Evidence of meeting #1 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
It has been, in the form in which we find it here, and we're now discussing pros and cons, changes and whatever.
Mr. Regan, did you have a comment?
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Chair, the way it's being proposed here is that the subcommittee on agenda and procedure be composed of the chair, the two vice-chairs, and a member of the opposition party, the other opposition party. So it would have you, Mr. Regan, Mr. Bigras, and Mr. Cullen. You, again, would be chairing a subcommittee.
I would propose an amendment.
Do we have a motion on the floor?
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Okay. I would propose an amendment that we also have a representative of the government on the subcommittee. That leaves you, as the chair, to be able to run the meeting, and you'd have a representative of the government on the committee.
Without a member of the government on a subcommittee, the committee will not be successful, and it will all be rehash when it comes back to the full committee. So I'd strongly recommend having a member of the government. Otherwise I think we'd have rough waters ahead.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I think Mr. Warawa makes a good point. I think having a representative of the government there is worthwhile in achieving the best consensus possible.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
I do not see what my colleague is getting at. Is he saying that he would like the parliamentary secretary to be on this committee? That is the question that must be asked.
While I am not speaking for the party here, I would point out that I think this committee is first and foremost a committee made up of parliamentarians. I think that is an important point. If there is a member of the government on the parliamentary committee, on this parliamentary committee, I think that could change the dynamics within the committee. I know that this happens on other subcommittees: the parliamentary secretary is present. I think that in order to ensure the committee functions properly, the members should be restricted to parliamentarians. I do not think the parliamentary secretary must necessarily be present at this committee.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I'm a little confused about the source of the template, if I may put it that way. What this would suggest is that the normal procedure—if this is what this is—is to have the subcommittee on agenda and procedure be as described, having four people with all four parties represented.
I, myself, have not observed that you, Chair, are such a retiring fellow that the views of your party have gone missing in action when you've been asked to present them. This is simply a committee that has to have all its decisions ratified by the full committee anyway. I think for proper functioning, you perfectly well represent the views of your party and your government, and a four-person committee would be a perfectly reasonable thing to have.
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
I would like to speak to that, and Mr. Bigras' comment as well.
I think the motion is plain enough in terms of the amendment itself, that it be a government member. It could be any one of us, but the government would make that decision in terms of who that would be on a meeting-by-meeting basis as they chose. With respect to Mr. Godfrey's suggestion—and he's been around this place long enough to know that if you're a chairperson moderating a meeting, it's awkward to be bringing forward your issues at least in any assertive manner. That's why you would have another member there, so that man is free to moderate the discussion, as he does here. It leaves him in a less awkward position. I think that's the whole intent, Mr. Godfrey and Mr. Regan.
Conservative
Luc Harvey Conservative Louis-Hébert, QC
The main objective is not to hold a vote or whatever within the committee, but rather to find the best possible way of proceeding for this committee. Whether it is three against one or three against two, the opposition has the majority. If this were to change the balance, I would understand Bernard's concern or that of Mr. Godfrey, but this changes nothing at all with respect to the absolute majority. Given the government's position, and given as well that everyone is working hard to achieve a consensus, and given important issues regarding the environment, I see no problem in having the parliamentary secretary present on the steering committee. Moreover, as was said, there is no absolute rule regarding the participation of the parliamentary secretary, who represents the government.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
I'm going to go to Mr. Cullen, but we can also consider not having a subcommittee, as has been done in the past. Again, as has been mentioned, we do regurgitate quite often. So that's another option I would like all members to think about as well.
Mr. Cullen.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Debating this motion in front of us, Chair, I think what I agreed to in terms of the point raised by the government...there's an important distinction between the representatives as outlined here, and in this case, Mr. Warawa is representing the minister, which is his role on this committee. That's the job of the parliamentary secretary--to be at committee representing the minister's views, eyes, and ears, as has been commented on in the past.
I think we've branched off a bit here; let's focus on the intention, which is to create an agenda that works. We would be open to the notion of there being both you, Chair, and a government member on that committee, but not the parliamentary secretary. This is not to cast aspersions on Mr. Warawa's work, but it's the role that's important. In creating the agenda, in setting the focus for this committee, I think where we have fallen down in the past--and this is just this past spring--is that there's been too much overt partisanship in the design of what we're doing.
The suggestion I would make to this motion is that the subcommittee be composed, as it is written here, with the inclusion of a government member, not the parliamentary secretary.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Does everybody understand this potential amendment?
I don't believe we need to do this in a formal way. I think we can look at this and discuss it as we are doing and then come up with the final motion.
I'll take that under consideration, Mr. Cullen. Everybody will, and then we'll come up with a final motion, which we'll vote on, if that suits the members' method.
Mr. Regan.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, as much as I would like to hear the explanation from my Conservative colleagues as to why they so strenuously and consistently opposed this kind of a motion to include, for instance, the parliamentary secretary when they were in opposition, I think it notable that we are only on the second item on the list, and I would hope we could try to have an expeditious process by moving to a vote on these things.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
I just want to be sure. Going through these, this is probably the most controversial one.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
This is only the second motion. Whether we have meals when we're here from 12 to 1 p.m. shouldn't be too controversial.