Finance Committee on June 15th, 2011

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Chair, if you would like to go to Mrs. Glover right now, that would be fine with me.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

The two parliamentary secretaries have some roles that are integral to what will happen in committee. Also, when we look at the makeup of parties and the numbers in the House of Commons, this reflects the makeup of the House of Commons. That would be our reasoning for wanting to position the subcommittee similar to what the numbers are in the House of Commons. The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Revenue is integral to the work that is going to be done here. She should be on the subcommittee.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Is there any further discussion?

Mr. Marston.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

It strikes me that is not similar to the makeup of the House. You have a significant reduction of the opposition here. Just speaking for our party, we have 103 members. It strikes me that a certain imbalance is happening when it comes to the opposition. I can understand your point about the work side of it, but it is the representation side that is of concern.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Your concern is that it's five and three. Would five and four be better?

Mr. Jean, please.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Yes, it is very important to have the parliamentary secretaries from both departments. What you are going to find is what I found in the past as the parliamentary secretary for transport for five years. You have much better discussions knowing what the government's agenda is, or at least having somebody at the table knowing what it is, being able to communicate clearly which minister it is going to be when an invitation is extended. The steering committee is able to make decisions on the spot instead of going back and forth.

This isn't a situation where they're going to be deciding policy or laws. It goes back to the whole committee for discussion and a vote confirming what the steering committee has decided anyway. Clearly it is a good connection to have both ministers' parliamentary secretaries there so they know what the ministers are doing. They have an idea of what the agenda is going to be. Clearly, members of the opposition don't know this.

It is not going to change anything the committee does over a period of time. In fact, what it will do—and in my position I have seen this clearly over the last seven years—is it will help everybody clearly understand which direction to go in. We won't have to go back and forth and send e-mails all over the place. We will be able to make a decision right at the steering committee. That's why it was going to be my suggestion. Simply, I think it is very important.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Hoback.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Chair, I was just going to repeat what Brian said, but I want to make some clarification.

Basically what we are going to have is a chair, who would be you, two parliamentary secretaries from the Conservative Party, and two vice-chairs, one from each of the opposition parties. The makeup would be a tie, and then the chair. It would be equal for the debate, and the chair would be chairing the meeting, if I understand that correctly.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

That is correct.

Mr. Marston.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

My understanding is it's a consensus group anyway. It's not where we'd be concerned about voting. It's more of a procedural thing, so there is a certain sense to it.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

That's a good point. We try to get complete consensus at the subcommittee or steering committee before bringing it to the full committee, because all of the motions that come out of the subcommittee have to be adopted by the full committee.

Okay? All in favour of Mrs. Glover's amendment?

(Amendment agreed to)

(Motion as amended agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

We turn now to reduced quorum: that the chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive and publish evidence when a quorum is not present, provided that at least four members of each recognized party are present.

Is there discussion?

Mrs. Glover.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

I believe it's probably a good time to change this. I suggest we entertain having a government member and an opposition member as quorum. I think it would be prudent, and that would be my suggestion.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

So your suggestion is that it be the same up to “present, provided that at least four members”...?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

I would say we could change it to three members, given there are only three parties, really. At least one would be from the government and one other would be from the opposition. It would not be three government members, but three members, one from government and one from opposition.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. Then it would read, "That the chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive and publish evidence when a quorum is not present, provided that at least three members are present, including one member from the government and one member from the opposition".

Is that correct?

Is there any discussion?

Is that amendment okay with members?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

(Motion as amended agreed to)

Next is distribution of documents: that only the clerk of the committee be authorized to distribute to the members of the committee documents, and only when they exist in both official languages, and that witnesses be advised accordingly.

Is there discussion? Go ahead, Mr. Marston.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Does that put the onus on people who make presentations to us to do their own translation before they get here? I presume it does.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

No, not necessarily. In fact, the clerk will ensure that they are translated.

Go ahead, Ms. Glover.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Marston makes a good point. Perhaps we ought to add a line that the clerk shall advise all witnesses appearing before committee of the requirement.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay.

Can we add that statement, Mr. Marston?

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

My concern would be that some organizations that come before this committee won't have the ability or the budget to afford translation. I want to be sure we wouldn't be impeding receiving their documents by putting the onus on them, and that we would ensure it was carried through if they couldn't do it.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay.

Ms. Glover, do you have any additional comments?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

I understand Mr. Marston's position. I don't dispute that at all. I think it's best when they know ahead of time that it is a requirement, because otherwise we get into a discussion. I don't want them to feel as if they've done something wrong if they weren't advised before appearing, and then the discussion happens about whether they're in an official language or not. That's why I suggest that the line stay.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

In cases where witnesses don't have the ability to do translation, if they give the clerk enough notice, is it proper that the House would do that translation for them?