Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 8th, 2020

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Ms. Shanahan is next.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Chair, I can see the utility of using the full committee to discuss issues, but can we just keep the option open of having a subcommittee if we're talking about things like scheduling?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Sure, absolutely.

Does anybody else want to weigh in on this issue?

Go ahead, Mr. Barrett.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Chair, I concur that we can reserve the option to use the subcommittee, but I think that by and large, if we can just have a business meeting of the full committee, except when necessary to just have a sub, your proposal is reasonable.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Go ahead, Mr. Fergus.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I do think, Mr. Chair, that having a subcommittee is very important. Now that we are moving towards hybrid committees—I believe PROC has moved down that line—some discussions are going to become a little bit more stilted and perhaps longer if we have them in the full committee. I do like having a subcommittee for the purpose that it was set up. I think it would actually be a lot more efficient than having these discussions. There's not the same easy back-and-forth as we have had. I would strongly suggest that we use one.

In this new constellation, I think subcommittees are going to become more important than they used to be.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Okay.

In a collaborative aspect here, colleagues, do you want to go with a subcommittee right away, or would you like to do business and have...? It would just mean that we would amend this motion by saying that the committee has the option of using a subcommittee for future agendas. I'll leave that to you.

It looks like Mr. Sorbara has a point as well.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

I'd like to concur with MP Shanahan on this point. I think we can keep the option, Chair, in terms of what you said. If we can keep both options, that would be great.

We're now in this virtual world of committees again. Having full flexibility and working in a spirit of collaboration among all MPs and among all parties, I think, is the best way to go.

It's nice to have the full committee discuss the business and get all of the information out there so that we all understand what's going on, especially because most of us will not be in Ottawa during this time. I think it lends itself well to building some camaraderie among us as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Okay, colleagues, is there some consensus that we'll go ahead with business in the full committee, with the option of a subcommittee, or do we need to go to a vote?

I try to do consensus as much as I can, but if we need to go to a vote, we can do that as well.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I'm fine.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

For reasons that I raised earlier, Mr. Chair, I'd prefer a subcommittee. There you go.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Would you prefer a vote, then, Mr. Fergus?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

No, not a vote. I just think we should keep it on the books. I think we'll quickly discover that there are some things that would be a better use of committee time. As long as we have that flexibility to go to a subcommittee, it's a legitimate tool, and I think it's one that will become increasingly important in this hybrid world.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Okay. My suggestion—and of course the clerk can massage the wording—would be that the option remain open for the committee to use a subcommittee on agenda. We'll leave that there so that any time committee members feel we've hit a logjam and we need to use the subcommittee, we can do that at a moment's notice, with somebody just raising the point.

Go ahead, Mrs. Shanahan.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

It seems to me that the option is already included in the existing wording. That was our usage in the first session. We didn't necessarily have a subcommittee every time, but knew we had that option. I think deciding whether it was better for something to go to a subcommittee or to be discussed in full came about by consensus. I don't see any need to change the wording as it is.

I'm just wondering if maybe the clerk could speak to that. I see she was nodding her head.

[The Clerk]

Sure, Mr. Chair, if you would like.

Having it in the routine motions means you can use it if you wish, but it doesn't oblige you to use it if the committee doesn't see the need. It is just the fallback to have it there and use it when necessary, but not necessarily.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Okay, colleagues, are we agreed that we accept this motion?

(Motion agreed to)

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I like the way the clerk used William Lyon Mackenzie King's formulation.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

You may continue, Mr. Fergus.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The third motion concerns meetings without a quorum. The motion reads as follows:

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 members are present, including one member of the opposition and one member of the government, but when travelling outside the parliamentary precinct, that the meeting begin after 15 minutes, regardless of members present.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Colleagues, is there any debate on that? Do we have agreement on that one?

(Motion agreed to)

Mr. Fergus, that motion is accepted, and we can move on to the next one.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

The fourth motion concerns the time for opening remarks and questioning of witnesses:

That witnesses be given 10 minutes for their opening statement; that, at the discretion of the chair, during questioning of witnesses, there be allocated six minutes for the first questioner of each party as follows: First round: Conservative Party, Liberal Party, Bloc Québécois, New Democratic Party; For the second and subsequent rounds, the order and time for questioning be as follows: Conservative Party, five minutes, Liberal Party, five minutes, Conservative Party, five minutes, Liberal Party, five minutes, Bloc Québécois, two and a half minutes and New Democratic Party, two and a half minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I'm seeing the manual hands-up pretty well, so thank you, colleagues.

Go ahead, Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Congratulations, Chair. I'm really looking forward to working with you on this committee.

This motion is different from what was adopted at PROC, and since PROC is the great mother of all the committees, we should be in line with their amendment, which would be, and I would move, that for the second and subsequent rounds, the order and time for questioning should be as follows: Conservative Party, five minutes; Liberal Party, five minutes; Bloc Québécois, two and a half minutes; New Democratic Party, two and a half minutes; Conservative Party, five minutes; Liberal Party, five minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Is there any comment, colleagues?

We are not really bound to PROC or to this motion. We are in control of our own destiny.

Go ahead, Madame Gaudreau.