Mr. Brassard.
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.
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.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON
To Mr. Gerretsen's point, if this is truly about a title, and the work is not expected to be done in the manner in which the two vice-chairs will be doing the work, then there is no need for any additional compensation for this work—if this is truly about a title. That's the point I would want to make.
On the issue of consensus, we saw, as Mr. Richards tried to move the amendment, that there was no consensus on that with respect to the third vice-chair position being renamed deputy vice-chair. To go back to what I said last week—I'll have more to say about it later on—the convention around this place is that consensus is needed in order for anything to be changed. To change the tactics through motions, through different avenues or vehicles, is not the way we traditionally do things around here. I'm really disturbed at the direction in which we're heading on this particular matter.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
If I can be clear, Mr. Brassard, are you arguing against presenting the subamendment?
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON
No. I'm just answering the point of Mr. Gerretsen and the point of my Bloc friend with respect to not allowing consensus. That's all I have to say.
Thank you.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Madam Chair, I'll be brief on the question that was asked about a title. Essentially, that's what's being done here. Regardless of whether we call it a deputy vice-chair or we add an additional vice-chair, we're creating a new title for someone. The only reason it's a different title is due to the advice we received on procedural issues. We had to come up with something that worked for it to have the effect it was intended to have.
The bottom line here is that this is a role that didn't exist. It has never existed. It's being created. I'm simply trying to be helpful in trying to make it clear so that people don't call into question whether this was created simply to give certain members of Parliament in the smaller opposition parties extra salaries...or maybe the appearance that there could be a minority government trying to ensure that they have bi-support from one of those parties, or both. I'm not suggesting that's the case. I'm just trying to help remove that appearance by simply having a motion that allows for the recognition that I believe people are looking for here. That's what's being asked for—a recognition—and I'm trying to help provide that. It is about a title. We're trying to make sure that, for the appearance of Canadians, it doesn't appear to be about something more than that, which would be extra pay for someone.
That's the spirit of this. I certainly hope we can help remove any of those appearances [Technical difficulty—Editor] by having members support this.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
This exercise we're going through is getting interesting, because it seems that either way we're kind of stuck. Either we're creating just a title or, if you're not happy with the salary and you're not happy with the title, then maybe this exercise is not even going to accomplish your intentions, as you were saying, Mr. Brassard.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON
That would be up to Ms. Blaney to decide, because it's her motion that was moved.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
We can go back to that original motion, and then this committee can decide the fate of that motion, but first we'd have to now vote on the subamendment and the amendment. We can continue. That would be the next logical step. I think we should do that considering that we've heard from most parties.
We'll hear from Ms. Blaney. That way, we will have heard from the NDP as well, and then we can move forward.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair. I think it's interesting that there's a sort of want to put some responsibility on the NDP for the motion we brought forward.
Again, I will just say this. There was a motion brought forward in the House of Commons through the Conservatives to set up a committee with three vice-chairs. There was a decision to make that, so when it's said that role was not created, it has been created, which has led us in a direction to have a discussion.
Again, I will say this. The purpose of the motion that I have put forward is to create an environment of collaboration with the House of Commons. It seems to me, based on the advice of the clerk and the analyst, that this is a place where these are nice discussions to have, but that will not do what was intended by these motions.
As I said earlier, I think it's an interesting conversation. Perhaps we can have it in a place that actually has the authority to do something with it. I think these kind of conversations are always meaningful.
I want to be clear again. This is about a modification. This is not a fundamental change to the Standing Orders. I just think that needs to be respected and also that all the roles of the parties are respected. This is what we're looking for in this motion.
I'm happy to continue the discussion. I think it's an important discussion. I certainly hope that by the end of committee today we have some resolution.
February 4th, 2020 / 12:10 p.m.
Conservative
John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON
I apologize, Madam Chair. The challenge—and I listened to Ms. Blaney—and the issue with the Canada-China motion is that it was a motion that was put forward on an opposition day and that was supported by the opposition parties, including the NDP and the Bloc. Let's not conflate the fact that this was a Conservative issue. This was voted on by the House.
The direction of the House of Commons was for the China-Canada committee to be constituted to study the issues with respect to the relations with China. It was a direction of Parliament—not a standing committee, not a standing order—and it was within the purview of that committee to determine whether there was going to be a third vice-chair. They did that. The Standing Orders are much different.
This motion that Ms. Blaney has put forward speaks specifically to changing the Standing Orders for this 43rd Parliament. That's the issue here. I wanted to make sure that was very clear as we move forward, not just in dealing with the subamendment but with the amendment and the main motion when and if we get to that point.
Let's not conflate the issue. Let's not somehow put this on the Conservatives: that somehow the Conservatives created this third vice-chair position within this China-Canada committee. We did not do that. The committee constituted by Parliament, not by the Standing Orders, did that on their own, and one is different from the other. Let's be clear on it.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Mr. Brassard, just going off the point you just made, even if Ms. Blaney's original motion.... Let's just say that if it were to pass in this committee, it would be then that I'd have to report it to the House. Then we would have to see if there's concurrence—agreement—from Parliament on that issue. It would have a similar effect to your opposition day. Actually, it would be even more difficult than the opposition day.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON
I'm completely aware of that.
The challenge I have with the statement that was made is the fact that it was in fact Parliament that decided to constitute the Canada-China committee. It wasn't a Conservative motion that did that. It was a majority vote in the House of Commons.
I wanted to make that very, very clear. Thank you.
12:10 p.m.
Bloc
Alain Therrien Bloc La Prairie, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm a bit taken aback by the discussion, so I just want to make sure I understand what's going on. The NDP moved a motion, and the Conservatives put forward an amendment. Now we are talking about a subamendment, but none has been proposed. Would it be possible to have the subamendment read out so we can talk about it?
Perhaps it's that I'm new, but I'm a bit confused. We are discussing an amendment, a subamendment and a motion. I'm clear on the motion behind the amendment, but I'd very much like my Conservative friends to provide something in writing so we have something concrete to work from.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
On a point of order, I just want to say, Madam Chair, that I would agree with what the member from the Bloc is saying, specifically about the structure in which we should be debating this. We should be debating it at the subamendment level and then the amendment level, but we seem to be just all over the place. I would agree that it needs to be brought into order.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Okay.
The subamendment is in order. It's been moved from the floor, so we are on discussion of the subamendment. It is procedurally okay to move that subamendment from the floor.
You have the amendment before you. Is that correct, Monsieur Therrien?
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Yes. The subamendment to that....
Maybe the clerk can explain better using the French version.
12:15 p.m.
Bloc
Alain Therrien Bloc La Prairie, QC
Forgive me. I'm new, and I'm trying to learn how things work. Why is the subamendment spoken and not in writing? I'm having a bit of trouble following because I much prefer to have something in front of me.
Where I'm from—the Quebec National Assembly—we always had amendments and subamendments in writing. It strikes me as a clearer way of doing things.
I say this with all due respect for my Conservative colleagues. It would be better if we could follow them more easily. Right now, we can't fully partake in the debate when some basic elements are missing.