Environment Committee on March 1st, 2007

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

—are there different deadlines for the supplementary estimates and the main estimates? In other words, I heard the clerk say we have only so much time to consider the supplementary estimates before the time runs out, whereas the main estimates haven't been tabled yet.

I'm just trying to understand, perhaps from a technical point of view, what this amendment would mean.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Mr. Clerk.

[The Clerk]

You're right; there are different deadlines involved. The main estimates have been tabled, and they were referred to standing committee on, I believe, February 27. In terms of what the committee would need to do a study of the main estimates, we would have until towards the end of the first supply period, which would be sometime in May, in all likelihood.

So you're absolutely right, there would be more time to deal with study of the main estimates than of supplementary estimates.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

For supplementary estimates, I thought the expiry date was all to do with the opposition supply days. In other words, we have to get to those, and the sooner the better.

[The Clerk]

If the committee chooses not to undertake a full study of the supplementary estimates, they're deemed reported back to the House automatically on the last day of the supply period; therefore, on March 26.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The committee can obviously invite the minister to appear at any time, but in this case the motion is to appear in relation to these estimates.

Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Warawa might want to continue.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I have a question to the mover, whether this would be accepted as a friendly amendment. It would not create a problem; that is what I'm hearing.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I like the suggestion put by my colleague Mr. Warawa, but I think we should invite the minister to come a second time to address the main estimates. I've always believed that this is the place where the rubber hits the road. One of the central purposes of committees is to hold governments to account. We didn't have an opportunity to hear from the minister on supplementary estimates (B) for fiscal year 2006-07. We have some really tough timelines. That's something we might want to refer back to the public accounts committee, but be that as it may, those are timelines we have.

I'm concerned that we have not as a committee found the time and have been unable to exercise oversight of the expenditure of public moneys. My thinking was, let us at least have the minister come, in the first instance, before March 26 to talk about supplementary estimates (B). I would assume there's going to be enough to talk about under supplementary estimates (B) to keep the minister meaningfully engaged and all of us meaningfully engaged for a meeting.

Then I think if we want to go to the main estimates, we ought to re-invite the minister when we've all had an opportunity to peruse the main estimates and go through them in detail, Mr. Chair.

But my view is that I'd like to see the motion I put forward go forward as is, because I really think we could all benefit from hearing from the minister specifically on supplementary estimates (B) for fiscal year 2006-07, given that we're coming to the end of that fiscal year.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Mr. McGuinty, you're not accepting this as a friendly amendment.

Mr. Warawa, do you wish to move the—

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

No, that's fine.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Then you're done, Mr. Warawa? All right.

Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

In closing, Mr. Chair, in the name of accountability, I'm sure members from all parties would want to have the minister attend. I'm hoping they'll agree that we should schedule a meeting with the minister and his officials for the first week after the break so that we can have an opportunity to get into the details.

It also gives us the break. Those of us who are doing Bill C-30 are already consumed with amendments, I'm sure, during the break, and with other responsibilities. But it would also give all of us on this committee a chance to look again at supplementary estimates (B) and be better prepared to put questions on accountability and value for money, for example, to the minister directly.

That's my thinking behind the motion, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you very much.

I see no other speakers, so I presume we're ready for the vote.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The clerk has advised me that he will work with the minister's office to try to schedule that for the first week back and work around the constraints we have in trying to deal with other private members' bills and other business we have before the committee.

So let's go on now, if we may, to Mr. Cullen's motion.

Mr. Vellacott.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

This is a point of order, I guess, in respect to this, beforehand. I need a clarification from the clerk that if this means I come looking at the agenda today and Mr. McGuinty has done the appropriate thing, according to our committee rules, by the 24-hour notice.... Then basically we're to get on to CEPA and deal with those recommendations, and Mr. Chair, your wise guidance will hopefully move us through a lot of that stuff today.

Am I to understand that we come in, supposedly, with the assumption of only one item of business—it's there clearly, and somebody has followed the appropriate protocol here—and it opens it up to an entire meeting, or no end of other items that can be, as you say, backdoor-launched into that particular committee business, then? Is that what I'm to understand we can do?

[The Clerk]

Generally, based on past practice that committees have followed, when the committee is on the topic of committee business, for purposes of considering a motion, members can, if they want, in some respects--not wanting to use the wrong words--short-circuit a bit that notice principle that committees usually operate with in order to bring issues forward again, issues that are substantively different from what is on the actual notice paper.

It is a fairly significant principle, as written in Marleau and Montpetit, that as much due notice as possible be provided to members of Parliament before they consider another issue. You're right on that point. However, the rubric that we're currently under, of committee business, is a fairly wide one, and a broad one, that does allow members to bring up various issues if they so wish.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

What you're saying, Mr. Clerk--forgive me, Mr. Vellacott--is that it's not limited to the activities the committee is going to be undertaking.

[The Clerk]

That's right. It would basically allow for something different--in this case, something substantively different, such as Mr. Cullen's motion--to be brought on in a way that would get around that sort of principle of the notice requirement that the committee has given itself.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

The clerk made reference to Marleau and Montpetit. I want to cite from page 851, where it says: “...when a member wishes to raise a new topic for consideration”--I would deem this a new topic, and I think most fair-minded committee members would think it so--“committee members have an opportunity to reflect on it beforehand, rather than having the motion placed before the committee without warning.”

I think that's exactly the situation we're dealing with here.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

That sounds pretty close to what we just heard, as a matter of fact--that it's preferable. That's what it sounds like to me, at least. Maybe I could just give some opportunity to do that.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

There's nothing about being preferable. It's that committee members have an opportunity to reflect on it beforehand, rather than having the motion placed before the committee without warning.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

That doesn't sound like a direct statement of a rule. It doesn't say the notice must be given ahead of time, etc. It sounds to me like it's saying, this is what happens when this happens. There's a benefit. That's what it suggested to me. So it's supporting, I think, what the clerk is telling us.

[The Clerk]

I would also add that the citation is absolutely right. I could explain it in a different way.

If, for example, we didn't have a motion brought forward by Mr. McGuinty today, and we hadn't been on committee business, and the only thing on our agenda was the consideration of the CEPA report, then you'd be absolutely right: Mr. Cullen would not be able to bring his motion forward unexpectedly before the committee. The notice requirement would have to be there. It's because we were on the actual item of business called “committee business” that such a possibility did open up.

You're right that preferably notice should be provided to members of the committee so that they're not caught unexpectedly by a motion being brought forward that they haven't had a chance to reflect on and consider. Nonetheless, this committee business section does allow for something to be brought forward in this manner.

Again, if we didn't have this committee business on the order paper already--

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Do we have it in both languages, English and French? Has this motion been circulated in both English and French?