Evidence of meeting #5 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 building.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
I'll read the motion into the record. I think it and the reasons for it are fairly self-explanatory. We don't need to spend a lot of time dwelling on it. It's typical and standard:
That the Committee invite the President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and departmental officials, and the Chief Electoral Officer and Elections Canada officials, to appear on Supplementary Estimates (B), before the reporting deadline set out in Standing Order 81(5), and that these appearances be televised.
Liberal
Omar Alghabra Liberal Mississauga Centre, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I don't have any opposition to the motion, but I want to raise the point about inviting Minister LeBlanc. I've just been informed that because of his health, he's probably not going to be able to appear until after the deadline mentioned in this motion. I just want the record to state that there's no objection by the minister to appearing before the committee, but that he may not be able to make it before the deadline stated in the motion.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
We had that conversation and I understood that. Obviously, everyone here is respectful of health challenges. He can govern himself as he needs to in relation to that for sure. We all understand.
Liberal
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
His parliamentary secretary could possibly attend as well.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Okay.
I was just made aware that there's a lot of competition sometimes for the crews televising the committee appearances, but we will try our best to make sure that this request is approved and the committee meeting is televised. However, if that is not possible, then is it okay if we are webcast? That's our default position anyway. I think it should be possible; it's just every now and then....
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
I don't see why there would be any trouble with that. It should be doable.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Apparently, the number of crews is the issue, not the room or the capability or technology.
I don't foresee that being a problem necessarily, but I've been informed that it has been at times, so it could be. I can inform you of that possibility if that does occur.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Yes, we'll ask you to come back to the committee and let us know that and we can see how to address it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Is everyone in favour of this motion?
(Motion agreed to)
Just for everyone's information, this meeting may need to take place a little sooner than what we might be thinking because of the constituency week we have in March, so we'll be inviting them for either March 10 or March 12, just for your information.
I saw Ms. Blaney's hand was up.
Ms. Blaney.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Thank you so much.
As you all know, there is a motion on the floor that I would like to bring forward. I'm not sure if that requires an official motion, but I'm hoping that we can discuss the motion further today.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Is everyone okay with discussing Ms. Blaney's motion?
Okay.
Would you like to start, Ms. Blaney?
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
I want to thank everyone very much for how long this has taken.
We've been a bit busy in the last little while. To go back to the core motion, it addresses the issue of our having a minority Parliament. There are four parties recognized in the House of Commons. It would be nice to have that reflected in all of our committees.
I had a member come to me to say that he was on an important committee and not in the position of a vice-chair. A letter was sent to the vice-chairs and the chair of the committee, and somebody noticed there was no representative in that role from the NDP. That letter was forwarded to him, and said to the effect that, “We're not sure what role you have on the committee, but here's the information we sent to the chair and the vice-chairs.”
We really have to look at this by addressing the issue of making sure that when we're here at this table, all of our recognized parties are remembered. We need to ensure that those stakeholders who connect with our committees are recognized by all parties at the table. That's what I'm hoping to address today.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Just as a reminder, technically, we are on Mr. Richard's amendment to this motion.
Mr. Gerretsen.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
To the amendment, Madam Chair, the issue that was flagged, and seems to make sense is that the way the amendment is currently proposed by Mr. Richards includes the condition relating to multiple vice-chairs and multiple double-dipping, if you will. This would lead to a scenario—in my opinion, and I believe it's the clerk's opinion, or yours too, Madam Chair—that if this were to pass and go back to the House, because one part of it is not enforceable, it would actually make the entire motion moot for the lack of a better expression.
I'm going to vote against the amendment put forward by Mr. Richards. Hopefully, if it does not pass, I would move an amendment that would effectively capture the same intent, and send the required component of this over to the body that would oversee how this is done.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Any more discussion? Can we vote on Mr. Richards's amendment to Ms. Blaney's motion?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Sure.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Mr. Gerretsen.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
With that, Madam Chair, I will put forward this amendment. I hope it captures the intent of amending the motion presented by Ms. Blaney, so that it would read, after the words “Standing Order 104”, as follows:
and that the committee request that the Board of Internal Economy, under the powers granted to it under section 59 of the Parliament of Canada Act, enact a rule or order that the sessional allowance of a Member is reduced by the equivalent amount listed under section 62.1(h) and 62.3 of the Parliament of Canada Act when a Member occupies more than one position under these provisions of the Act so that a Member may only receive one vice-chair salary, regardless of how many vice-chair positions they hold
Just on that, Madam Chair, I won't speak on behalf of all Liberals at this table, but indeed will note that a lot of the discussion has focused on the idea of double-dipping. I seem to be in agreement with that concept, and I would like to make sure that the proper body with the jurisdiction to limit that ability is given the opportunity to do so. I believe this amendment as presented will provide the request to BOIE to make that amendment, while at the same time not making the entire motion moot as I previously suggested prior to voting on the previous amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Thank you.
Any there any other comments on this new motion?
Mr. Richards.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
I would like to move a subamendment. Mr. Gerretsen's amendment could be amended by just adding at its end the following:
provided that the amendment to Standing Order 106(2) shall not have effect until the said order under the Parliament of Canada Act has been implemented
Obviously, if we're going to ask the Board of Internal Economy to deal with this, we should make sure that everything is resolved there prior to something taking effect. That's the idea here, just to make sure that it all lines up properly and that the decision is properly made prior to its taking effect.
