Evidence of meeting #1 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 40th 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.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
So it's that a full 36 hours' notice be required for any substantive motion to be considered by the committee unless the substantive motion relates directly to business then under consideration and that the notice of motion be electronically received by the clerk of the committee and distributed to members in both official languages.
Agreed?
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
We'll go on to a reduced quorum.
What was passed last time was that the chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence when a quorum is not present and to have that evidence printed, provided that at least three members are present, including one member of the opposition.
We'll have Mr. Warawa.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
I would like to make an amendment to “including one member of the opposition” by adding “and one member from the government other than the chair”.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
The amendment put forward by the government could block the work of committees. We have to remember that often we have witnesses coming from outside Ottawa, and significant costs are involved. Sometimes witnesses actually come from the most westerly provinces.
What the government is suggesting would involve running the risk of incurring expenses for travel by witnesses, because if there is no opposition or government member present, and there is no quorum, the meeting could not be held. I think this is a danger. During the last session, we passed a rule that worked well. We must facilitate the committee's work. I would move rather that we stick to the rule we passed before.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
I appreciate Mr. Bigras' concern, but in what we've seen over the last two Parliaments, his example has never happened. There have been examples where a committee's agenda was changed, even as we had witnesses sitting here to speak, but it was never changed by the government.
That's in the past. His example has never happened.
In the spirit of fairness, this committee will only work if everybody is willing to make it work. If anybody wants to disrupt this and cause a problem, that will happen. There has to be willingness on everybody's part to make it work.
The government is committed to being part of this. If the committee can only function.... In fairness, we have to make sure the opposition members are here. The government can't do their own thing. That's why it's in there, that the opposition has to be there. For clarification, the government should also be there. That's why I'm adding that--again in the spirit of clarify and fairness.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I concur with the comments of Mr. Bigras. It's my understanding--contrary to what Mr. Warawa is saying, and that may be the case of this committee--there was an instance last year with a witness who came all the way from Alberta and was not heard.
I do not agree with changing the rule. I think the opposite result will occur, and this rule is written precisely to avoid that kind of scenario.
Conservative
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
I have a question for the clerk. What is the rationale for not having the government listed in this motion? Is it the norm to have the government listed, or is it deemed that the government would be there anyway?
The Clerk
The purpose of this motion is to ensure that when you don't have your full quorum, the chair can receive evidence. The chair in this instance is from the government. The committee cannot make any decisions. It cannot change agendas. All it can do is receive evidence. It's to ensure that if we have someone travelling from out west or from the east, we can receive evidence.
Members are also entitled to have substitutes at meetings.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Just for clarification, the chair would have to be me in this case; it wouldn't be the vice-chair.
The Clerk
I believe we encountered that problem last year where we had a vice-chair in the chair. So in theory you could have a situation where you would have only opposition members.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
That was my question too. To say that the committee could function without the government doesn't make sense. So to hear witnesses.... No decision could be made with a reduced quorum. You need to have the government and the opposition. It's important that we have that, and I would make that an amendment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Mr. Radford was just explaining to me that if I were not to be at that meeting, I'd have to agree that the vice-chair could take the chair. The vice-chair can't take the chair in a reduced quorum without the chair's approval.
Mr. Bigras.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
I do not understand the government's argument. I could understand it if it came from the NDP, which has only one member on this committee, but the government has five members at the table. So I think they should be able to get at least one here. I think it is a question of respect for our witnesses.
When witnesses from British Columbia come to Ottawa, there is a cost to the committee. At the very least, we should be able to hear them. It is a question of respect not only toward witnesses, but also toward taxpayers. Clearly, the government should at least maintain the current rule, at the very least. The government is trying to save money in every possible way and has a very high accountability requirement. The motion is in keeping with this approach, and demonstrates respect for both taxpayers and witnesses.
Bloc
Christian Ouellet Bloc Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Mr. Chair, I think the argument that there must be a government member could be quite biased. We tried this in a different committee during the last Parliament. The way in which the amendment is worded means that if two witnesses are chosen by the committee or by a party, and, at the last minute, the government realizes that they are not favourable to its position, the government members on the committee may simply not attend the meeting. Consequently, it would be impossible to hear from the witnesses. This makes no sense. It could be a way of boycotting certain witnesses. I think that is unacceptable.