Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Nov. 25th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Is everyone clear on the motion? Is there any further discussion?

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Monsieur Guimond.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

I am trying to follow the order of the motions as it was presented last time. I do not understand why you wanted to move so fast to strike the subcommittee when we still have other motions to deal with. You skipped the one that pertains to the composition of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I'd be happy to explain myself. It's the order in which the clerk just handed them to me.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

So then, we are blaming the clerk. He was looking for a scapegoat.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

In the spirit of cooperation with the clerk, I went that way.

I will now entertain any other motions you'd like, in whichever order you would like to use them.

Monsieur Godin.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

If at all possible, we should follow the order listed, sir. It is easier for us if we do that. Otherwise, we may forget something and we wouldn't want that. Let's stick with the order given here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I'll get right to you, Madame Jennings.

We're not obliged to do all of these, but if that's that intent of the committee, that's fantastic.

Madame Jennings.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

I move that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be composed of the Chair, the two Vice-Chairs and a member of the other opposition party.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We have a motion on the floor. Is there discussion on that?

Mr. Reid.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would propose an amendment to that motion so that it would include two members of the government side, very much like the subcommittee on private members' business we just adopted. The private members' business committee has functioned well working that way. We've had other subcommittees that have worked that way, one of which I chaired dealing with the Ethics Commissioner, the ethics code and the forms under the Ethics Commissioner.

There is a real advantage to doing it this way. You have a member of each party able to represent the party's interests on the committee.

As the subcommittee was structured last time, which is essentially what Madam Jennings has proposed to do again, the member from the government side was also the chair of the subcommittee. This meant that he could not, without entering into a conflict between his two roles, represent the government side and the government's interests and be an objective chair of the committee at the same time. So I think that amendment would facilitate the subcommittee working well. You may recall that it didn't work terribly well last time, whereas there are other subcommittees that have a history of working very well indeed simply by allowing a division of those roles.

I'll just make the obvious point that the opposition still commands a very firm and clear majority within the subcommittee on all questions. That wouldn't change. It would simply allow for a division of those two roles between the chair and the person representing the government's interests.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Since this is an amendment to a motion moved by Madame Jennings, I believe we have to ask her if that is all right.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

No, it is not.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

It's not.

Okay, we're debating the amendment.

Michel Guimond.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

I'm not in favour of the amendment moved by Scott Reid, because it goes against the principle of having a harmonious, consensual discussion.

I serve on this subcommittee not as a representative of my political party, but rather as a member of the executive. You have just unanimously elected me Second Vice-Chair. By the way, these meetings were not a problem in the last Parliament. There were no incidents. I did not get the impression that the Chair, Gary Goodyear, was there to defend the government's position.

The best proof we have that the goal is to achieve a consensus is that we are not looking to change the numbers, but simply to guarantee that each party represented in the House is also represented on the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. I would also just like to mention in passing that the subcommittee reports must be ratified by all members of the committee.

For these reasons, I feel obliged to vote against Mr. Reid's amendment, which is not in keeping with a consensual approach to business.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Madame Jennings.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

I'm opposed to the amendment moved by Mr. Reid. I've served in the past on a steering committee and we always operated by consensus. Committee members drew up the agenda of the main committee, working by consensus. If a problem arose, they attempted to resolve it. The composition of this subcommittee which is the focus of my motion is the same as that in previous legislatures, and the subcommittee always worked very well. If there were any problems, they arose primarily within the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Consequently, I'm opposed to the proposed amendment to my motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Monsieur Godin, and then Mr. Lukiwski.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Chairman, I for one will be voting in favour of this amendment. If we want the Chair to be impartial and to truly refrain from taking part in the debate, we are making a mistake by not including a government member on the committee. In any event, whether it passes or note, the committee's decisions will be unanimous. I would prefer that someone truly represent the government, that we get to the bottom of things and that arguments be put forward. Ultimately, it will be the same because it will be unanimous. If not, the committee will not go forward and no recommendation will be submitted to the main committee.

If we lay the burden of defending the government's position on the Chair, people will say that he is siding with the government. It would be simpler to have a government representative on the subcommittee so that when decisions need to be made, that individual can make recommendations and defend the arguments put forward. That way, we can have a real debate, one in which the Chair will not be required to take part. The Chair must be allowed to do his job, which is to chair the committee. He should not take part in the debate.

With this new government, we are asking the Chair to be impartial. Otherwise, as soon as the committee sits, members will end up being upset with the Chair, and that should not be the case. Therefore, I am in favour of the amendment.

A government representative has sat on other committees in the past. It is healthy to have a government representative so that a real debate can take place, one in which the Chair should not be involved. Let the Chairman chair the committee. That is what he was elected to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Lukiwski.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Yvon has just presented my argument, and it was only that, that if you want the chair to be impartial and really not get involved with any decision-making--and I think that's probably the way it should be--then that effectively means there's no government voice on the committee. Now, if you allow the chair to participate and have his voice heard as part of the consensus or non-consensus, that's fine, but if you want the chair to be completely impartial--and I think that's the correct way to go--then I would suggest Yvon is quite correct that we should have a government member on the committee just to represent the government when determining the agenda and other items that that committee considers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Mr. Lauzon.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

As a new member of this committee, I agree with Mr. Godin's position.

We have a minority government; the Canadian electorate has voted to have representations almost equal from both sides. I think it's important that not only the opposition position be enunciated at this subcommittee, but also the government position has to be enunciated. I think Mr. Reid's amendment allows that to happen in the spirit of cooperation, so I don't see it detracting from the good work that that subcommittee could do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Very good.

Mr. Proulx.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

We are fooling ourselves this morning if we think the Chair of this subcommittee will be an impartial bystander. The idea behind creating a subcommittee like this was to have one representative per party who could defend the views, ideas and positions of each party, without making this subcommittee an excessively partisan instrument.

Assigning a second member of the government party to the subcommittee will not affect the decisions made in any way, since the three representatives of the opposition parties will be in a majority. This is merely an attempt to pull the wool over our eyes and to have a clear conscience.

One representative per party is more than enough. I'm not prepared to disclose what goes on during meetings of the subcommittee, which are always held in camera. However, you know very well. Mr. Chairman, that whether or not he is a Conservative or Liberal member, the subcommittee Chair participates fully in the discussions.

Therefore, I intend to vote against this amendment. I do not feel that it is necessary to have a second representative of the government party.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Albrecht.