Evidence of meeting #1 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was vote.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC
Essentially, I'm proposing that this is not a routine motion, that there is no subcommittee for this committee and that those decisions that would be made at a subcommittee would be made by all of us together.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
What is being proposed is that we put the motion forward, we vote on it, but we vote it down, if you agree with Mr. Strahl's....
4 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC
In the absence of that motion, what happens? If we vote against this...?
I guess I'm not understanding. If we're moving motions to be approved and if the motion is simply not moved, what happens? The question becomes, if we simply agree that we're not going to have a subcommittee, do we just go merrily along? I would say that's probably easier than saying please vote against a motion that no one has yet moved.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC
In discussion, I don't think we need to have this as a routine motion, so I would encourage us to not....
4 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Procedurally, I thought this motion was moved and I just took Mr. Strahl to be speaking against adopting the motion.
If it wasn't moved, I move will it. After you get the procedural thing sorted out, I'm happy to say why I think it's important to have this subcommittee, unless you want me to speak to that now.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
It has been moved.
Now, further to that, is there any discussion?
Mr. Hardie.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
I don't know if this is the proper procedure or not, but to Mr. Strahl's suggestion, is it possible to amend this motion? Could it instead be established and be composed of the committee of the whole?
February 16th, 2016 / 4 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
What we're doing at this stage is setting the routine motions that will govern the committee business. This is the proposal to establish a subcommittee on agenda and procedure. If you didn't have this motion, then it would be the committee that does this as a committee of the whole in the absence of anything else.
I'm going to speak to why I think a subcommittee on agenda and procedure is a good tool for a committee like this. As Mr. Chair already pointed out, you don't have to use it but it's there for you if it's adopted in routine motions.
I sat on the trade committee for the last three years, which did not have a subcommittee on agenda and procedure. It was not a happy experience.
When that happens, a couple of things occur. First, there is no ability to meet in advance of the meeting, work things out, and discuss them as part of a more informal procedure—and by the way, every decision that's taken at a subcommittee has to come back before the committee anyway, where it would be ratified, so the decisions have to be taken here. By having a subcommittee, it allows a smaller committee to meet and do a little bit of that legwork in advance of the committee.
Second, the practice of the previous government in committees was to go in camera for anything to do with committee business. Anytime you wanted to discuss a potential item of business, the government went in camera and everything was secret and off the record. That's how committee business was dealt with. I hope that's not the practice of this government or of this committee, but by having a subcommittee, you can talk about the committee business and then come before this committee and have an open public discussion about whether the committee wants to adopt the recommendations of that subcommittee.
I think it's very helpful to have a subcommittee. Again, it's up to the chair and the committee itself when to use it, but if you don't have it in your routine motions then you don't have the subcommittee. I think that's a lamentable absence.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
I'm a fisheries committee veteran. I've been on it during my entire time as a member of Parliament, four-plus years. The fisheries committee has a reputation of being quite a collegial committee. Essentially all reports were unanimous.
We did have a subcommittee, but as subcommittee members we all had a lot of meetings to go to, and that was an extra one. The chair at the time made the subcommittee work but everything the subcommittee did had to be brought back to the committee of the whole anyway. I always felt that it was a bit redundant, and quite honestly, as I said, the collegiality of this committee, or at least what I've been used to, means that I think we'll come to some pretty easy agreement on what needs to be done with a fairly efficient use of our time.
I honestly don't think this is a very large question for us, and quite frankly, I think that if we find the idea for a committee of the whole to set the agenda doesn't seem to be working that well, we can always form a subcommittee.
Thank you.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Does anyone else want to weigh in on this issue?
Okay, right now we have to vote on the motion, as moved by Mr. Davies, that the subcommittee on the agenda and procedure be established and be composed of the chair, the two vice-chairs, and two members of the government party.
(Motion agreed to)
We now have a subcommittee on agenda and procedure.
The next item is reduced quorum. The motion 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, including one government member and one opposition member.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
We now have the distribution of documents. The motion is that the clerk of the committee be authorized to distribute documents to members of the committee and only when such documents exist in both official languages.
That is moved by Mr. McDonald.
(Motion agreed to)
4:05 p.m.
An hon. member
Now we're on food.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
As was duly noted by my honourable colleagues, we now have working meals. The motion is that the clerk of the committee be authorized to make the necessary arrangement to provide working meals for the committee and its subcommittees.
That is moved by Mr. Finnigan.
(Motion agreed to)
Now we have witnesses' expenses. The motion is that, if requested, reasonable travel accommodation and living expenses be reimbursed to witnesses not exceeding two representatives per organization, and that in exceptional circumstances payment for more representatives be made at the discretion of the chair.
Mr. Davies.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to propose an amendment and seek the unanimous consent of the committee to add a sentence at the end of this paragraph that says.... I'll just read it, and I'll go slowly so you can write it down.
The proposed amendment is “However, each witness shall be offered the opportunity to testify by video conference.”
The point of the paragraph that's been proposed, the routine motion, is that if requested by a witness we allow them to come testify to the committee. It's getting increasingly common at Parliament to allow testimony by video conference. It's more efficient. It's sometimes more convenient. The reason I think both have to be there is that you still want to maintain the ability to have witnesses come to Ottawa to testify for a number of reasons. Sometimes it's easier to have them in person. Sometimes what happens is that witnesses who live in regions like British Columbia, or farther away, tend not to be able to come to Ottawa, so you get people that live near Ottawa coming to testify before committee more frequently. That's why I think if we preserve both options, it's important.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC
I'm wondering if Mr. Davies agrees with the sentiment that it needs a “where possible” in there? If he could read it again. I'm wondering if we can add “where possible” to “they should be given the opportunity”. I don't know. There are times when people don't have access. If they're from UBC, for example, they're going to have access to video conference and facilities. Is there a proviso in there to give us some flexibility as well? I think we still want them to come. Is this the preferred option then of the committee, or is it giving the witness the option?
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
If I may interject for one moment on a procedural thing before we get too far into the weeds on that one. Sorry, I'm not diminishing your point.
We have to move the main motion first. Someone has to move an amendment to it, so the main motion consists of this: that, if requested, reasonable travel accommodation and living expenses be reimbursed to a witness not exceeding two representatives per organization, and that in exceptional circumstances, payment for more representatives be made at the discretion of the chair.
That's the main motion.
