Environment Committee on Feb. 5th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I call this meeting to order. Good morning, everyone. We're going to get into it right off the bat.

As we know, we have to finish off routine motions. We have only an hour this morning. We should try to get this wrapped up so we can get upstairs. The briefing documents are available in the committee room, and it gives us a chance to go through them before we actually have the briefing from the Auditor General and the environment commissioner.

Also, the environment commissioner is available to come back to the committee on Tuesday morning, so I'd suggest that we have him for an hour and then maybe do an hour of future business so that we can get our schedule lined up. Is everybody in agreement with that for Tuesday? Good.

When we left on Tuesday we were talking about reduced quorum, and I think we're back to the motion that was adopted by the committee at the 39th Parliament. Can I have somebody move a motion onto the floor to talk about reduced quorum?

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, I think we had a good, healthy discussion previously, and it was brought to our attention that reduced quorum was focused on the makeup of a majority government, where you have more members of the government on this side and you have to make sure that meetings cannot proceed without representation from the opposition members. The safety valve put in those routine motions is that the government can't hold meetings without a member of the opposition present, and that's what this clause is.

We find in a minority government that the opposite is true. In that case, a member of the government should be there. So would a motion be appropriate? We've already voted on changing it so that would say “the government”. Would it be appropriate to reintroduce that motion at this meeting?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

No, it wouldn't, because we've already voted on that motion and it was defeated, and essentially we're still in the extension of the meeting that we were previously in. So I wouldn't accept that as being in order.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

As a question to you, Chair, am I correct in that logic, that this is why that's in there, to protect making sure we have an appropriate—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Right. In most committees the chair is the government, and that's definitely the case in this situation. So the safety valve for the opposition is that they have at least one member present when there is a reduced quorum and witnesses being heard, and as we know, a reduced quorum cannot make any decisions either.

Monsieur Bigras.

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

I would like to know exactly where we are and what we are discussing at the moment. Could you remind us? I understand that we are dealing with the reduced quorum, but I would like to know if we have a motion to speak to. Exactly what are we discussing at the moment?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Well, there isn't a motion on the table right now. We were discussing the current motion, which is the one that was adopted at the 39th Parliament. That's the way we left the meeting last week. We had three amendments that were all defeated. So we're back to the main motion, and that's what we are talking about.

Monsieur Bigras.

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

I would like to comment on this motion. As I said at the last committee meeting, this is the motion that allows us to show most respect for our witnesses. When the chair issues an invitation to a meeting on a specific matter, witnesses often have to travel a long way to testify. Out of respect for those witnesses, we have to be able to hold the meeting and hear them. We have to stop what I would call this meeting prevention system. The witnesses must be heard.

So I think that it is important to pass the motion as it was passed at the last meeting. It shows our witnesses that we are being transparent and that we respect them. When meetings are called by the chair, we have to able to hold them.

I do not know what the official opposition thinks.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Just on a matter of process here as well, because we are starting a meeting, we have to actually move this onto the floor. I need somebody to move the motion of reduced quorum onto the floor for discussion.

Can I have somebody move the motion of reduced quorum?

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

Mr. Chair, I thought we had voted on it. Could you just give us a little recap?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We voted on amendments.

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

We hadn't voted on the main motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Because we are starting a new meeting, we need to move it back onto the floor. I do need a mover for that motion.

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

Maybe somebody could inform me. My understanding is that normally this would not be the way a committee would operate. This is something new, is it not? Is it not a sort of new twist on things?

I'm just trying to get some background. You've been a chair of a committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Whenever a committee reconvenes a meeting, we should actually follow proper process. You should move the motions back onto the floor. I'm asking somebody to move—

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

No, I'm saying in terms of previous committees.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Previous committees? Yes, this has been the norm in most committees. I understand, through the other committees that have met, that the reduced quorum, as has been proposed and circulated by the clerk, has been adopted at the majority of other committee organizational meetings.

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

Maybe Mr. Bigras or someone else who was at the committee could enlighten us or confirm this, but I recall the last time we had a situation when we had witnesses here and because, I think, if I'm not mistaken, there were no government members, the witnesses were basically held stranded.

Does the clerk remember something like this?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Radford.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Normand Radford]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Scarpaleggia, it seems like it was a long time ago, but I seem to recall we had hearings that included people from Europe in a teleconference, and unfortunately a water valve broke in the city of Ottawa. All buildings had to be vacated. Therefore, the meeting had to be cancelled. I do remember that.

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

I remember another situation where we actually had witnesses sitting here, but anyway, that's fine. Thank you for the information.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Ouellet and then Mr. Warawa.

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

Mr. Chair, if I understand correctly, we are discussing the principle, not a specific motion. I am just asking.

Mr. Warawa mentioned it earlier. I would like to discuss the principle too. I have some doubts about his reasoning that this clause protects the opposition. At the moment, with a government in the minority and the opposition in the majority, but divided, this clause protects the minority government more. Government members can up and decide not to attend a meeting and so prevent witnesses from being heard.

And you can see how divided we are; not all members were here previously, and not all are here now. On this side of the table, we are not united. This motion, which is quite usual and standard in all committees, serves precisely to maintain the opposition's lack of unity. Even in a minority, the government is protected by the fact that it feels, and is, united.

I am totally opposed to withdrawing the absolute need to have a representative from the opposition. That is the basic principle, in fact; we have to give the opposition an opportunity always to be present. We know that is not going to happen on the government side, even in a minority. It could be even more of a minority and it still would never happen. If government members decide to be here, they will all be here. If they decide not to be here, none will be here. We saw an example this morning.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Warawa and then Mr. Woodworth.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Do we have a motion on the floor now?