Environment Committee on Nov. 15th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Just to make this very clear, the motion that might come forward from the subcommittee, if in fact it did happen, would have to be approved by the whole committee. The whole committee could then defeat that motion, even though the steering committee had advised it. So the final decision is always that of the whole committee.

Again, it comes back to my argument about subcommittees. So every decision will be made here in this forum, not in the subcommittee. The subcommittee, in effect, is making recommendations to the committee.

I think it has to be understood--and I would hope that Mr. Regan, Mr. Bigras, and Mr. Cullen would understand--that if this goes ahead this way, I am going to present my point of view, even though I am chairman.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

You always have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Yes, just so that's very clear.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

We want your point of view, Mr. Chair. That's precisely the point. We want your point of view, not someone else's.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Anyway, does that help, Mr. Warawa?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

No. I have great concerns, Chair, because when we come back to the full committee, you will have lost that impartial position. You have now spoken at the subcommittee, and that motion, coming back from that subcommittee, involves your participation in what's being proposed; therefore, you lose that impartiality. That's a motion coming back from you. And whenever that motion is being dealt with, you would have to remove yourself from the chair. You would have to have a vice-chair.

But the vice-chair is on that committee. That vice-chair has impartiality. It's not impartial. And again, it would create an unworkable—

[An hon. member]

We are politicians.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Yes, we are politicians.

Mr. Chair, that's why we have a policy that guides us to use a typical structure, and to suggest that you do not have the government involved is absurd. We're off on the wrong foot.

I would recommend, then, that we defer this. I think that was what your recommendation was about a half-hour ago. Obviously, what's being proposed by an opposition is to create a structure that won't work, and it's going to take us down a path of chaos.

I would move deferral.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Let's hear Mr. Regan.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Chairman, I'm sure Mr. Warawa is going to get a gold star from the PMO for his performance and his tenacity here today on this issue, but I would ask him if it's his intention to tie up this committee in this way on an ongoing basis.

We're on the second item under routine motions. We've gone nearly an hour here, and I would say, Mr. Warawa, that you are wasting the committee's time. I would urge you to let us proceed and get moving with voting on these motions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Warawa, the procedure would be that if you want to table this, as suggested, you make a motion. We'll vote on it very quickly, then we'll go whichever way the group decides.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, I believe I made a deferral motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

So there's a deferral, a tabling motion.

(Motion negatived)

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Now to the main motion.

Mr. Vellacott.

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

I would just reiterate as well that it makes—

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Why don't we nominate Donald Duck?

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

Pardon?

It's a reasonable, common proposal, Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Donald Duck would be really good.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Vellacott has the floor, please, gentlemen.

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

I think, Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Watson and Mr. McGuinty, Mr. Vellacott has the floor, please.

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

Thank you.

I am very much of the view—and I think these good people in a saner moment would also acknowledge the fact—that if the chair has exposed his biases or prejudices or preferences or whatever in a subcommittee.... How can he be reasonably perceived by opposition members—having been smoked out, if you will, on the subcommittee—to be objective? It's ludicrous, and I don't know how anybody in their right mind would even see it otherwise.

I hear what you've said, Mr. Chair, that you will assertively inject your views and so on into the debate, but I caution you. I recommend you reconsider or you weigh that pretty carefully, because the fact, then, is that you're setting up a scenario and a dynamic in the committee meeting that follows in terms of where you stand on all these things.

So I think it's patently absurd and not very realistic to be doing it in the manner that's suggested here by the members. We're going to bring it all back to this committee anyhow, it appears. I'm not on that subcommittee, so I'm not wasting my time at it, thankfully. We'll debate the whole stuff in committee again.

I feel for you, Mr. Chair, and the others on the committee who will spend their time, but if they have nothing better to do, I guess it's up to them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I might be overly optimistic, but I think I can work with all members on the committee.

Having said that, I believe you had your hand up, Mr. Watson, and then Mr. Harvey.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I want to respond to some of the comments of Mr. Regan.

As a member, I have my own aspirations here, apart from what the Prime Minister's Office may or may not think about something here. My aspiration is to see that somebody is on that committee from the government. I think that's important. That's what I want to see from that. Nobody's telling me that that's what I want to see. That's what I want.

I also want a chair to function in a subcommittee that doesn't violate neutrality. I think that's a fundamental principle of how the committees work. While I appreciate that you have strong views, my aspiration is that you don't violate a position of neutrality sitting on a subcommittee. That's important to me.

I think it's not only important to have somebody from the government, but when it comes down to planning, I would think it would be even more important to have the parliamentary secretary there who has intimate knowledge of what the minister is up to, or not up to, what may be coming down the line from the government in terms of legislation, or other things that I think are critically important to have when you're looking ahead at the agenda.

Are we on simply the main motion itself?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We are on the main motion, yes.