Evidence of meeting #1 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
James Lunney Conservative Nanaimo—Alberni, BC
I think the way this is written it's two government members--the chair, the parliamentary secretary, the two vice-chairs, plus the member from the NDP. That still gives the opposition actually a majority of voices on that steering committee, and I think that is certainly reasonable on our side. We probably could be arguing for a third member on that subcommittee. As I say, at that point you're talking about half the members of the committee, and it seems to me a little overly zealous, but perhaps we could at least have two government representatives on there. I don't think the way it's proposed is unreasonable.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Are you suggesting two or three? The chair is automatically there, but he's from the government side.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
James Lunney Conservative Nanaimo—Alberni, BC
Okay. So what we're arguing for is the chair, the PS, and one other member.
3:45 p.m.
An hon. member
No.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Well, that's what you're arguing for. That's not what Mr. Dewar....
What the motion is referring to is whether the parliamentary secretary should be included in the steering committee. If that motion is passed without a subamendment, then there won't be a subamendment. I haven't really heard a subamendment. So if Mr. Dewar's motion is passed, any parliamentary secretary would not serve on the subcommittee.
Mr. Patry.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
I think we're discussing.... We've been like this before. I think we should word it that the chair, the two vice-chairs, a Conservative member--it could be the PS or not the PS--and a member from the New Democratic Party do compose a subcommittee.
I must say that when the PS is there--he's not obliged to be there--it accelerates the discussion of the subcommittee, to be honest about this. The fact is if we want to have any minister appear in front of the committee, he's got the agenda of the minister and he can say yes, the minister is there, or he's not there, instead of going back to the main committee and saying no, the minister cannot come. That could delay a lot of the work we want to do.
This would be my subamendment: that the chair, the two vice-chairs, a Conservative member, and an NDP member do compose a subcommittee. That means it will be five members--two Conservative and three from the opposition. At the end, it's the same thing, because all the decisions that are taken by the subcommittee need to be ruled on by the main committee at the end. It always comes back to the main committee.
This way I don't see a problem adding this change, and the PS could come. It's just a Conservative member.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
I thank Mr. Patry for his intervention.
I simply want to note that we're talking about the subcommittee here, so to my friend Mr. Lunney and others who are into proportionality arguments, we're talking about planning. It's the subcommittee. Let's not get carried away here. We plan things; we don't decide things. We decide what we want to coordinate. So it's not a matter of proportionality here; it's a matter of planning. You know that, I think.
In fact, if we look at the standard--and the clerk might be able to help us here--the standard for committees is four. The standard is the chair, two vice-chairs, and one from another opposition party.
I simply was stating the fact that we have tried to have committees be more independent. I think that was the reason and one of the rationales for the founding of association with your party, so that the committees were actually masters of their own business. The McGrath report, which I recommend to all of you, stated there shouldn't even be parliamentary secretaries on committees at all. In fact, if you're going to have independence of committees, why would you have a parliamentary secretary?
I hear my friend Mr. Patry's point, and it's a fair one. I note that the other side of the equation is that sometimes you aren't able to be masters of your committee when there's another agenda at the table.
The standard for most committees, and the standard that has been in this place forever, is four, which is the chair, two vice-chairs, and an opposition member. That has nothing to do with the proportionality argument. So let's argue apples and apples here.
In the spirit of my colleague Mr. Patry wanting to suggest some positive intervention, and that it's up to the party to decide, just strike parliamentary secretary and a member of the governing party in this case, as opposed to having it dictated. So Mr. Lunney or Mr. Goldring or Ms. Brown could one day be on that steering committee, but that would be up to you, wouldn't it, Mr. Obhrai?
I would welcome Mr. Patry's amendment, and put that forward and move on. In other words, strike parliamentary secretary and put member from the.....
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
All right. I think we're building toward a bit of a consensus, at least on that.
Mr. Abbott, please.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
As I understand Mr. Patry's amendment, the idea is that the government on this subcommittee would be represented at a given committee meeting by a member of the government undefined by this larger committee. In other words, if the government chose that Mr. Obhrai would generally be attending on behalf of the government, but something was coming up specifically about CIDA, say, or something like that, then I might sub for Mr. Obhrai. We're just talking about a position open for the government and the government to choose who would be there. Is that what Mr. Dewar has agreed to?
3:50 p.m.
A voice
Yes.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
The issue, as we said, of who's going be there is for us to decide, and Bernard Patry has said it. That's fine, we agree to that. I still have a difficulty here with the argument that we need only four people on the subcommittee because we are talking about issues and then it comes down to the main committee to decide. However, let me just point out that the subcommittee does vote on issues to bring in front of the main committee. The subcommittee does vote: do you agree to that?
Therefore, since this subcommittee has the power to strike the agenda that will and will not come in here, it is going to need to be reflective of the composition of this committee sitting right here--one, two, three, four, five, six, and one, two, three, four, five, six. That should also be on that subagenda and reflect that, because the business that comes over there comes from this thing.
Now, I see the foreign affairs critic...because he thinks he's such a high guy and doesn't like to discuss this issue; it's good enough. But I would say this: because we discuss issues and there is a possibility, a strong possibility, when certain things that come on the agenda are not discussed, then I say, reflective of this, that this committee should be reflective of the House of Commons. It would then require two members from the government, the chair, and one each from there. That would be six there and six on this side. That's the way it should be. And if I'm not mistaken, that should also be in the bylaw, and reflective of it.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you, Mr. Obhrai. I'm not certain it is in the bylaw. That's something we can check on.
At any rate, if that's all from the speakers list, then we'll call the question on Mr. Obhrai's subamendment that the--
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
No. He is adding two government members. He wants to have the PS and a government member. I just want to be sure what we're voting on.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
This is what we're voting on first. I kind of think it's going to be a friendly amendment to what Mr. Patry has brought forward. Mr. Dewar has said that he's willing to....
We will first vote on the subamendment, which is to add another government member to the steering committee, reflective of this committee.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Would you read it, please? I want to see what you mean.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Mr. Obhrai's subamendment would mean that the chair, the two vice-chairs, two members of the government, and a member from the New Democratic Party do compose the subcommittee on agenda, and so on. That is the subamendment. Then we'll go back to what Mr. Patry says.
All in favour of Mr. Obhrai's subamendment?
(Subamendment negatived)
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Now we will move to the amendment by Mr. Patry, which would read that the chair, the two vice-chairs, with another government member, and a member of the NDP do compose the subcommittee on agenda and procedure.
(Amendment agreed to)
(Motion as amended agreed to)
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I thought the coalition was dead.
3:55 p.m.
An hon. member
It's still alive if you keep acting like that.