Evidence of meeting #3 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
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Mr. Richards, may I ask for clarification on your amendment? Last time you brought forth an amendment that had the word “salary” in it. Is this a new wording that only applies to the vice-chair?
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
It's the same wording. We're resuming on exactly the same amendment.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
It sounded different when I heard it read out. It sounded as if it only applied to people who had multiple vice-chair positions.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Does this apply only to people who have two vice-chair positions, or does it apply to people who have multiple positions, one being a vice-chair and one potentially being a deputy whip or House leader? What's your intent?
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
It would apply to anyone who is receiving an additional salary.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
If you are the deputy whip and you're a vice-chair you're supposed to give up your vice-chair salary? Under your amendment I'm asking if that would apply, just to be clear.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
The issue being created by the motion that's being moved here is outside typical practice and that's one of the reasons it's problematic that this is being done. Typically it's not been the case that there's been someone who is eligible for more than one additional salary.
The reason it becomes an issue is that some of the caucuses are quite small and it would require someone to be doing two different roles. Typically that's not done. The intent here is to ensure there isn't double-dipping.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Thank you for that clarification. I'm fully in support of not double-dipping. I'm not asking these questions to show support for double-dipping. I'm trying to clarify the intent of the motion, to see whether it's just in cases where your caucus might be small as an opposition party in this Parliament and you're having to take on multiple vice-chair roles on multiple committees.
Are you saying that anything in addition to one vice-chair role would not be compensated? In other words, if you were taking on two vice-chair roles, you would not get paid doubly for that, which I think makes sense.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
I think Mr. Richards has clarified that it's any dual role. It doesn't have to be just a vice-chair role.
We have Mr. Gerretsen and then Ms. Blaney.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
I'm glad we're having this discussion because I too am learning something new. My understanding of this, the way it has been put forward, is that for any three of the vice-chairs—assuming a third one was created—if Mr. Richards also happened to be the deputy whip of his party, he would have to forgo one of the salaries. It doesn't need to indicate which one, which I think might be problematic. Does he get to pick or how is which one he forgoes chosen?
I thought that the intent of this originally was that if you are the vice-chair of this committee and you're the vice-chair of another committee, then you shouldn't be double-dipping. You can only take the salary from one of them. It doesn't apply to any other duties or responsibilities that have been assigned to you.
Along with what Mr. Turnbull is saying, I would agree that I see the potential problem in playing two vice-chair roles in taking the salary twice, but I don't see the problem if Mr. Richards was also the deputy whip of his party. The demands that would bring would be completely separate from the demands a committee would bring.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I think this conversation is actually very interesting, thoughtful and worthy. I just want to be really clear here that what I heard earlier from Mr. Richards—and I'm paraphrasing here—is that this is not the normal practice in the House. This is typically not done. I would just say that we actually don't know that. I think that's an important part of this conversation: What has been the normal practice for smaller parties? We could have a whole discussion on how that works, and it would definitely be interesting to look into.
I did meet with the clerks earlier today and had a really important conversation. What I heard very clearly is that by putting together this amendment with the original motion—and I would love to hear from the chair and the clerk on this—it would nullify the main motion, which is a concern because we're trying to get something done.
Could I just get clarity on that and hopefully be able to come back after getting that clarity to discuss?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
The answer to that, Ms. Blaney, as best we know it right now and here, is that it definitely doesn't nullify your original motion. Once again, although this is all procedurally in order here, there may be some problems down the road when it comes to putting this into practice administratively. This amendment may make the whole motion in contradiction to the Parliament of Canada Act.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
What I understood was, if the motion as originally tabled by me went to the House, it would be able to move forward. I think this is important. I believe it's two separate things. For me, what I would propose or move is that we suspend debate for today and perhaps look for clarity. I'm not sure what the process is because I believe there are two separate things. I just want to make sure, as we're having this discussion, that we're actually getting the end result we're hoping for. That would be my proposition.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Hold on just a moment. We have a list of some people who want to provide input on this issue, and we still have time in this meeting. We have a list with Mr. Therrien, Mr. Gerretsen, Mr. Brassard and Mr. Richards.
Is it your intent at this moment to adjourn debate? It would be adjourning debate, not suspending debate. Or do you want further discussion today? You're free to move that.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
I am moving to adjourn debate because I feel that these are two separate things, and I'm not sure how other people are feeling, but we're not getting the information I feel I need to make a decision moving forward.
Conservative
John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON
The point of order that I'm making—and I would seek your clarification, Madam Chair—is that during this discussion it went to Ms. Blaney as a point of clarification. She had asked a question, but there was still a list of speakers.
Therefore, I would suggest that the motion to adjourn would not be in order and that we continue this until it gets to Ms. Blaney, at which point, when she isn't seeking a clarification, she could move her motion to adjourn.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
On that point of order, I'll just offer some insight. What I recall is that I finished speaking, because I was the one to speak before that. I didn't ask a question, and then you just went to Ms. Blaney. She was next in line.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Okay, let me just clarify and then we'll move on to your point of order.
I do have a speakers list that is ongoing. Mr. Gerretsen is correct. After him, it was Ms. Blaney's turn, and that's why Mr. Therrien was looking at me as well.
When you properly have the floor, which Ms. Blaney did, it is her prerogative to adjourn debate on the matter. It is why I gave a little pause at that point to inform her that there are others who wish to speak to the matter, so she could know that before making her decision to adjourn debate or not. After informing Ms. Blaney, she still moved to adjourn debate.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
On a point of order, when I obviously brought this back for consideration, at that time I did ask if the members had in fact done any due diligence to determine whether they were, in fact, in a conflict of interest.