Human Resources Committee on Feb. 3rd, 2011

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to make two points.

First, we can take apart the meaning of the previous motion, but to me the word “table” means that you table; you don't integrate into the whole report. Tables can be considered as appendages, but not integrated as into the report. We're all interpreting it differently. We're saying that's how we're interpreting it. It's not revisiting or changing; we're saying that's what it should be.

Second, I think if we were—

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

There's a point of order.

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

I think very clearly the word is “considered”. I don't see—

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

There's also “tabled” in the motion. It says both. There are two words in the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Madam Minna is talking about “tabled” at this point.

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

Actually, “tabled” is not part of the motion at all.

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

That's what Mr. Komarnicki just read.

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

I read, “to be tabled and considered”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Okay.

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

“Table” does not mean integrate, and the two are together: “table and consider”. It's table, attach, and give it in. It's not to integrate it make it part of our work. That would actually imbalance it.

With all due respect--and I said this the last time--even at that, the quotes integrated in the report are 90% from industry, as opposed to status of women, to give it that kind of slant. Besides that, we're saying that's not what we meant and not how we interpreted the motion. It's table and consider, attach, and move on.

If we are being honest with ourselves, we now need to go past this point. I do not want to see material that was not part of our work integrated into the report to give the report a slant different from what it had or different from what I intended it to have, or that it had as a result of the witnesses who came before us.

Obviously it is in the interest of Mr. Komarnicki and his colleagues to have it in, because that's the slant they want to give the report. That's fine. That's part of what we are about. That's part of politics and who we are. I'm just saying that the motion does not say that and I do not support the report as it is. I will be supporting Mr. Lessard's motion.

I think we need to come to grips with this and move on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you, Madam Minna.

Go ahead, Ms. Davies.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I'll be very brief, because obviously I wasn't here, so I don't know all the background.

Tony is not here today, obviously, so I'm subbing in for him, but I have been talking to him over email. I think first of all that there are issues about Tony and what he did or didn't do. The chair or others might want to actually speak to Tony at some other time. You certainly should do that.

My understanding is that he originally understood the motion was to append the other committee's report and not actually put it as part of your report. That was clearly his understanding, so if he were here today, he would be supporting Monsieur Lessard's motion, and I will be as well, even though I wasn't there. That's my understanding of where Tony is at, and so he would have been voting that way today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you, Madame Davies.

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

I have a point of order, perhaps. I'm not sure if it's a point of order, but that's not what Mr. Lessard's motion says. It actually would not append. His motion is to basically excise it.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I understand Monsieur Lessard's motion.

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

If you're agreeing with his motion, it's different from what you're saying it is.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

No, I understand Monsieur Lessard's motion. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Okay, thank you.

Madame Folco, go ahead.

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

It seems to me that two proposals have been made, other than the original motion brought forward by Mr. Lessard. The proposals made by Mr. Savage and Mr. Komarnicki are very similar. I see the beginning of a possible compromise that might allows us to move this forward more quickly.

I note that when these options were presented by Mr. Komarnicki and Mr. Savage, the other committee members did not react. I'm wondering whether we could possibly come back to these similar options and try to find a compromise.

The suggestion made earlier by Mr. Komarnicki was to vote against Mr. Lessard's motion in order to then excise — that was the word use — or remove those paragraphs or quotations that currently appear in the report and which are not acceptable to at least part of the committee. We could proceed in that fashion, or we could do the reverse — in other words, begin by deleting those paragraphs.

There is a problem that became apparent in Mr. Vellacott's comments. If the members agreed, we could begin that first exercise, which is to delete the paragraphs. If the report then reflects the content that members feel is suitable, we could come to Mr. Lessard's motion, which would then be null and void. I believe Mr. Lessard would even agree that it would be null and void at that point, since the offending paragraphs would have been excised.

Can we take a few minutes to discuss that option, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Are you proposing a friendly amendment?

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

Yes, I am, I guess. Yes, I am. He told me it would be all right.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Is Mr. Lessard open to a friendly amendment?

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

It's a question of principle, Madam Chair; I'm against excision.

[A voice]

There is the word that was used.

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

That could be an avenue, Madam Chair. If everyone agrees, it might be a way to move this forward. We will see as we go along what we want to incorporate into the report. But we don't want to end up with a motion, at every paragraph, saying that there should be a reference made to another committee. It has to be relevant.

I'd like to put this question to Ms. Folco, because she has been a committee chair and has seen lots of different things. I'm not sure whether doing this would actually speed up the process. If she is convinced it will, I am prepared to go along with it because I would like to move this forward.