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.
10:45 a.m.
Conservative
10:45 a.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
On a point of order, Chair, just procedurally also, when we speak, are we to speak to you, through the chair? Are we to speak to one another?
10:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
No, parliamentary procedure is that you are to speak to the chair and through the chair, so I do request that we respect parliamentary procedure.
Thank you, Mr. Warawa.
Seeing no further comments, I'll call the question on the amendment, which asks that there be a member present from every party to hear witnesses in a reduced quorum.
(Motion negatived)
10:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
So we're back to the original motion of reduced quorum.
Is there any further comment?
Mr. Warawa.
10:50 a.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Chair, this is my first opportunity to speak to the original motion. We've spoken to three different amendments, and all three have failed. The concern has been expressed clearly that the way it is written is not in the spirit of fairness in the situation of a minority government.
In the situation this committee finds itself in now, it reads “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 three members are present, including one member of the opposition”. What I don't want to see happen, Chair, is that we have the opposition members trying to run their own committee and having their own meetings. The government should be there. There is a role for the government to play in this committee.
Now, what is the safety valve in that? Is it hidden in there, or is it clearly spelled out? So my question to the clerk is what is the safety valve to make sure that the opposition members do not start running their own committee?
10:50 a.m.
The Clerk
Mr. Chair, thank you.
I would presume that any meeting held by this committee would have been discussed at the subcommittee. You've adopted a motion at the subcommittee, of which the government is a member, so that's where your hearing would flow, from the subcommittee. That would be one measure of protection, I presume.
The second one would be that, as the chair explained, it's the chair that calls the meeting, and if the chair feels that the committee is not working in a manner that is procedurally acceptable and within the rules of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons and within the practice established by this committee, then the chair has the option to not call a meeting. And the members have options to request that the chair does call a meeting under Standing Order 106, I believe.
So there are measures in place both ways.
10:50 a.m.
Conservative
10:50 a.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
I have a couple more questions, Chair, for the clerk.
The first answer referred to the subcommittee. Now, the subcommittee does not have any authority to make decisions. They make recommendations, which have to then come back to this body and be approved. Is that correct?
10:50 a.m.
The Clerk
That's correct, sir.
10:50 a.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
So those will be strictly recommendations. Could you clarify, then, when you talked about the decisions or approvals through the subcommittee, how would that protect this committee, making sure the opposition does not take over the committee?
10:50 a.m.
The Clerk
You're asking very good questions, Mr. Warawa.
As you pointed out, any decision by the steering committee has to be approved by the full committee.
10:50 a.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
So the only safety valve to protect the integrity of this committee is the chair. So my question is, could you define the chair? Would a deputy chair be considered the chair?
10:50 a.m.
The Clerk
No, sir, unless the chair so requested.
10:50 a.m.
Conservative
10:50 a.m.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
I would just like us to vote on this. We have debated the issue for over 50 minutes. I think everything has been said.
10:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
As long as I have people on the speakers list, I cannot call the question.
Mr. McGuinty.
10:50 a.m.
Conservative
Peter Braid Conservative Kitchener—Waterloo, ON
I want to suggest that perhaps we go back and revisit the authority of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure and give that subcommittee the authority to confirm what evidence the committee should, in turn, hear--to provide that safety valve at that level.
I'm equally disappointed that we're not in a position to move on and discuss substantive issues. And I would agree with my colleagues on this side that rules should equally apply, and the spirit and the letter should equally apply and that a risk of one side blocking equally applies to all sides.
10:55 a.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want to make this clear and on the record. What I understand from this discussion is that Mr. McGuinty, Mr. Scarpaleggia, Mr. Trudeau, Mr. Bigras, Mr. Ouellette, and Ms. Duncan are insisting on the opposition's right to boycott witnesses and not to have a witness heard at their discretion, regardless of where the witnesses came from. The only reason we're having this discussion right now is that the motion, as it is currently before this committee, requires the attendance of an opposition member and that it's that attendance that allows the opposition to boycott a committee and consequently to require a witness to have come from Alberta, or wherever else, to this committee and to potentially not be heard. It seems to me that's what the position of the opposition boils down to.
Thank you.
10:55 a.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want some clarification on the reduced quorum. I've been able to travel substantially with other committees. I don't know how much the environment committee travels. I was here briefly in the last Parliament. I've made my argument before about having members present from both sides of this table to be able to verify and validate testimony as it's reported by our analysts, who usually do a very good job of being impartial and making sure that everything's accurate and correct. I certainly wasn't questioning the integrity of the work they do, but I think the point is still valid.
Furthermore, the routine motion goes back to the days when it was a check put in place to make sure that the tyranny of a majority government wouldn't run over the minority opposition. What we have here is quite different, and Mr. Ouellet has pointed out and seemed to suggest that perhaps the three opposition parties weren't working in cooperation. Well, I believe I've seen the three leaders—I think it was actually in this very room where we're sitting today—of those three parties actually sign a document in front of all Canadians indicating their willingness to work together. So I have some doubts about that statement from Mr. Ouellet, with all due respect.
I remember my experience on the justice committee last year as well, where we certainly had filibustering, the blocking of legislation coming through. We had dilatory motions being put forward on a regular basis. We seemed to have those kinds of shenanigans going on.
I think what the intent or the spirit of the particular amendments that have all been defeated.... And I should point out that the NDP has given up its right to veto a meeting, the Bloc Québécois has given up its right to veto a meeting, and so has the Liberal Party given up its right to veto a meeting, all in favour of only supporting something that would allow them to collectively veto a meeting together, forcing or having a situation where the governing party does not have a member present to hear that testimony.
What it really comes down to is the optics we would have as a committee, when a witness would travel here from another part of the country, and that could be a very difficult thing. As parliamentarians—and I as a western Canadian—we travel here all the time. I'm used to it; I accept the fact that it's part of my responsibility. But for somebody who takes the time out of their own personal schedule to fly from British Columbia, from the Yukon, from up north.... We have a very large country; we have adverse weather conditions; we have all kinds of obstacles that face us on a daily basis, in getting here.
I think nothing frustrates Canadians more than when parliamentarians play games, especially at their personal expense. So to have witnesses refused an opportunity to deliver testimony, simply because of the political manoeuvring or positioning that sometimes happens here, I think reflects poorly not only on us as parliamentarians, but it reflects poorly on the institution for which we're here to uphold the highest of integrity.
Now, the checks and balances--
