Government Operations Committee on Feb. 3rd, 2009

[The Clerk]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I understand the point that Chris is making, but I don't necessarily agree. I think we also have to build in the fact that the government side has the advantage in terms of access to information, etc. I would argue that it's the opposition that needs to question witnesses in any committee more than the government side does, for that very reason--that you have access to all the resources, etc.

I think the reason committees have this reduced quorum, the reason it's necessary even more so.... Let's put our cards on the table. In the last Parliament it became a strategy, with all due respect, of the government side to get up and walk out of meetings if they didn't like the direction the meeting was going in, at which time quorum would be lost and we would lose that day. Witnesses were often flown in from other parts of the country and sent home because the government side was not willing to let the meeting go ahead. The way this is structured here, that wouldn't be possible. As long as three members were present, including one member of the opposition, no such stunts would be possible.

In the interest of getting off to a good start, I think we should maintain the status quo and carry on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Mr. Warkentin.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Martin, I understand your point and I appreciate it, but we are speaking specifically about reduced quorum, not about quorum in general. Quorum in general can still be established without one government member, but reduced quorum would be in the event where only a couple of people show up for a meeting. It just precludes the option of people racing to a committee room--and I'm not suggesting this would happen, but let's just make sure that it won't--and that the opposition just passes a motion to move on with some piece of business at the will of the committee without having time for a government member.

I appreciate you would never do that, so maybe we'll just work on an honour system. I just thought if we're going to put all our cards on the table, that's my concern and that's what I'm trying to avoid.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Thank you.

Mr. Anders wanted to speak to this.

[Rob Anders, Conservative, Calgary West, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would say to Mr. Martin respectfully that I sensed, when this amendment to the motion was put forward, that there was no intention of playing parliamentary silly buggers at all. I think it was just reflecting the fact that this committee is chaired by an opposition member.

I support it, based on the idea that it's only fair that a government member be in attendance at all committee meetings. I don't think there's anything untoward being put forward by it; I think it's just a matter of fairness, given the nature of the structure of the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Before we continue debate on this, the wording as proposed now with the amendment of Mr. Warkentin would allow both the opposition and the government side to prevent a meeting from occurring simply by not showing up for the meeting. That seems like a fair bit of equality: either side can prevent a meeting from happening. Hopefully this isn't going to happen to this committee.

Anyway, the debate can continue. I think I saw Mr. Martin first and then Mr. McTeague.

Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

The last thing I'd add is that Chris's last point isn't really fair, because with a reduced quorum you really can't vote on things, can you? You can only hear witnesses. The idea of allowing a reduced quorum in these rules is so that we don't completely waste a meeting just because too few members show up. You can still hear the testimony of witnesses, but you can't move motions and you can't vote on anything until you get your full quorum back, which would have representation of the other side. This is really only for the purposes of hearing testimony.

The last point I'd make is that your side, Chris, has five members. The odds of getting one here are greater than for us, who have only two, and this other party, who have only two, and the Liberals, who have—and so on. Really, I think you are covered; it does preclude the possibility.

Nobody wants a repeat of the last Parliament, in which many of the committees were almost rendered dysfunctional. I know your committee was not one of those, but some were, and we want to preclude that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Mr. McTeague.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My experience is that these committees will only function if there's goodwill on both sides. Mr. Martin is correct in his assumption and in his point that no motions would be allowed to pass. But let's be very fair. This is a committee that is chaired by the opposition, so it stands to reason that in our rules and consistent with those rules they would word it that one member of the opposition be there.

I think it's very clear that this is simply, and I'll reiterate the point, to have testimony given. If we have a meeting and none of the people can show up, at least the business of the committee cannot be interrupted by what could be dilatory actions. I'm not suggesting for a moment that we shouldn't, for instance, deal with the issue of government members, but it's very clear that this is a sort of de minimis approach to why, I believe, this is here.

Unless I'm given some extenuating reasons, I see no reason to change it, given that the committee is composed very much, by our own rules, as one chaired by the opposition. I think it's consistent with the nature of this committee.

I will admit to you that not since 1994 have I sat on a committee that is governed by the opposition, so I'm still finding my way on this. I think the rule is good and I would probably leave it to work. But for the record, I would suggest that if we run into trouble, we should have the decency to go in camera and talk about this; maybe we can resolve it further down the road. I'm willing to do that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

The other way to do this is to put it to a vote. Hopefully it won't be a tie vote.

Is there any way to massage this and get it done now, or do you want to defer? Would you like to defer?

All right, we can call the question on it, then.

Could you repeat the motion, Mr. Clerk, as amended?

[The Clerk]

Mr. Warkentin moves 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 and one member of the government.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

We have a tie vote. As I understand it, the chair calls it.

I think in some ways parliamentary precedent allows me a way to do this. In other words, the chair will go with the status quo, and I will simply go with the motion as it was in the last Parliament.

(Motion negatived)

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

In this case, the motion does not carry. As a result, we don't have a motion adopted, so we're back to square one.

Let's defer that, unless someone has anything really creative. We're unable to deal with the reduced quorum issue here, so there is no motion on reduced quorum passed. We simply have a vacuum.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Maybe we can have somebody move the.... If it's the will of the committee not to proceed with my motion, then I'd like to have....

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Your motion has, I think, been defeated.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

It has, and so what I would like to suggest is that we now move the motion in its existing form so that we at least have something on the record, and in the effort to be entirely non-partisan--

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

--and conciliatory, I would certainly want to move.... I appreciate that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

The chair takes note of the informal discussion.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

I'll move what was in the previous Parliament regarding this matter.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Thank you, Mr. Warkentin.

The motion is as printed on the form, Mr. Clerk.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

The next item is distribution of documents. The motion is that only the clerk of the committee be authorized to distribute documents to members of the committee and only when such documents exist in both official languages. It's the same in both columns.

Mr. Roy has moved the motion.

Mr. McTeague, on debate.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I know that from time to time, given the rapidity of events, and not to take away from the need for both to be produced in both languages, but some provision here, with the consent of the committee....

This is a question that will come up very soon. It is possible for documents to be received in one or other language, with the consent of the committee.