HUMA Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION
Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities
EVIDENCE
CONTENTS
Thursday, February 19, 2004
| ¿ | 0900 |
 |
The Clerk of the Committee |
|
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.) |
|
The Clerk |
|
Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC) |
|
The Clerk |
|
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ) |
|
The Clerk |
|
Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
|
The Clerk |
|
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
|
The Clerk |
|
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
|
The Chair (Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.)) |
|
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| ¿ | 0905 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.) |
|
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, CPC) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Pallister |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Carol Skelton |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
|
The Chair |
| ¿ | 0910 |
|
Mrs. Carol Skelton |
|
Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Peter Adams |
|
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.) |
|
Mr. Peter Adams |
|
Mr. Larry McCormick |
|
Mr. Peter Adams |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Larry McCormick |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Pallister |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.) |
|
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
|
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos |
|
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
|
Mr. Brian Pallister |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Pallister |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North) |
| ¿ | 0915 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Pallister |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Peter Adams |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Carol Skelton |
| ¿ | 0920 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
| ¿ | 0925 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
|
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Larry McCormick |
| ¿ | 0930 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Pallister |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Pallister |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
| ¿ | 0935 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
|
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
|
Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
|
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Larry McCormick |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Larry McCormick |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Larry McCormick |
|
The Chair |
| ¿ | 0940 |
|
Mr. Brian Pallister |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Pallister |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Pallister |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Pallister |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Peter Adams |
|
Mr. Brian Pallister |
|
Mr. Peter Adams |
| ¿ | 0945 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Pallister |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Pallister |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Pallister |
|
The Chair |
| ¿ | 0950 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
|
The Chair |
CANADA
Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities |
|
l |
|
l |
|
EVIDENCE
Thursday, February 19, 2004
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
¿ 
(0900)
[English]
The Clerk of the Committee: Honourable members of the committee, I see a quorum.
Pursuant to Standing Order 106(1), your first order of business is to elect a chair.
[Translation]
Are there any nominations for the position of Chair?
Mr. Bellemare.
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.): I move that Judy Longfield be elected as Chair of the committee.
The Clerk: It is moved by Mr. Bellemare that Ms. Longfield be elected Chair of the committee. Are there any other nominations?
Ms. Neville asks that nominations be closed.
[English]
Madam Longfield is duly elected chair of the committee.
Pursuant to the new Standing Orders, if it's the wish of the committee we could proceed to the election of the vice-chair.
Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC): Madam Chair, I would like to nominate Mr. Pallister.
An hon. member: Hear, hear!
The Clerk: Are there any other nominations?
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ): For the opposition? The first vice-chair? Understood. I thought we did both at the same time.
The Clerk: No, that's alright.
[English]
For vice-chair, opposition, are there any other nominations?
Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I propose the nominations close.
The Clerk: The nominations are closed.
Mr. Pallister is elected opposition vice-chair of the committee.
For the election of government vice-chair we have...
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: I nominate Mr. Bellemare.
The Clerk: It is moved by Ms. Tremblay that Mr. Bellemare be Vice-Chair. Are there any other nominations? I declare Mr. Bellemare elected Government Vice-Chair.
[English]
I would ask Madam Longfield to come and take the chair.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: I have a motion, although I'm not sure when I should move it.
[English]
The Chair (Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.)): There is a section where we can have other business. How about as soon as we do other business you'll be the first on other business?
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Then I'll go ahead and move it now for your consideration. It concerns an important matter and I wouldn't want us to lose quorum.
Given that the Prime Minister has amended the duties of parliamentary secretaries, I think it's important that parliamentary secretaries no longer serve on the committee. They could appear at our invitation, as is the case with the minister. They are now sworn members of the Privy Council and I think it would be best if they no longer sat on the committee. The members of the agriculture committee adopted this motion to exclude parliamentary secretaries from the committee. I don't know if this is the appropriate time to debate this motion.
Madam Clerk, you look surprised, but I urge you to check with your colleague on the agriculture committee who will tell you that such a motion was passed by that committee. Madam was even a member of the agriculture committee that adopted the motion. Since the role of parliamentary secretaries has changed, these persons are no longer ordinary MPs. They are more like junior ministers.
¿ (0905)
[English]
The Chair: I'm going to ask Mr. Adams, who chairs Procedure and House Affairs, whose committee it is to name the members of the committee, if he has some thoughts on this.
Peter.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): It wasn't actually discussed, but if I can think aloud about it, the only change has been the appointments, if that's the right word, to the Privy Council. There are a whole variety of Privy Council members who have been on committees for years, who have been chairs of committees. Charles Caccia is an example. Lorne Nystrom is another example. There are a variety of them. This is now my personal opinion, not the opinion of my committee. So the committee didn't consider this matter.
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, CPC): Is there a motion on the floor?
The Chair: No, we're just having a general discussion.
Mr. Brian Pallister: I'll wait for the motion.
The Chair: I think we've sparked some interest. I suspect we'll keep quorum, because it's something we will discuss. So we can go through the routine motions and then we'll consider yours. We'll have a discussion on that particular one.
In front of you are the routine motions that this committee has been working under for the last many number of years, and I'll just go through them briefly.
The first one is that the committee retain the services of one or more analysts from the Library of Parliament. We have been blessed with exceedingly good folks from the Library of Parliament. That would be the first motion.
The second is that, as established by the Board of Internal Economy and at the discretion of the chair, I can assure you that we will only pay those whose expenses are duly submitted and as approved by the Board of Internal Economy. It's two witnesses for any one organization. And further, it's proposed that the committee be authorized to pay child care expenses for witnesses appearing before the committee.
Also, it is proposed that the steering committee be composed of nine members, including the chair, and the two vice-chairs. This is the one you might want to leave out for a moment, because this one deals specifically with the parliamentary secretaries.
Mrs. Carol Skelton: I would like that left out.
The Chair: That's what I'm saying. We're just going to withdraw that for a moment. That's the one we will discuss.
It is proposed that the reduced quorum just to hold meetings to receive evidence from witnesses...and that from time to time when it's necessary that the clerk be authorized to arrange for working meals.
It is proposed that the clerk circulate to all members of the committee the order in council appointments, and, as always, if there is something that members of the committee want to see before the committee to discuss, we have that ability. We've always had that ability.
Documents will only be distributed if they're translated in both languages. One transcript of all committee meetings held in camera will be produced and kept with the clerk.
It's proposed that members and party researchers be able to participate in in camera meetings.
The schedule is beyond our control. The House leaders have a rotating schedule, and, as you know, every four to six months our times change. We have been slotted into the Tuesday to Thursday morning slot at 9 a.m.
The final one here is that a 48-hour notice be given, unless there is unanimous consent.
Do I have a mover for those? That's excluding the section on the steering committee.
Mr. Eugène Bellemare: On the schedule, is that fixed in stone or can we try--
The Chair: It's pretty much fixed in stone in order to ensure that we have the least number of folks in conflict. If committees were allowed to move from this, then we might find that at any given time all of our members were in another committee. House leaders have tried to put people on committees such that if you're on two committees, those two committees are not meeting at the same time. I know there are times when that doesn't happen, and I know there are a number of committees that are meeting more than their regular slot of time. We can always look around. From time to time there are committees that want to trade their spot, but at the moment this is what has been scheduled for us.
Is there any further discussion on those issues that are in front of us? Can I have a mover, please?
¿ (0910)
Mrs. Carol Skelton: I so move.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I wonder if everyone is aware of the new title, which is quite a tongue twister.
The Chair: Yes. Those of you who might be inclined to put this on any of your correspondence as a member are going to have to use longer paper. You'll probably have to use landscape as opposed to portrait because we are now the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development, and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. So I guess we're creating a little part of history, because each and every one of you here today is a founding member of the new committee.
Mr. Peter Adams: That would be particularly difficult for Larry McCormick because he becomes the MP for--
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.): It depends on which riding you give.
Mr. Peter Adams: Give the old riding.
Mr. Larry McCormick: The old riding: Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington.
Mr. Peter Adams: And a member of the Standing Committee of--
The Chair: The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Larry McCormick: But we left out rural Canada, Madam Chair, and small business.
The Chair: All right, we're moving on.
Mr. Brian Pallister: Moving on to the section on steering committee, if I could just expedite things, I would propose an amendment to that section that says the steering committee be composed, etc., of seven members, that we simply delete those two parliamentary secretaries to the Minister of Human Resources. I'd like to move that and move on with that particular section.
The Chair: Discussion. Ms. Bakopanos.
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Obviously, as I'm concerned directly with that, I think it would be very difficult to exclude the parliamentary secretaries when part of the role of the committee is to work in conjunction--
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: She should not be present while we're discussing this matter.
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos: But I'm a member of the committee.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: No, you are both judge and judged. Your job is what saves you. You shouldn't be here because you're in a conflict of interest position.
[English]
Mr. Brian Pallister: I would like to speak to my motion.
The Chair: First we're going to let Mr. Pallister speak to his motion and then I'm going to rule that everyone who's currently on the committee now is going to be able to speak.
Mr. Brian Pallister: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Just to speak to that, all of us should be interested, and I believe we are, in making sure that the proposed democratic deficit agenda is actually something we pursue. I'm very interested in seeing that happen. One of the key elements of that, one of the key elements outlined in the six-point plan that the new Prime Minister has laid before us, is the independence of committees. I am totally convinced that the presence of members of the Privy Council on the government side sitting on committee would be a total contradiction in terms of that agenda. We would not be making any significant advances in the area of addressing the democratic deficit if we were to allow members who have Privy Council status to sit on committee with us.
This is not meant in any way to be disrespectful, of course, to members of the Privy Council. It simply means that we as members of this committee should be pursuing, independent of outside influence to the greatest degree possible, the agenda that this committee determines is of highest priority for the people of Canada. To tarnish that by way of overt influence, or at least the appearance of overt influence, from Privy Council members would to me be a total contradiction of what the Prime Minister says he's in pursuit of and what I sincerely hope he is in pursuit of.
So I would ask members of committee to consider that and reflect on it in the sense of this amendment I'm proposing now.
The Chair: Do I have others who wish to comment?
Ms. Sloan.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North): Congratulations, Madam Chair.
¿ (0915)
The Chair: Thank you.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: While the member may have outlined some important points for our consideration, I think we also have to remember that parliamentary secretaries in their current roles also retain much of their previous roles. I have been a parliamentary secretary in the past, and it was very important for the parliamentary secretary to ensure that committee members had an open conduit to the minister and were able to communicate directly--members on both sides of the House. There are often very important interventions from the parliamentary secretary to provide information. Members want to seek clarification on certain issues. I think it would be unfortunate if parliamentary secretaries were excluded from committees. Parliamentary secretaries have had a long involvement with committees.
I was a member of the environment committee, and I would suggest if there was ever an independent committee that operated with full exertion of the democratic rights of members, I don't think you could find a finer example than that.
I know that under the new framework the Prime Minister is talking about it being incumbent upon members to exercise the power they have at their disposal, and indeed that they have always had. This doesn't do anything to suggest we shouldn't have the parliamentary secretary on the committee at all.
The Chair: Suzanne, did you have a...
Mr. Brian Pallister: We can wait for them.
The Chair: Peter.
Mr. Peter Adams: Madam Chair, let me speak again to the Privy Council part of this. It merits some thought. I think it's one of the things that has triggered this proposal.
It would be unfortunate if members had to resign from Privy Council in order to serve on committees. As far as the democratic deficit is concerned.... Let me put it to you another way. It's been very interesting to watch, for us and I'm sure for you, how former members of cabinet have adapted to the back benches. But I think that experience should be a frequent and healthy part of our democratic process: that people should move from the cabinet to the back benches and from the back benches back to the cabinet.
I think it would be unfortunate if they had to resign from Privy Council to do it. I've mentioned the point because although Lorne Nystrom is the only one I know, there are opposition members who are members of the Privy Council also.
That's the Privy Council side of it. On the parliamentary secretary side of it—I'd mention, by the way, that Procedure and House Affairs has not discussed it—there are jurisdictions in which the equivalent of our parliamentary secretaries do not sit. It used to be the case, I believe, in Ontario.
When it was the case in Ontario, essentially what happened on the government side was that one of the members effectively became the whip. Really what happened is like the situation—I don't know if the analogy is right—in a football game, when instead of the quarterback being there and calling the plays.... Somebody was essentially coming in who was a member and who was calling the play. That was the way Ontario adapted to it. A parliamentary secretary who took a great interest in the committee was essentially passing messages to the committee.
That's one point. The other is that on the government side either that whip or the parliamentary secretary is the equivalent of the official critics on the other side—in other words, is a person who is particularly briefed. On this side we have members who are on perhaps two, sometimes three committees, and although they're well briefed and they keep up on their committees, they're not as well briefed as the critics are, particularly in the official opposition, on the other side. The parliamentary secretary is essentially the well-informed member on this side.
These, Madam Chair, are the points I would make: the one about the Privy Council, because I think it's a very doubtful argument; and on the other side, that I can see advantages and disadvantages, but I tried to express some of those.
The Chair: Okay. Ms. Skelton.
Mrs. Carol Skelton: I have some comments. I sat on the agriculture committee the other day, where we passed a motion that the parliamentary secretaries not sit on the committee; it's just like putting the minister on.
I take exception to Mr. Adams saying we are not briefed, because we work very hard on our committees and on the whole portfolio.
I really think it's just like having a minister sitting on a committee. A committee is supposed to work independently from the ministers or the parliamentary secretaries.
There's nothing against parliamentary secretaries when we talk about this. The committee is supposed to be a master of its own means, and I think we should be allowed to work that way. We work very seriously on our committees. The members—all of us—work two or three committees, and we should be up on what we're doing.
¿ (0920)
The Chair: Monsieur Castonguay.
[Translation]
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.
I don't presume to have an answer to that important question. Based on my brief experience as a member of this committee, I believe it's more important to consider the people seated here at the table rather than their title as such. I was the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Health and I never considered myself as the whip. I never felt that my job was to tell party members what to do, because personally, I don't believe in that kind of approach. I can assure you that I'm not acting out of any personal interest. In any case, I won't be in the running next time.
In my view, it's far more important for the members here to use their heads and defend a position, and not just their party's position. I doubt if it makes any difference, if committee members are not working toward the attainment of a common goal. If they're here to play games, that is “I'm in favour, and you're opposed”, it doesn't matter much if a parliamentary secretary sits on the committee. Someone else will take on the mantle of whip. I for one am not convinced yet that we need to move in this direction or whether it would change much. Again, I consider members' sincerity to be far more important that any position they might hold.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Solberg.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC): Madam Chair, first of all, let me congratulate you. As a former member of the committee, I think it is an important committee. There are a lot of talented members on this committee.
When the Prime Minister spoke about the democratic deficit, I think everyone assumed one of the key planks of a platform to address the democratic deficit would be to ensure the independence of committees.
What do we mean by “independence”? I think what we mean is that members of Parliament, who have spent in some cases many years learning about these issues, would be able to apply their knowledge and their skills free from, in some cases, the prying eyes of parliamentary secretaries, who, a lot of people feel, are really watching to make sure nothing goes awry that the department doesn't want.
If committees aren't independent, if they don't have the ability to do what they wish to do without parliamentary secretaries guiding them, to some degree it's all a charade. We spend hours and hours working in committees trying to accomplish things. If it's all in the end run by the department, what's the point of being here?
I think this is completely contrary to the spirit of the whole idea of addressing the democratic deficit. If it can't begin in committees, then I think it's a non-starter—period. This is such an obvious place to begin to address the democratic deficit.
There are good members on all sides here. But if everything's thwarted because a parliamentary secretary—again, with no disrespect meant to members sitting here—feels obliged to carry out some orders from the department, I think it saps the life out of the whole committee.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Solberg.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you.
We are talking about excluding the parliamentary secretary from the full committee. Is that correct?
The Chair: Right now what is on the table is the steering committee.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: It's the steering committee? First of all, as a parliamentary secretary you are not a minister. Let me make that perfectly clear. Even under the new changes you are not a minister. You are not responsible for the administration of the department. There may be a special focus you have, as many times members of Parliament have special focuses and have been asked either by the Prime Minister or ministers to carry out those functions. You are not a minister; let's be really clear about that.
Secondly, some of the most important work members of Parliament do who are not ministers is committee work. And people are often awarded parliamentary secretary positions because they care deeply about an issue.
I would suggest that Madam Bakopanos is parliamentary secretary here because of her great devotion to these issues. I know that Dr. Castonguay was on the health committee and was the parliamentary secretary of health because of his great devotion to health issues. I think some of you know I'm a fervent supporter of environmental issues, and I would have been extremely upset if I had not been able to participate in the substantive policy area that was one of the reasons I came to Parliament.
So let's be really clear: they are not ministers. This is one of the most important ways a member of Parliament can contribute, and I don't think it's right to take that away from members.
¿ (0925)
The Chair: Madam Tremblay.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Madam Chairman, in spite of all the nice speeches like the one made by Ms. Kraft Sloan, I think today's parliamentary secretaries are different from their predecessors. Unlike Mr. Castonguay, I've been around here for 11 years and in every committee on which I've served, I've been stonewalled by parliamentary secretaries, with the exception of the Health Committee on which I served briefly to work on the GMO file.
Most of the time, the parliamentary secretaries are armed with specific mandates from the minister and are intent on pushing their agenda through. For instance, the Liberal members of this committee had already met to decide who would be chair. How do you expect us to counter that move?
An Hon. Member: — [Editor's note: inaudible]—
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Maybe not you, but in any event...
[English]
The Chair: Madam Tremblay, just to set the record straight, there was no meeting prior. There was no meeting--informal, formal, or otherwise.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: So maybe they didn't have meeting, but you do decide in advance who the chair will be. Like it or not, the parliamentary secretary is a member of the Privy Council and that changes his status. Like it or not, he's not like his predecessor. In the past, the parliamentary secretary had a very clear mandate. His role was to accomplish in committee whatever the minister asked him to do. I've never seen a committee where the members truly controlled the shots, with the exception of the Fisheries Committee under the chairmanship of Wayne Easter. Members experiencing problems with the fishery in their region could come before the committee and raise these issues at any time. That was an effective committee attuned to the needs of the people. In other committees, we waste our time engaging in circular discussions and in drafting reports that only end up on the shelf and never amount to anything.
We've made five attempts to address the GMO issue. We were told that a super committee would be struck, but they stopped meeting and nothing ever came of the whole affair. And why is that? Because the political will is lacking to make some headway on the GMO file and because the members have no say in how committees are run.
If you want to make the process more democratic, stop talking about it and do something. Quite frankly, we don't need parliamentary secretaries to tell us how to vote or to influence the committee's work. Personally, that's how I feel.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Madam Tremblay.
Mr. McCormick, and then Mr. Pallister, Ms. Neville, and Ms. Bakopanos.
Mr. Larry McCormick: I have just a brief comment. I probably won't be here for the vote, because I think we're just sitting here wasting our time. You don't need a steering committee, to start with.
For my dear, excellent colleague Suzanne, if I remember right as a PS, I think the PS gets only one vote. I don't think we control...and I do believe PSs should be part of it.
I have to put this on the table. I was sitting with the agriculture committee this week. There was no meeting there, there was no meeting this morning, and we had no instructions. Members on all sides voted not to have the PSs, because there are two or three PSs for agriculture. Whether that had anything to do with it or not, we voted not to have PSs on the steering committee.
What we've always done...and I appreciate the fact that Madam Tremblay was there for a year. I wish she were with us longer on that committee; we could work on the GMO. But we've always invited everyone to the steering committee. And we believe we have the reputation, from four parties--I guess we have only four parties now instead of five on the agriculture committee--of getting along better than any other committee on the Hill.
So I'm just putting the facts on the table. I do believe the PS should be part of it, but I did want to say that all parties agreed on that decision this week, rightly or wrongly.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
¿ (0930)
The Chair: Just as a follow-up to your comment, Mr. McCormick, in the number of years that I've chaired this committee, all of the future business has generally been discussed by the committee as a whole. I can think of only once when the steering committee met outside of the regular committee.
Perhaps a way in which this can be resolved is simply to strike the steering committee and just say that all future business will be discussed at the committee of the whole. In this particular case, this is an 18-member committee, and a parliamentary secretary would have one of 18 votes.
I have never had a problem with other people coming to the committee and making presentations, or being part of it. If the problem appears to be that somehow members of the opposition feel that on a steering committee two parliamentary secretaries would have undue influence on a very small committee, then with the consent of everyone I would be happy to simply say that there will be no steering committee, that future business will be discussed at times set up, instead of our regular meeting, and that all future business will be discussed in full and openly, in front of all members of the committee,
Mr. Pallister, if that helps to resolve your problem, and Madam Tremblay's, where you believe parliamentary secretaries have undue influence, I can tell you that I would defy anyone to say that the parliamentary secretaries have ever had undue influence on this committee. I would remind you that there are three ministers and a minister of state, and only two of those have parliamentary secretaries. There's only one here today.
At any rate, those are my thoughts. This may be a way to resolve a problem.
Mr. Brian Pallister: It may be, Madam Chair, and I appreciate your intervention, but you're proposing, from the chair, an amendment to my motion. I'm not sure I like that.
That said--
The Chair: It was just a friendly suggestion.
Mr. Brian Pallister: I realize that, and that's why I was sincere when I said I appreciated your intervention. I meant that.
My only additional comment is that I do appreciate the points that some of the members made. Obviously, it's not our intention to exclude input from well-meaning people who are dedicated to the topics we wish to discuss here. That of course is not the intention.
That said, we are talking about an historical precedent here. You have changed, as a government, the membership of your Privy Council. To my knowledge--and I'm not a parliamentary expert--you have not had a Privy Council member sitting on the steering committee in the past. It has not been the case, and I have yet to hear a compelling argument as to why it should now be the case.
My motion is as it was. I'll tell you this, you can't have it both ways. If you're going to have the democratic deficit be addressed, and one of your key planks is that you're going to have independent committees--and I agree with that--then you can't say that on the one hand when on the other hand you add Privy Council members to committee, because in so doing you absolutely impugn the independence and integrity of the committee and its discussions.
As well, we set our agenda here. If you put Privy Council members on the steering committee, you absolutely create a new influence on the setting of the agenda, which is tarnishing the independence of that committee.
So if this democratic deficit program is real, then support my motion. If it is not, then oppose it.
The Chair: Mr. Bellemare and Ms. Bakopanos have not yet spoken.
Mr. Bellemare.
Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Not to go back into history, but just last year, with the two parliamentary secretaries we had, I always objected to their attendance. Still, they weren't a great influence on me. First, I was always here, so that wasn't a bad influence. And second, I never heard of any suggestions from them, good or bad, as to what we could do here or in which direction we would go.
¿ (0935)
The Chair: We're not going to discuss actions of the past.
Mr. Eugène Bellemare: My third and final point is that I understand there's at least one opposition member who is a member of the Privy Council. Will he be, and has he been, excluded from committee work?
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: It's not the same thing.
[English]
The Chair: There are two, actually.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: He's a member of the Privy Council, but he doesn't wield much influence today in Cabinet. He's not a member of Cabinet. Jacques Olivier, the Mayor of Longueuil, is also a Privy Council member. It's not the same thing.
[English]
Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Nystrom.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Yes, but Mr. Nystrom was a member of the Privy Council...
[English]
The Chair: Okay, let's not have any cross-chat.
There are members of the Privy Council who sit as members of committee, and have for quite some time, in the opposition. They're either past members of cabinet or, as you say, Mr. Nystrom, Mr. Clark--
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: I'm not talking about persons who were once members of the Privy Council. I'm talking about current Privy Council members. That's quite another kettle of fish, like it or not. As Chair of the committee, you do not reflect the views of the overall membership.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. You've made your point.
Madam Bakopanos.
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos: Thank you, Madam Chair, and congratulations also.
I've been a parliamentary secretary in both the old system and the new system. I think having the title of PS doesn't change how I feel about the honourable members around the table. I don't see my role as being either the mouthpiece or the force behind the ministry--or the public servants, for that matter. I'm a member just like everyone else here. I will give my opinion, and I say that truly.
I don't see the difference in the suggestion that was made by the chair. I don't have a problem not having a steering committee. If you're talking about excluding the parliamentary secretaries from the total committee, yes, then I have a problem, because I have a contribution to make as a member of Parliament and as a parliamentary secretary.
I don't think my vote will influence, in any way, any of the members on the other side. I think they have their own opinions as far as that goes. I can give my opinion of what I feel is the sense of direction the ministry wants to go in, but that doesn't mean I will have any undue influence on my colleagues, on where they want to go. I think the committee is independent and free to do as it wishes. That hasn't changed from when I was parliamentary secretary before.
I can tell you that from my experience in justice, for a lot of the amendments we brought forward it was very helpful to have a parliamentary secretary as a bridge between the amendments and suggestions made by the opposition members, and in fact toward getting the public servants to see the amendments in a different perspective because of the consensus that was reached around this table.
I see my role mostly as a bridge, both from the committee to the ministry and the other way around, but I don't think I will in any way affect the decisions of the members on the Liberal side by being present. I would like to contribute to the committee.
The Chair: On the motion by Mr. Pallister, that the steering committee be reduced by two parliamentary secretaries, I'll call the question.
We'll have a recorded vote.
Mr. Larry McCormick: Madam Clerk, I think there's a bit of silliness at the table. I know I can get cut off at any moment, but because I represent more minorities than anyone else around this table, in rural Canada, unless I get acknowledged to have more than one vote--because that's what you're accusing someone of getting--I just won't vote.
The Chair: Okay, you've gone beyond your--
Mr. Larry McCormick: No, no. I think it's as valid as what I've heard here today, to tell you the truth.
The Chair: Yea or nay, Mr. McCormick.
Mr. Larry McCormick: Well, I have not always voted yea or nay in the House to make points, and I won't today, Madam Chair.
Thank you.
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)
The Chair: Now on the main motion, on the steering committee, as it is here, it was moved that the steering committee on agenda and procedure be composed of nine members, including the chair, the two vice-chairs, the two parliamentary secretaries to the Minister of Human Resources, one other member from the government, and one from each of the other parties represented, to be named after the usual consultations with the whips.
¿ (0940)
Mr. Brian Pallister: May I speak to the main motion, Madam?
The Chair: You may.
Mr. Brian Pallister: I think it bears repeating that having Privy Council members on the steering committee of this committee is a total contradiction to the Prime Minister's pronouncements on addressing the democratic deficit. Of course, I don't pretend to express the member's opinion when I speak, but I will express mine, and my opinion is that this is not a good precedent.
This is not what is intended in the agenda of the Prime Minister's outline for addressing the democratic deficit, much of which, by the way, I will go on record as supporting. This is a step backward. This is without precedent. To support this motion is to give the lie to the legitimacy of what I had hoped and still hope is a sincere effort to make these committees and the work they do more meaningful, more significant, and more independent.
The Chair: Are there any other comments?
Seeing none, I'll call the question.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: We are now on other business.
Mr. Pallister, do you want to move this?
Mr. Brian Pallister: Yes, I'd like to. Do I have to read it into the record, Madam Chair?
Committee members, I'm proposing that whenever the main estimates or the supplementary estimates are tabled in the House, the committee invite the minister and any relevant senior officials of the department to appear at a televised meeting of the committee; and secondly, that whenever a chapter of a report of the Auditor General refers to a subject under the mandate of the committee, the committee invite the Office of the Auditor General of Canada and any relevant senior officials of a department to appear at a televised meeting, if possible, of the committee.
The Chair: Thank you.
Ms. Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Madam Chair, I'm not a full member of this committee. It would seem to me that if the committee was involved in a very important study that had a time limit or legislation, and certainly the things the member opposite has suggested are vitally important, it would probably be better decided on a case-by-case basis as opposed to putting a motion before the committee requiring the committee to act and to hold certain kinds of hearings when it may not be in the interest of all of the members of the committee in terms of the workings of the committee at that particular time. I'm only putting this on the floor as a process issue. It would seem that it might be better to make those decisions as they come forward. Certainly calling the minister before the committee with regard to estimates is one issue. If the committee is travelling, does that mean the committee has to come back to the House of Commons, for example, in Ottawa, which is a huge expense to taxpayers? Also, if the committee is hearing witnesses and undergoing clause-by-clause legislation, the time has to be put aside for something like that. I'd be really concerned, from a process point of view, about committing ourselves to something like that.
The Chair: Mr. Pallister, do you want to wait until the end or do you want to--
Mr. Brian Pallister: Do you want me to respond to? Whatever you prefer.
The Chair: Well, I don't want to go back and forth, so let's just wait and as the mover you can....
Mr. Adams.
Mr. Peter Adams: I want to refer to the televised part. I listened carefully, because both motions mention television. Did one of them say “if possible?” The other one didn't, though.
Mr. Brian Pallister: The AG did and the estimates did not.
Mr. Peter Adams: The other one didn't. If I could speak to that, Madam Chair, first of all, I think the committees should treat estimates very seriously and I think, by the way, as creatively as possible. It's up to each committee now. I think there's a sense that we should treat estimates differently than we have in the past. I think each committee should be as creative as possible. There are different ways of doing that. The member is referring to calling a minister. That's been standard practice. But I think there are other ways to deal with it as well.
But on the television thing, it's my understanding this motion is being put to all committees, and as you know, we have two rooms equipped for television. So there's a physical problem there, and that's why I asked whether it was “if possible”.
The other thing, though, is that the present situation, under provisional standing orders for the televising of committees, is that any committee can be televised if in fact commercial media can be induced to come. For example, if the evening before a meeting, with some reasonable notice, the clerk or the chair are advised that commercial media want to cover a meeting, the commercial media could show up and put one, two, three, or four cameras in here. As long as they don't move the cameras from gavel to gavel, they can cover the meeting. In that sense, for example, the chair could invite them to come. In my experience as chair they've only come once, because the media seems to be interested in different things than the committee.
I'm simply addressing the physical aspect, that if the estimates come down, and if 18 or 19 committees ask for the committee rooms, trying to follow through on the first motion we're discussing, there's a physical problem. I wonder when we get to it, Madam Chair, if the member could address that.
¿ (0945)
The Chair: Any other comments? Mr. Pallister.
Mr. Brian Pallister: To address both of those, Karen's comments about.... Am I allowed to refer to members? Is that okay, Karen?
The Chair: I say yes. I guess I have to ask members of the committee, I'm sorry.
Mr. Brian Pallister: Madam Kraft Sloan has addressed a couple of issues worth responding to, I think legitimate points about the committee travelling. Would they have to fly back, incurring additional costs, and so on?
My motion simply asks that the committee invite. It doesn't refer to a specific time. Certainly the committee would have that decision to make, at that point in time, as to scheduling difficulties. So I don't think that's a point against the motion at all.
Secondly, Peter raises a good point about the physical challenges with regard to shortages of rooms where TV access is available. Again, the motion doesn't address the specific scheduling issues. It doesn't say “immediately”. It simply says we should invite to a televised meeting. So the issue of scheduling can be dealt with at that time.
I don't think it's in the best interest of promoting the concept of transparency, openness, and visibility of our decision-making apparatus for us to pass a motion that doesn't require televised proceedings in regard to dealing with estimates. That's a pretty serious function of this committee, one that should be undertaken in a visible way. So I would hope committee members again, in the interest of this democratic deficit agenda, would follow through on some of the earlier pronouncements that their leaders made.
On the issue of the Auditor General's report, I think it would be very hard for one to argue, as Madam Kraft Sloan has implied, that the earlier agenda of the committee should take precedence over the report of the Auditor General. I would invite us to have a debate on that particular topic, but certainly the Auditor General's report, I think, in the minds of our constituents, has far greater priority than an ongoing study on work-life balance, as important as that may be. So in terms of priorities, I think this motion addresses the real priorities of our constituents, and I would hope that you would support this.
Again, this is not a radical departure from past practice. In fact, this is essentially a repeat of what we've done as a committee in the past, in my understanding. So I would ask for your support on it.
The Chair: Seeing no other speaker, I'll call the vote on Mr. Pallister's motion.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: Just to remind you, working as we always have, you knew that you may have required 48 hours' notice, but I think this committee showed good faith.
Mr. Brian Pallister: I didn't know who to give that to.
The Chair: You're right; there was no one.
Members of the committee, if there is no further business at the moment, there is an issue I would like to raise and just something we need to discuss.
In the past, this committee has had two extremely active and very productive subcommittees: one, the disabilities committee, and the other on children and youth at risk. I would, with the cooperation of all parties, like to suggest that it would be the first order of business at our next meeting to re-establish those committees. So I'm giving you notice, for all sides, that if you have members who want to participate, they should contact their respective whips to make certain they are associate members of the committee. With everyone's cooperation, I would like to get those committees up and running, if that be the wish of the committee, as soon as possible.
With that in mind, Madam Clerk, could you put that on the agenda?
Also, in keeping with, I believe, a spirit of openness and inclusion, and not exclusion, I would suggest that the second portion of the next meeting be a future business meeting and that all members of the committee would participate in the future business discussion at the next regular meeting of this committee. Are all members in agreement?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
¿ (0950)
The Chair: Just to recap, the next meeting will be to establish the two subcommittees, and hopefully I will have the names put forward. The second portion of the meeting will be future business.
Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Will we be staying in this room? Is this the room?
The Chair: The clerk will always try. It will always be in this building, usually room 209.
Seeing no other business, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you all.