Evidence of meeting #1 for National Defence in the 40th 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.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Mr. Chair, as the mover of the amendment, may I lead off the discussion?
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Thank you.
First of all, as I mentioned, it conforms to page 847 of Marleau-Montpetit. The other aspect is that the parliamentary secretary was a non-voting member of the subcommittee last time. In point of fact, we have four opposition members, one from each party, as voting members of the subcommittee. They are all partisan members. The non-partisan member, of course, is the chair. It would make it fair in terms of having one voting member from each of the parties, under the chairmanship, obviously, of the non-partisan chair. It does conform to Marleau-Montpetit.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
I have a speaking request.
We'll have Mr. Bachand and then Ms. Black.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Chair, with all due respect for Mr. Hawn, a person I like a great deal, I must object.
May I remind the Conservative Party that when it was in opposition, it was opposed to the idea of the parliamentary secretary serving on the national defence committee. There was some discussion at the time and the Liberal Party, which formed a majority government then, had naturally decided otherwise. Today, not only does the parliamentary secretary sit on the committee, but they would also like him to sit on the steering committee. That's going a little too far.
We must never forget that Mr. Hawn represents the eyes and ears of the Minister of National Defence at the table. Committee should not be overly politicized. Moreover, Marleau and Montpetit comment many times on the importance of committees and on how they should be a forum as much as possible for open, non-partisan debate.
This proposed nomination is another step in favour of partisanship. Therefore, the Bloc Québécois intends to oppose this motion.
NDP
Dawn Black NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC
I'm also opposed, Mr. Chair, for the reasons my colleague Mr. Bachand mentioned, but also because parliamentary committees are meant to be the creatures of Parliament, of the House of Commons. They're not meant to be an avenue for government to have the kind of influence it has in other bodies of Parliament. So in our committees you, as the chairperson--and not the parliamentary secretary--are meant to be the conduit to your government. Every commission that's been held on parliamentary reform, every commission that has been held in consultation with parliamentary experts and Canadians at large has in fact recommended against parliamentary secretaries even sitting on committees.
I think we have already offered an olive branch by virtue of the fact that parliamentary secretaries sit on committees, but I think the subcommittee on procedure and House affairs should be as it was the last time, with a representative of each party.
And just to correct what Mr. Hawn said, there are not four opposition parties here, there are three.
Conservative
February 4th, 2009 / 3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Lévis—Bellechasse, QC
If I may, Mr. Chair, I'd like to say something.
While I'm eager to hear what the Official Opposition has to say about this, I have to point out that I once chaired a subcommittee and in my estimation, having a parliamentary secretary as a member is an added bonus, precisely for the reasons you gave. Even though the parliamentary secretary is only one person, when a vote is taken—the subcommittee already operates by consensus— he can convey the government's perspective on issues and steer the discussion in certain directions. I believe his presence helps the committee to do a better job and to organize its work. By knowing what the government is planning, MPs can work more effectively. On a more personal note, I have to say that it makes the Chair's job easier, because he must always remain somewhat reserved.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
Mr. Chair, I truly do have confidence in you. You will do an amazing job, as suggested. I think a balance has been achieved. In any event, the members of this committee have always worked very well and the parliamentary secretary will always be free to express his opinion. Besides, we'll always have the option of deciding differently from the steering committee and of moving amendments, if necessary, especially when it comes to the studies that we want to carry out. I don't think we want to upset this balance. Since the four parties are represented on the steering committee, I don't think we need to add anything else. We're ready to vote.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
I have Ms. Gallant, and then I'll let Mr. Hawn wrap up, and then we'll move on.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like some clarification but would like to start off by clarifying for Ms. Black that it is not something new that we have a parliamentary secretary sitting on this standing committee, so really it's not an olive branch. As a matter of fact, I recall when Mr. Martin was parliamentary secretary to defence, he sat on this committee as well, so it's not something out of the norm that we've acquiesced to.
I just want to verify something, having never sat on the steering committee. Does the chairman of this committee not have a vote when things are discussed on the steering committee?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
The steering committee historically has resolved issues by consensus, and I don't recall if I have had a vote since I've been chair. At the steering committee we've usually been able to come to consensus. So we don't actually work it that way, but I believe I would have a vote if it came to that.
Mr. Hawn.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
I obviously know how the vote's going to go. May I suggest we do the same we did last time? The parliamentary secretary sits on the steering committee as an adviser who can bring some guidance to the committee when we're discussing issues on which what's going on in the department might have some influence. We did that last time. That seemed to work. He would sit as a non-voting member on the steering committee. That obviously is subject to the vote we're going to take, and we know how that's going to go.
Liberal
Keith Martin Liberal Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
This is a point of correction. When I was parliamentary secretary for defence I did not sit on the steering committee. The parliamentary secretary is really an extension of the government, so it wasn't appropriate, respecting the independence of the committee, for a parliamentary secretary, an arm of the government, to influence the core committee that decided the business of the committee in many ways. For that reason, I was excluded from being there.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
We'll vote on the amendment that the parliamentary secretary be added to the subcommittee on agenda and procedure.
(Amendment negatived)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
I'm going to ask for a vote on the motion as it sits, because of this discussion.
The issue I have is that anybody on this committee can come to a subcommittee meeting. Is everybody of that understanding?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
Anybody who wants to can come, but only the members can make the decisions. If I'm wrong, please indicate that.
Claude, you look puzzled. Am I wrong there?
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Are you saying that any member is free to attend meetings of the subcommittee?
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
I do not believe so. We have already discussed the matter of allowing our assistants to attend subcommittee meetings along with us and we agreed to that. As far as I know, no other MPs have ever participated.
Mr. Hawn says that he will not be entitled to vote, but he will be there in the room, so it's boils down to the same thing. It's not what I wanted to see.
The aim of the subcommittee is to steer the work of the main committee. I want to stress that the main committee, not the subcommittee, always has the final say. The subcommittee explores different avenues and has the power to make recommendations. If everyone is allowed to attend subcommittee meetings, even though they can't vote, then it's really no longer a subcommittee.