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

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Therrien, I am absolutely sympathetic and understand what you're saying, especially as a new member at this federal committee. Regularly things are done in writing and you have them before you, but when a subamendment is moved, it can be done from the floor and we do have our fantastic interpretation here, which we can benefit from. Then we can read it over and over again until everyone is comfortable and understands what the subamendment is.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

I know we have access to interpretation. As I said earlier, I just want to be able to follow the discussion more easily. I'm used to having a document to refer to, something that would have said “delete the word ‘third’” and so forth. That's all I'm saying.

I wasn't trying to disparage anyone. I was simply wondering whether this was normal procedure for subamendments or whether it might be a better idea to put it all in writing so that everyone's job was easier and we could follow along with greater ease.

You heard it here first: if I ever have any amendments or subamendments to put forward, they'll be written down and handed out to you. Now I'll wait to hear what you have to say. I think we can have clearer discussions going forward.

I have to say that one of the Conservative members—I don't know who—brought me over the information. I must have seemed like a lost soul. Everything's fine now.

It didn't have anything to do with the interpretation. It's just that I'm not used to proceeding this way. I'm new, so forgive me if I disrupt things. That's not what I'm trying to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you.

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

On a point of order, Madam Chair, if something is being distributed to one member, it should be distributed to all members if it's considered official correspondence of the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay.

While the subamendment is being distributed, Mr. Brassard, you're next on the list.

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

I have just one question, Madam Chair. Can we suspend for five minutes to change the word? It's quickly done, “deputy vice-chair”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

The copies are currently being distributed so I think we've resolved this issue at the moment.

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

Oftentimes we change words in subamendments. We're certainly not trying to undermine the privilege of members. It's just that these things happen. We have the option of suspending the meeting and then changing the wording if we have to.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I'll put this out to the committee. Would you like to suspend momentarily while the copies are being distributed? No.

Next on the list is Mr. Turnbull and it's on the subamendment. Once we complete debate on the subamendment, we can then vote on that subamendment. Of course, my preference would be to move the ball forward so that we can resolve some of the issues that we have before us today.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I have just a couple of points for clarification. Is it within PROC's mandate and authority to make minor modifications to the Standing Orders, i.e., to the number of vice-chairs? I would like clarification from the clerk if possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I believe this issue came up at the last meeting as well. Yes, it is entirely within PROC's mandate to review the Standing Orders, to amend the Standing Orders, to discuss and debate an issue with regard to the Standing Orders here and to recommend those changes to the House.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Great. In terms of the Parliament of Canada Act as I understand it, titles and salaries are determined by that act, right, and not by PROC. Is that true?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Currently titles and salaries are listed in that act, yes.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

In fact by essentially changing the title from vice-chair to deputy vice-chair we're side-stepping or creating a new position that is not within the mandate of this committee.

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

The third vice-chair doesn't exist either.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

In the act right now there is no first, second, or third vice-chair; it's just vice-chair. Within the Standing Orders, yes, there is a first and second vice-chair that gets elected, but within the Parliament of Canada Act it's not differentiated. However, titles do exist in this place that are not under the act.

The Board of Internal Economy and its bylaws create different positions as well. Therefore, not every position is within the act.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you for the clarification.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

It looks like everyone has had their say on the subamendment. Can we call the subamendment for a vote?

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

I just wanted to say a few more things.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Richards.

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

I want to just make it really clear. There seems to be a lot of confusion for some reason about the idea of a third vice-chair versus the deputy vice-chair versus what exists now, which is nothing. There is no other. Granted that we have to make this change to be able to have the intent work because of the Parliament of Canada Act indicating vice-chairs. The only reason there's no contemplation of having a third vice-chair or a deputy vice-chair is because nobody ever foresaw that. The way things have always operated, and I believe within the Standing Orders, is that there's a first vice-chair and a second vice-chair. The first vice-chair is always a member of the official opposition. The second vice-chair is always a member of another opposition party. There has never been a third vice-chair on standing committees. There has never been a deputy vice-chair.

No matter what we do, we're creating a new position. This is being done because we have a situation where there are two official opposition parties and they both wish to have members recognized in some way. In order to do that, we have to create a new position, a third vice-chair or a deputy vice-chair, whatever you want to call it, in order to make it work. To have the effect that we're trying to achieve with the amendment, we'd have to call it “deputy vice-chair” or “third vice-chair”, but the bottom line is that we're creating a new position that's never existed on standing committees before in one way or the other.

I certainly was not a believer that we should be doing that, especially by a motion like this. Rather, it should be something that should be done with consensus. That didn't happen. We're coming forward with a motion and it appears to me as though it has the support to pass. I'm simply trying to make an amendment here that will clarify in peoples minds that this is not about extra pay for somebody. This is not about the government's trying to buy the support of a party. This is about simply having a new position to give recognition to both of the other opposition parties. In making this amendment, that's what we're doing. If we don't make that amendment, then it leaves the question in some peoples minds as to what is the purpose. Is it simply to make sure that both of these other caucuses get pay that other MPs don't?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Therrien. No?

Okay, seeing that the list is completed for the subamendment, I call the question on the subamendment.

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

Could we have a recorded vote?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

It will be a recorded vote.

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

We're back to the amendment as it was originally proposed by Mr. Richards. There is no speaking list.

Oh, you'd like to be on it?

Okay, I just want to remind you, as we stated before, that if this amendment were to pass at this committee, essentially it would be moot because we cannot supersede the Parliament of Canada Act, which states that vice-chairs are to be paid a salary.

Mr. Brassard.

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

I want to call the vote on the amendment.