Evidence of meeting #1 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 40th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Mr. Chair, could we have the amendment read again?
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Certainly we can. Maybe we should read the motion and the amendment.
11:40 a.m.
The Clerk
Ms. Jennings moved that the subcommittee on agenda and procedure be composed of the chair, the two vice-chairs, and a member of the other opposition party.
Mr. Reid moved that the motion be amended by adding, after the words “opposition party”, the following: “and one government member”.
(Amendment agreed to)
(Motion agreed to as amended)
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
We have other routine motions to get through.
The next motion passed in the last Parliament was that the chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive and publish evidence when a quorum is not present, provided that at least three members are present, including a member of the opposition. Would anyone like to move that motion?
It is moved by Mr. Proulx.
Is there discussion on that motion? Mr. Lukiwski.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
I just want to make sure I've read the previous motion first, because I may have a point to make.
I suggest that the quorum should consist of at least three members, one of whom must be a member of the government and one of whom must be a member of the opposition.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
11:40 a.m.
Bloc
Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
I will be voting against the amendment because it amounts to giving the government a right of veto. All government members will need to do is not show up and the committee's hands will be tied.
I cannot support this amendment and I hope that everything sides with me on this.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will be voting against this amendment. The government party was trying to put one over on us earlier when it said that it intended to co-operate, to not...
May I continue, Mr. Chairman?
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
The members of the government party were trying to sell us a bill of goods earlier when they told us that they would refrain from making this committee excessively partisan and that they wanted everyone to work by consensus. The problem is that the same thing that happened in the last Parliament could also happen again as early as next week. If the government is unwilling to have the committee hear from witnesses on a particular subject, all it has to do is not show up for our meetings, and our committee will be paralyzed and completely unable to act. I've already lived through that very same situation. Even if the government says it has no intention of revisiting the past, to avoid a recurrence, I intend to vote against this amendment.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Thank you, Chair.
I have two quick points.
I believe I made an equitable and fair suggestion: if you're going to have a quorum you should have representation from both sides of the table. I suppose Mr. Guimond's argument is that if the government wants to stonewall us they don't have to show up, but if there was a situation where the opposition disagreed with the way that was going, they could do the same. They just don't have to show up and it goes no further.
I think it's a matter of equity and fairness. There's not much more I can add. If you think there are some ulterior motives behind us, there are not. You either take me at my word or you don't, I guess. That's why I made the amendment.
11:45 a.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Chairman, I will be voting against this amendment. The argument that was made the last time around is still valid. We want assurances that the opposition will be present. We will not close the door on the government. If a government representative wants to attend, then by all means he can. He will not be able to use the excuse that there is no quorum to not show up. It's simple, all he has to do is show up. The motion does not say that the government will not show up; it will be represented. If not, that will be its choice.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
I'm not going to try belabouring the point at great length when clearly the opposition parties, who have a majority here, are all against it. I think that indicates it will be defeated.
Mr. Godin, do you support this?
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
He doesn't.
Notwithstanding Mr. Lukiwski's intervention, I didn't want to belabour the point.
I do want to stress something here. I was a little disturbed by Mr. Proulx's suggestion that although we're all trying to get off to a good start here, we're already presupposing that the government side is going to stonewall and be obstructionist and so forth.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
A point of order.
Mr. Chair, I don't think Mr. Reid should misquote what I've said. If you look at the blues, that was not the sense of my intervention; it was a situation of preventing....
Thank you.