Evidence of meeting #1 for Finance in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Based on that, obviously I'm not getting any support for not having a committee, so I'll move that the subcommittee on agenda and procedure be constituted and that it be composed of the chair, the parliamentary secretary, and a member of each of the opposition parties.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
It would be the chair, the two vice-chairs, a member of the other opposition party--Mr. Mulcair--and the parliamentary secretary.
(Motion agreed to)
On the third issue, reduced quorum, the motion is that the chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive and publish evidence when a quorum is not present, provided that at least three members are present, including a member of the opposition.
Mr. Menzies.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
In the spirit of cooperation, which we seem to be working incredibly well with this morning, Mr. Chair, and maybe it's your guidance that's actually bringing that--not that there was anything wrong with the last chair.... I would like to suggest--and certainly the premise of it is accurate--that if it provided that at least four members were present--and I think it should be one member from all of the opposition parties represented here--I think it would be a fairer process for everyone, rather than having just three members. I notice that it says “hold meetings to receive and publish evidence”. I'm not sure if it's necessary to have “publish” in there. I'm not sure if it's necessary or not. Everything that's relayed here is basically on the public record anyway. I don't know if it's redundant.
My obvious suggestion is that we expand it to have four members present from all of the parties.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
So your recommendation is to say that at least four members be present, including a member of each political party.
9:10 a.m.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
I totally agree with Mr. Menzies. This way, no one feels wronged. I think it's an excellent idea.
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just quickly, my comment would be that this would not happen very often. I can only see it happening when we're having an enormous number of meetings during the pre-budget consultations and there are votes taking place and we have an agreement that maybe one or two of us should hang back and stay in, out of courtesy to the witnesses.
So it doesn't happen that often. I don't see why we have to increase the number of members. It's not binding for passing motions; it's only to receive and publish evidence. And I think that having three members, and one member of the opposition, is completely fine. I don't think we need to amend it.
So I will be voting against Mr. Menzies' motion.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
Can I just ask what the rationale is. What was wrong with the one we had before? I'm not quite sure why we want to make this change.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
Well, I think it's just a matter of making sure that all parties are represented.
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
What if they were hostage to Thomas' television schedule?
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
No, I didn't say that!
We need a voice. All members are representing their constituents, and all members should be able to represent their constituents here.
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
9:15 a.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
We disagree with the motion, mainly because when witnesses are scheduled to testify, a member of each party must be present before the meeting can begin. For example, if Mr. Mulcair of the NDP has not yet arrived for the meeting, then we can't start, since he is the only representative of his party. That will create a problem. We should reconsider, because this decision will only lead to delays.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I just want to emphasize that my understanding is that this motion is only in the case of reduced quorum. So if we have quorum....
It's my understanding that this committee in the past—and you can guide me on this—had quorum at almost every meeting. So this motion only takes effect in the case of reduced quorum.
Mr. McKay.
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
You're right, the point being that it is almost never used.
But effectively it makes the committee hostage to one party, and there's usually nothing going on here. Effectively what it means is that if somebody is 20 minutes late, the committee can't start.
9:15 a.m.
An hon. member
Yes.
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
It's out of respect for witnesses; it's not out of respect for us.