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

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

You can have the floor, Mr. Richards.

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

I think the bottom line here, as I indicated during my comments, is that if we are to decide as a committee or as Parliament to look at the ways in which we recognize the different roles and responsibilities with additional salaries more broadly, then that's a conversation, if people feel it's worth having, that we would have and we would make a decision on. I'm firmly of the belief that we should not make decisions about our own salaries, and that's what we're proposing to do with this motion. It's to make a decision about someone's own salary. But if we were to talk about that in terms of what would happen in future Parliaments, then as MPs we could all have that conversation, if all parties feel it's worth having, in terms of how salaries or additional salaries were to function.

It's one reason that, even for the base salaries of MPs, the decision was made a number of years ago to not put MPs in the position to make those kinds of decisions about their own salaries. We shouldn't be making those decisions for our own salaries. If we choose to change the way that's done for future Parliaments, that might be a different conversation. The problem here is that we're talking about making a change that individual MPs would be voting on that would affect their own salaries. I don't believe we should be putting anyone in that kind of position.

The idea here is to simply allow for the recognition that needs to be there, in some people's minds, of the fact that someone is sitting on a steering committee, but not put anyone in a position to vote for salary increases, especially in a minority Parliament like this one, where questions like those I raised earlier could come from Canadians.

That's the reason I've chosen to do this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

At this point I'll take a bit of leeway, if you will indulge me, to talk about the procedural aspects of the amendment that's before us so that we fully understand before we continue debate on the amendment.

Looking at the Parliament of Canada Act, which we've been discussing, it seems that this amendment is procedurally okay at this committee, because it's within the scope of what we are talking about. But if this committee were to pass this amendment and it ended up on the floor of the House, it would essentially have no effect, because the Parliament of Canada Act makes it mandatory. It says that all vice-chairs “shall” be paid. We would not essentially be able to change that through a motion of this committee without an amendment to the actual act. It would essentially have no impact.

I just wanted to let the mover know that. We can proceed here at this committee. We can vote it down or we can pass it, but essentially it won't have the impact you're looking for.

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

Okay. I would be willing to entertain a suggestion from our clerk as to how we might better craft that so that it has the desired impact.

Madam Chair, while that discussion is happening, perhaps I can also get some clarification. What's provided for now is that there is a vice-chair and a second vice-chair. We'd be adding a third vice-chair. Is what you're telling me that the Parliament of Canada Act, if we decided to have a fourth, a fifth, a sixth and a seventh vice-chair, would allow for that as well? I'm not suggesting that we do this by any means, but if the committee decided that every member of the committee was to be a vice-chair, then would every member of the committee be paid an additional salary? Is that essentially it?

To me, I would think the Parliament of Canada Act would be specific. There are positions set for first and second vice-chairs.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I can answer your question.

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

I'm just trying to get some clarification on that. Secondly, how could we then craft this so that it has the desired effect?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Currently under the act, it does not distinguish between first vice-chair and second vice-chair. It just lists vice-chair. As you said, there are other positions listed, including assistant deputy chair and Speaker of the House of Commons. However, when it comes to the vice-chair position, first and second are not distinguished. It just says “Vice-Chair”.

So you're correct that if everybody was a vice-chair, everybody would be paid.

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

Do we have advice on how we might craft this in such a way that it would have the desired effect? Or would this be something we could recommend to the House? Then, if the House were to vote to accept this change, that would make the.... I'm trying to understand.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

You'd have to have a piece of legislation.

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

There's a bit of gap here. It's something that I guess no one ever foresaw in the legislation. It's the idea that someone could spew, why don't we make a third or a fifth or an eighth vice-chair? Nobody ever foresaw that happening, I guess, right? How do we reconcile that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes, I was thinking that as well. As for being able to change the act, you would have to have legislation, so we—

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

A private member's bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes, a private member's bill, or you could convince the government. You'd have to have a piece of legislation.

If you would like to suspend for 15 minutes or 10 minutes, Mr. Richards, I would be willing to indulge you so you can have a conversation.

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

That would be helpful. I'd appreciate that. Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay. We will suspend. Would 10 minutes be good?

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

Sure. I think that should do it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Order.

Mr. Richards, I believe you wanted clarification. You have clarification and now you're looking at amending your amendment.

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

Yes, I think maybe rather than making it an official amendment—because I don't know that I'm able to amend my own amendment—if the committee would agree just to make a small wording change that would then make it work as it was intended, if that would be okay, and make that the amendment rather than an amendment to the amendment....

Before I do that, could I just ask my NDP colleague, given the explanation I provided, which is that by doing this we're trying to find a way here to recognize their role on the committee—I'm assuming this is not about the money for them—if she would give me some indication as to whether this would be something that would be seen as a way of recognizing the role they play? Could I just get her thoughts on it quickly before I make the change here?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Ms. Blaney.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the thoughtfulness of this important conversation.

I want to recognize first of all that the Conservative members at the last meeting of PROC talked extensively about the reality that for the second vice-chair of course it would happen differently in every committee, and that sometimes it would be the NDP and sometimes it would be the Bloc. I think it's really important that we remember here that this is not about one party. This is about looking at the reality of how this place is built and looking at the reality of the Canada-China committee, where there's now a difference between how some committees will be treated compared to others.

At the end of the day, this is about creating respectful relationships in this place. I'm certainly interested in having discussions about compensation for all roles. I think that's always an interesting conversation to have. I think we're very clear here, by what the chair has indicated from her discussion with the analyst and the clerk, that this isn't the right process to move forward. I'm interested to see what we can do in the future around this issue; obviously it doesn't sound like this committee is the right place.

I really want to also encourage my Conservative friends here. There are some really important conversations about challenges that many of our constituents are experiencing. I hope to see them working with us of course in our call to the Liberals around the increase in the OAS. Right now, the age for that is 75, and of course, as you've heard from our members, we want to see that lowered to the age of 65. If seniors are struggling, we absolutely want to help them as soon as we possibly can.

Also, what I look forward to is that it sounds like there were discussions about people not being able to afford medication, and we're hoping to see support for our plan around having a universal national strategy that's respectful to all provinces and all territories in order to see that move forward.

I hope that answers the member's question. I look forward to continuing this discussion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Richards.

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

I believe the way I interpret those comments is that, yes, that conversation about compensation for people could happen at another occasion if that were something that members felt. Obviously, then, that would indicate to me that the idea of trying to recognize with a title of some kind the role that both of the other opposition parties are playing would certainly be sufficient to recognize that, and it isn't about the money. That's certainly what I hope I understood in those comments.

If that's the case, hopefully, we'll have support for the amendment. Given the advice that I received about the act and the way there's a sort of an anomaly in there, with no one ever having thought that there might be a third, fourth, fifth and sixth, etc., vice-chair, I do believe there is a way we could make just a slight change to the wording here and make this amendment work in order to have the effect that it was intended to have.

Simply, in the part where it talks about the “member not selected for the position of second vice-chair be given the title of”, rather than that, it would just be—and I'm open for suggestions from my colleagues in the other opposition parties if they'd like—that we could use the title of “deputy vice-chair” or “assistant vice-chair”. I'll propose “deputy vice-chair”. Then that takes the language and makes it just different enough that it should meet the test of complying with the Parliament of Canada Act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Is everyone following in the amendment?

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

I'm not proposing a subamendment to my own amendment. I'm just simply saying if we could have agreement to change the title from “third vice-chair” to “deputy vice-chair” that is what we'll go with.