Evidence of meeting #41 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was report.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
First of all, I would like to welcome Ms. Block to the committee and tell her that she has a very nice family name.
Liberal
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
Mr. Komarnicki's arguments have convinced me not to amend my motion. Together we very briefly examined the suggestion made by Ms. Folco. Even if we were to engage in that exercise, we would ultimately end up in exactly the same position for the following reason. Mr. Komarnicki's motion talks about incorporating reports. Even if we went through this clause by clause, we would still have to dispose of this motion. I don't believe there is any way around this other than to actually rescind the motion passed on November 23rd. We must protect the authenticity of our work, which is based on what we heard, what was presented to us — including the briefs — and carry out a proper analysis.
A little earlier, I talked about a virus, in the sense that we must preserve the authenticity of our work. Otherwise, we will compromise that authenticity. It would colour our conclusions in a way that does not reflect what we took from the testimony and briefs we received. I think that would create a dangerous precedent. I understand that it is possible, on occasion, to include references to other briefs, when those references are relevant to what we have heard, but that is not the case here. We are therefore going to leave our motion on the floor and are asking all our colleagues to support it, so that we can finally work on things we have heard and have been asked to deal with, rather than issues assigned to other committees.
Liberal
Maria Minna Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
What I was going to say a few minutes ago doesn't matter any more, but I just wanted to say that at many other committees I've been at, we have considered other reports, and the committee then decides if and when to integrate anything, if they choose to or not. In this case it was done by a motion, so there was a certain interpretation given to it. I don't interpret it that way. For me, “table and consider” means that we would consider whether we wanted to. We'd have discussed it, but we didn't; we just integrated it immediately and that's unfortunate. Now we're saying that it's not what we meant. We want it out.
I'd like us to go on with other work. I don't see any real change among my colleagues, unless I'm wrong, but certainly I haven't changed my mind. I can only speak for myself, but I think we need to move on, Madam Chair. Otherwise we'll be spending the whole of this meeting on this issue, and then probably the next several meetings.
Conservative
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
I have to address that point. It is so critical and important that it's not for ulterior motives that we've extended this thing, because it is that important.
What you're saying is in essence correct. Other committees do consider reports and append them. What Mr. Lessard's motion says is not that. His motion says to take out all reference to it and to take that report and not append it, not add it, and treat it as if it were not there. That's the motion you're thinking of supporting. That motion is contrary to everything you believe in. It's contrary to everything you know to be true at other committees. If you support that motion, you are going against that principle. It's a very important principle that we've seen time and time again, and one we will see again.
You cannot support that motion if you believe what you're saying to be true.
Liberal
Maria Minna Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Mr. Komarnicki, that's only happening partly because you are refusing to agree to change the motion to say we would append. If you disagree to append and insist on integrating, then that's where we're at.
If Mr. Lessard wants to add “append”, as opposed to--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen
I've just been advised that we can't append it, because this is a motion to revoke. Is that correct?
I'm being told it is.
Liberal
Maria Minna Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Are you saying it's a motion to revoke the previous motion?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen
That's right, so it implies that nothing is appended. It would have to be a brand new motion.
I'm clear on the advice the clerk is giving me.
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
If it's in Mr. Komarnicki's interest, I would be prepared, after this motion has passed, to bring forward another motion suggesting the other committee reports be appended to our report. They would be included with our report, but appended--noted separately--so that people could see what was evidence here, and then what was evidence at other committees.
I think that was the nature of what Mr. Martin wanted in the first place.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
It doesn't matter. You can't have contrary motions.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen
Okay, I could explain why we can't append this one.
Because Mr. Lessard's motion changes an earlier motion, if we now append it, it changes the actual intent of the motion. What we could do is...there are two options, if there is some agreement. First of all, Mr. Lessard could, with unanimous consent, withdraw this motion, and you could introduce a new one that hopefully you would all agree on; if not, we could vote on it. You need unanimous consent to withdraw it if he wishes to do so. If he doesn't, then we would have to vote on it and then, depending on that result, have a brand new motion.
Those are the options.
Mr. Lessard, what are your thoughts?
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
Madam Chair, we are putting the cart before the horse, in a way. I think the first step is to pass my motion. As you said, it disposes of the motion passed on November 2 in a different manner.
If we believe there is a need to append other reports to our own, we can assess that at the end. For the time being, it's important, in order for our writers to have clear instructions, that we not incorporate these other reports into our own. In order to make that happen, the motion passed on November 2 must be rescinded.
Once that has been done, we can go back to dealing with the work associated with drafting the report, without incorporating the other reports. At the end, once we have evaluated our work as a whole, as well as our conclusions, we can determine whether or not it would be relevant to append the other reports.
It is possible that we may decide to support that idea, but we can determine the relevance of doing that when the time comes. For now, the important thing is to pass my motion. That will give very clear instructions to our writers and will not compromise our ability to append the other reports, if we feel it is necessary subsequently.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen
All right.
Mr. Lessard is not going to be withdrawing his motion, and therefore we will be voting on it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen
All right.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
The motion passes.
Go ahead, Mr. Savage.
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
May I ask for unanimous consent, then, to bring forward a motion that the other reports from other committees on the long-form census be appended to the back of this report? We still have to work out the language.
