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

[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?

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

We're in agreement to allow the change to the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Is there consensus on that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Therrien.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Would you like to do that now? We do have a speaking order.

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

Who would be the next speaker—Mr. Gerretsen?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Gerretsen, did you speak or did you just agree?

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

It was so moving that you couldn't remember it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

It was just two words. Usually I'm used to hearing something much more elaborate.

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay.

If we go back to our original list, Mr. Gerretsen, you are next.

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

Are we on the subamendment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

We are on the original amendment.

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

I don't need to speak.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

They haven't made a subamendment. We're on the original amendment.

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

I don't need to speak at this time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay.

Mr. Brassard.

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

We have a fresh list and we are on debate on the subamendment.

Mr. Gerretsen.

[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.

[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.

[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.