Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Jan. 26th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

An officially recognized party....

[The Clerk]

But it applies to members of the committee already.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

If I may, I hear your point. Thank you very much, Madam Clerk.

It really would only apply if we added one of the independents to the committee, because they're not on the committee right now. It is not unusual for that to happen. Sometimes parties will bring someone in, and in that situation that one member could be there and that could qualify. It's not maybe as critical as I originally was thinking, but I still would like it. I think it would still be helpful if it's clear that it's a member of a recognized opposition party.

If I may say to Mr. Lamoureux, if we just added, “including one member of a recognized opposition party”, if you drop in those words, my problems go away and I don't think it changes anything. You can check with the clerk, but I don't think it would change a thing. It would just mean that you have to be a member of one of the three recognized parties to qualify when they're doing a count on a small group for quorum, just for the purpose of submissions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I would have loved that sort of an opportunity when I was sitting in your position.

I don't know if it's a concern—we can talk about it, I guess. The concern is that the NDP would then have to be physically present in order for us to receive tabled documents.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

No.

If I may, Chair, I was suggesting either-or, but it couldn't be an independent. If the official opposition is here, the government is here, and we're not here, too bad for us. If you're there, we're here, and the official opposition isn't here, too bad for them.

What will not happen is the government and an independent, and then the official opposition and the third party are both left out of a meeting. That's the only point I'm making.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Graham.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I just want to know from the clerk, if it's about members who are present, is that members of Parliament or members of committee? If it's members of committee, it's a redundant point. If it's members of Parliament, then it's more interesting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

The point Mr. Christopherson is making is that on some occasions a member of the committee has been a member who's not from the two officially recognized opposition parties. For instance, it could be Elizabeth May. It could be an independent, because occasionally the committee will make a motion and allow these people to be committee members. All Mr. Christopherson is proposing is that when we have a quorum that allows an opposition member, the opposition member has to be from one of the two official parties.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

I think the point Mr. Graham is making, though, is that they're not permanent members of this committee, so how could an independent substitute, ceding the substitution of this committee...? That's my point, so that's why I think Mr. Graham is saying that it's a redundant point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Chan, there are occasions when the committee accepts as permanent members people who are either independents or from another party that doesn't have official status, like the Bloc, or the Greens, and actually makes them members of the committee. That's the—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Even for a short period of time, for a certain subject they can be recognized members.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

I see the point you're making. We're just trying to understand the point you're making.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That's fair enough, Mr. Chan. There are no games here. Sometimes, too, the opposition parties, for machination reasons with the government, will let an independent be one of their representatives. Technically, they then have a seat there, and technically that would give them that right. It's a small matter. I'm not going to do what I did last time on the other one. It's not that big. If you don't think it's an improvement....

I'd like to hear from the official opposition, because really, they can be the decider for me, but I'm not going to die on this hill. I just think it's an improvement.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

As the mover of the motion, I think I would accept that as a friendly amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay.

Are there further comments?

So the motion, with the friendly amendment, will read...?

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I'll read it again as amended. It says 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 one member of a recognized opposition party and one member of the government.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Perfect.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Reid was speaking to the motion. It's a friendly amendment, so we're just speaking to the motion. We'll have one vote eventually, but go ahead.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Well, that creates a problem for me, because I support the original motion but not the amended motion. I'm not sure if procedurally there's anything I can do about that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

You could amend the motion.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Oh my goodness, okay. To go back to its original wording?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Yes.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Well, Chair, no. The fair thing to do in light of that, then, is to leave the motion as a first motion, the other one as an amendment, and then Mr. Reid can vote against the amendment and vote as he wants on the main motion.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay. We'll have this change as an amendment, and we'll debate the amendment now.

You have the floor.