Canadian Heritage Committee on May 3rd, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

I think Ms. Keeper did accept the friendly amendment.

Mr. Warkentin.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

I do share that point--and I understand that may have been the question--but my understanding is, having talked to the clerk, that the appointment is in effect as of the date that it was announced. I don't think the date he's effectively taken the job changes anything. My understanding is that once the announcement is made, then he is on the job, effectively. Is that understanding correct?

Can I ask the clerk whether once the announcement is made he is effectively on the job already? Is that correct?

[Chad Mariage, Procedural Clerk]

Marleau and Montpetit, Mr. Chair, states on page 875 that

Appointments are effective on the day they are announced by the government, not on the date the certificates are published or tabled in the House.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Basically what I'm asking is that we go through the traditional process. Seeing as that has already happened, that the announcement has already been made, I'm asking that we now go through the traditional practice of how we usually carry out these exercises.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Okay. I'm going to have the clerk just explain what this does.

[Chad Mariage]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

By proceeding under Standing Order 110(1), the committee must wait to receive the order of reference from the House, which we have not received at this point. Once the order of reference is received, the curriculum vitae is asked for by the clerk from the government and the committee will then have 30 sitting days to consider the appointment but would not be able to consider it until we receive the actual order of reference from the House. So that's the only difference between 108(2)and 110(1).

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Okay. We'll call the motion.

All those in favour of the motion as amended?

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Chair, could we have a moment, please?

Could you go back to this issue of...? In terms of the formal procedures of accepting the friendly amendment, I didn't understand that this was a formal acceptance, and I haven't had clarification. What we want clarification on is the Standing Order 108(2).

Could you review that, please, again, so that we understand it, in terms of the process, very clearly?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Clerk.

[Chad Mariage]

Standing Order 108(2) gives the committee a broad mandate to study anything under Canadian Heritage's portfolio. So it is a broader standing order, whereas Standing Order 110(1) is narrower in scope, in terms of the kinds of questions you can ask--

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

I'm sorry, that was my mistake.

Then the announcement, that piece you had spoken to, in terms of the announcement and what it means...?

[Chad Mariage]

I'll reread the excerpt from Marleau and Montpetit so you can get that. I'll read it from the beginning:

The government is required to table in the House certified copies of all Order-in-Council appointments to non-judicial posts not later than five sitting days after they have been published in the Canada Gazette.

So that's the first part.

Appointments are effective on the day they are announced by the government, not on the date the certificates are published or tabled in the House. The Standing Orders provide that the certified copies be automatically referred to the standing committee specified at the time....

That's on page 875.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

I have a point of information.

Let us imagine that this committee reviews the appointment and after reviewing the appointment the committee believes that this person, for various reasons, is not appropriate. Is there a process by which that person is removed, asked to be removed, etc.?

[Chad Mariage]

Mr. Chair, I don't know if you recall the example on the environment in the last Parliament. The committee can report back to the House, saying that it disagrees with the nomination. But it's ultimately the Governor in Council's call. It's ultimately the government's appointment. The committee can provide a recommendation through a report to the House, but ultimately it's a government appointment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It does speak to the issue that we are dealing with in our recommendations about the issue of governance and how appointments are made. So at this point I feel that we are dealing with the creature that has already been created, in terms of how appointments are called and our limited ability to impact.

I would suggest that we invite him to come and we hear what he has to say and then we can make recommendations out of that, as a committee, whether or not we feel that this.... We don't know anything about him, so at this point I would just prefer he has the opportunity to come and we can hear him speak.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Warkentin.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

I'm in full agreement. Obviously the government made the appointment and certainly does want you to hear why we think he's qualified to do the job. The change that I was suggesting certainly wouldn't change as to if he'd come or not; it was simply if we would use the process that is the traditional process or if we would do something a little bit different.

I'm proposing the traditional process just because I think it's the one that we have traditionally used. If there's something I'm missing, it's not with an intent of not hearing from him.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Scott.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

I think perhaps the distinction is finer than whether he comes or not and whether we get to approve it or not. I don't know how I feel about it one way or the other, but I think it's important for the committee to be aware of the distinction between this being something that comes simply as a reference from the House because the rules send these appointments to us with a CV, and so on, or if we imagine in the future, in terms of the governance question that Charlie has mentioned, we would like to be a little more proactive on those things.

It may very well be that this is the occasion, at which time you say, “No, we want to do this under the authority of the committee, to do a review or a report, to do an inquiry,” rather than “We're doing it because Parliament has sent us this appointment and a CV and asked us what we think of it.”

I think is necessary to say on the record that there is a distinction, if I understand it correctly. So as a committee, we should decide, are we doing this as a pro forma thing because we always do, or are we doing this because we want to make a point that we think this is something that should be done, and as a committee we are proceeding in that way, particularly in face of the fact that some of these governance issues are going to be coming forward and I think we're going to have strong views on these things?

That's the point I'd like to make.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Warkentin.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Just for clarification, is it the intent of the motion, then, to bring forward a new study on this? Are we looking to write a report? From what was stated there, I'm just confused. Are you looking at doing an additional study to the one we're currently undertaking? My hope would be that we could hear from the appointee, make our decision in a single meeting, and then move on, to ensure that we can continue down the CBC mandate review.

From what I'm hearing, I'm not sure we're on the same page as each other on that issue. Are we, or am I getting something different?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

I'm informed that if we do it through a Standing Order 108, we will be starting a new study. It will be creating a new study.

Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

If I remember correctly, when Mr. Guy Fournier was announced, it was a “nomination pending review by committee”. He was announced after the committee reported back to the House that it had approved the nomination. I think we should stick with the same procedure. So I think we have to stay with a Standing Order 108 at this point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

I'm advised that it would be a new study under Standing Order 108(2). The scope is more broad.

I take direction on how you want to go. There has been a friendly amendment made. Is that friendly amendment accepted, or where do we go from here?