Evidence of meeting #2 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Bruce Stanton Conservative Simcoe North, ON
The Board of Internal Economy sets out guidelines for a purpose. I think it's incumbent on us to try to make sure that we work within those guidelines.
Look, we're responsible for the costs that are incurred through the course of our deliberations as a committee. We're providing discretion. I can understand that. There needs to be flexibility. But I think we also....
Whether this has been a problem on this committee or not, I think we have to be of a mind that whatever we decide here on routine motions--as we've seen by our own example here this morning--in subsequent sessions, with subsequent members and chairs on this committee, these routine motions will come forward for consideration in the future as well.
What we're trying to do here is fine-tune and nurture these routine motions along to aid the course of committee work here in Parliament, for this committee and others. I don't see any harm at all in making sure that we tighten up some of these areas to ensure that we're keeping the costs of our committee work at least within the guidelines set out by the Board of Internal Economy.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
As the chair, I can offer only advice, but it seems to me that if the government wants to pass this motion, it can get the two changes if it amends it to say “at the discretion of the chair”. I think it's up to the government to decide whether they want all three and lose a vote, or want two and win a vote.
Conservative
Bruce Stanton Conservative Simcoe North, ON
Well, let's go for two and win a vote.
That's okay with you guys?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Is that fair for me to say? I think there's acceptance of “established by the Board of Internal Economy” and there's acceptance of “childcare expenses”, but members....
My understanding is that we'd take the new motion, and at the end they would say, “and that, in exceptional circumstances payment for more representatives be made at the discretion of the chair”.
I need a mover for the amendment, and it cannot be me.
Mr. McTeague.
Liberal
Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
I'll move that, Chair. However, I have a question on that.
If two out of three are passed here, does that mean they get an extra badge on that side for the numbers they do pass?
Your sleeve is going to be pretty long. You'll have to get the measure of the other parliamentary secretary's--
November 15th, 2007 / 10:15 a.m.
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Okay, we'll move forward.
We have a new one, I believe, “Priority of Legislation”.
This is a new one, Mr. Carrie?
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Absolutely. To explain, this has not been a problem with our committee at all. It's just to formalize that if legislation comes forward, whether it's a government bill or private member's bill, we do deal with the legislation first, as opposed to any study over non-legislative business.
Liberal
Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
Well, we will have a problem with this. It basically allows government priority for legislation, and that may not necessarily be in the best interests of the committee, whether it's one that's led by either side. I can see that the tables may be reversed. We never know. If we or another party form the government, this may not be quite as advantageous.
Probably from a purely legislative perspective, I believe this would not be in the interest of the committee or the parties, depending on where they sit in this committee on either side of the chair. So we would certainly oppose this.
Conservative
Bloc
Paule Brunelle Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
We have a principle here that stipulates that the committee is master of its own agenda. This is an important principle and it is the reason why the steering committee sets out the agenda, the issues to be dealt with, etc. We disagree with this provision because it would allow the government to interfere with the committee's work on these bills. In our opinion, it is really unacceptable.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
I hear what you're saying, but the idea is if there's any private member's bill that would be brought forward, that would take priority as well. The idea here is if there are things brought through from a legislative standpoint, they are more important than studies.
That would be my opinion and my position, and I stand by that.
Conservative
Bruce Stanton Conservative Simcoe North, ON
Mr. Chair, again, in my short time here in the House and working in committee and in Parliament, in my view, there's nothing more important than bills that are referred to standing committees that come from the House. There is no doubt that committees do important work, important studies, that result in excellent recommendations for consideration by the government of the day.
I think we have to be reminded that these rules, these new suggestions, work to serve all parties of the House, as they do with private members' business and government bills. But the fact of the matter is, for Parliament to work and to continue to do good work on behalf of all Canadians, we have a responsibility to do our best to address legislation that the House has passed on second reading and sent to committee. There should be no reason why the work or studies that we may have in front of us cannot be set aside momentarily while those bills are addressed.
In fact, when I look back on some of the work by committee in reviewing and studying some of these bills, on average, the length of time that's taken for those in committee is certainly far less than some of the work we do on more comprehensive reports.
This is a critical new proposal that will aid the work of Parliament, that will certainly not be as advantageous to those who would choose to obstruct and delay, perhaps for political reasons even, I might suggest. But when it's all said and done, our work in the standing committees of the House is to make sure we give proper vetting of those issues that the House has in fact passed.
So I strongly support this direction. I think it's a direction that all committees should be mindful of, and hopefully will also be adopting, as well as this one.
Conservative
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
I did want to continue on with Mr. Stanton, because it is a question of understanding. As Mr. McTeague said, regardless of what side, the belief is that Parliament's number one priority is for legislation for the people of Canada. And even in the Senate, they were doing a study on internal trade, but I think they put that aside four times because there was important legislation that had to be dealt with for the Canadian people.
This is a good rule. It means that we can do the work that Canadians expect us to do, and do it in a timely manner. So we will be supporting this motion.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Okay. I'll make two comments.
This does refer to private members' bills and to government bills. As Mr. Stanton pointed out, these are bills passed by Parliament. Clearly it has to be Parliament that has to pass the bill at second reading, so the issue is whether we want to put this into effect. Conventionally, most committees have done this in the past, and that's certainly been my experience in my seven years here, but it's whether we want to formalize this. I'm asking members to consider that.
Do we have any more speakers?
Mr. Stanton.