Evidence of meeting #15 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clerk.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
And you're the Liberal Party. It seems anything is possible when the two of you put your heads together.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Why is it that I have a copy of Siobhan Coady's list delivered to me by you as if this were carved in stone or something?
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
Mr. Martin, let me finish.
I don't believe in giving up May 26 or June 2 or 7 for that purpose. If you wish to get there, if you want June 10 and 12, you're welcome to have it. If you want to continue with the study that you wanted to do on the green infrastructure fund, that is fine.
I'll read again from the blues:
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Chris Warkentin): As soon as possible, but no later than the end of Wednesday, we should provide the clerk with, first of all, the list of everybody who members are interested in, and then the prioritization.
So who has provided the clerk with the list? Which of you sent an e-mail to the clerk? That is my question.
If Ms. Coady did it, then she has the right: she is entitled to ask that she read the list.
Yes, Mr. Holder.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Holder Conservative London West, ON
On a point of order, Madam Chair, that's no less valid than the list Mr. Martin put together. In fact, we all had gone through that.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
But we have to submit the list so that the clerk has clarity. The clerk must have clarity. If you do not submit the list, then there is a problem.
So now you have actually, physically, given—
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Holder Conservative London West, ON
Well, then, I feel that somehow time was wasted at this committee.
Why would we spend such painless numbers of minutes going through these lists, as we did at our last meeting, to come up with a fairly comprehensive list—
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
You shouldn't go on this....
“As soon as possible”—that's the vice-chair giving you advice—“but no later than the end of Wednesday.”
Have you provided it?
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Holder Conservative London West, ON
We went through that totally at committee, Madam Chair, and I thought the list was quite exhaustive.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
But the vice-chair gave you instructions to provide it to the clerk to avoid any confusion. So to avoid any future confusion, let us do it.
It is a point of order, Monsieur Nadeau? No? Okay.
You're done?
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Siobhan Coady Liberal St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
I had given the clerk a list at our last meeting. I just submitted it, because the vice-chair had been clear, and that's why I submitted it to him, and I think that's circulating now.
But it's pretty much the list that we were talking about, because I don't think I missed any names.
May 5th, 2010 / 3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Patrick Brown Conservative Barrie, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to raise a few points.
First, on Ms. Coady's suggestion to jump directly to Correctional Services, the original Liberal motion was to deal with Public Works and Government Services as a first study on budget freezes. I wanted to know why that's changed, why you want to do Correctional Services in front of Public Works.
Second, you mentioned the government is providing information in “dribs and drabs”, as you phrased it. I certainly take contention with that in the sense that even before the committee had officially requested documents, Minister Baird's office provided exhaustive search of all possible documents and sent them directly to the committee. Every minister who has been referenced has sent all available documents. I think when it comes to full disclosure, you've had unequivocal full disclosure and complete eagerness to be cooperative. So I think when you make statements like that, it's not being fair or accurate.
Third, I do take concern with what Mr. Martin mentioned. I do hope that we're not in a situation where we're only...where we're suggesting to one member that these are the committee's witnesses. I think this committee works best when we work cooperatively, not partisanly. I think that would be unfortunate if that was misrepresented to Mr. Martin--and I take him at his word--that--
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Siobhan Coady Liberal St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
Thank you.
I'm sorry; I have concerns with that.
I'm certainly not working partisanly. I'm asking for information. I've been asking quite calmly, quite clearly, quite diligently—
3:55 p.m.
An hon. member
Is this a point of order?
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Patrick Brown Conservative Barrie, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I don't want to be in a situation where lists are misrepresented. In terms of the witnesses suggested, you saw complete cooperation on this side. We supported all those motions trying to expedite the process as fast as possible.
So we are working in a cooperative fashion. If we get bogged down in a partisan fashion, if we try to cater to whatever TV cameras have been invited for a partisan purpose, I think it's going to derail our efforts to actually look into this.
I hope we can get back on track today and we can stop trying to—
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Patrick Brown Conservative Barrie, ON
Well, the first suggestion, which I just said, was that we should deal with Public Works first.
As for the original Liberal motion, I don't understand why they're changing—
