Evidence of meeting #2 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities 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.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Gagan Sikand Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
In that case, can I retract that? I thought it would only be on the amendment.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Good. Right from the beginning, we all wanted the same thing, I believe, and we're all trying to work together in a non-partisan way to move this agenda forward. I'd like us to end all the discussion.
Does anybody have some more constructive thoughts to add?
Mr. Hardie or Mr. Fraser, and then we're going to move forward.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
It would appear that what lies behind the objection to that particular paragraph is to some it would seem to give the chair a lot of power. I don't think that was the intention.
I think the chair really wants to be in a position to enable the resources and the focus and the scheduling in order to do what the committee would like to do.
We could certainly go forward on that understanding without getting into wordsmithing that could burn up an awful lot of time.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
I think Mr. Hardie's approach is good, considering what the interests are here. I don't think there is a lot of separation on what we're trying to achieve.
I think running it through the chair is for the purpose of efficiency so that we don't have to get caught up in every one of these meetings every time we want to schedule something.
I think there's an amendment on the table, but if it were withdrawn, I'd be open to language that indicates the chair would propose appropriate resources, plans, and schedules to accomplish the aforementioned to be brought back to the committee.
That's my understanding of what the table is trying to achieve here. Nobody's trying to put the power in the central seat of the chairperson.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I think in essence the problem is that Mr. Hardie is combining substantively what we think we'd like to discuss with how we're going to govern our affairs. I think that's why it's not appropriate to put that last clause in.
A lot of the difficulties that we're facing in this committee are simply due to the fact that the vast majority of us are brand new to the House and to committees. Those who have been here before simply trust that we know what the processes are and always have been.
I would suggest that we stick with voting on my amendment to remove that clause, on the understanding that at some point in the discussion, we simply reiterate a common understanding of how parliamentary committees work. I am simply assuming that given the way parliamentary committees always work, it's not necessary to put it in, and it's probably varying from the way parliamentary committees have historically worked.
Historically the committee itself has decided on its priorities. We will often quibble on the number of days, because different people have different priorities. They may want more days for their study, or they may argue that it would cut out two witnesses who they feel are important.
The discussion about how many days are assigned actually is an important part of what the committee talks about. In the end, on what we agree to, usually the clerk works with the chair to make sure that in fact the schedule is set forth. The clerk is directed to start making the phone calls to the witnesses. That's generally the way the committee works. It isn't really necessary to sit here and....
We agreed in our first meeting on all the routine motions and the procedures and so forth. Those of us who have been here before just understand that committees always work in this way.
I would suggest that we remove this clause, and then at some point, either at the end of this meeting or at the next meeting, simply talk about how parliamentary committees generally proceed. We can, of course, pick our own rules, but if we don't think we need to reinvent the wheel and operate totally differently from other parliamentary committees, we could just have somebody—possibly the chair or the clerk—lay out how committees generally operate.
I think that's why you're seeing that two of us who have been here a while are having trouble with adding that into a substantive motion on what we're going to discuss. Then I think we can just have a more friendly discussion on our understanding of how committees proceed and who does what and so forth.
That would be my suggestion, and that's why we're suggesting that it be removed.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
We could spend a lot of time doing precisely that. I think if there is a sense of urgency to move forward on substantive issues that require our attention and the attention of the government, it would be no great mischief—to quote a book—to basically take it on good faith that the chair's job here is to facilitate the will of the committee. A committee votes. The committee will vote, and can have a final say as to what goes forward.
We're masters of our own fate here, as the member opposite said. We can set rules. Let's set them. Let's get going. Let's move forward.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
The clerk, in his years of experience, has suggested one way to resolve the issue. We might want to separate the motion and vote on the motion minus the second part, which talks about the chair in consultation.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
I know what we usually do, but we have to deal with the amendment first. The clerk was suggesting that this might be a way of resolving it.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
You need to seek unanimous consent to withdraw your amendment.
All those in favour of Ms. Duncan withdrawing her amendment—
4:15 p.m.
NDP
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Well, the clerk has suggested that Mr. Hardie might want to separate the two.
I think it will get terribly complicated. We have to start, so....
4:15 p.m.
NDP
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Okay. Are you asking the committee for permission to withdraw your amendment?
4:15 p.m.
NDP
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Well, I'm not comfortable, then, with what we're going to do.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
You have a choice. You can put your hand up and you can vote whichever way you choose when the appropriate time comes.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Then is he going to amend his thing and divide it into parts 1 and 2?