Evidence of meeting #3 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
This is totally new. Can we just do that at the end of routine motions here?
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
If you want. I just wanted to find an appropriate place for it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Okay. We'll do the ones we normally do, and then we'll do yours at the end.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
In relation to the subcommittee on private members’ business, I so move:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(1), the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business be composed of one (1) member from each recognized party and a Chair from the Government party; and that Ginette Petitpas Taylor be appointed Chair of the Subcommittee.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Are we having campaign speeches from the candidates for the chairmanship?
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
I guess not.
Are we ready for the vote?
(Motion agreed to)
The next motion is routine, related to quorum. Does someone want to move a motion?
January 26th, 2016 / 11:35 a.m.
Liberal
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
I move:
That the Chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive and publish evidence when a quorum is not present, provided that at least three (3) members are present, including one (1) member of the opposition and one (1) member of the Government.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Yes. I have no problem with it as far as it goes.
The only thing I would ask is that, if we could amend it, either through a friendly amendment or a proper amendment, rather than just one member of the opposition, it be one member of the recognized parties in opposition, or words to that effect. In other words, there are three recognized parties and a number of independents who belong to other parties. Under this, the way it is, both of the other recognized opposition parties could be absent, yet quorum would still be maintained.
I realize this points to the divides between caucuses and independents, and that's something we still have to wrestle with. Our system is still not fair to independents, but it is geared to caucuses. It is geared to recognized parties. It's the basis of our entire structure. I'm just asking if we could make sure that it's clear that when it reads, “including one (1) member of the opposition”, it is one from a recognized party.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Wait a minute. You want to make sure that when it refers to “opposition” here, it's either of the two recognized parties.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Exactly, that's my point, Chair.
I understand and feel bad that it does what it does to independents, but the structure is built around caucuses. I have to protect the rights of my caucus.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Chair, could you solicit a comment from the clerk? My understanding is that for all committees in the past, quorum was the government and official opposition being present. There has never been any consideration to a third party's presence.
I'm wondering if the clerk can provide any indication of whether or not I am right or I am wrong. My understanding is that the presence of a member of the official opposition and a member of the government party is required in order to have a quorum. What's being proposed would be something completely new.
The Clerk of the Committee Ms. Joann Garbig
This particular motion here provides for a reduced quorum for the purpose of gathering evidence, so the committee can decide what it wants that to be composed of. The quorum for a meeting such as this is 50% plus one, but very often as a courtesy the chair will wait until there's representation around the table before calling the meeting to order.
Does that answer the question?
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Would the committee be able to function if we were to adopt Mr. Christopherson's rule, for example, if a third party representative was not at the table?
The Clerk
As this motion reads right now, it is one member of the opposition, so it could be either of the opposition parties represented on the committee. If I understand the amendment correctly, Mr. Christopherson would like to provide for a member of—
