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.
3:40 p.m.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
They're not, actually. The second one has the sentence, “These services may be requested at the discretion of the chair”, pulled out and added at the end, which I think gives it a slightly different meaning.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
I'm sorry, I missed that.
Can I read it out then?
Last year we had:
That the committee retain, as needed and at the discretion of the chair, the services of one or more analysts from the Library of Parliament to assist it in its work.
This new one is:
That the committee retain, as needed and at the discretion of the chair, the services of one or more analysts from the Library of Parliament to assist it in its work.
What am I missing here? How is it different?
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, can you point out the differences, please?
3:40 p.m.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
My guess would be that if someone felt the need to rewrite it, then there's something I'm missing. I think, therefore, it would make sense to go back to the original, since we know that works.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
I see, it actually makes it three versions. I handed you one out last week and I thought this was going to be the same. This is proposals, yes.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Thank you so much, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.
(Motion agreed to)
Second is the subcommittee on agenda and procedure:
That the subcommittee on agenda and procedure be established and be composed of the chair, the two vice-chairs and a member of the other opposition party.
I believe that's the same as you have here in the routine motions.
Mr. Carrie.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
I would like to propose an amendment to that, Madam Chair.
What I found on another committee that I did work on was that by having it this way the chair cannot maintain her impartiality. I was going to recommend this wording:
That the subcommittee on agenda and procedure be composed of the chair....
That would be you, the parliamentary secretary, and I could bring forward the government position.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
To continue:
...a member from the government and a member from each of the opposition parties; that we have a quorum at the subcommittee that shall consist of at least three members, one of whom must be from the government and the other member from the opposition. Each member of the subcommittee shall be permitted to have one assistant attend at any meetings of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Just to stop here, if you recall last week, I know I handed this out to you, Dr. Bennett, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, and to the Bloc, Mr. Malo, as a possibility that this might be presented from our side today. I wanted you to have a chance to think it over. What we're doing today is having the routine motions of the opening of a session. We have the ones we had last year, and then I handed these out so you folks would not be surprised when these came up in front of you today.
Does that clarify it for you a little bit?
Yes, Ms. Murray.
February 5th, 2009 / 3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
What is the difference between the ones you had last year and the other routine motions? Are they identical, or do we need to be inspecting for slight language changes?
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
For the most part, they're identical. Yes, we just go through them one by one. The only thing that I know we had talked about--and I know everybody has talked about these routine motions; I just wanted you to know what we had put forward, and I gave it to Dr. Bennett for discussion--
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
I understand this is the third one. I'm trying to find out if there is any difference between the other two. If not--
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
We're going through one by one. I don't think there is any difference, is there, between the two?
They're all the same. Maybe what we could do to shorten this is--they're the same as they were last year, but I'd like to go through them one by one because I did hand out this other option as well, and it's up for grabs also. So let's go back to the subcommittee on agenda and procedure.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
Thank you.
I understand Colin's amendment. I would like to speak strongly against it. We've had long discussions at this committee and others about the role of the parliamentary secretary. Some of us would like to see the parliamentary secretary not on the committee, period, because we think it should be a committee that is independent of the minister, and we're advising the government and the minister. So I would react very negatively and strongly against your amendment and suggest that we leave it as is.
I don't have a problem with the third part that you propose, which is that each member should have one staff person present, but I would strongly urge that either you withdraw the middle part or we vote against it.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Thank you very much.
One of the reasons I think the statement that the quorum of the subcommittee shall consist of at least three members is important is that this subcommittee is going to direct what the committee is going to be looking at over the upcoming months. If for any reason a member of one of the parties can't show up--it could be a flight reason--you could have one or two parties making a direction for the committee. The recommendation here would be that the government, or one or two parties, wouldn't be able to direct it and that we would have one member, at least from the majority of the parties, on that subcommittee so we could discuss it, if that makes sense to you.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
3:45 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
I just want to draw my colleagues' attention to this. When a member of a political party is not at the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, we often find that, at the full committee, everything has to be redone because his party has not been consulted and he does not agree with the direction that the workplan is taking. Then we never hear the end of it.
Since there are only four parties, we can surely find the time to get all four around a table to discuss the agenda.The motion as previously drafted accommodates all political parties. In the last Parliament, the motion as presently written caused no problem. So I would keep it in its present form.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
I agree.
I think one of the problems is that the role of the steering committee is only for planning. It's not for directing anything. It's to have a bit more time to distill a whole bunch of things into a few suggestions for this committee, but nothing is decided at the steering committee that isn't ratified by the full committee.
I, like Judy, have worried, including when I was at backbench on the government side, about the role of the parliamentary secretary on parliamentary committees, in that it skews the power differential in a way that a lot of us would like reversed to the days when the parliamentary secretary didn't sit on committees. I think it would be really inappropriate for the parliamentary secretary to be on the steering committee. I think it did work well last year.
I think, as honourable members, the steering committee is no place for anybody who's trying to ram anything through. This is a place where we try to make the work of the main committee a little bit tidier and more organized. I think it worked well. As you know, with all the routine motions, if it's not working or if there's been a problem, we would certainly be open to having a conversation about it again, but at the moment I think it's better that it stays the way it is.
