Evidence of meeting #1 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was six.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:10 a.m.
The Clerk
It has been moved by Mr. Amos that Mr. Cullen be elected as the second vice-chair of the committee.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Cullen has been duly elected as second vice-chair of the committee.
11:10 a.m.
Some hon. members
Hear, hear!
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
That's fantastic, thank you.
The next business of the committee is the adoption of the routine motions, so if the committee members agree, we can proceed to the adoption of the routine motions. Are there any objections?
While they are being handed out, I'll just let you know that these are the motions that were adopted in the last Parliament. Just to be clear, we'll need a mover for each separate motion.
We can start with the service of the analysts from the Library of Parliament.
Go ahead, Mr. Gerretsen.
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Madam Chair., I'll move the first routine motion, the service of the analysts from the Library of Parliament, which is:
That the Committee retain the services of one or more analysts from the Library of Parliament, as needed, to assist the Committee in its work and that these services may be requested at the discretion of the Chair.
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Is there any discussion?
(Motion agreed to)
I'd like at this time to invite Penny Becklumb and Tim Williams, the committee analysts, to take their places at the table, please. Welcome, and thank you.
The next item to be addressed is the subcommittee on agenda and procedure.
Mr. Aldag.
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
I move:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be composed of five (5) members, including the Chair, the two (2) Vice-Chairs, the two (2) members of government; That quorum of the Subcommittee shall consist of at least three (3) members, including one (1) member of the opposition; That each member of the Subcommittee shall be permitted to have one (1) assistant attend any meetings of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure; and That, in addition, each party shall be permitted to have one (1) staff member from a House Officer attend any meetings.
February 4th, 2016 / 11:10 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Madam Chair, I understand that this is a reflection of the process that we had in the last Parliament, with a few minor changes. I'd be interested to see if the committee members are willing to simply have the subcommittee comprise all the members of this committee, simply because the number of members has now been reduced from 12 to 10. It's not as unwieldy as it used to be.
One of the things that I found, Madam Chair, when I was chairing justice between 2008 and 2011, is that we'd have these discussions as a subcommittee and we'd realize there was probably helpful information we could get from the remaining committee members, and we'd have to refer back or try to anticipate what that input might be. Certainly we're not stuck on that, but it's something that I believe is available for us to do, to consider matters of agenda and procedure as a full committee.
11:15 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to my friend down the way.
I chaired a committee as well. I'm one who is inclined in the other direction. I find that the subcommittees, particularly in cases where they achieve a consensus, are able to work quickly. It's a much more informal conversation because there are fewer people. I totally respect Ed's view that there have been some committees, particularly the more contentious they are, where consensus is rarely achieved, so the subcommittee does work, and then you have to bring it back to the full committee for the passing of an agenda anyway.
I would propose that at least we start off on the subcommittee path, because many committees worked that way in the past, and see if that consensus model works okay and that we aren't referring back and repeating the conversation. I think maybe that's the thing Ed is worried about, that you end up repeating conversations if there isn't a lot of collegiality. It always comes back to the larger committee anyway; it's not as if the subcommittee can entirely be its own power.
At least give it a few months to see how it works and then return back to this, which we can always do as a committee, and change the way we do business.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Okay. Just for clarity, we don't have to actually put it to the subcommittee, right? We don't have to use this provision. It's there if we need it, but we don't have to use it. That's up to our discretion.
Mr. Gerretsen.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
I was going to ask a question that I think Mr. Cullen answered, which was about whether we can revisit it later on if necessary. The truth of the matter is that I have a very heavy workload and I wouldn't personally want to commit myself to being part of the subcommittee as well.
My question was going to be about if we can return to it later and amend these procedures if we choose to do so. I know that you've only been the chair for five minutes, but I expect an answer to my question.
11:15 a.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
I have an expert tweeting in my ear here telling me all the important things.
My understanding is that because these motions require the full committee to decide on them, we could make recommendations from the subcommittee but they would have to come back to this committee anyway if we were going to make changes. So the answer is yes, we can, but it would be done by the full committee if there's a recommendation that we want to make later.
We do have a motion on the floor, and we do need to address it. Is there any further discussion?
Based on what was discussed, are all in favour?
(Motion agreed to)
Thank you.
The next one is on reduced quorum.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC
As far as reduced quorum is concerned, I would like to move the following:
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 four (4) members are present, including one member from the opposition and one member from the governing party. That in the case of previously scheduled meetings taking place outside the Parliamentary precinct, the Committee members in attendance shall only be required to wait 15 minutes following the designated start of the meeting before they may proceed to hear witnesses and receive evidence, regardless of whether opposition or government members are present.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Is there any discussion? All in favour?
(Motion agreed to)
Great. Thank you.
The next one is about the distribution of documents.
Mr. Bossio.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
I would like to move this motion on the distribution of documents, which states:
That only the Clerk of the Committee be authorized to distribute to the members of the Committee any documents, including motions, and that all documents which are to be distributed amongst the Committee members must be in both official languages; and That the Clerk shall advise all witnesses appearing before the Committee of this requirement.
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC
It's just a point of information. I've been around enough committee proceedings to know that in reality, witnesses oftentimes come in semi-prepared, having sometimes submitted their documents in advance. It becomes a networking session, and they start passing around documents.
Practically speaking, what is the control mechanism? How does it work? Do we just make an announcement and say they are not allowed to pass around any materials?
11:20 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
This has often come up in the past, and while it may seem a bit onerous, the staff will instruct all witnesses many times to make sure they bring documents in advance so that we can have them translated. Some witnesses just simply don't.
It makes things very uncomfortable, because often at committee someone will pass a motion to say, “Let's just please accept this”. In 90% to 95% of the cases it's in English, and it puts some of our francophone members at a great disadvantage if they say “yes” to make everything move along and to get along, and then they just don't have the information in front of them.
For our unilingual anglophone friends, I'd say, imagine the reverse, that someone comes in to testify, speaks entirely in French, presents a complicated document in French, and you feel under pressure to just simply accept it.
The NDP's tradition has been very strict on this, that we don't allow it. That's within the rules of the House, and it's just a fairness thing.
There may be the occasional one-off where there is something small or it's a graph or a picture with a description. For those kinds of things we'll try to make concessions. However, my general instruction is a pretty hard line, which is unusual for us, but on this one it's pretty clear. Someone is put at a huge disadvantage if they don't have it and if, when it comes up, they feel pressured to vote for it to be allowed. It's not great for unilingual francophone members in particular. That seems to be the overwhelming number of cases. I'm sure it happens in reverse, but it's usually that way.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I concur with Mr. Cullen as to why we set up this kind of procedure, but we, as a committee, are masters of our own procedure and we can certainly dispense with that requirement by unanimous consent.
I think you will acknowledge that there will be times when there are emergent circumstances in which we would want to allow the distribution of documents without formally going through the clerk, and that would be available to us.
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
That's great. The clerk was just telling me that it would be a really good process to do it this way; however, there may be times it could be done by unanimous consent at the meeting.
Are we all in favour of the motion as presented? I think we already did vote but it got sidetracked.
(Motion agreed to)
The next one is on staff at in camera meetings.
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
I would be pleased to move that, Madam Chair, and I apologize in advance to the francophones in the room:
That each Committee member in attendance shall be permitted to have one (1) staff member attend any in camera meetings; and That, in addition, each party shall be permitted to have one (1) staff member from a House Officer attend in camera meetings.