Evidence of meeting #1 for Finance in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was committees.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:30 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Ms. Elizabeth Kingston
Good afternoon, all.
Pursuant to Standing Order 106(2), I'd like to proceed to the election of the chair of the finance committee, please.
I'm now ready to receive motions to that effect.
Mr. Del Mastro.
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Thank you, Madam Clerk. I'd like to nominate Rob Merrifield as chair of the finance committee.
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
3:30 p.m.
The Clerk
Are there any other...?
It is moved by Dean Del Mastro that Rob Merrifield be elected chair of this committee.
(Motion agreed to)
3:30 p.m.
The Clerk
I duly declare Rob Merrifield as chair of the finance committee.
Congratulations.
I now proceed to the election of the vice-chairs. The first vice-chair shall be a member of the official opposition party and the second vice-chair shall be a member of an opposition party other than the official opposition.
We shall proceed first of all to the election of the first vice-chair for the official opposition. I am ready to receive nominations.
3:30 p.m.
The Clerk
It is moved by John McKay.
John McKay moves that Massimo Pacetti be elected vice-chair of the committee.
All in favour?
(Motion agreed to.)
3:30 p.m.
The Clerk
I declare Massimo Pacetti duly elected vice-chair of the committee.
We shall now proceed to the election of the second vice-chair, who shall be a member of another opposition party.
Mr. St-Cyr.
3:30 p.m.
The Clerk
Are there any other nominations?
(Motion agreed to.)
3:30 p.m.
The Clerk
Congratulations, everyone.
I declare Mr. Crête elected vice-chair of the committee.
I invite Mr. Merrifield to take the chair.
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
While the clerk is handing out the routine motions—I think that's the next order of business—I want to say thank you for your confidence.
I will say, we'll get to know each other very quickly, I'm sure. The way I see committees is that committees are animals unto themselves. They report only to Parliament and by extension serve the people of Canada and not a minister or ministry.
When it comes to the rules of the committee, I will apply them as fairly as I possibly can. We will start as close to being on time as we can and we'll only go over if there's unanimous consent to do so, respecting the time of the committee.
That gives you an idea of how I expect to run the committee and hopefully respect everyone's views around the table in due course.
Everyone has the routine motions. I guess these are the customary motions that were adopted by this committee in the last session.
Would we entertain a motion to accept them the way they are, or do we have to go through each one individually? If you would be prepared to, we would accept the motion to accept them as is. If not, we'd open it up to debate.
Let's start them one at a time, then, if you would like. Or do we want to just open it up to debate and then see whether we can change it?
Go ahead, Thomas.
3:35 p.m.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to raise an issue in advance that I want to have a chance to address. That is why we cannot agree to accept what are called the routine motions the way they are. It is worth starting with a comment on the difference between the English and French wording. In English, they are called "routine motions," as if it were a matter of routine and all we needed to do was adopt them. In French, however, we call them motions de régie interne. There is a big difference, to me.
The fourth motion deals with time limits for witnesses' statements and questioning. We know that, later on, you are going to make the following motion: that, generally, when the time comes to hear witnesses, there will be a first round in which each party present may ask a question, which is perfectly normal, in our opinion. However, during the second round, which would consist of seven five-minute questions in all, no time would be allocated to the New Democratic Party. You said earlier that it was a matter of routine, but I note that, in other Parliamentary committees, that is not how things are divided.
I would therefore like to inform you now about what I consider to be a point of order when we address the fourth motion, because, naturally, we cannot agree to that.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
Let's take the other concern with all of them, and then we'll try to do them. We will go one by one, but let's hear from Thierry.
Thierry, go ahead.
3:35 p.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
I think that Paul wants to talk about the second motion, which is a problem for us. To answer the question from my colleague from the NDP, I would like to specify that what is being proposed here today is identical to what was presented the last time to the Committee on Finance. It simply represents one turn per committee member. There are 11 turns. One turn is excluded because the chair does not speak. This corresponds exactly to what we were saying. According to tradition, once we are at the twelfth turn, the NDP takes the floor. This was simply a matter of respecting the principle that each committee member gets a turn.
3:35 p.m.
Bloc
Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
The second motion goes like this:
That the Sub-Committee of Agenda and Procedure be created and be composed of a Chair, two Vice-Chairs, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and a member of the other opposition party.
As far as I know, the Parliamentary Secretary was not traditionally a member of the steering committee. The fact that the secretary representing the Minister is taking part in the steering committee at that moment affects the committee's actions.
My second comment is about the tenth motion, which says:
[. . .] unless otherwise ordered, each Committee member be allowed to have one staff person present [. . .]
I would like it to read: ". . . have his or her staff present at an in camera meeting." That way, each Member of Parliament could have more than one person. A researcher could be present.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
Let's do one at a time. I can see we're going to get bogged down if we don't.
Let's go to the first motion, on the service analysis from the Library of Parliament.
(Motion agreed to)
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
In number two we have the establishment of a subcommittee of agenda and procedure.
Is there agreement, Paul?
3:40 p.m.
Bloc
Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
I want the words "the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance" removed.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
That is exactly what you had last time, I believe. We'll open that to debate.
Mike.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
I think we should disagree with that, because if you look at the numbers here, the only Conservative at that committee would be the chair in this case. The whole concept—and maybe I'm wrong—is that the chair should try to be neutral and fair, not only here at committee but at subcommittee, at procedure.
So we need a representative from the Conservative or government side. I don't think there's any better representative than the parliamentary secretary, who knows what's going on in terms of legislation that's coming forward, and so forth—for the position, not necessarily for the guy.
My view is that it should stay the way it was in the previous session. It worked and we were able to move the agenda along.
