Human Resources Committee on Feb. 3rd, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Chantal is telling me that there probably would be some problem in just taking things out, because then other paragraphs would have to be adjusted and changed. I think what you're talking about, though, is going through the report as it is and, as we normally do, taking out things that you don't like. It would mean, then—

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

We would be adjusting what needs to be adjusted.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Right.

It would mean, though, that you wouldn't support this motion. Is that what you're suggesting?

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

I'm just following Mr. Komarnicki's suggestion, really. It's pretty well the same; I don't see a very big difference. It is that Chantal and her colleague go through it, look at what has come out of the other committees, take it out, adjust it in terms of that, and refer it back to this committee. Then this committee could decide whether this is or is not the report they want.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

I don't think that's what Mr. Komarnicki was—

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Oh, did I misunderstand?

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

I think Mr. Komarnicki was suggesting that we go through the report as we normally would, as it's written, and that we as a committee would vote on the things we want taken out. This would mean, then, that you would not be supporting this motion.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Well, no, actually—

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Okay.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

I don't have a problem with that, because I think the principle is the same whether the committee does it or the research team does it. Of course, if the committee does it, I can see a lot of problems, but I'm not against the idea per se.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Okay. If that is the understanding, then I think maybe you need to indicate that you will not be supporting this motion; you would prefer to go through the report and take out things you don't want as you go along.

Is that what you're saying, Madam Folco?

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Yes, but I would like to see it en deux temps, as we say in French; that is, the first thing done would be to work on the report. Then, if everyone is satisfied, I would not support the motion. I think Mr. Lessard seems to understand that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

The motion is already tabled. I mean, we're already dealing with it.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Well, it's tabled, but we can put it aside for the time being.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Do you know what I'll do? I'll continue with the speaking list, and we'll see what the feedback is on that.

Mr. Savage, you're next.

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

Thank you.

My first comment is just for reference to my friend Mr. Vellacott, who spoke about the fact that there needed to be some balance in the report.

It's not for committee members to determine the balance; it's for us to listen to what we hear. It's what people come to talk to us about that should be in our report. It's not for us to put our personal views in, in order to balance anything. That's not what a committee does.

Anybody could have been invited to be a witness. Minister Clement could have come as a witness. Anybody could have been invited by any member to be a committee witness and bring that point of view forward.

I made this suggestion probably 45 minutes ago, which I think Madame Folco and Mr. Komarnicki have followed up a little.

To be clear, I don't think it makes sense, although I'm not totally against it, but my preference would not be that we go through the report and vote on taking out things that aren't appropriate in it, because there's language before and after all those things that is then going to have to be changed. We have perfectly good writers and researchers who could take this report back, if this were the determination of the committee, and just reflect what we heard at committee. Then we could append the other two documents, meaning the evidence from the industry committee and the status of women committee. It would all be included in the report, but it wouldn't be the “virus”, as Mr. Lessard so accurately referred to it, of taking evidence that had nothing to do with our study and putting it in the middle of our study.

Again, just to remind people, the reason we did this study in this committee is in many ways different from the reason people in the industry committee or other committees might look at it. The purpose of this, and the original wording of the motion I brought forward to the committee, was specific to the people who are affected by the decisions of this committee and this department. That's why it's so important that we not take other evidence, particularly evidence brought forward in a disproportionate way from other committees, and put it in the middle of our committee report.

I know we're discussing a motion, but Mr. Komarnicki—you can give me a nod or shake your head—would you be okay with our asking the writers of the report to go back and take out any references from other committees and then append both of those entire studies to the back of our report?

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Is that something you'd agree with?

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

Do you want my response?

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Yes. Before we go on, let's just hear whether you would support that approach.

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

Okay. First of all, when one decides what witnesses are called or not—for instance, Minister Clement--if you're going to include their testimony, examination, and cross-examination—make it part of your report and consider it. You don't need to call them again. You could, but you wouldn't need to.

We had, I think, two meetings set aside for this, with the majority of witnesses being called from Mr. Savage's perspective on the point he wished to make. The same witnesses who were called before the industry committee could have been called here, if we had wanted to do another meeting or two; we could have called them, but we didn't. When you take everything into context, to say now that we'll just excise the negative part, as far as you're concerned, because it was heard somewhere else, and Mr. Clement could have been called, but wasn't.... There was a reason all of that happened, so consider that.

Two, when we consider the question of the analysts' doing another report, they need to have some idea and instruction as to what this committee—

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Yes, they would need another motion to do anything different--

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

—but, going a little further, they would need instruction as to what this committee considers should be in or shouldn't be in.

I for one had specifically understood that we would be relying on the evidence that was before the other committee and would use that evidence with respect to the examination and cross-examination of other witnesses—the Ipsos Reid comments and reports, the comments of the health minister from Saskatchewan or Alberta—with respect to the integration back and forth.

Having done that, it would be difficult for the analysts to go back and excise everything that has reference to the previous committee, because it's not that simple. There has been use of it in this committee, and we would have to go through this report and say what should be in and what should be out. Obviously, anything I examined on or cross-examined on with the witnesses is totally pertinent and relevant and is evidence and should not be excised. How the analysts deal with that, I don't know.

I'm saying that it's not a simple matter. I'm in agreement that we could delay Mr. Lessard's motion, because that seems reasonable, and that we go back to the report and have a good, wholesome debate about what should be in and what should not be in. Then the analysts would have a basis upon which to bring a final draft before us, I would say.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Okay.

Madam Block, you're next on the list.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'm really pleased to be here today. While I wasn't a member of the committee in December, I believe I subbed and was here for the previous discussion on the motion.

I don't want to challenge the member's position regarding including only what was heard at committee meetings, but rather would encourage the committee to consider that it is not unusual, in my experience, to refer to, include, consider, or append other reports as part of a study.

My case in point would be my very recent experience on the ethics committee. As we were reviewing access to information legislation as well as privacy legislation, I believe it was Madame Freeman who brought forward a motion that we consider almost every other study that had been done previous to our study on the access to information legislation. I perhaps need to go back to check that I'm remembering correctly, but my point is simply to say that I don't think it's unusual to consider other reports when considering a study or writing a report on a certain issue.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you.

Mr. Komarnicki, you were on, but you....