat of a conflict of interest, I won't comment and I will abstain from the debate. I don't want people to get any ideas.

That's what I wanted to say at the outset. I'm not going to participate, and I'll vote for an abstention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

From debate or from voting on the—

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

I will vote on that for the Bloc Québécois.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay. Understood.

Mr. Tochor.

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

Thank you.

I'm posing the question: who else would be getting the extra top-up? I'm not sure if any of the Liberal members would take that approach as well. To hear from the NDP on how they would approach this debate and vote would be interesting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Ms. Blaney.

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

Again, I don't know how to speak to this. At this point, of course, I am the whip and am not the vice-chair of anything at this point, so I receive one salary. I think we could definitely ask some questions about whether or not people have been allotted those roles and also have the vice-chair role. If they're paid, I think that's a bigger research question. I obviously don't have access to the House knowledge on that, but I would be very interested in seeing what that is.

I can only answer from where I'm sitting right now, which is that for me at the end of the day this was an opportunity to have equality within our committees. I don't see a problem with this subamendment. I am concerned, of course, that it's not going to do the work that we would like to see it do, and I think that conversation needs to happen if that's information that the Conservatives would like to look at historically. I wouldn't have all of the knowledge about what the practice has been in this Parliament or in past Parliaments.