Evidence of meeting #2 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Where it says on the amendment “third vice-chair” we're looking at new wording, “deputy vice-chair”. Is everyone in agreement here?
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
We're in agreement to allow the change to the amendment.
Alain Therrien Bloc La Prairie, QC
Instead of changing the amendment that way, I think the most realistic solution would be to have the Conservative members rewrite their amendment to reflect the information they received from our colleagues in charge of the committee's smooth functioning. If they reworked their amendment, we could discuss it again. I'm not sure we're going about this in the right way, getting everyone's input and having four cooks in the kitchen instead of one.
They could do the homework on that and then put forward an amendment that, on top of doing what they'd like it to, would make clear that the vice-chair positions, if that's the terminology used, simply have to be compensated as such, as the House of Commons requires. I think that's their position. The original motion clearly states that the second vice-chair must be a member of the Bloc Québécois, so let me say this: we won't be making any concessions on that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Thank you, Mr. Therrien.
We don't have consensus on just making that change. You can't move your own amendment.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Understood. I'll obviously allow one of my colleagues to make a subamendment then. It seemed like this would be an easier way to do that, but obviously without that consent, we'll do it in the complicated way then.
Liberal
Conservative
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
It was just two words. Usually I'm used to hearing something much more elaborate.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
All I was going to say was that I was interested in hearing Ms. Blaney's take on this, but then she already spoke to that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Okay.
If we go back to our original list, Mr. Gerretsen, you are next.
Liberal
Liberal
Conservative
John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON
Madam Chair, in light of the fact there seemingly is no consensus on the amendment, then I would move a subamendment. I will seek the clerk's advice on this. The subamendment I would move is that the “third vice-chair” be changed to strike the word “third” and replace that with the word “deputy”. That would be my subamendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
We have a fresh list and we are on debate on the subamendment.
Mr. Gerretsen.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Just as a question to the clerk, would a deputy vice-chair have all of the same responsibilities that come with being a vice-chair other than the pay part? Or have we just created a title and that's all we created? If so, then the point is moot.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
The issue we've been having all along is that procedurally this is okay, but as to the practical effect of it, yes, currently as it stands it would be a new title. We don't have a role in the statute for this. There is no role. It's something that we could either define here or....
I'm not quite sure if we can even do that.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
I have a rhetorical question for either of your answers. One, if we're creating a position that doesn't have any responsibilities attached to it, what's the point in creating it? Two, if we're assigning the exact same responsibilities to somebody who doesn't have the official title, why would we do that? I don't understand it.
Just like with the amendment, I would really like to hear the NDP's position on this.