Information & Ethics Committee on Feb. 4th, 2009

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Perhaps we can get at the same issue in a slightly different way with slightly different wording. If we added to the existing wording, put in a comma and said “should any of the above be unavailable, a formally substituted member be allowed as a replacement”, that resolves the issue that was just raised.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I think that's exactly what Mr. Dechert has done for us by saying any member, one from each party.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Except there's a little more clarity in terms of who chairs....

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Well, saying one member from each party, it seems pretty open that any one member from that party can be there.

All right. I think we've done enough on this. If that's acceptable...the proposed motion excluding the quorum requirement.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Okay, on the reduced quorum issue: That the chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence and to have that evidence printed when a quorum is not present, provided that at least three members are present, including one member of the opposition. That is as per the last Parliament.

Are there any comments?

Yes, Mr. Dreeshen.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Yes, I'd like to propose an amendment that it be four members. I have one I have presented here:

That the chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence and to have that evidence printed when a quorum is not present, provided that at least four (4) members are present, including one member from each recognized party.

I have some more here, if I could go on:

In the case of previously scheduled meetings taking place outside the parliamentary precinct, the committee members in attendance shall only be required to wait for 15 minutes following the designated start of the meeting before they may proceed to hear witnesses and receive evidence, regardless of whether opposition or government members are present.

So it's just to complete that whole thought.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Further, if I may, I want everybody to understand that the motion is not with regard to quorum for our meetings for the purposes of making decisions; it is to hear witnesses. Again, the issue that I raised earlier, which I know we discussed, is if there were a requirement that one member from each party be there, then if someone didn't want to hear a witness or wanted to close down the meeting, they would just not come and we're dead.

I know this one took a long time last go-round. I do hear you. I do understand, and I think the committee in its best interest will want to always work collaboratively to make sure that everybody is properly represented. This is a standard motion, which has been adopted throughout the last Parliament by all committees that I'm aware of, and it is being utilized again.

You have proposed an amendment.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Could I speak to that, then, Mr. Chair?

I guess really what I was looking at is that there are eleven of us. In an ethics committee you probably would want as many people as possible to be able to listen to witnesses and that type of thing. I was really looking more at the number of four than what perhaps others were looking at as far as the distribution of political parties was concerned. It's just a feeling that four people.... It would be good if we would be able to get here to listen to witnesses as they come in, so that's really where I'm coming from.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I'll agree with you that all members should be here when we hear witnesses, but sometimes it's not possible.

Mr. Siksay.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Chair, I want to speak strongly in favour of the original motion as moved by Madam Freeman. I think you correctly pointed out a serious problem with the proposed amendment, that it would allow someone just not to show up and allow the committee's work to be blocked.

Again, as you correctly pointed out, we're talking about hearing evidence, we're not talking about making any decisions. I think the original motion has served committees well in this place, and I don't see any need to change that motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Okay.

Do you have anything further, Mr. Dreeshen?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Well, my thoughts are that if a witness were to come, they would like to know that every one of the political parties is actually there, listening to what they have to say, and that means four if you're going to do that. I think this is the position I'm holding and the reason I brought it up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you kindly.

I think we should deal with the amendment by Mr. Dreeshen first. It is to change the number “three” to “four” and include the appropriate language that would indicate one from each party.

Is everyone comfortable that they are aware of what this amendment proposes?

(Amendment negatived)

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Concerning the distribution of documents, I think it's self-evident. May I have a mover, please?

Mr. Siksay.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

I so move.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Hiebert.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

I will second the motion, with an amendment that the clerk, as part of this obligation, will notify witnesses of this requirement so that nobody is surprised. There have been cases in the past when witnesses didn't have their documents translated. So we want to make sure they are notified of that obligation in advance of coming.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Is there a proposed wording for the amendment, or is that just information for the clerk?

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

No, the amendment would be that the clerk advise all witnesses appearing before this committee of this requirement.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I know we advise them, but do we want to put it into our motion? The issue here is that it's only the clerk who can circulate it.

Mr. Siksay.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

I don't think the requirement is that a witness has to prepare a document in both official languages. They can prepare it in their own language and the committee can see to its translation and distribution. So unless we're very clear, we may do something here with this amendment that we don't intend to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I think Mr. Siksay is quite right. If everything has to go through the clerk, the clerk will make absolutely sure it goes out in both official languages to the committee. That's our normal practice.

Mr. Hiebert, do you have something further on this?

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

I'm just trying to ensure that the clerk has the opportunity to receive materials from witnesses with enough time to make the translation, if necessary. The way to make sure that happens is to give them notice, that's all. It's not a big deal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I think that is normal practice. I'm advised by the clerk that this is how they are instructed and trained to serve the committee. However, you also know that witnesses often come before the committee and bring copies of their notes in one official language, so we can't circulate them. I don't think we can force the witnesses and say they can't speak to us until we get their documents in both official languages. But the clerk will not circulate one-language documents until they are translated, which is the normal requirement of all committees.

But I think your point is well taken. The clerk assures me that is standard practice, and this motion is to the effect of that requirement.

Do you want to withdraw it? Yes.

Are there any further amendments or discussion?

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

On working meals, can I have a mover?

There will be no meals for any of you, then.