Evidence of meeting #2 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Maurizio Bevilacqua Liberal Vaughan, ON
—with the exception of the ones that you have. Is that okay?
Okay, perfect.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
This is the first one.
Just for the record, I'm prepared to say that the other opposition member would be the NDP member, given the configuration of the chair and vice-chair, because it's Liberal and Bloc.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
Okay, we'll go to Mr. Carrier, and I would imagine we could vote on that particular one and move along to the other four.
Mr. Carrier, Madame Faille, then Mr. Telegdi.
3:45 p.m.
Bloc
Robert Carrier Bloc Alfred-Pellan, QC
Mr. Batters mentioned the Standing Committee on Transport and the fact that the parliamentary secretary was a member of the steering committee and that this was not a problem. I have served on that committee. Policy direction is much more important to this committee and to most other committees than it is to the transport committee, which tends to focus more on technical considerations. It's important for us to know what the government is planning in the coming days in terms of a technical agenda.
The Bloc Québécois fails to see the point of making the parliamentary secretary a de fact member of the steering committee where he can influence important decisions.
3:45 p.m.
Bloc
Meili Faille Bloc Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
Thank you. I have been a member of the committee since 2004. In the past, when the department had concerns about certain issues that it wished to deal with on a priority basis, it could send a letter setting out the most important viewpoints. The steering committee would subsequently take note of the letters and set priorities, if it deemed that appropriate.
I fail to see the relevance of having the parliamentary secretary on the steering committee. However, if the department wants to share with us its priorities, then the minister can request an appearance before us.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
Thank you, Madame Faille.
Mr. Telegdi, and then we will vote on this particular amendment.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON
In 1998, when I was parliamentary secretary, I really wanted to sit on the steering committee, and Mr. Leon Benoit made an impassioned speech from this side—we were over on that side—as to why it shouldn't happen. I have seen great cooperation between some parliamentary secretaries and committee chairs in moving committee business forward. That was in a Liberal majority--I think it was fisheries with George Baker, and the parliamentary secretary was Wayne Easter.
But in practical terms it might be useful, and I will tell you why. The way it's going to operate is that Mr. Batters is going to come to the meeting. We might come to a consensus at the meeting, but when it arrives at this committee, that consensus could be gone.
So in terms of trying to speed up the workload, in this case it might make some sense to have the PS on it. I understand some of the arguments against it, but we've got an awful lot to get done, and I think our time is relatively short. If we want to maximize the output, then it might be worthwhile trying it and seeing how it goes, seeing if it actually increases our ability to get through things speedily.
The way it goes right now, folks, let's not kid ourselves; this is not the last Parliament, where the Liberals were sitting over there, and we all had our individual positions. This is a Parliament where what happens, what comes down from Mr. Komarnicki, is the way that side of the table is going to go.
So unless you want to do one two-step versus “might as well go right to it”, I think it might be beneficial. We have a lot of work to do and a short time in which to do it. I'd like to get as much done as possible.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
Excellent point.
We've all heard the discussion on Mr. Komarnicki's amendment. Are we ready for the question? I think we are.
(Amendment agreed to)
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
Congratulations, Mr. Komarnicki.
Does anyone have any amendments to witness expenses? No.
Do we need a motion to pass that? No.
Reduced quorum; any amendments to reduced quorum?
Mr. Komarnicki.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
It now reads:
That the Chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence and to have that evidence printed when a quorum is not present, provided that at least three members are present, including one member of the opposition.
And I would want to add, after “opposition”, the phrase “and one member of the government”.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON
Mr. Chair, I'm having a little difficulty with the government member having to be present. I say that because of the playbook that came out as to how to strike committees, coming from the government. I don't want to give the government the opportunity to boycott the meeting and kill any possibility of us having hearings.
Therefore, I'm not going to support that amendment.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
Mr. Chair, I appreciate the intervention of my colleague Mr. Telegdi. In a tit-for-tat world, it would also mean that the opposition could therefore not all show up, en masse, with a witness and leave three government members sitting here unable to hear testimony.
The chair, I guess we could assume, is going to be here as a government member, but the chair, as we all know, doesn't have to be a government member, as well. I know we're talking about reduced quorum. We're not going to be doing anything in that committee meeting that's dilatory or whatever the case may be, we're simply trying to level the playing field.
If we can't add a government member, then maybe I would suppose--this is what I've seen work in other committees--that we could simply remove the line that says there has to be an opposition member, and simply have a chair and three members of the committee to receive the testimony, and get on with the business of the committee.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, I will call the question.
All in favour of the amendment, please raise your hand.
(Amendment negatived)
On the distribution of documents--
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
One more point. It seems to me that in line with what Mr. Calkins was saying, it would be appropriate for me to move an amendment to delete the words “including one member of the opposition” from that motion, and I would so move.