Evidence of meeting #65 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Noon
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
First allow me to say that I think that's regrettable. While I believe in the efforts you made in order to arrange this meeting, I still contend that part of that decision could have been returned to at least the subcommittee.
Marleau and Montpetit talks about the role of the chair. One of the main aspects is as follows:
Chairs of standing and special committees also often assume a leadership role in planning and co-ordinating the committee's work and in conducting its investigations.
I think given the context, and given the to and fro we had with the parliamentary secretary at subcommittee—and we then had a to and fro at the committee—and how important this was as a topic to committee members, and I know you realize this, I think a mistake was made. When a mistake is made, I think apologies are in order.
I actually don't see this as a confidence motion. I respect that you do see it that way. I wish you wouldn't, because while I believe in correcting that mistake and perhaps learning from it, and changing some of the processes that we use around really contentious issues--I'm not talking about everyday things, but this was important--it's a good thing for us as a committee to learn and for you as a chair to adapt. But to raise the stakes up to an issue of confidence--and in our day-to-day interactions, you know I have confidence in your chairmanship—I think overinflates the severity of what's going on.
Noon
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
With respect to and actually in considerable agreement with what Mr. Cullen said, particularly the last part, I do appreciate the personal offence that this is to you, Mr. Chair, and I feel for you, because I do believe you. I've worked with you a long time. I was not contacted by anybody, by you or others. I believe you're a man of integrity, and this is the true record of it. But I do want to ask you to maybe kind of take to heart some of the counsel from members, to at least consider it. You may need to get some input from others as well. Maybe it is a confidence thing.
I don't know if you should pronounce definitively at this point. You know, it's a very serious thing; there's no question about that. As to whether it's a confidence thing, I would encourage you to get some input and some advice through the clerk or through others, or however you choose to do that. But for me--no question--this is a very serious matter, and a very serious allegation has been made against you, without doubt, in the latter part of this particular motion before us.
Frankly, I will be in favour of splitting it, because I think we should defeat that and do away with that. I think it serves no particular good for this committee. I think Mr. Cullen has it right. Nor do I believe—and maybe this is where I would disagree with Mr. Cullen and my colleagues—an apology is in order in this circumstance. If there was some malicious intent, or nefarious kind of plotting and planning being done, yes, then you should. But that's not my understanding of what took place here, so I would respectfully differ with Mr. Cullen with respect to whether an apology is required.
I would humbly and gently encourage you, Mr. Chair, before you pronounce definitively on whether it's a confidence matter or not, that you would be better advised to get some input from others and listen to what you colleagues have to say about whether they think it is or not.
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Well, I appreciate that, Mr. Vellacott.
Again, the clerk advises that it has been split, that the decision has been made, and we will now vote on it.
Shall I read this so that it's clear? It reads:
When a complicated motion comes before the House (for example, a motion containing two or more parts each capable of standing on its own)
—which this is—
the Speaker has the authority to modify it and thereby facilitate decision-making for the House. When any Member objects to a motion that contains two or more distinct propositions, he or she may request that the motion be divided and that each proposition be debated and voted on separately. The final decision, however, rests with the Chair. On a related matter, the Speaker has ruled that the practice of dividing substantive motions has never been extended to bills and that the Chair has no authority to do so.
Basically it says that I make the decision as to whether it's split or not—and I make the decision it is split. So now we will deal with each of the two sides, as I understand it, and then we'll have a vote on each in that sequence. We would vote on the first part of it and then we would vote on the second part. I don't think we need to debate this, as that decision has been made.
Do you have a point of order or...?
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Just for clarification, you have now moved that.... So we are now dealing with it as split. Mr. Chair, I would ask that we have a five-minute recess. We're talking now about a confidence motion in your chairship, and I would ask, Chair, that we have a five-minute recess to allow members to contact their whips. This is a very serious matter.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
[Inaudible--Editor]...dispose of the first part and then we could go to the second part. If you would like to do it that way, we can then move on.
Yes, Mr. Cullen.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I see no need for a recess to contact whips. I appreciate this is a serious matter, but we've given this an hour and ten minutes of consideration already, and I have no need to talk to my whip. I think we should move to the vote on the first part, which I think is less contentious, and then we can simply have our conversation about the second one, which is more contentious.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Okay.
I believe the first part is not where the contention lies.
Mr. Warawa, I believe the first part is not as contentious, and then with the second part, there is the suggestion that that would give everyone the opportunity to...[Inaudible--Editor]
Mr. Godfrey, I believe you certainly were somewhere in our mix.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
In a way, it is difficult to separate out the two, because one flows from the other. In other words, the question of what it is that we agreed on June 7 is what's at stake here.
The problem with the position you've outlined, Mr. Chair, is that it suggests there would have been a round table and at the centre of the round table would have been the sherpa, and on the various sides the other witnesses, who collectively would have constituted some kind of balance. Right?
The problem with the scenario you described is that the sherpa has not accepted it. I gather the sherpa has indicated to you that he does not wish to be part of a round table, and that's why we have the format we have; he wishes to stand alone as a free-standing witness, and that's why he was scheduled as such. Therefore, in other words, the round table is severable, that is to say, we're not going to get them in the same space at the same time—at the request of the sherpa, who didn't feel it was appropriate to be—
12:05 p.m.
An hon. member
[Inaudible--Editor]
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Well, I'm just describing what I understood the situation to be.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
On a point of order, I have a question.
Was it in the motion? Was a round table mentioned? Is it specifically what was said in the motion?
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
I mentioned that, yes. But there was no motion that it's how it would be.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
What has happened since then is the sherpa has indicated, as is his right, that he did not wish to be part of a round table. He wished to be here by himself to make the point.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
On a point of order, I want to clarify this.
John, there is no mention of a round table here. With respect to “centred around”, there may be some differing points of view here.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
The whole logic for delaying the meeting from today until Tuesday was that the sherpa would be a central part of a round table. We now discover the sherpa can be severed; that is to say, the sherpa will appear by himself.
I see the chairman nodding.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Okay. Let me continue on the logic, if I may.
If it is the case, there is then no reason the witnesses who were available today, notably, Mr. Bramley and Mr. Jaccard, could not have done so. They were going to be separate anyway. Isn't that right?
Whomever we picked, the totality of the two different sessions adds up to a balance. It doesn't add up to a round table, which was the original thing you said.
It's logical that once the sherpa had his own session, we could quite easily deal today with the witnesses who are available and on Tuesday with the sherpa who is available. Once you have decided to split them up, then they can be split up over days and not only back to back.
I don't think the actual mechanism is consistent with your vision. What we've put forward is consistent with the way things have turned out. We're going to lose the witnesses we wanted on Tuesday, and we were never going to have a round table on Tuesday anyway.
On my second point, I would simply add this. I realize I'm getting ahead of myself, but what we're talking about here is not a question of integrity and is not a question of confidence. It's a question of judgment.
I think it was basically unwise, Chair, to not have given a heads up to the people who sit on the subcommittee by simply saying here's where we are, and not moving in a unilateral way to switch the witnesses. It's an unfortunate thing, and that's all.
We're not challenging your integrity and we're not asking for a vote of confidence. We're only saying we think it was a mistake. We'd like you to recognize it and to be more respectful and sensitive the next time.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Yes. Again, as I explained, after an entire day of trying to get hold of him, when I finally did, I was at least able to nail him down to something.
I called Mr. McGuinty's office shortly after 12 yesterday, before the notices went out, when I intended to advise him. I didn't get a return phone call. I advised the clerk to send out the notices as we saw them.
Again, I see the second motion as questioning the fact that I did it and that in fact what I told you was true. It's why I see it as a confidence issue.
Mr. Bigras.
12:10 p.m.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Chairman, the discussion we have had around this table makes me very sad. We have been colleagues for nearly 10 years and have worked together on the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development for nearly 6 years. You were the official critic for your party. But we feel that this motion is your interpretation; it is not a confidence motion. If you decide to resign upon adoption of this motion, it will be your decision.
I am not questioning the fact that it has been difficult for you up to now to invite witnesses. Ensuring that as many witnesses as possible come before the committee is always a difficult task. On that score, I think that you have done what you could. It is not the witnesses that I want to focus on, but the agenda. That is the problem.
I would remind you that on page 855 Marleau and Montpetit, the following is stated:
Generally, the length of time to be devoted to a particular topic is a matter for the Committee to decide. This may be done formally, by adopting a work plan, or by simply allowing Committee members to discuss an issue until they are ready to make a decision.
To begin with, that decision was made on June 7th, and the work plan was determined the same day. Second, according to Marleau and Montpetit, page 856, your role is as follows:
The Chair presides over the deliberations in committee, recognizing speakers and ensuring that the deliberations adhere to established practices and rules, as well as to any particular requirements which the Committee may have imposed upon itself and its members.
Those particular requirements are, in fact, the work plan. Third, I would remind you of the following:
Where a committee has agreed to adjourn to the call of the Chair, the Chair instructs the clerk to send an amendment to the notice convening the members, informing them of the cancellation.
That was done. However, it is also stated:Where the meeting has been convened by order of the committee,
which was the case on June 7th,
the Chair consults with representatives of the various parties before sending the cancellation notice.
I have to tell you honestly, Mr. Chairman, I received neither—