Industry Committee on June 15th, 2011

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

It's because it will be more reflective of the numbers on the main committee in terms of majority and other parties. It's a good way to discuss things and make sure that when we bring them forward they are actually going to be ratified by the main committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

For those who haven't been on this committee, by the way, when we get into issues like this, I allow some crosstalk for clarification, as long as it stays reasonable.

Go ahead, Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chair, congratulations, by the way. I look forward to working with you.

This is a bit problematic. We're providing for the parliamentary secretary, which is understandable, and an additional Conservative member as well. I'm the critic for industry, and Mr. Masse is the vice-chair. If we're enlarging the subcommittee, it would make sense to also have the opposition critic. That would still be in keeping with the numbers in the House and would still allow for what Mr. Lake is suggesting. But if the idea is to have a larger subcommittee, as opposed to a subcommittee that's stripped back, it makes sense to have both the parliamentary secretary and the opposition critic.

I understand that Mr. Lake wants to ensure that we're not spending a lot of time at the committee working through the agenda. I certainly agree with that objective; I think we all would on this side. But we need a balanced subcommittee to ensure that.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

As a point of reference, most of our calendar last time was made up of the entire committee. I think we had one meeting of the subcommittee, but we found it was more efficient to plot our work at the main committee, since we'd often go to the subcommittee and then have to readjust at the main committee anyway.

Mr. Lake, did I see your hand?

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

If we're actually going to accomplish anything as a subcommittee, it makes sense for us to have the same majority as on the committee and in the House. Otherwise, there's no point in having a subcommittee.

As Mr. Sweet mentioned, we didn't actually use the subcommittee last time, because it was a pointless exercise. We were going to come back to the committee and hash out the same battles. But this time it's a little bit of a different circumstance. I think the subcommittee should be able to actually get things done, as long as it's reflective of what we see in the committee. If we wind up going into a three-and-three situation, I don't see it being productive. There is really no point in having a subcommittee at that point.

Surely, as I would have to communicate with a larger number of members on our side who are not going to be in that subcommittee meeting, you could do the same thing. Obviously the Liberals don't have the same problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Next is Mr. Julian, and then Mr. Regan.

Did you have another comment?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Yes, I just wanted to respond.

The idea is to streamline the agenda. To do that at the subcommittee, you need to have the representation that is there. If we end up with what's being proposed, we could end up spending more time at the committee level working through an agenda that was first discussed at the subcommittee.

I'm well aware of the traditions of this committee. Its members work very effectively together, and it tends to be non-partisan. What I'm suggesting is a non-partisan approach on the agenda to streamline the work that we do as a committee when we get together.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Regan.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Chairman, it's been my experience that, given the opportunity, members of Parliament will speak, and if you have five rather than three, they'll speak more as a result. Really, the purpose of this is to see if we can agree at a steering committee on where you go with things. It isn't, I don't think, to be voting, because obviously the votes can take place here.

A steering committee is not about a majority or whatever; it's about discussion and trying to agree if you can. I frankly don't see what the point is of having it larger.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Regan.

Madam Gallant.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I haven't sat on this committee in quite a while, but I have sat on other steering committees. My experience was that from time to time there would be a vote in the steering committee as to which order of topics would be presented to the rest of the committee. So I would support Mr. Lake's suggestion that the steering committee reflect the numbers in the House as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you.

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

If that's the case, then there needs to be an additional New Democrat seat added, because you have seven Conservatives on this committee, with three being on the steering committee, and then four New Democrats, with only one. So using that logic, we would have to increase the steering committee by one.

Perhaps the one thing that gives me concern is that with three members of the Conservative Party--not that we've had a problem in the past--they could meet unilaterally, without the other members, and pass...because they have the clear ability to do so, even without any members of the opposition being available. That concerns me. So maybe one of the vice-chairs should be present for quorum.

We've had a good balance on this committee. I've been here for eight or nine years, and it has been pretty effective. But at the same time, if we set this type of example that's being suggested by the parliamentary secretary and by Ms. Gallant, if it's going to represent the House, then it has to be fixed. We can't have the fact that there are seven Conservative members with three on that committee versus only one New Democrat when there are four of us represented on committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I think Mr. Masse is absolutely right. I'm not a senior ranking member the way Mr. Masse is, but the traditions of this committee have been much different from the structure for the public accounts committee, for example, or the finance committee. It's a different structure. There is much more cooperation and there tends to be a working together on files. As a result, it just makes sense to have a structure that responds in part to what Mr. Lake is suggesting, but also responds in part to the concerns we're raising on this side.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Seeing no other discussion, we'll vote.

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I would like Mr. Lake to respond to the fact that the official opposition is under-represented on the steering committee, as submitted, given the fact that his own members have indicated that the preference would be more reflective of the House.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I'll respond to that. The rationale is that the minimum number of members we can have on the steering committee--because the steering committee is just to provide suggestions as to where the committee can go--and still fulfill two principal obligations of the committee, which I would see as having every party represented and having the majority of the committee represent the majority situation we have in the House.... The minimum number we can have is five: one member from each of the NDP and the Liberals and three members from the Conservative Party.

If we want to try to reflect the exact numbers in the House, we would wind up having our whole committee meet as a subcommittee. If that's what we prefer to do, certainly we can, and not have a subcommittee, if that's what we decide. It may be that, if it's like it was last time, the subcommittee won't meet anyway. But remember: nothing the subcommittee decides to do is binding.

The meetings of the subcommittee, should we decide to have them, would be held in a spirit of goodwill and cooperation. That's the whole point of a steering committee in the first place.

So to have each party represented, to have the majority of the members Conservatives so that we can actually move forward, have a point to having the meeting, make decisions that are going to be reflective of having a pretty good chance of passing once we bring them to the main committee to have them ratified, and to minimize the number of members, five is the number that works.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

I would like to move what I hope would be a friendly amendment: that we add at the end of the sentence Mr. Lake has proposed “and a member of the official opposition”. I'll speak to that now, Mr. Chair.

The reality is that the tradition in all committees is that the subcommittees tend to work on consensus basis. That's just the way to approach these kinds of issues. Certainly there's no problem with adding a member or two, as long as it's balanced. That's what we're proposing--a balanced approach that allows for that consensus at the subcommittee level and frees up committee time. In no committee I have been part of--and I've been on the transport, international trade, and social development committees--has there been partisanship at the subcommittee level. The agenda is set up, and it's in the interest of the committee itself, but particularly here with industry.

This committee has a tradition of non-partisanship that makes it one of the most respected committees in the House of Commons. That has been the tradition of the industry committee. It has that representation right across the country. So this is a different kettle of fish from most other committees, in which sometimes, as you know, Mr. Chair, there's partisan wrangling. It doesn't happen here, and I think as we start fresh it would make a lot of sense to have that kind of consensus and continue that tradition.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Ms. Gallant.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Is there really such a thing as a friendly amendment, or do we vote on all amendments?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I believe that dealing with this right now is germane to the business of Mr. Julian moving an amendment. Then we'll go to discussion on the amendment and then the main motion.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.