Environment Committee on Dec. 4th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Those in favour of it being televised?

Okay, Mr. Vellacott, what is your discussion on this?

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

With respect to the motion, to have it or not to have it, when we look at the disastrous and embarrassing way the Liberals acted last Thursday—let me finish, Mr. Chair.

You were not here, so I'll just enlighten you to clue you into what happened. I would say it's an embarrassment to this committee and it's why one would maybe not want to have this televised in this instance if it's going to degrade into that kind of scenario.

I was in discussion. We had a reasonable motion on the floor to the effect that this committee resume, and we carried on affirming the minister, wishing him and his delegation well in their journey to Indonesia, to Bali, and I was enlightening the committee. We had Mr. Regan in the chair at that point, and they began to make some mocking noises, and they walked away and collapsed the debate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Vellacott, I think the problem with that motion really is that it's not about the estimates. So I think that ruling has been made.

Mr. Bigras, you had a point of order.

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

Mr. Chair, I'd like to immediately table a motion so that we can go to the agenda.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

The clerk advises me that this is on our agenda today, so we'll go immediately to Mr. Bigras' motion.

Mr. Bigras' motion, as I understand it, is that we proceed to dealing with his motion.

[Some hon. members]

It's non-debatable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Those in favour?

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Bigras.

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

Mr. Chair, I'd like to table a motion.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We're going to debate his motion once he tables it.

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

The second paragraph on page 338 of Marleau and Montpetit says:

Usually, quorum is quickly restored so that the House may proceed with the business before it. Should the House be required to adjourn for lack of quorum, any Order of the Day under consideration at the time, with the exception of an item of Private Members' Business not selected to come to a vote, retains its precedence on the Order Paper for the next sitting.

Now, this is referring to business in the House, but very clearly what happened, Mr. Chair, is that a motion had been tabled and was in the middle of debate when--and this is televised, so people will hear very clearly--every member on that other side stood up and walked out of this meeting. They started off with counting, and then off they went.

The chair of the meeting, Mr. Regan, then said we did not have quorum, when in fact, Mr. Chair, we did have quorum. If you look at the rules, to have quorum you need to have a member of the opposition; we did have a member of the opposition and five members of the government, so when the members stood up and marched out, we had a reduced quorum. For the meeting to have been called was not appropriate. Then we go back to our procedure; it says that the business that was being discussed now takes precedence.

My question is through you to the clerk. Using Marleau and Montpetit, would it not indicate that the item that should be taking precedence is the motion that the members of the opposition tried to keep from being debated by getting up and walking out of this meeting?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

There is a point of order.

Mr. Bigras, we'll hear that and then I'll confer with the clerk.

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

Mr. Chair, you've ruled on that matter. You've made a ruling. If my colleague doesn't agree with that ruling, he need only overturn it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I did rule on the new motion of Mr. Vellacott. I ruled on Mr. Vellacott's motion and I then asked about television. Let me go back to the point Mr. Warawa has just raised about the last meeting and where that stands .

I don't think we need a lot more discussion. Do you have something new to add, Mr. Vellacott?

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Yes, I do. Just very simply, this is in the Standing Orders. It's in section 116, and I quote directly. It says:

In a standing, special or legislative committee, the Standing Orders shall apply so far as may be applicable, except the Standing Orders as to the election of a Speaker, seconding of motions, limiting the number of times of speaking and the length of speeches.

Aside from those exceptions, Mr. Chair--and to our clerk as well--those Standing Orders adopted over in that place there--in the chamber, that is--apply in respect of this committee. So what Mr. Warawa quotes from Marleau and Montpetit here is in fact that quorum, if it's not restored, is in fact an adjournment:

...any Order of the Day under consideration at the time, with the exception of an item of Private Members' Business...retains its precedence on the Order Paper for the next sitting.

We have resumed sitting again today. This is the very first meeting thereafter, and according to Marleau and Montpetit, it should be the precedent order of business that we deal with today. I'm citing the Standing Orders. If we want to make up other stuff, I suppose it's possible, but it's here as well in section 116.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

The problem I definitely have is that when we go to the Speaker or to the clerks in the House, they will tell us that parliamentary committees are really responsible for their own decisions, that in fact there isn't an order paper or set of rules that apply to committees. I've heard this many, many times, that committees control their own destiny, so to speak. They elect a chair to make decisions, they have a steering committee, they have a committee, and those decisions are made.

So I guess I have real trouble with bringing back a motion that couldn't have been voted on, a motion that was made, in effect, when the committee had ended. In fact, we had a new motion brought forward. That new motion, I believe, was out of order simply because it didn't deal with the subject on the table, the estimates, which I think it had to deal with.

I think Mr. Bigras' motion is in the order papers, and that's what we are here to deal with. We have roughly five minutes left to deal with his motion.

Of course, we also need some agreement about Thursday's meeting in terms of arranging witnesses and carrying on further with Bill C-377. But we have to call those witnesses now. I believe three have been approached and are tentatively available for Bill C-377, but that needs to be confirmed with them.

Again, the committee, being responsible for its own destiny, needs to decide if we are going to hear Mr. Layton and the other two witnesses, Aldyen Donnelly and Matthew Bramley. Those three witnesses have been suggested. Of course, it's Mr. Layton's bill.

So we will carry on with that on Thursday. The clerk needs to know right now if we should confirm those speakers for Thursday. That's my first question.

My second is, after we go to the motion of Mr. Bigras and debate it, do members want to return after the vote to carry on with that debate? That's the next question, because this meeting is going to be called in about two or three minutes.

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair. I appreciate that you're trying to deal with a difficult situation handed to you from what happened last Thursday. What we were debating was this motion. The motion said that I had moved this committee should resume Thursday's discussion....

Sorry about that—

[An hon. member]

A point of order.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

No, I'm speaking to the point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Let's just hear Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I guess the question I have is, did we have reduced quorum? Did we have quorum? We had Mr. Regan stand up and say we did not have quorum, but in fact we did have reduced quorum.

You were quite right, Chair, that we do have rules within this committee defining reduced quorum, and we did have reduced quorum on Thursday when—

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

To answer that, the chair saw it as reduced quorum, and that's on the record.

Mr. Bigras.

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

Mr. Chair, I remind you that we adopted a motion to return to the agenda. That motion must be complied with. I invite you to move on immediately to consideration of the motion for which I provided notice.