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
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Thank you, Chair.
There is that old adage, haste makes waste. We've got to get it right. To quickly build on a foundation that is unsound, we will have problems down the road. I think Mr. Cullen's comments were right, that we need to make sure we have rules that are fair, and then we get on with the agenda and dealing with the issues this committee is tasked with. We have to build that foundation, that structure that is sound.
A question to the clerk, through you, Chair. For the subcommittee that's being discussed, can a subcommittee pass a motion to recommend to the committee of the whole? Can they accept a motion and vote on it? Can there be a vote at a subcommittee?
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
The tradition is that you would have an odd number at a committee so that you would not be in a stalemate where it could be at least two, two, two, two--two against and two in favour. The tradition is that you would have an odd number in a committee so you would never be able to be in a deadlock. Is that correct?
Chair, I've had many years in government and in local government, which is a very honest form of government. I think it served me well to learn the basics of a very functioning committee structure. I haven't seen the dysfunction of committee until, as Mr. Cullen said, the last experience. We need to build a structure that is effective and fair. So I think the question is relevant, through you to Mr. Regan, that we need to make sure that we're not at a deadlock.
My understanding is that you would have an odd number. We have an odd number here. If there were a tie, you would then have the chair, being the odd number, to break the tie. In a subcommittee, then, to avoid that type of deadlock, you would have an odd number. My question is, what is the norm? Then I have another question.
The Clerk
Mr. Chair, there is no norm. It is the practice of the standing committees to elect the subcommittee the way they see fit and the way they think it would work best. There is no convention. There is no norm. It's entirely within the prerogative of the standing committee to create a subcommittee. The standing committee can decide the creation of the subcommittee and the membership.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Thank you.
Again, the committee has the authority to create any kind of structure they want, but the rationale for the structure of having an odd number is to avoid the problem of having a deadlock.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
I'm reading from page 823 in Marleau and Montpetit. It talks about subcommittees and it says:
Where committees have agreed to establish sub-committees on agenda and procedure (steering committees), their memberships have varied considerably to suit the needs of individual committees. This sub-committee typically consists of the Chair of the committee, the Vice-Chairs, representatives of each of the other recognized parties and, on committees having a departmental responsibility, the Parliamentary Secretary.
Following this structure of tradition where you have an odd number and you also have the voice of the government, that is the tradition. It creates a functioning subcommittee. Without that structure, you do not have the voice of the government and the chair remains neutral and only casts a vote if there is a tie. You also create a structure of fairness. That is why the motion I have before the amendment, which is on the floor, is that we have a representative of the government. If I'm unavailable, then it would be one of my colleagues.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary secretary can read us all the excerpts from Marleau-Montpetit he likes, I would simply remind him of what he said himself—namely that generally speaking, and usually, this is what happens.
I would point out that when the party in power today was on this side of the House, it is the one that changed the rules and tradition by literally throwing out the Liberal parliamentary secretaries. They thought these people were merely the mouthpieces for the government on the committee and on the steering committee.
So I do not think the parliamentary secretary should be trying to teach us lessons by quoting Marleau-Montpetit. The people who now make up the government are the ones who changed the parliamentary tradition established by Marleau-Montpetit. They are the ones who wanted no parliamentary secretaries on the steering committee. I think my colleague from the government side should not be trying to teach any of the opposition parties lessons in this regard.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Here is just one comment to think about. The government has a lot of input into what committees do in the sense that they control the travel we might do, certainly the legislation that's coming forward, and also witnesses. They provide the witness lists and so on. So probably the PS is in a position to know much of that government position, as opposed to the chair of the committee. They may well know a lot more about government positions and so on. I'd just bring that to members' attention when they're considering this.
I think all of you know my feeling about subcommittees. Basically, I've been involved in committees that have had them and in committees that haven't. Quite often I find that, simply, the subcommittee agrees on something, brings it back to the whole committee, we hear all the same debate again, and we literally lose a lot of time. Not to prejudice you too much, but that is my feeling about them, just from experience. Having added that, I'd be quite happy to sit on a subcommittee and work the best.... Again, you know that my aim is to make things happen that are the best for the environment and for Canadians. That's what it's all about for all of us.
I just urge everybody here and all parties, including my own, to make it work. That's what it's all about.
So we need to decide on this subcommittee, and we need to decide whether there is a government member. Let's vote on that amendment first.
Mr. Cullen has introduced an amendment to what we have here, which says that it would be a member of the governing party but not the parliamentary secretary. That's the motion. So we can vote on that. Then we'll go to whether we should have a subcommittee, as listed here.
Is everybody happy with that? So everybody understands, we're voting on the amendment about a government member and not the parliamentary secretary.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Sorry, we have the amendment Mr. Warawa made, which is a government member, the parliamentary secretary.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
A government member....
If I can speak to that amending motion, the amendment that is on the floor....
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
That one excluded the parliamentary secretary. This one says “a government member”, period.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
So it's a government member. So you have a representative of the government on the subcommittee, which I think is crucial. It's typical. It's in Marleau and Montpetit. It's typical, and I don't know why Mr. Regan would be laughing at having a structure that's typical.
If the subcommittee would prefer having somebody other than the parliamentary secretary, I have no problem with that, and I would honour that. If that's the consensus of the committee, I would honour that, and it would be one of the other members. But we need to have a balanced structure. You have to have the voice of the government on there.
Even on that committee there would be three opposition members in that structure—we are in a minority government, Chair—with three votes, possibly, against the one. For the Liberals and the Bloc to suggest that the government have no voice—you would have three against zero. The chair does not vote except to break a tie. So if you pass—
We did not have a subcommittee, Chair, last time, except for two. We broke because we found ourselves so dysfunctional, and one of them came back with a bunch of mischief motions from the Liberals, and it was a mess. So to build a structure, a committee, that's going to be effective, you have to have a voice of the government. I think it's a reasonable motion, and I hope I can count on Mr. Cullen's support.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Can we vote on this amendment, then? This amendment says that a member of the government be on this subcommittee, in addition to the chair.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Yes. The difference between the two amendments is that you had the exception of the parliamentary secretary.
The clerk pointed out to me it was agreed that the subcommittee on agenda and procedure be composed of the chair, parliamentary secretary, and critics from the three opposition parties. That's what we agreed to last time, but then we didn't set up the subcommittee.
Does everybody understand the amendment being proposed by Mr. Warawa, that a government member, not specifying who that government member is, besides the chair...?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
We're back to the original motion that you see in front of you from this template, as it's been called. It basically says:
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.
The only thing I would add is that I hope this subcommittee will become one that recommends the schedule and then comes back here for a vote. I hope we don't see a lot of votes in that subcommittee, because that will create the problems that Mr. Cullen and Mr. Warawa have talked about.
It is my intention, in chairing this group, that we come to a consensus and bring it back to this committee for a vote. That's how I see it working. That's the only functional way it can work; otherwise we'll have the problems you mentioned.
Mr. Vellacott.
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
This is more a question at this point. In terms of precedence, your other suggestion, or what is done in a lot of committees, is there is no subcommittee at all, and I concur, because sometimes it is a bit of a ramble and it chews up people's time for no good reason. Then you go over it again. So if having no subcommittee at all were to be a consideration for this meeting today, would that be considered first before we...?
