Environment Committee on Nov. 15th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We'd have to consider that before we consider this, simply because there'd be a conflict here.

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

I would propose that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Vellacott is proposing that we have no subcommittee.

This motion is on the table.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

On a point of order, I suggest that this is contrary to the nature of this motion. If this motion were defeated, it would be in order to bring forward a motion of that type afterwards, to not have one at all. In fact, I don't see how you would have one if you didn't pass this motion.

[An hon. member]

We've tried every variation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

A comment I heard is that we've tried every variation, but in fact we haven't. The suggestion from Mr. Cullen was that we have a government member, excluding the parliamentary secretary, and that was defeated. We had a motion that we have a member representing the government, and that was defeated.

Another option is the model we had before, where instead of having just a member from the government, the parliamentary secretary is named, which would be myself. So I move that as an amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Perhaps we could formalize this with a vote saying that as a subcommittee we will review whatever the situation is, try to establish a consensus, and bring it back to the whole committee for a vote. That means the subcommittee won't be making final decisions on anything, which isn't the case anyway, but this would kind of formalize it and possibly--

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Are you saying to defer the motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Let me hear what you think of that idea. I'm trying to break this difficulty we're having.

Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

First of all, to be clear, the reason I'm not in favour of that is I think it leads to the very thing you're afraid of, which is the repetition of conversations. In order to have the vote, then we'll have the discussion, and if we've already had the discussion in subcommittee....

The ideal was how the thing worked before, which was the casting out of a calendar, looking at the issues that had come to us all as MPs and deciding which ones were to be proposed forward. Remember that we went through that on the Bill C-30 committee and on Bill C-28. Whenever we're looking at something specific.... We'll do the same for Bill C-377, which is in front of committee, I imagine.

To then put it into the prescription that we have to then take everything back to a vote.... Is it voting on each of the witnesses? Is it voting on the order? I think the best way to do this, as people have described tangentially, is to avoid the issue of voting. As the government has admitted, if the opposition chooses to just use that in concert, then the voting system doesn't work for their favour.

The reason I had originally posed my motion was to allow a government member on the table. The reason I had prescribed not a parliamentary secretary was to avoid what we'd seen last time, which was not the only factor but I believe was a contributing factor to the partisanship.

I think we should just vote on this motion as is. I appreciate you trying to achieve some consensus, but I think we have what we have and we need to try this and look at the Bali conference and the Bill C-377 legislation, which will likely be the first two areas of concentration. Try this at least until Christmas.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Godfrey.

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

I think it's generally understood that it's the main committee that is the master of its own destiny and will make any decisions on whatever the recommendation is from the subcommittee. I think we should simply vote on the template resolution under the routine motions to at least find out whether we've got a subcommittee, and then let the subcommittee make recommendations to be ratified by the main committee. But I don't think we need to put it to a motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

My only thing is I feel a little bit awkward if I'm chairing the meeting and then also trying to represent the government position.

You're right, Mr. Godfrey. I think you mentioned I won't be shy, but the point is it is a little bit of a conflict I think if I'm honestly trying to be neutral and also presenting a position. But it's up to the members to make that decision.

Mr. Harvey.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

I have a very simple question. Given that before today there were meetings involving Mark Warawa, who was the parliamentary secretary and represented the government, was there ever any talk about a single problem or difficulty because of this practice?

If not, I fail to see why we have spent the last 35—or actually it is close to 40—minutes talking about something that worked well in the past. We have an expression—if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Harvey, maybe some would agree that there were some times when things were broken. I think that's what we're trying to work out. But I really think that if everyone understands how we're going to look at this, this is going to be to try to establish an agenda, try to establish witnesses, topics, and recommend those back to the committee, and the committee then makes the final decision. Hopefully we will not redo everything the subcommittee does; otherwise, why have it?

Let's see if it works until Christmas. I think we have however many meetings, and I would ask you to vote on this as it is.

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, just for clarification, what are you asking us to vote on?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I'm asking you to vote on this as written here. We've had two amendments that have been defeated, so I would suggest that we vote on this as it is and revisit it in the new year and see how the subcommittee is working. If it's not working, then obviously we need to revisit this and make other plans and so on.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, I don't agree with that. I believe what you're asking us to vote on is a structure, a routine, that would leave the Government of Canada with no voice on the subcommittee, which is absurd.

It would also leave you in a position that to be a chair, you have to be neutral. Therefore, again, it supports the notion that the government would have zero voice in the direction.

To begin this session of the environment committee, it appears that instead of creating a structure of fairness, of open-mindedness to hear all perspectives so that we come up with a strategy, a plan, to move Canada forward, we are.... We heard from the environment commissioner how important it is that we have action and that we move forward on the environment. But what's being proposed here is a structure that keeps the government out of the planning.

Mr. Chair, we are in a democracy, and you have to give the government a voice at that committee. What's being proposed is against the norm in our procedural guide, in Marleau and Montpetit. It's against that and it's against logic. Again, the Government of Canada has no voice on this committee that is going to be directing.

If the issue is a personality, if the issue is me, having me not participating in that, I am okay with that, as I said. If Mr. Cullen wanted to introduce his motion excluding--which would be, instead of amending my amendment, he would be amending the original motion--I would appreciate that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Here's another suggestion, which I have to ask our very experienced clerk to put forward. I think we should listen to our clerk when we do have that opportunity.

His suggestion is that basically we create a subcommittee but we attempt to make the decisions in committee; that the subcommittee only go back when there is total disagreement here, and we go back and use that subcommittee on that sort of basis.

Now, that is another compromise, and, you know, that fits with my thinking better than anything else, simply because I have not seen very many successful subcommittees work, in 15 years of being here.

That would just be a comment.

Mr. Godfrey.

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

I think it's the function of the subcommittee to deal with some of the detail in a small group that follows the general direction of where the committee wants to go. I'll give you a very precise example.

We don't need to debate the witness lists in committee of the whole, but we do need to make sure that no witness appears who hasn't been approved of by the four parties. That's really important, but we don't all need to be present for that.

With all respect to the clerk, I think it's almost the contrary, that the big decisions—well, maybe it's the same thing—are taken by the committee, but it's the realizations of those decisions and the detail that this subcommittee is about.

I suggest that we get on with the vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

That's what we're trying to accomplish.

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, through you to the clerk, could I make an amendment to that original motion that would be similar to what Mr. Cullen had as an amendment--a subamendment to the amendment? Procedurally, can I reintroduce a motion very similar to what Mr. Cullen had?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

It's in order, Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Okay.

I would move that there also be a member of the government on the subcommittee, and excluding the parliamentary secretary.