Evidence of meeting #1 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
So why don't I move the motion with the addition of “the chair, the two vice-chairs, and one additional member from the government side”?
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
9:30 a.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pat Martin
Right.
There's a motion on the floor.
John, do you want to speak to the motion?
9:30 a.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pat Martin
Okay. You've heard the motion. That would be the subcommittee, the planning committee. And again, this is no big threat to either side. It's only a subcommittee.
The clerk points out that perhaps we should also qualify that the extra person from the Conservative side would be someone designated by the whip. That's obvious. Okay.
Peter, do you want to speak to the motion before we vote?
9:30 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Yes. I'll offer a friendly amendment.
I understand what Mr. Wallace is proposing, but again, if what we're doing is moving from a group that is basically setting the agenda, which is what the subcommittee is supposed to do, to a group where there are broader concerns, the only way to balance that off would be to have a member from the official opposition as well.
So you have another member from the government side and another member from the official opposition side, because the chair, as you know, is playing the coordinative role. He's not there in a partisan context. He's representing the committee as a whole.
So it complicates things quite considerably, this motion. I offer a friendly amendment, which would be a subamendment, that we add a member from the official opposition.
9:30 a.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pat Martin
Okay. I guess that's in order as a subamendment.
On the subamendment, Scott Armstrong.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
I'm going to speak against the subamendment and on the very fact that if something comes back from the subcommittee to the parent committee, and it's not something that the majority agrees with when it comes back out, we could spend one meeting or maybe multiple meetings discussing it. It could be debated and debated and we wouldn't actually get to the work of the committee, when we know what the end of that discussion is going to be anyway.
We'd rather get down to and work on the business of what we should be working on. That's where I see the subcommittee having the one extra government member saving us a lot of time and allowing us to do the work that Canadians want us to do.
9:35 a.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pat Martin
Well, I think you're right. The worst possible outcome is to waste the committee meeting with witnesses sitting there and us bickering over some future business. That's not something we want to promote at all.
Mike?
9:35 a.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pat Martin
Okay. Let's put the subamendment to a vote. All those in favour of Peter's subamendment to add another opposition member to the planning committee?
(Subamendment negatived)
9:35 a.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pat Martin
Now, on the main amendment to the motion, then, the motion stands as just the chair and vice-chairs. The amended motion is Mike's, which is to add one person of the government side's choice to the planning committee. All those in favour of the motion as amended?
(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
9:35 a.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pat Martin
That's carried, so our planning committee will be the chair, two vice-chairs, and one other of the government side's choice. No problem.
Okay. Now, on meeting without a quorum, this is important for the new members. Sometimes it is important; it's difficult for every member to get to every committee meeting. If a meeting is scheduled just to hear testimony of witnesses, it's not really necessary to have all members here, because nothing is going to come to a vote.
There is no danger of losing a vote if we're only hearing testimony, so a lot of committees have reduced their quorum for hearing witnesses down to a pretty small threshold. Some people travel across the country to give their testimony, and it would be rude and a waste of time if we didn't have a quorum to hear them. This is a reasonable motion, I believe:
That the Chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence
--and only to receive evidence--
and to have that evidence printed when a quorum is not present, provided that at least three (3) members are present, including one member of the opposition.
9:35 a.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pat Martin
That is how this would read. Again, there are no tricks in this, I don't believe. It's a reasonable thing.
Peter.
9:35 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's very reasonable. Just for clarification, though, you would not be included as a member of the opposition as chair of the committee?
9:35 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
So we're actually looking at three members present, including one member of the opposition.
9:35 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
One would presume that one would be from the government as well.
9:35 a.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pat Martin
Yes.
Actually, the clerk is correcting me; I would be included in those numbers.
It's a good thing he's here.
So I don't know if that makes....
