Human Resources Committee on Jan. 31st, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We originally had adopted some routine motions, so this would be an amendment to the existing motion that we have before us.

Mr. Lessard.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

I'd like to ask two questions, Mr. Chair. First of all, with regard to the regular motions, we have an obligation to give notice. I think it is 24 or 48 hours. Does that obligation apply in this case? And since we haven't received that notice, we cannot debate the matter today, can we?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

The way that works is that for any new business, it will be 48 hours. Because we are in committee business, this goes back to a pre-existing motion that we had before us under routine motions. This is considered an amendment to the existing one.

So yes, under new business, you're totally correct, but any time we are already on the business that we're talking about, there's no requirement for 48 hours.

Mr. Silva.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In relation to this particular motion...and just speaking briefly with my colleagues. I've been on two standing committees that don't have striking committees, so striking committees are not always part of standing committees. In fact, they can play a little role or a big role. I tend to like more the approach that the issues of scheduling and witnesses are addressed before this committee, because all of us have opinions on that.

At this time we don't feel there's a need to add another person to the striking committee. Since we're all new to the committee, we're going to keep the status quo. Madam Dhalla, who has been elected vice-chair, will be the person designated to go to the striking committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Before we go any further, in order to make the amendment.... To make it plausible to work here, it's going to have to start, “Notwithstanding the routine motions adopted”. That will have to be added. And instead of two members of the Liberal caucus, it's going to have to be two members of the committee from the Liberal Party, or it has to go back to the whip's office.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

So it will be composed of the chair and two members of the Liberal Party?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

It will be two members of the committee from the Liberal Party.

The clerk is actually going to look into that.

We'll go to Mr. Lessard.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

If I've correctly understood the proposal, Mr. Chair, the motion is that two members of the steering committee come from the Liberal Party and two more from the Conservative Party, because you are from the Conservative Party. So we're adding a Conservative to your chairmanship. We'll vote against this motion, Mr. Chair, for the following reason. There is a certain wisdom in having one representative per party, because that requires each of the parties to make an effort to achieve a consensus. I feel that greatly facilitates the work. When we favour two parties, they impose their will on the other two parties. The problem here, Mr. Chair...

Mr. Chair, with your consent, I'll wait until the dealings are completed. I'll come back to this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Lessard, if you could finish we'll go to Mr. Lake and then Mr. Martin.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Chair, it's quite curious that, when a motion is introduced by one of the parties and we're in the middle of the debate, someone rises in this manner and we hold a caucus session. Mr. Chair, something's not right here. A motion is normally put to debate, and it's debated on its merits. If there were any dealings to conduct, Mr. Chair, they should have been conducted in advance. The problem now—and I raised this yesterday—is not the quality of the steering committee's work, but rather the fact that we haven't respected its composition.

I consider it wise that we have one representative per party. That forces the representatives of each of the parties to achieve a consensus on the way in which the proceedings are conducted, which has always served the committee well to date. So I don't see why we should change the arrangement today. We're going to vote for the status quo. I invite my colleagues to reject the motion introduced.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Martin.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

I also oppose this motion. I think that what we've been doing, with one person from each party on a subcommittee to discuss business, has been working relatively well. I'm glad we're going to do that again. We've been able to reach consensus amongst ourselves. It would seem to be a good number. It was respectful of the input from each of the people who participated. Of course, always we have to bring back our recommendations to the larger committee for approval, so there's that check and balance there. I think the smaller number is easier to gather, in terms of meetings, as well, so I would recommend that we maintain the status quo. From the last Parliament, it seems to me that's what happens at most committees.

So I would support that we leave it as it is.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Martin.

Mr. Hiebert.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

I actually happen to agree with my colleague Mr. Silva, that in light of the fact that everything has to come back to this committee anyway from the steering committee, why not just eliminate the steering committee and have these discussions as a whole? We all have opinions, as you suggest, and it gives us all an opportunity to participate.

Perhaps Mr. Lake would like to amend or remove his motion, and we could pursue an agreement along those lines.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

If the motion is to be removed, it has to be removed by the unanimous consent of the committee. I don't know if anyone is proposing that.

Do we have unanimous consent to withdraw the motion?

Okay.

Mr. Lake.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I wish to move a new motion. Bear with me on this one.

Actually, for clarification, what was the date that these motions were adopted...the original motion?

Okay.

I move that the routine motion adopted on such-and-such a date—namely, that the subcommittee on agenda and procedure be composed of the chair, the two vice-chairs, and one member of the New Democratic Party—be withdrawn, and that the committee meet as a whole to discuss agenda and procedure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Silva.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Is that during the time allocated, or is that at a separate time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

It will be at the will of the committee. Usually we set time aside.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Chair, I just want to be clear...certainly on my conversation with Mr. Lake.

All I basically said was that in the committees that I have been a part of in the past, whether it's been heritage, whether it's been environment, there's been no steering committee. That's up to the committee to decide. I said I liked that practice because it's aired before all the committee members, and they decide how they want to deal with things. It has been, I guess, the custom of this committee for the last year that there's a steering committee. I'm not saying I object to that. I also said if they want to continue that way, it's fine. We didn't want to change that particular composition.

I have my personal preference, but this is a new motion, a new discussion, and I haven't really had an opportunity to discuss it with my colleagues. I'd like to hear what other members of this committee have to say on that also, whether they are in agreement with it or not. Certainly, as a new member I don't want to impose myself in such a way that the other members may see it as a problem.

I don't know, so I'd like to hear what the other members have to say on this one.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I'll just add as a comment, before Mr. Martin goes, that we have met as a subcommittee to bring back things. There's been no unanimous consent, so everything has been brought back to the committee to be voted on again anyway. That's the way it has worked. We have met to talk about various agenda items and possibilities, but it has always come back to the main committee for final decision.

Mr. Martin.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Yes, and I thought that worked quite well. It was a setting where there was thoughtful consideration and lots of back and forth between the various parties. As Mr. Lessard said just a while ago, it calls on those of us who speak on behalf of our caucuses to go back and do our homework and get some sense of where the caucus is on particular issues. It gives us a chance to do that and then bring recommendations before the committee.

I know that in the 13 years I spent at Queen's Park, for example, that's exactly what we did. I sat on lots of committees and there was always a subcommittee with a member from each party to look at some of the more logistical elements of how the committee would move forward. I always found it helpful to do that, and I would suggest we continue to do that here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Savage.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

I've been on committees in my short time in Parliament that have had steering committees and on those that haven't. It can work either way, depending on the will of the people in the committee.

What I would say is that we really haven't had a chance, even as Liberal members, to get together to discuss issues like this. I've been in two committee meetings, and we seem to have spent more time on procedure than we actually have on witnesses.

Why can't we go with the situation as it is now, have a chance to talk among ourselves about whether the idea of getting rid of the steering committee makes sense or not, and bring it back for discussion at a future date?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Are there any other comments?

Mr. Lake.