Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on Dec. 14th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

I'm advised that we do need somebody to propose the motion before we debate it, so whether we—

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Well, I'm going to move a motion that is different from this one. Would that be okay?

Or if somebody wants to move it, I'll--

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

There doesn't seem to be anybody anxious to move the motion, but we need to do that to get it going.

Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Okay. I think, Mr. Warawa, you'd like to make some changes to it, so let's move the motion so we can have the discussion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Monsieur Bigras.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

On page 848 it says, “That the Chair be authorized to hold meetings...” This is referring to the reduced quorum, and I think we need to both define “quorum” and “reduced quorum”.

Speaking to the motion of reduced quorum, it says here: “That the Chair be authorized to hold meetings and to receive evidence when a quorum is not present”—referring to a reduced quorum—“provided that at least five members are present, including two members of the opposition.”

The reason it's mentioning opposition, of course, is we don't want the government holding meetings without the opposition being present, which wouldn't be fair. That's why that's in there. In this case, in a minority Parliament, it would be appropriate to add “and one member of the government”. Either we have a reduced quorum of what this is suggesting, of three members, or we would use our policy guide of five members. In that policy is two members of the opposition and two members of the government present.

That would be my amendment. I could make it a friendly amendment. If the mover would not accept it as a friendly amendment, then I would be moving it as an amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Point of order?

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

In the interest of expediting things, maybe we should just informally hear what Mr. Bigras has to say, and if there happens to be a coincidence, then we might—

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Yes, I was going to recognize Mr. Bigras next.

Mr. Bigras.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I believe that the proposed formula should be amended. We agree entirely with the parliamentary secretary who said that five members of this committee must be present during all meetings, but I believe we should specify that there should be three members from the opposition, with at least two of the opposition parties represented. I believe we all agree on the essence.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

[Inaudible--Editor]...a question through you, Mr. Chair, is that accepting the friendly amendment, that it be at least three members of the opposition and two members of the government for a reduced quorum.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Cullen, you are next.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

It seems as if all we're doing is changing one to two, and that's fine by us. It's not said, but should be stated that this is obviously just to hear witnesses; it has nothing to do with making any decisions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

It's to receive evidence, yes. Thanks.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

For clarification on the motion, Chair, through you to the mover, my understanding is that using our procedure to have these reduced quorums, there will be at least five members present, three of whom will be opposition and two of whom will be government. Is that correct? That's your five, representing two opposition parties?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

I believe the clerk has encapsulated the new motion, so we'll let him read that.

[The Clerk of the Committee]

It reads as follows:That the Chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence, and have that evidence printed when a quorum is not present, provided that at least five members are present, including three members of the opposition representing two parties, and two representatives of the government.

(Motion agreed to)

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Chair, as we're talking about quorum before we move on to speaking times, under the routine motions you don't have quorum listed here, but perhaps I could clarify quorum also while we're discussing that.

Quorum, I think, needs to be clear, because that was one of the issues that came up in our last committee meeting. The norm for quorum is defined on page 844: “a quorum is a majority of the members”. And we could add to that again. Mr. Chair, it's assumed that because we're a minority government, we'd have at least one member of the government.

[An hon. member]

No, we've changed that to two

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

And two members of the government. That would be a quorum.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

It's my understanding that a standard quorum is 50% plus one, not counting the chair. Standing Order 118 says: “A majority of the members of a standing, special or legislative committee shall constitute a quorum; provided that, in the case of legislative committee, the chair is not included in the number of members constituting the quorum.” So we're talking about seven, not including the chair.

Monsieur Bigras.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Perhaps we can ask the clerk to advise us, but I believe that a regular quorum is simply a majority of committee members. I do not believe that the committee can change these rules. These rules are already set out, and I don't believe the committee can change them.

[The Clerk]

You are right, Mr. Bigras. Rule 118 of the Standing Orders, which Mr. Hawn has just read out loud, states that quorum is 50% of the members of the committee plus one.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Is there any further discussion?

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you for that clarification from the clerk. We've also heard from the House, and the Speaker has ruled numerous times that committees are creatures of their own...but we follow procedure absolutely.

The definition of quorum is a majority of members, which would be seven members for this committee. But I think it's obvious that we need to have members of the government sitting on this committee. Being in a minority government, I think that needs to be clarified. You cannot have a proper quorum unless you include members of the government in that.

If they don't want to have that number defined, I would move an amendment that quorum be defined by adding “including members of the government”.