Human Resources Committee on Feb. 5th, 2009

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

As to why we may need this, I know that in one of the committees, the immigration committee in fact, we chose to study material rather than deal with, in that case, a government bill. But no matter if it's a private member's bill or a government bill, the bill should take priority and be dealt with. It's just the way the committee decided it, and I think that was not appropriate.

This indicates that you ought to do the main priority or main mandate of the committee, which is to study private member or government bills.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

On the same topic, I have Mr. Lessard and then Mr. Martin.

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

I would like Mr. Komarnicki to tell us which committee. Based on the information I have no committees have adopted this recommendation for the following reason, Mr. Chair: each committee is master of its own procedures, and the Speaker of the House reminds us of that often. As a committee, when we are faced with two or three bills, we can decide that a private member's bill may want consideration first. We will debate that here, at the appropriate time. That is the committee's responsibility, according to the Standing Orders.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

Okay, I have Mr. Martin and then Mr. Cannan.

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

I just want to say that I agree with Mr. Lessard on that one.

Again, the committee is in charge of its own agenda, and it decides. I go back to the way we've worked over the last two and a half to three years. We've had times when bills have been in front of us. We've looked at the agenda. We've sorted it out among ourselves in an agreeable fashion, and we've moved forward, you know? We understood that there were, from time to time, some bills that needed to be dealt with, and we found the time to do that, but it didn't preclude us finishing work we were already working on. And we did that in a cooperative way at this committee.

Again, I don't think bringing the experience of other committees to this committee, perhaps to define how it is we will work, is appropriate or acceptable. I think the way we've always worked, deciding as a committee how we're going to deal with the work in front of us, is the appropriate way to go. I would think it's how this place has always worked, how committees have worked, and I think we should continue to do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I have one person left on the list before we have a vote, and that's Mr. Cannan.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I'll be very brief.

I agree with my colleagues that the committee is the master of its own destiny. But to answer Mr. Lessard's question about what other committees do, we just came from the international trade committee an hour ago, where we had the same discussion and passed this part of the legislation motion. Those are the two committees I'm on, international trade and this one, where I know it has been discussed. That's just for your information.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We'll go to Mr. Lessard.

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

I have an additional argument to make, if I may, Mr. Chair. He says that it was discussed at the committee. Earlier on, Mr. Komarnicki said that it had been adopted in other committees. Have other committees adopted it? We should also know the logic behind it. I could easily give other examples of decisions by other committees that would be in keeping with our views.

So there are two things. First of all, he must tell us which committee adopted it, if any have, and why. If we support the reason fundamentally, we might support the motion. However, up until now, the logic we have used, and that we have been reminded of often by the Speaker of the House, is that we are masters of our procedure and our work. If that is the way it is, we will appreciate that.

Moreover, between you and me, I will acknowledge one thing. Normally, we consider government legislation, as those bills are the ones that normally take priority. But sometimes that is not the case, and the committee must be in a position to appreciate that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Can I just point out that it was immigration that passed that? And as Ron said, we just passed it at trade. Once again, they are points well taken. We are a committee of our own. We choose our own direction. I understand that as well.

Go ahead.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

For clarification, I didn't say that this motion had passed at immigration, because I'm not aware of whether they had their meeting. I was referencing an example from the immigration committee I was on where this had some relevance.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

All right, so there's no more discussion on that. We'll call the vote on the motion that has been made.

(Motion negatived)

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We're going to go back to our original list. I have Mr. Martin, Mr. Savage, and Madame Folco.

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

I just wanted some clarification, Chair. If at the end of a meeting we've run out of time, and some of us may have some pertinent questions we weren't able to put to the witnesses, are we then permitted to table those with the clerk and have them responded to, perhaps at another date, in writing by the witnesses? How does that work?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Yes, most definitely.

We'll go to Mr. Savage.

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

I have two issues, Chair.

First, I wonder if we could ask the minister to come to defend supplementary estimates as early as possible, perhaps next week. That's my first piece.

Second, in terms of what the committee is going to start to undertake right now--some of the members were here before, some are new--we had started a poverty study last year, and I hope it doesn't take us a long time to get back into that. I was wondering, in terms of schedule, whether we could be briefed as a committee on where that study stands right now and on how quickly we could be back up and running on it.

So rather than wait until next week to decide what our first thing would be, is it possible--I'm not sure if it is--that we could be briefed by staff as to where the poverty study sits at this point in time so we can hit the ground running?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I'm just going to add two comments before we start.

There are two issues here. One is future business. My suggestion is that we should look at future business next Tuesday. We've already talked to the department in lieu of wanting to brief the minister. The minister has a conflict on Tuesday but is happy to come on Thursday. The challenge with that is, to be up front, that supplementaries are going to be passed and recommendations have to be made 24 to 48 hours in advance. We could still get the minister to come on Thursday. She's prepared her schedule to talk about what is in them, but we won't be able to change them at that point in time.

So I state that for the record as far as the ability is concerned. The challenge I have is, if she is not able to make it on Tuesday, whether you want to see her at this point in time. One of those two meetings should deal with future business. Then over the break week, I suggest that if we decide on Tuesday to move forward with the poverty study, we could then instruct the researchers to have us up to date. I suggest we maybe have department officials come in and we work on the work plan as we move forward.

Those are the two issues.

Mr. Savage.

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

I'm told there has been no agreement with all the parties yet as to when the supplementary estimates will be passed. I would like to have the minister come here at the earliest possible opportunity. We would be prepared to alter our schedule to have her here before they pass and I'm sure others would as well.

I think we should perhaps pass a motion that we'd like to have the minister here as soon as possible to defend the supplementary estimates. I'll come back and maybe make that a motion.

To the other piece, for a number of reasons this committee hasn't sat since last June. That's an extraordinarily long time to go without a committee meeting. The momentum on the poverty study I thought was very good. I just want to make sure we don't take a lot of time getting back up and running. I was wondering, if it is possible, if the committee could be briefed by staff on Tuesday as to where they think we are. If that's to wait until next Tuesday, I'll defer to your judgment on that. I just want to make sure people realize this is an important piece of work. We don't have to reinvent the wheel on this. I'm hoping we can pick up the study largely where we left off in the last Parliament.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

There are two things here.

My recommendation is that we invite the minister for next Thursday, if that's okay, as a possibility. The second thing is that I could ask the researchers to have the summary of evidence from what we've received. Also, I believe as a committee we need to determine if that's the direction we're heading in. I believe it is. Why don't we talk about future business on Tuesday, along with the summary of evidence? Is that a possibility?

It may not be ready Tuesday, but I think at the very least if poverty is the direction we're going to head back into, on which there could be some consensus, then my suggestion is that over the break week we lay out a work plan, if it's possible. If that's what we decide to do on Tuesday, it would get us off and running when we come back from break week, so that we are ready to go and move forward.

Does that sound like it makes some sense? We talk about future business on Tuesday, including a work plan for after the break, if we should move forward with poverty, and look at inviting the minister on Thursday.

We seem to have consensus, but Mr. Martin, do you have some comments?

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

I have some concern about the minister coming on Thursday. I'm told there's some talk now of the vote on estimates being Thursday evening, which is not fair, actually, to anybody concerned. Why can't she come on Tuesday?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I believe there's already been something planned. We can ask the question. I'd be happy to ask the question again, Tony. I just know that they were looking at this and trying to make themselves available. As I said, that does present a problem if the estimates are going to be voted on on Thursday night, because at that point in time any recommendations we have would not work. Once again, we can make the recommendation. The clerk can ask the question. I was just told what her schedule was like at this point in time. That's something we could look at. We could switch around, if that's possible, and look at future business on Thursday.

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

It seems to me, and the government has indicated this, that dealing with the supplementary estimates is a priority. If it's a priority, then part of that process is that the minister appears before the committee to answer questions. I would suggest that a strong message be sent to the minister that she rejig her schedule so that she can come before committee on Tuesday and can then have some time to review any recommendations we might make here before those estimates are passed on Thursday.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay, we'll do so.

Ms. Minna.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

The reality is that the estimates have to pass, otherwise the government can't pay its bills. Because we've been out of the House for so long, it really is a matter of urgency and importance. Given all of that, I don't think this committee should pass any estimates without having had a proper time with the minister. Knowing there is no time for any recommendations that might be made to actually find their way into the House, I couldn't vote for them in the House.

If we're serious here, the minister's first priority is this committee. This is where the accountability is. So I would suggest, Mr. Chair, that you bring back to the minister the importance of coming here on Tuesday.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay, so we'll talk to the minister about coming Tuesday, and we'll look at future business on Thursday.

Is there any other new business or anything we want to discuss at this time?

That was a good job. We're still out of here a little bit early.

The meeting is adjourned.