Evidence of meeting #49 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was julian.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB
Can we record this vote?
(Bill S-5 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Is that unanimous as well?
Okay. Thank you all.
I want to thank our officials for being with us here again and for answering our questions, and for their professionalism.
Colleagues, we will suspend for just a minute, and then we'll deal with committee business. We'll start with Mr. Julian's motion.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I call this meeting back to order.
Colleagues, we have some committee business. We'll deal with the motion first. We are in public, still, and for the other items on the agenda that the subcommittee discussed, we'll discuss them in camera, as some of the decisions still have to be made there.
I'll ask you, Mr. Julian, to move your motion.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
I don't think there will be any difficulty at all with this. It's pretty straightforward.
Under the Standing Orders, order in council appointments are one of our responsibilities. As the finance committee, we have a whole number of order in council appointments that have been referred to us—nine in all, I believe.
We're simply moving what is normal practice and what is usual practice within committee: that, as a committee, we'll look at those order in council appointments and report back to the House. I don't sense that there would be any strong opposition to us simply doing our job with due diligence as the finance committee.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB
Thank you, Chair. I would like to ask Mr. Julian a question, through you, if you don't mind.
I'm just curious to know what the NDP suggests we do as far as due diligence goes. Is the NDP suggesting that we have nine witnesses appear and nine hours of testimony given? Because if Mr. Julian has checked standard procedure, it is that most committees in fact do some homework behind the scenes, and if there's a problem, then they bring it forward.
As it stands, we have a very charged agenda, so I would ask Mr. Julian, through you, Chair, to explain what it is he's looking for, because I certainly don't see us finding nine hours. Again, the standard procedure is not as Mr. Julian has described. We do have a mandate to look at these, but again, what is Mr. Julian looking for in his submission to look at these?
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
That's something the subcommittee could certainly look at in terms of the format. No, we're not looking at nine hours of hearings. I'd like to allay the parliamentary secretary's concerns about that. But we do look at due diligence, and we should be, as a normal practice. Since I started here eight years ago, order in council appointments have been part of the daily due diligence that committees do, in every committee I've been in.
Whenever order in council appointments take place, the committee has that ability to vet, to look, and to examine. Normally that's done through the subcommittee. Our representative, of course, is Mr. Mai. I think the subcommittee could be looking at how to structure that, of course, but there's no doubt that we have a responsibility to do this, and if the committee provides that direction to the subcommittee, the subcommittee can then get to work about how that's done.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Can I ask a question first? As the chair, I did ask the clerk to pass out a copy—I think everybody has one—of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, regarding appointments.
Just for my own edification, my understanding from the clerk is that the last day to call these appointees, these particular ones, would be Friday, March 30. So are these meetings that we would have? Or is it that the subcommittee would have a discussion about the appointments and if there were an issue the full committee would hear from these appointments...?
I'm a little unsure as to exactly.... If it's that the committee do due diligence and the subcommittee have a discussion about the appointments, review them, and review their biographies, I suspect there may be agreement, but if it's in terms of adding meetings, especially during that week, I'm suspecting that's where the opposition may come from.
So just for my own clarification, if this motion passes, would we be adding meetings during the week of March 26?
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
It does not speak specifically to meetings, Mr. Chair. It does speak to the committee examining “the following Order in Council appointments”.
Just to clarify, I'm saying that this is something the subcommittee should be looking at. If this motion passes, the subcommittee would be undertaking that examination, and we would be looking.... If the subcommittee feels there should be additional meetings, then we could certainly accommodate that.
We don't mind sitting into the evening, but we would be at this point looking to have the subcommittee do that examination and the report back to the full committee.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I think the purpose of the vote depends on whether he wants viva voce evidence, whether he wants to cross-examine the witnesses, or whether he wants three people to sit down and look at resumés for an hour.
I would like clarification from Mr. Julian as to which way he'd like to approach this. If he's looking to leave it to the subcommittee to cross-examine witnesses, versus a resumé-checking exercise for an hour among three colleagues, then I think it changes the entire scope of what he's asking for.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you, Mr. Jean.
I don't have anything further....
Mr. Julian.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Well, I think I've now answered this twice, but I'll answer it a third time, Mr. Chair.
We're referring it to the subcommittee. The subcommittee would be examining the resumés. The subcommittee may choose to hear witnesses, but we, as a committee, would be undertaking to do that examination of the order in council appointments, and from there, of course, the subcommittee would be reporting back to this committee. So that's what it says.
