Human Resources Committee on April 28th, 2009

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Well, yes. I'm not the chair. I will just transmit the message, once again.

Go ahead, Mr. Komarnicki, please.

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

I was making a point of order with respect to the motion, because it seemed to me that before--

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

We're not discussing the motion right away. I would like to just get rid of this point, if you don't mind.

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

All right. When do you get the motion, then--

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Yes, I will.

Go ahead, Mr. Vellacott, please.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

I have a question. It may well be our preference for that, for sure, but if we only televise two committees on the Hill at a time and other committees get priority because a minister's at committee or it's the finance committee, and so on, then that's the reality or the caveat there.

We may well have the preference, as was said as well. We do have it all in audio, as you well pointed out. This just means that we don't get our faces there, but that may be preferable anyhow.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Could I interrupt and suggest that this discussion be held with the chair when the chair is present?

I feel that everything you're telling me I'm going to have to tell him. Today's Tuesday, so wait until Thursday morning and please make your ideas known directly to him. I think it would be much more worth while, particularly since I don't want to take time away from the discussion on Monsieur Lessard's motion.

Is that agreeable? Thank you very much.

Mr. Lessard, go ahead, please.

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

Madam Chair, I'm going to be a bit contrary in suggesting once again that we defer discussion precisely because the committee chair and other persons are absent. I know this is a point of interest for everyone.

At the first committee meeting with Mr. Komarnicki, we had a very constructive discussion that led us to introduce an amendment to the motion. We could consider it on Thursday or next week, when the committee is at full strength.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Mr. Komarnicki.

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

With respect to the motion that was just distributed, it doesn't show as I had amended it at the last meeting. I actually put forward an amendment. I don't know if we had a discussion or vote on it, but there was an amendment. Is that not reflected?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

The clerk just told me there was no vote last week at that time.

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

Okay, but I did put forward an amendment to the motion.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

I suggest, Mr. Komarnicki, that you write the amendment, present it to the clerk, and then that could be integrated into the discussion we will probably have at the next meeting, which is the day after tomorrow.

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

No. I think I actually had amended the motion at the last meeting. Right now this motion should be discussed as amended, not in its original form.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Mr. Komarnicki, the clerk informs me that the amendment was not agreed to by the members of this committee. It is up to you to now reintroduce the amendment at the next meeting of the committee.

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

I will introduce the amendment right now.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

According to the clerk, it is your right to do that. However, I would strongly suggest, and it's only a suggestion on my part, Mr. Komarnicki....

Monsieur Lessard has made a suggestion asking for all discussion on his motion to be reported back the day after tomorrow. I would very much like to ask this group whether they agree with this.

It's your right to present it, but I would suggest that you--

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

We have a fairly strong opinion in that the amendment, which basically added the words “at the conclusion of the poverty study and for one meeting” is the way to go. We're not going to change our view on that, regardless of discussion. We would want the matter put to a vote.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Before I give Mr. Savage the right to speak, the clerk informs me that there is no choice but to reintroduce your amendment to the motion.

Monsieur Savage, and then I will come back to Mr. Lessard.

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

It is my recollection that we discussed the amendment and that the chair, as he was concluding the meeting, indicated we had come to an agreement on the amendment. I thought we had come to an agreement on the amendment and that we would discuss the rest of it later.

Be that as it may, it seems that your suggestion is probably the right one. We should get this amendment written out, brought to the next meeting, and we should conclude our discussion of this at the next meeting.

[An hon. member]

My advice would be--

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Excuse me. It's a point of contention, and I would like to have the right information from the clerk. You can understand that.

The clerk tells me that Mr. Lessard amended his own motion and that the amendment from Mr. Lessard was agreed on. She told me a moment ago, again, that the record shows--and I am quoting the clerk here--that your amendment, Mr. Komarnicki was not agreed on and that you must reintroduce your amendment to this motion.

I will now ask for this committee's agreement on reporting Mr. Lessard's motion and all discussion on the motion to our next meeting, which is the day after tomorrow. Do I have a general agreement?

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

Madam Vice-Chair, you are avoiding the fact that I have an amendment I can propose now that should be voted on, not steered to the next meeting. We want it dealt with in the fashion we have it in now, and for obvious reasons.

It is not a complicated amendment. It is an amendment that says, after “examine”, “at the conclusion of the poverty study and for one meeting”.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Point of order, and then I'll go on to Mr. Lessard.

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

We're not on discussion on this motion right now, so we cannot entertain an amendment if we're not on discussion of the motion. Is that correct?