Environment Committee on Feb. 3rd, 2009

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Some of us would like to speak to it, so you can relax for a minute.

Today's exercise is obviously extremely important, as we're laying the ground rules for the way this committee is going to be operating from here on out.

To Ms. Duncan, the committees are masters of their own destinies. This isn't patterned bargaining, where whatever is applied in one committee applies to all committees. It's not like the House, where the Standing Orders bind all members equally. There is room for departure from the practice of other committees, as long as it's within the Standing Orders of the House. So the fact that we're discussing something that may be different from the finance committee, or different from the status of women committee, or different from the public accounts committee—and I've been on several committees already, which all operate with different nuances—it's certainly within the purview of the committee to determine what rules it would like to have. So while we appreciate the guidance in terms of the discussion here, we can have room for nuance and departure.

What seems to be happening here for some of us who have been on the committee in previous Parliaments—and for me, that extends all the way back to when the Liberals were the government—is that, obviously, the ground rules for debate at this committee have an unfortunate context, in that we've had a tremendous amount of.... I should say that goodwill was poisoned a long time ago. I think we could apportion blame, but I think both sides have some element in that. Climbing down from that context, for those who have been here a bit longer, is going to require movement on both sides.

In an instance like this one, I would suggest.... I obviously thought that the prior way of handling this, where the check was applied equally to both sides, was the most equitable way of doing this. Of the alternatives that are left, I think this one is now the most equitable way to ensure there's a proper check from both sides.

I wish we didn't have the unfortunate context of the last two Parliaments. We do have some of that, and I think it's vitally important that we get this particular one right.

I will be supporting the motion for that, as it's the best of the two alternatives left. I would certainly hope that members on the opposite side will grant the reasonable check in both directions.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Woodworth.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. McGuinty's idea that we could leave this to be resolved at a future date is an interesting one, but it reminds me of an old maxim: that hard cases make bad law. It seems to me the worst time to try to come up with a new rule is when we encounter difficulties. That's when the opportunity to make a good rule is reduced. It's a little like starting out in a marriage knowing that you're not in agreement, and saying we'll wait until we're married a few years and then figure it out. It would be far better if we could get this right at the outset.

I'm surprised that we've moved so far from the original sentiment, which was that we want to make sure that all witnesses get heard. If we maintain that sentiment, then surely we ought to all be in the soup together, one way or the other.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Trudeau.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Checks and balances are essential in committee work, in this committee. The focus is that we hear witnesses.

It's been on the books that yes, the opposition has the capacity to block by not showing up. That's the issue the government side seems to have on this. That's what's been on the books. That's our check.

Your check, actually, is sitting as the chair. We cannot hear witnesses unless the chair agrees or the chair agrees to pass on his responsibility to the vice-chair. That's your check.

The proposal the government is putting forward right now is actually asking for permission to give the government the capacity to block witnesses' statements. That's what this amendment is all about.

You're complaining that “you guys on the other side have the capacity to block, so we should have the capacity to block as well”.

It may seem uneven from where you're sitting, but the opposition has the role that it has, and you have the chair that you have. Now let's vote once again on this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Calkins, and then Ms. Duncan.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Actually, I'm not so sure that the intention on my part is that one side can block the other. I think what this really comes down to is that when the committee is hearing testimony from a witness pertaining to a bill or a study, at some point in time that report or that bill will come up for votes. And I think it's incumbent that at least one person from either side of the table has the opportunity to attend every meeting so that we can get it right so the testimony that was heard at that reduced-quorum meeting can be accurately reflected, discussed, and debated.

I couldn't imagine simply relying on the Hansard statements to capture the entire nuance of a witness's testimony. There are lots of other things that need to be taken into consideration when a witness is here. For example, if there are any visual aids, those things aren't captured; if there are any nuances in tone or context, those things aren't captured either.

From my perspective, I think it would be handy to have at least one opposition member present and one member from the governing party present, so that when that testimony is heard, even if it is in a reduced quorum, the entirety of it can be discussed. We often meet as a group to discuss whether or not the testimony is accurately reflected in the blues or in the Hansard, whether it is accurately reflected or captured in a report, or in an amendment to a bill. And I think it's particularly unfair to either side, frankly, that the testimony could be given, could be heard, could be recorded without the presence of at least one member from either side of this table.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Ms. Duncan.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Chair, am I correct in saying that the existing rule is the one that's on the table and we are debating?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Actually, no. What was just proposed is that there be one member from each party. I believe that is what Mr. Warawa put on the table.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Can we just call the question, please?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

As long as I don't have anybody else on this.

I have Mr. Warawa and Mr. Woodworth speaking on this.

On a point of order, Mr. Bigras.

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

On a point of order.

I would like to know whether the motion just introduced is in order, since it restates one that has already been passed.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

No, the amended motion that has been presented by Mr. Warawa is different from the one that we just previously defeated, since it's now calling for a member from each party to be present when hearing witnesses. That is significantly different from what it was before, and I'm ruling the motion in order.

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

I am not sure of that.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

It's in order.

Next I have Mr. Woodworth, and then Mr. Warawa.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I have a question for the clerk, actually. It's stemming from my own lack of knowledge of some of these procedures.

In most committees and organizations that I belong to, the members of the committee can invoke a meeting, and in most committees or organizations that I belong to, the vice-chair can take over simply when the chair is not present. If those rules apply here, then Mr. Trudeau's comments about the government necessarily being chair may not be entirely to the point.

In other words, I'm asking, can a meeting of this committee occur where, by reason of the absence of the chair, the vice-chair is in the seat?

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

For your information, Mr. Woodworth, only the chair can call the meeting. So if I decided to call a meeting and then vacate that role and subjugate it to the vice-chair, that would be my position, but first I would have to call the meeting. Only the chair can call the meeting.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

If the meeting were called and you as chair were for some reason unable to attend, what would happen?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Then the vice-chair would take over, if I agreed to it, or I have the option to cancel the meeting.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Okay, Mr. Warawa. Hopefully this is the final comment.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, I don't want to repeat myself, but the logic of the clause that was in the original motion was from a majority government perspective, that you need to have the opportunity to have the opposition present so the majority government does not run roughshod over Parliament.

Of course, that was turned down. What was good for the goose is not good for the gander, apparently. So in the spirit of fairness, to protect the interests of the government and Canadians, we want to make sure that we are staying on track. The opposition did not want to have it applied fairly on both sides, so that's why the amending motion is that it would require a member from the NDP, a member from the Bloc, and from the Liberals and the government. Every member would have to be there.

I'm okay with calling that question in a moment, and hopefully it's supported here, because the other two amending motions were not. So I'm okay with calling the question at this time.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Are there any further comments?

Monsieur Ouellet.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Warawa's argument is not correct, because he is speaking as though there were a unified opposition. You know very well that that is not the case. You are unified, we are not. So your argument does not make sense.