Evidence of meeting #1 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 39th 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.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
The Clerk
That's correct.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
So if the chair from the government were not available, and it would be a vice-chair, and if there were no government members, the meeting could not go ahead. Is that correct?
4:45 p.m.
The Clerk
Well, then you have to fall back to the vice-chair only assuming the chairmanship of a committee meeting if the chair designates the vice-chair. So if the chair is a member of the government and he knows he will be away and he knows that there will be no government members, then it would be unbecoming of the chair to—
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
I would agree, but the logic in the rules--through you, Chair, to the clerk--assumes the spirit of fairness. You want to make sure that you cannot have a committee meeting without opposition. You must allow the opposition to have an opportunity to speak and be involved and participate in the committee.
So in the situation we find ourselves in, I would like to have that clarified, that it also would have to be, say, at least two members of the government.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
I think we could rephrase this so that it does include the assumption or say definitely that there must be a member of the opposition and a member of the government.
4:45 p.m.
The Clerk
Including one member of government.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Including one member of the opposition and government. That would then ensure that.... Suppose the vice-chair were chairing it and no other members came, this would clarify it in writing.
Mr. Cullen.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Chair, just to understand this, the assumption is that for a scheduled meeting that we all have notice of, none of the government members chooses to show up. The chair knows that you in fact can't show up and that the meeting went ahead anyway with the chair's discretion.
I understand the government's concern over not having...but I can't imagine that the scenario described has ever happened, that the government would choose not to show up to a meeting--it's not like these are surprise meetings suddenly popped on that day, since there's always notice--and that the chair would, given that notice, also decide not to be present and not to inform....
It's beyond plausible. I don't know why there would be a meeting scheduled as such. We've never done it. I can't imagine why we would.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
But this would clarify, Mr. Cullen, if we simply added “and a government member”.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
And that is duplication, because the chair is a government member, but fine. It's a grassy knoll.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
That would be fine. I would prefer if we had numbers in there: at least three members of opposition and at least two members of government. That provides—
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Now that's changing the whole thing. I'm not really making this amendment, but I'm suggesting it, I guess, that we add “including one member of the opposition and government”. That now very clearly states that there must be a government member there, assuming the chair isn't there; we must have an opposition member; and I don't know who the third member is.
Mr. Cullen.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Saying “and a government member,” which is the chair, is thoroughly redundant, because the chair is a government member. So if the chair is there, which is necessary for the meeting to take place—
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
—according to the way this is written. So if the chair isn't here, there is no meeting.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Mr. Chair, the reason I bring this up is that we have just passed a motion to create a subcommittee with no representation from the government on the subcommittee. So I want to make sure that, at this committee, the opposition cannot have a member unless there is at least one member of the government represented, actively participating at that meeting. I think that's reasonable.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
I guess what we're saying is if I trip and fall coming into the meeting and the vice-chair takes over and there are no other government members here.... I guess that's a plausible thing. So by adding “and a government member”, it seems to me that fixes everything, in case I slip and fall—which I'm not intending to do, but anyway.
Can you entertain that? That would get us on. I don't believe it should be that controversial.
Mr. Bigras.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
By stating that a government member must be present to have a quorum, that may allow the government to systematically block the work of a parliamentary committee. The committee has to be a parliamentary committee. A government member might decide not to show up, which could prevent the committee from meeting. And yet, this is a parliamentary committee.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
We're not talking about what a quorum is. We're talking about a reduced quorum and something that I don't believe has ever happened, at least not that I'm aware of. As I say, by adding that wording, we clarify it totally, assuming I slipped on a banana.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
And assuming that you would count as a member of the government, your side.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
But in this setting I would be neutral; therefore, that would be the reason to add “government member”.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal