Evidence of meeting #12 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
James Moore Conservative Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC
I'm curious to know what Mr. Angus thinks about Mr. Holland just pushing his motion aside into the gutter until past the election.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Without having it in front of me—and I'm looking at the dates—I would think we need to deal with the Linda Keen thing, but I think we will still be able to do so.
I just want to get this done. I think we could sit and argue about dates forever, but I'm fine with moving ahead on this.
Conservative
James Moore Conservative Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC
With the amendment or with the original...?
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
With the amendment, so we can deal with this and we can get the appointments, and then, if time allows, we can go back to our issue on public servants and their geographic distribution.
Liberal
Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I am new to this committee. I would really like to understand something. Who drew up the calendar with the proposed dates? Was it you?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Diane Marleau
Yes. We were trying to see what we could get done. It was not possible for us to hear from the people from Passport Canada today. We had difficulty scheduling the people from Revenue Canada. They told us that they could come at the last minute, but since we had so many motions, I decided to set that meeting aside for motions and for planning. As I told you, I am always interested in reporting on payroll problems. I would like us to ask our research officer to prepare something that we could study. It is important for us to talk about it, and prepare the report, before the end of the session, because it is a big challenge. We could see if we can find a little time to do it. It is so important for everyone that we must deal with it. Apart from that, I am at your disposal.
Liberal
Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC
I have chaired a committee and, in Mr. Moore's motion, I do not see that the dates submitted and the dates you are proposing here completely coincide. Normally, in the committees where I have been working for a long time, a calendar is submitted. But it does not seem likely—to say the least—that the dates Mr. Moore suggests in his motion are going to coincide. I am trying to understand what the process was.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Diane Marleau
We had a work plan to start with, but since then motions have been passed. Some members of the committee wanted us to talk about those motions before doing the work we planned. Mr. Moore was in agreement with what had been planned. That is what is happening.
Then, Mr. Holland made a motion to change the plan because he was apparently interested in discussing something else before finishing what we had put forward. That is what happened. We had no formal motion, but it was a committee work plan that everyone had agreed to.
Liberal
Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC
In that case, I have a suggestion for the committee. Since members of the committee from both sides of the table have made motions precisely in order to show how important it is to discuss these points in committee, it seems to me—and the clerk can correct me if I am wrong—that these motions should therefore have priority. We should discuss those motions as a priority before proceeding to the agenda as such. That is my proposal.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Diane Marleau
At the moment, we are discussing Mr. Holland's motion which proposed moving to another subject.
Conservative
Daryl Kramp Conservative Prince Edward—Hastings, ON
I just want to go on the record here. From having served on the public accounts committee, which is supposed to be a non-partisan committee but unfortunately partisanship rears its ugly head now and then, to coming to this committee, I really think we need to have some honest reflection.
Back when this committee was established as a result of the Williams-Catterall report, it was expressly put together to make recommendations as to the efficient and effective operation of government. It was an absolute oversight committee. As such, its intention was to go beyond the realm of partisan politics and to try to be responsible in its approach and make recommendations as to how government can run more effectively and more efficiently.
Quite honestly, when we have schedules coming in and then other motions come forward suggesting the schedule should be changed, obviously it's for blatant partisan purposes. That is running right in the face of what this committee is established to do. We have a number of serious studies under way, and we are not going to end up putting a report in on them. We will have effectively wasted every bit of our time. Why the hell did we even have these witnesses in here, listen to them, and try to come up with a sense of direction for this committee to be able to make proper recommendations to the House of Commons, when all of a sudden, as we get a little closer to election, people now want to say let's circumvent the intent of this committee and just play all of our games? That's happening.
I just want to express my personal distaste, my total lack of respect for anybody, regardless of whether they are colleagues on any side of this table, who participates in hijacking this committee and working against the actual expressed intent of this committee.
This is not one of our regular committees that stands before the House of Commons; this is an oversight committee. Quite frankly, once we allow the partisan games to take place on any side of the House, whether it's the opposition or the government side, then we have thwarted the purpose of this committee. I know right now, and so does every person on this committee, that despite all the good we have done on this committee, the witnesses we have heard, we're not even going to have a report coming out. Then what have we effectively accomplished for the Canadian people? Diddly-squat.
So I ask every member to take a look at themselves on this and decide if you want to continue to play personal partisan games or if you want to get on and do the job we need to do. I mean that very, very sincerely. This is not a partisan statement. I came here to do a job, and I will not participate in this kangaroo circus we have going on here.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm opposed to this amendment, mainly because it's not an amendment; it's really a new motion. It substantively changes the intent of the original motion.
But further, as my colleague indicated, the clerk, along with the subcommittee, laid out a proposed agenda for us, and as a committee we agreed to it. And here we are again, flying off in the direction of every news clipping that comes along.
It seems to me that this is just further evidence that it is really hard to set priorities. This is just more evidence of that.
This motion, the original motion, was given with an intent to firm up the process so we could get on with doing the work Parliament asked us to do. So I am opposed to the amendment.
Bloc
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
I would just like to add, before we call the question on Mr. Holland's amendment, that I understand Mr. Kramp's frustration completely. I feel that we are here to provide answers, to do the job as conscientiously as possible. We all agree with him. If we really want to move forward, we have to stop putting obstacles in the way, for one thing, and, for another, we have to be transparent. If we have nothing to hide, we can talk. Things will proceed more quickly if we do. Let us pass our motions quickly and then get our work done as well as we can.
February 12th, 2008 / 9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm wondering if I could get a clear understanding of what exactly is on the table right now. What exactly has the amendment set forward in terms of the changes?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Diane Marleau
Basically, the amendment starts on February 14 and changes that to Madame Faille's motion.
February 14 would be the motion by Madame Faille. February 26 would be the motion by Mr. Holland. Then February 28 would be GIC appointments. March 4 would be GIC appointments. March 6 would be the federal government real estate plan.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
In terms of Madame Faille's motion, who exactly is being asked to come to present?