Environment Committee on Feb. 3rd, 2009

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If the government side has agreed that the committee should invite one or more witnesses, I think it only makes sense that the government members be required to take part in the meeting. If the government side is absolutely opposed to inviting a witness, it has the option of filibustering, even in a minority situation. There are options open to the government side. In any case, when we decide to invite witnesses, this is normally done with the approval of the government side. If all of a sudden the government side were to decide to overturn the decisions that have been made and to boycott the committee, then I think there would be a lack of good faith. I would not expect such a thing from my colleagues on the other side.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Trudeau, Mr. Warawa, and then Mr. Woodworth.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

I'm just concerned with the possibility of blocking or not hearing witnesses. The reality is, we all want to get along and we all want to work well. We want to see committees function, but there have been times when that hasn't been able to happen. I think putting in a rule that allows for the government to block the hearing of witnesses--not the functioning of committees, but the hearing of witnesses--is dangerous.

Hopefully it will never be necessary, and this committee is going to work well, everyone is going to get along, and this will be a useless discussion. But I'm wary of giving an extra edge to a government that has, in the past, shown poor faith in that regard.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Warawa, then Mr. Woodworth.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

This is an interesting discussion. Mr. Trudeau just mentioned a history of the government blocking listening to the witnesses. In fact, Chair, that has not happened. It has been the other way around, where the opposition has tried to block the hearing.

As I said about five minutes ago, we had witnesses lined up and sitting in their chairs, and it was the opposition that said we are changing the agenda and we are not going to hear from the witnesses; we have a new agenda. That was the 39th Parliament. That's behind us. Hopefully it doesn't happen.

The fingers are being pointed at the government as the body that would possibly be creating the problem. I think the argument can go both ways. Hopefully that was in the past, and hopefully we can work together. I think there is agreement around this table that witnesses, when they are invited, should be heard, and that the government and opposition should not object to hearing from the witnesses. It should go both ways. I'm assuming that we're starting off with goodwill and that the rules apply both to opposition members and to the government side.

Now what we have before us in this motion is a clarification at the end: “including one member of the opposition”. If that were struck and it read “that the chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence and to have that evidence printed when a quorum is not present, providing at least three members are present”, period, that would deal with the concern that's been expressed. The rules apply for both sides, so the witnesses can be heard, providing there are three members here. We are then in a position of trust to one another.

So I would then move that the last phrase, “including one member of the opposition”, be struck, and we can move on.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Woodworth.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Warawa has stolen my thunder. It is precisely the point I was going to make: what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If our friends opposite are concerned about us boycotting the committee, I'm sure they will well understand that we might be concerned about them boycotting the committee. Alternatively, if in fact we want to have equity, then both government and opposition should be present, or I agree with Mr. Warawa's suggestion to strike the requirement for an opposition member.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

What we have on the table is a motion reading 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.

Monsieur Bigras.

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

I understand. We had a discussion on an amendment. Now a favourable amendment has been put forward, but there is no debate. We are voting immediately on this amendment. Is that in fact what you are telling us? Can we acknowledge the fact that Mr. Warawa's amendment has just been amended, and that there should be a discussion on it?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I believe we're trying to work in the spirit of consensus and cooperation at the table, and Mr. Warawa is amending his own motion, saying we should take into consideration the concern that's been expressed by the opposition to make—

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

I understand very well, Mr. Chair, but we reached consensus on the basis of a discussion. In the government's new motion, we must take into account the fact that inevitably, the chair is the person who calls the meeting. I do not know what the other members of the official opposition think about this new amendment, which amounts to putting a period after the word "present" and eliminating the words "including one member of the opposition". I would like to have a discussion on this point.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Trudeau is first, then it will be Mr. Scarpaleggia.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

We are absolutely opposed to the idea that even in theory the chair could call witnesses and bring three members of the government side to hear the witness and have the proceedings recorded as official evidence without any of the official opposition being there. That is, I think, against the spirit of our parliamentary system.

To say that one member of the opposition should be present is different from saying that everybody should have someone there. There is a role for the official opposition—or for the opposition, not even “official” opposition—to be present when a witness is being heard.

I think the motion should stand as is and that it's a mistake to amend it.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Scarpaleggia.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

I would add to that by saying in response to Mr. Woodworth's point that we have an asymmetrical situation here. I don't think we can say that what's good for the goose should be good for the gander. We have a party that is in a minority position and therefore might have an incentive to block the work of the committee by not showing up. The opposition typically would not have the incentive to try to block the work of the committee, because we have a majority, and chances are that we would have agreed to bring in certain witnesses.

I think we should take away this ability to upend the committee through absenteeism.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I have Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I guess we're now back to some discussion saying that if we're going to apply the check on the possibility of three members being from one party, then the equal and opposite check should be in place. We should be specifying that one government member be present, if they're going to specify that one opposition member is part of this as well.

Some of the history from this Parliament at its first convening may point the finger at the government; there was plenty of “gotcha” from the other side. If we're going to start establishing stipulations that are checks, then they should be equal. Then we're probably back to the discussion that if this is to include one member of the opposition, it should also include one member of the government.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We'll go to Mr. Warawa, and then to Mr. Woodworth.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

This is quite an interesting discussion. I thought this was quite obvious; obviously not.

Mr. Trudeau made a comment that there is a role for the opposition to be present. I would agree with that. But I would also agree, or think it would be fair, that there is a role for the government to be here.

Now, the majority of the time in the history of Parliament, you have had majority governments. Minority governments have been in the minority. To protect opposition members at committee, this clause was put in there so that the government couldn't run roughshod and do its own thing. Before you could hear from witnesses, you had to have members of the opposition there.

That's the logic for this to be in there. And it's good. It provides fairness. It provides protection that the government can't do just whatever it wants. You have to have opposition members there.

In the 38th Parliament and the 39th Parliament, and now this Parliament, they've been minority Parliaments. Reverse logic needs to play. In a traditional Parliament, there are more members on the government side than on the opposition side. In a minority, it's the opposite.

We found in the last Parliament a description of the tyranny of the minority, or the tyranny of the opposition. With seven members on that side and four members on this side, there was very little left for the government to do to protect our democratic rights to be involved with the procedure at committee.

That's why the logic is that the government has to be there. With more members on that side, seven against four in the last Parliament, for things to run properly and to give the government an opportunity to present their case and their opinion, you had to have us there at the meeting. The logic there needed to be that you have a member of the government at those meetings. Otherwise, the opposition, who had more members, could run roughshod over them.

In the last Parliament, we also saw--this will be the third time reminding the members here--that when witnesses were ignored and dismissed, that did not happen from the government; it happened with the agenda of the opposition, at the last. We have a new Parliament, so again, let's push that behind us. But it happened. All the examples of witnesses not being heard were due to the decisions of the opposition, not the government.

I think the rules of fairness have to apply for both sides. In this Parliament, we have approximately 50-50. We have six members of the opposition and five members, so it's pretty close. For this committee to function in a spirit of trust and fairness, we have to all be willing to work together. There is a role for the opposition, yes, but to insinuate that there's not a role for the government defies logic. There must be a role for the government to play in here.

If we're laying out the rules that we all need to respect and move on from and use as our framework, if there has to be opposition members here, then we must assume that there has to be government members here. If, in an approximate 50-50 makeup, you're going to list the opposition, you have to list the government. If you're not going to list the opposition, then you don't have to list the government.

So in the spirit of fairness, it has to be one way or another. If you list opposition, you must list government. If you're not going to list one side, then you don't have to list the other. Either way, whether I amend it by including the government or I amend it by having nobody, we have to have a spirit of fairness and logic.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Woodworth, and then Mr. McGuinty.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, before I came to this meeting this morning, I resolved that I would live by the maxim that it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open my mouth and confirm all suspicions. I find myself speaking a little more than I had intended, so please forgive me my lack of experience.

Especially with timidity, I wish to take some small issue with Mr. Scarpaleggia as to the question of who has an incentive to boycott a meeting and who does not. I haven't been here long enough to know, but I can imagine a situation in which there might be witnesses appearing who might be favourable to a government position, and the opposition might have incentive to boycott.

I think the chair can question witnesses, but it's my view that the chair's role is best fulfilled by not descending into the arena, and that we would be well advised to allow for government questioning other than by the chair. That would make committees run more fairly, in my opinion.

However, I'd like to bring us back to the noble spirit with which this discussion began, which is our intention that when witnesses travel from a distance they not be left unheard. Truly, if that's the noble intention we're trying to achieve here, then we ought to remove any possibility of witnesses not being heard by reason of boycott, by either the opposition or the government. If our intention is that witnesses be heard, then let's get rid of this whole opportunity for game playing and just take that sentence out.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have one quick sentence. I can't imagine a scenario in which the government, which now has up to five full members on the committee, would not have a member present unless they chose not to be present.

Secondly, I'd like to call the vote, if we could, on this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Okay. The vote is called.

[A voice]

On what?