Evidence of meeting #2 for Health in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was ndp.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
I would like to speak to two points.
I agree on the point of the subcommittee having input from everyone. My point is this. Why have a subcommittee if people aren't going to attend and participate?
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Well, that's very good. From the experience on my other committees, sometimes one or two parties wouldn't show up, and then--
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Mr. Carrie, I will intercede here, because I have to say that last year every member showed up and it worked really, really well.
You know, you have different experiences in different committees.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
But it worked very well because everybody was there.
On the other point about not having the parliamentary secretary, in the first paragraph of what we're suggesting here, the subcommittee would be comprised of the chair and, if not the parliamentary secretary, someone from the government side, because we would like to maintain the chair's impartiality.
I will read the Standing Committee of Public Accounts minutes. Mr. Christopherson made some statements that I think make a lot of sense. He said:
So as the chair now is playing gatekeeper to us getting the floor, that's what he or she does at subcommittee, at the steering committee.
The chair is not, in my experience, recognized as the lead person for any of the caucuses. It's always somebody else.
So I was going to make a suggestion that we allow a member from the chair's party to be at the steering committee. ... The chair is non-partisan...
He also says:
...the Liberals really haven't been represented from a political point of view...
He gets a bit partisan there.
I'd like to propose that we maintain the impartiality of the chair. If we have the chair arguing for one of the caucuses, I think that takes away from the impartiality we'd like to see the chair maintain, and that I know she has maintained in the past.
I think it's a valid suggestion, and I welcome your input.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
In my experience at steering committee, it's more of a conversation than a formal chaired meeting. I think it's been a place where people express their priorities and preferences of how we go forward, and it has been a place where things are developed by consensus, not by votes and how many people are in the room.
I think we have tried very hard, with the chair's leadership, to keep this committee as non-partisan as possible. To develop work plans and as many things as we can by consensus, without a vote, even at the full committee, is a better way of going forward.
There aren't any other committees where there are two members of the government side on the steering committee. It's not that this really matters. What matters is what's working for us or not.
With the chair's advice, let's see how it goes in the other way. If there seem to be problems, we'll address them then. But if it's not broken, let's not try to fix it.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
Thank you.
I have to disagree with just about everything you're saying, Carrie. I think we have to differentiate the role of the chair when he or she chairs a meeting. They must do so objectively and as impartially as possible. But the chair is also here representing the Conservative government. In a few committees they represent another party, but she wears that hat.
When you get to the steering committee, which is a collegial kind of discussion group around what parties are bringing to the agenda and how to prioritize that, as the chair and as the Conservative member on that subcommittee, she represents your interests. Presumably you've had discussions, and she brings that to the table. Just like me--I'm now an associate vice-chair; I am still the only NDP member going to that subcommittee. I'm going to argue for what I advocate and what my party wants, and we're going to work it out.
I think it doesn't make sense to complicate the picture at all. We're a collegial group. We can work it out and see how it goes. I'd suggest that we go back to the original.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Might I just make a comment here?
I've prided myself on being impartial. I've tried to be really, really fair and to work with everybody, and I don't wear my party hat in this committee at all.
Now, last year, the subcommittee worked really, really well. At the subcommittee, I did push the government's agenda, because it wasn't really a formal meeting, as Dr. Bennett has pointed out, and because we had to bring everything that we did back to committee. That's when the fisticuffs sometimes went on, because we really argued it, very, very clearly.
But I think there's some merit to.... Just from my point of view, I would like to be so separated from pushing anything. If I might provide some input here, I really think there's some merit in having members from each party, including the government side, because I would not like to be involved. You know what I mean?
It worked last year, but whatever the committee decides.... I'm just saying that I want it to run really smoothly and I don't want to be wearing a partisan hat at all in this committee.
Mr. Carrie.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Madam Chair, I am new to this committee, but did you actually chair that committee?
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
So you were a chair and then you also argued the government's side?
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Do you know what, Judy? I see your point, but I think one of your members in another committee did see our point.
I think we've heard from the chair, and she has said it may even improve.... We've all said that we'd like the chair to be as impartial as possible, and she has stated that it may even help her to maintain that impartiality better, because if there's something argued in subcommittee, then it comes back to the full committee. If she has taken a position one way or another previously at a subcommittee, then there has been a slant put on that impartiality.
Ultimately, the vote of the committee is what the committee does, but I do see this as a positive addition to the routine motions.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
I just want to say, first of all, that I know you were quoting David Christopherson. I don't always agree with him, so this may be one of those times.
3:55 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
I don't think we should fix one problem and in the process create another one. I think what we'd lose is the sense of all of us being equal when coming to the table to have a discussion. If it's hard for the chair to be both the chair at those meetings and to provide input from her party, then I think we can rotate the chair. There are all kinds of ways we can deal with that.
But really, in effect, we don't end up making definite decisions. We bring some recommendations to the committee that we've worked out, based on the schedule, and then we battle it out at the full committee. So then she can put on her chair's hat, and we'll keep fighting.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
And we have the experience, too, of it working well the last time.
Ms. McLeod.
February 5th, 2009 / 3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
On a point of order, we have the motion and the suggested amendments, so could you clarify what the suggested amendments are? I think we've had about two suggested amendments, so I'm not quite sure which is what.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
What I did is I read out an alternative to the second routine motion on the subcommittee on agenda and procedure, which we all have.
It is my understanding that the opposition is okay with having:
Each member of the subcommittee shall be permitted to have one assistant attend at any meeting of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure.
Is that correct?
Dr. Bennett, would that be agreeable to you?