Evidence of meeting #1 for Public Accounts in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Maybe some would suggest the next one is the most important of all motions:
That the Clerk of the Committee be authorized to make the necessary arrangements to provide working meals for the Committee and its subcommittees.
We need someone to move that motion.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
The next motion is:
That, if requested, reasonable travel, accommodation and living expenses be reimbursed to witnesses, not exceeding two (2) representatives per organization; and that, in exceptional circumstances, payment for more representatives be made at the discretion of the Chair.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
The next motion is:
That, unless otherwise ordered, each Committee member be allowed to be accompanied by one (1) staff person at an in camera meeting and that, in addition, each party may have in attendance one (1) representative.
Monsieur Lefebvre moves that.
(Motion agreed to)
The next motion is:
That one (1) copy of the transcript of each in camera meeting be kept in the Committee Clerk's office for consultation by members of the Committee.
Monsieur Godin moves that.
(Motion agreed to)
There is a motion regarding notices of motions. It is:
That forty-eight (48) hours' notice be required for any substantive motion to be considered by the Committee, unless the substantive motion relates directly to business then under consideration; and that the notice of motion be filed with the Clerk of the Committee and distributed to members in both official languages before consideration is given.
Madam Shanahan moves that.
(Motion agreed to)
The next motion is with regard to the follow-up process.
Mrs. Mendès.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC
Mr. Chair, before we go to the follow-up process, could we do the subcommittee on agenda and procedure?
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC
I move:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be established and be composed of the Chair, the two Vice-Chairs, and one Government Member.
9:40 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Just to be clear on that, that leaves us with the chair and the two vice-chairs. That gives us reps from all three, and then you're saying one more government member.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
9:40 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I went through a rather prolonged discussion at PROC, and I don't want to have it here if I can avoid it.
It's the issue of how we make decisions at the steering committee. On PROC, it can run hot and cold. I haven't been on that as long, but the whole time I've been on this committee, we've only ever operated on consensus.
Again, I'm not going to make another big thing about it, but I do hope that we stay with the idea of consensus for the simple reason that the steering committee is meant to make it easier for us, rather than all of us dealing with the details of who comes first, and how long, and non-partisan stuff like that—and there is no power.
The steering committee has no power to do anything. It can only make recommendations. Under the model that's been followed for the whole time I've been on—and I've been on there since I got here in 2004 and I've been on this committee that long—if we have a unanimous agreement, if all the party representatives are comfortable with a recommendation, then it comes to the committee as a recommendation of the steering committee with unanimous support. Then it's up to the committee and a vote of the committee to decide yes or no.
If there's disagreement, then we stop discussing and we send the whole thing straight to the committee. The committee decides because the steering committee is meant to be a helpful tool, not a resting place of politics to get into voting and creating the dynamics that happens there.
I'm not going to get into motions and that. We've not had a problem here. I don't want to create one where there hasn't been one. But, Chair, I'm really hoping—and it would make your life a lot easier because then you're not dealing with political squabbles at the steering committee that reflect what we do here—that as soon as we get into a partisan issue where it looks like there's not going to be agreement, we just drop it and it goes directly to the committee, and we move on to the next item.
I hope that's the way we continue. It has worked very well for us. This is the most important committee for oversight in terms of holding the government of the day to account. It's really important that, as much as possible, we try to be non-partisan.
I'm as partisan as anybody in this place, but on this committee, the successful parliamentarian is the one that can be the least partisan as we focus on accountability because that's what we're about.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Mr. Christopherson, to you as the chair of the last committee, there was no subcommittee in the last Parliament of this committee. Is that correct?
9:40 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Yes, that's true too. Towards the end the government got rid of it completely because they didn't like the way the politics was going.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
9:40 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
No, there was in the beginning. The government of the day didn't like the way it was going so they killed it, and we, the NDP and the Liberals, fought like hell for three years to get it back but we didn't. I'm glad to see that we're now going to do that.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Okay, so that's good. We have a motion.
Does anyone else wish to speak to that motion?
Madame Mendès.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC
To Mr. Christopherson's remarks, I agree with most of what you said.
It's not that I disagree with the subcommittee's tone and principle. We want there to be another member of the government because we will be the ones held accountable. The idea is not at all to play politics, but simply to give us the presence that justifies our numbers. Our intention is not to divide the committee. It's just a matter of the committee's direction. I agree that, should the situation become too political, we would bring the issue back to the whole committee, where it will be debated. The issue will not be debated in the subcommittee.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be established and be composed of the Chair, the two Vice-Chairs, and one Government Member.
9:45 a.m.
NDP
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Are we ready for the question?
(Motion agreed to)
Thank you, Madame Mendès.
We move now to the follow-up process:
That the Committee Chair and staff be authorized to:
review Government responses to recommendations made by the Committee during the 42nd Parliament;
acknowledge by letter, on the Committee's behalf, receipt of Government responses where they respond clearly and completely to recommendations or request further information or clarification, as required;
monitor the implementation of Government commitments made in response to Committee recommendations, and request further information as required; and
report to the Committee on these activities in a timely fashion.
It's moved by Mr. Harvey.
To the motion, Mr. Christopherson.
