Evidence of meeting #1 for Official Languages 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.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Royal Galipeau Conservative Ottawa—Orléans, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
We have already settled the question of five members and have gone back to four members, but I am not withdrawing the motion that two members be from the opposition and the other two from the government.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Your amendment is still on the floor. We're going to continue debate unless it collapses, at which point I'll call the vote on the amendment.
Go ahead, Mr. Julian.
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I don't understand, Mr. Chair. I wanted to ask Mr. Galipeau a question through you.
I think Mr. Galipeau understands that we are talking about a meeting without a quorum. Witnesses appear, but the committee cannot make decisions. I don't understand why this motion is becoming so complicated that witnesses cannot give their testimony. I have trouble understanding that. The formula is really complicated when it's all about a meeting where no decision can be made because there is no quorum.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
If I understood correctly, there are two issues. The first is the quorum so that members can hear the testimony. The second is figuring out who is supposed to make up the quorum.
Whether we like it or not, the fact of the matter is that, under the rules of Parliament as a whole, the majority of members will be members of the government party. I think that's a fact. I don't understand how we are not able to reach this conclusion. In a normal process, I don't feel there is going to be a problem if two members are supposed to be from the government party.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Mr. Godin can now have the floor. And Mr. Galipeau will be next.
Mr. Godin, go ahead.
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
I'll try it again.
This has to do with a reduced quorum to listen to the witnesses. The chair is from the government. He is the one who calls the meeting. He is the one who is in control of calling the meeting.
We see two from the opposition. That is to make sure it doesn't happen that the meeting is called and we don't show up or that he could do it without the opposition, because he is from the government.
In this, when we say that the quorum will be five people with two from the opposition, that's the minimum. It doesn't stop you from sending all your members. What it will stop you from doing is not showing up and requiring the meeting to be cancelled. That's the problem. It's only that. You just have to show up. This motion doesn't say that the government will not show up. That's not what the motion says. It just says that you cannot cancel the meeting because the government did not show up, because it's your responsibility to show up.
If you put in there that two have to show up and you don't show up, that means the meeting is cancelled.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
It's the same from the opposition side.
9:25 a.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Okay. But we don't have control over calling the meeting. It's the chair who calls the meeting. The chair calls the meeting, and when witnesses come here we want to be here, because he has called a meeting and we don't want a meeting to be called without the opposition.
But on the other hand, nothing is stopping you from being here. And nothing is stopping the chair from cancelling the meeting anyway. We saw that before.
This is not a motion that came in during a minority government. It was here 14 years ago. It was here in 1998, and I'm sure Mauril Bélanger remembers that. That was always the motion.
I have no problem with the five members. That's not where I have the problem, not at all. But I have a problem when you say and you put in a motion that the government has to be present, because automatically you just have to be present. It's just that we don't want a meeting to be cancelled when witnesses are coming in.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Royal Galipeau Conservative Ottawa—Orléans, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
First, I'd like to underline that the chair is not from the government. I remember when he was in the government and he pulled himself out of the government. So he's not in the government, but he is in the government party.
I've listened to this discussion from all angles, and as a result I am willing to compromise even further, but not all the way.
This is what I propose: 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 members are present, including one member from the opposition and one member from the government party.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Royal Galipeau Conservative Ottawa—Orléans, ON
Well, if there are four, then of course “at least” is redundant.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
I want to make sure everybody is on the same page here. Is there unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment Monsieur Galipeau originally moved? It was to have five members present, two from the opposition and three from the government. Is there unanimous consent to withdraw that amendment from the floor?
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
No. Is there unanimous consent?
(Amendment withdrawn)
Monsieur Galipeau has moved a new amendment to the main motion moved by Monsieur Godin. The new amendment is that there be four members present, and that one of those be an opposition member and one of those be a government party member.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Perhaps you would like to read your amendment again so that everybody is on the same page, and then we'll have a discussion.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Royal Galipeau Conservative Ottawa—Orléans, ON
I move 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 members are present, including one member of the opposition and one member of the government party.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
We have an amendment on the floor. We'll now proceed to a debate on the amendment. We'll begin with Mr. Weston, and then Monsieur Godin.
Mr. Weston.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
I really like that amendment. I think it also satisfies my friends opposite. Well done.
9:30 a.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
I am not in favour of the amendment because it is the same principle. Whether we reduce the number to one or leave it at two does not make a difference. It is the same principle as the one I am talking about. Reducing it to one person from the opposition...
Two members of the opposition are present.
