Evidence of meeting #1 for Natural Resources in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was know.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:05 a.m.
The Clerk
Mr. Tonks has nominated Mr. Cullen. Are there any further nominations?
Seeing no further nominations, I declare Mr. Cullen duly elected second vice-chair.
Congratulations.
I now invite your chair, Mr. Benoit, to take his place as chair of the committee.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
The other thing on our agenda is the routine motions. I think you all know that in the House on March 3 there was a motion passed that related to routine motions of committees. It said:
That, for all standing committees, routine motions in effect at the time of prorogation of the previous session be deemed to have been adopted in the current session, provided that committees be empowered to alter or rescind such motions as they deem appropriate.
That is the direction that was agreed to, I believe, by the various parties. I would suggest that we deal with routine motions in that way by approving the routine motions that were in place last time, but it is of course up to this committee.
Mr. Anderson.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Do you want a motion to do that? How do you want to handle it?
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Yes, just to be sure. This needs to be appropriately worded, but I have a motion that we accept the motion of the House of Commons to adopt the routine motions in place at the time of prorogation.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
It's actually an order of the House, I believe. That's what it is.
Do you all understand the motion?
Mr. Cullen, and then Mr. Tonks.
9:10 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I don't know, Chair, if it's appropriate now to bring it up as we're doing routine motions, but last time as the committee commenced we discussed the notion of having a subcommittee in order to set the agenda and then bring that proposed agenda back to the committee as a whole for approval.
I don't know if this is the moment to bring up that topic again, but I would like to. I'm under your direction in terms of whether the motion you just proposed would preclude that later on, or if this is the appropriate time to do it. I'm in your hands. But I'd like the conversation to be held so that we can decide whether we want to have a subcommittee of this committee.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
This is something the committee can talk about again. We did that before.
This is an order of the House saying that we would adopt the same procedures as last time, the same rules as last time. It would be the time to talk about it. We have a motion on the floor saying that we adopt the rules we had in place before prorogation. That's what we're discussing before we vote on this.
9:10 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Just for the sake of procedure, then, do I need to move...? I mean, I'm obviously fine with adopting the previous rules. The reason I bring up the subcommittee is that there was some to-and-fro during the course of the last session around the agenda. I'm trying to offer up a suggestion that will alleviate those tensions.
I think a subcommittee might do that, so do I have to move an amendment to the motion? I'm not sure of the procedure available to me, but whatever it is, I'd like to have the discussion within the committee to test the will of the government in particular. I'm not sure what the will is of my colleagues in opposition, but I sincerely feel that it's a procedure that would allow us a little bit more expediency in setting out the agenda and a little bit better communication among all the parties.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We certainly can discuss this when we have our meeting on future business of the committee. There's nothing that precludes that. It can happen at any time. It's up to the committee.
9:10 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Can I simply test the will of my colleagues, then, Chair, to know if the discussion is there?
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
9:10 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I know, but I guess what I'm questioning is whether things have changed. That was a number of months ago. If people have changed their opinions, I'd like to know. I haven't had any conversations with David and only very cursory ones with my colleagues from the Liberals and the Bloc.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Cullen, for that reason, could I suggest that you talk to some others on the committee about it and bring it back when we discuss future business at the committee? Would you like to do that?
9:10 a.m.
NDP
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Alan Tonks Liberal York South—Weston, ON
In the routine motions that are part of the excellent document that was sent out, there was one with perhaps a contradiction in terms, on “working meals”. I'm not interested in the working meals part, but the motion that deals with travel.
From the last meeting, I think we had a discussion in linking whatever our agenda would be to travel for the committee, to try to get a handle on that in advance, whether we went up to Chalk River or over to Fort McMurray or wherever. Pursuant to what has been raised on the steering committee, when we are going to be discussing our agenda I wonder if we could just make sure that we look at our travel schedule, along with that agenda development. We left that out last term.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
It logically fits in, Mr. Tonks. I agree. When we're talking about future business of the committee, I think that fits in. That's part of what we discuss.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
