Fisheries Committee on Feb. 3rd, 2009

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

In my opinion, this formula should not be changed for several reasons. The first is purely parliamentary, whether it's the main committee or the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. In fact, simply to reassure Mr. John Weston regarding his question, let me point out on the one hand that the subcommittee in question deals with all the subjects given to it by the standing committee, and on the other hand, the word “agenda” has to be understood in the broadest sense of the term. As you know, there are electoral agendas, but here we're not talking about that. It's more an issue of our working agenda. In that sense, it's understood in the broader sense.

I think we shouldn't change the way we're doing things right now because I feel it's a winning formula. It allows us to represent all the strengths that exist within the main committee. In other words, each of the political parties is well represented and it is fully represented. Moreover, we've seen that in these conditions, the government is represented by two people out of a total of five, which is not the case for the Bloc Québécois or the Liberal Party. In my opinion, that faithfully represents the current Parliament, and it allows for very good cooperation for our work and shows a good attitude of openness. I hope that this will be maintained by the government party because it allows for the participation of representatives from each of the political parties.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Chair, I simply threw those ideas out there as suggestions. It doesn't look as if there's much support for changing what we currently have. So in the interest of time, I simply move that the motion on subcommittee on agenda and procedure from the 39th Parliament be presented for the 40th Parliament.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

All right. We've dispensed with the previous motion made by Mr. Calkins.

Mr. Calkins would move that the motion as adopted by the 39th Parliament on the subcommittee on agenda and procedure be put forward at this time, seconded by Monsieur Lévesque.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Now we're going to deal with the motion on reduced quorum. The motion read from the 39th Parliament is 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.

Are there any questions?

Mr. Allen.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Yes, I have just one quick point on this, Mr. Chair.

In spite of it being just three members—I would like to see it four, but on a committee of 12.... Given evidence and depending on the composition of the committee, it could mean any party is occupying the chair at that particular time. So in the spirit of what we just passed in the previous one, that there is assurance that the government party have a membership on the subcommittee, I would like to see that it be specific: provided that at least x members are present, including at least one member from the opposition and one government member.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

So Mr. Allen would move that we change the motion put forward from the 39th Parliament to add this wording: “to include at least one member of the opposition and one member of the government party”.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

And Mr. Chair, while I'm at it, if people were to entertain a move from three to four, that would be my interest as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Let me get this clear. Is the amendment you're putting forward, Mr. Allen, that the quorum would be at least four members present, including one member from the opposition party and at least one member from the government party?

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

That is correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

First of all, I'd like to have those two amendments split, because I have a different view of each of them.

On the first one, I would agree with there being a government member, because it seems fair that they be present when witnesses are heard, although I would say that in the past, if government were to try to use that provision—and I'm sure these members wouldn't—to avoid having a witness speak, then we in the opposition would just change the provision in the future. But I'm prepared to support it at this point.

On the second part, though, concerning having four present, the problem for people who have been at committees before is that sometimes you have a witness who is only of interest to a few members, and something else very critical is also going on that members have to be at. If you bring a witness from all across the country at great expense to the taxpayer and only three of us show up, I think it's still worth hearing the person; then it's in the record and people could read it anyway. Likewise, if you travel somewhere at a cost of about $5,000 a person to a place such as Cambridge Bay and only three committee members can go, I still think it's worth it to those people that they go, as opposed to having to have four members just to hear that evidence.

So it would be great if four or more could show up when witnesses are here, but I'd hate to make it mandatory to hear witnesses with four present. I think three gives us more flexibility.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Monsieur Blais.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like as many committee members as possible to be in attendance when witnesses appear. This should be the case on a regular basis. It is simply a matter of respect. At the same time, I do understand the quorum formula and I agree with the first part of Mike's amendment. I simply wanted to make an amendment to include at least one member from the opposition. I do not have a twisted mind whatsoever; quite the opposite, I am showing openness. I think that the quorum should include a member from the government and a member from the opposition.

We do operate in a rather collegial, open and cooperative way, but we are also engaged in politics. Unfortunately, that can sometimes catch up with us. In some cases, that is what happened over the past few months. I pointed this out to committee members and the atmosphere at committee did improve somewhat. Accordingly, I agree to a reduced quorum, where the government and the opposition are represented, in order to avoid unpleasant situations. The formula which would increase quorum from three to four members is, in my opinion, imperative or essential.

I am prepared to support the amendment suggested by Mr. Allen, but I do not believe that we necessarily have to increase the quorum. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Monsieur Blais.

Mr. MacAulay.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

If I understand correctly, when you read it, you didn't add the second part. The first part was....

Or did you?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

No.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

What was the motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Julia has it written out here: “including at least one government member and one opposition member”. I didn't add the portion about increasing to four members.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

I agree with what has been said here, that if it came to only three members being available and you couldn't hear the evidence, it would be most unfortunate. It's true that people travel a long way. That I certainly support. I think you must leave it at three--and of course, as many as you can have. The fact is that all you are doing is receiving evidence; you're not having a vote of the committee or anything like that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Monsieur Lévesque.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my opinion on the need to have a fourth person in order to obtain a reduced quorum. I am thinking about circumstances where, for instance, the committee may be called upon to travel immediately to a very remote region in order to listen to some individuals' concerns. We have to consider the means available to the committee. The obligation to have this fourth person in order to have a reduced quorum and thus be able to hold a committee meeting represents an additional cost.

Moreover, unless Mr. Allen is prepared to split his amendment, I'm wondering whether we should accept it as it is worded, namely, whereby the quorum has to include an additional member as well as an opposition member and a member from the government. I would not like to see the situation, as we have already seen in certain committees, where the party in government, or for that matter a party from the opposition, uses this requirement in order to prevent certain witnesses from appearing. I am really counting on the good faith of the two parties, given the agreement that we have had up until now, in order to ensure that this committee continues to run smoothly. An aspect of a motion should not be used in order to prevent the committee from sitting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Monsieur Lévesque.

Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I believe what I've heard here, then, is that hopefully Mr. Allen would be willing to accept a friendly amendment to leave the quorum at three, yet change the motion from the last Parliament, so that at least one government member and one opposition member are present during a reduced quorum.

I want to make the point that I really do appreciate the sense of cooperation from our colleagues across the way, because it is quite important. I know from the trips we've gone on that it was very important.

For example, Mr. Blais, when we went to Gaspé for hearings, on the last day of a five-day trip it was very hard to keep the whole semblance of the committee together, but we were able to hear very important testimony from your constituents.

I think it's very nice to have members, because we are allowed to cross-examine, or at least examine, the witnesses and ask some questions, even in a reduced quorum. It's vitally important that at least questions be presented from both the government party side and the opposition side so that a full and balanced approach can be taken.

I do appreciate the fact that sometimes it's unfortunate that we would only have three members. It would be nice to have four or five members, or a full committee, but in the interest of protecting the use of taxpayers' dollars, we'd better make use of three committee members when we have to, to make sure that we don't have a witness come all this way or that we travel to some remote part of the country, which we often do as a fisheries committee, and not be able to accept testimony simply because we have a rule that doesn't seem to make sense at that particular point in time.

So I was hoping that would be accepted as a friendly amendment and we could move on and go to the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Mr. Allen.