Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Feb. 3rd, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Mr. Bélanger.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Chairman, if I'm not mistaken, and if you check the rules, if the vice-chair occupies the chair's position because the chair cannot be there, the vice-chair then is deemed to be the chair. It could be that you would have three members, including the chair, and that none of them are members of the government side. That is the way the rules function; that is my belief. You can have that verified by our clerk, and I would imagine the clerk would confirm that, I hope.

Therefore, I would support the intent here. That is, if indeed you have a reduced quorum.... My suggestion would be that it would be better if it were four, but I'm new to this committee, so I'll just let that hang. But in the spirit of fairness, it is acceptable to me, at least--and I haven't talked to my colleagues about this--that if you have a reduced quorum, and it stipulates that at least one member of the opposition, any of the opposition parties, be present, in fairness, it would make sense that it be stipulated as well that there be at least one member of the government. Now, whether it's three or four, I'll let that hang.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is there any other discussion on the proposed amendment?

Mr. Duncan and then Mr. Bagnell.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Just to add to Mauril's comments there, we were contemplating suggesting the number four. I think it's more appropriate as well, but we held back on doing that on the basis that we were already asking for some change. I do think that by adding the notation about a government member that we really do need to talk about four as being the quorum.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

I disagree with four, because there are times that come up when there's an esoteric witness that only a few people are interested in, and there's some other pressing business. These people come from a long distance across the country, so if you send them all the way back at a huge expense because there were only three of us here instead of four, I don't think that is necessarily the best way to go. It's on the record, and we can see what they said.

As opposed to the amendment, I tend to agree with Mauril, it seems fair. I'm just curious, from the clerk--or the Conservative members, if anyone knows--if there's any other committee that's made this change or if there's any reason not to make this change about having a government member as part of the quorum.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I'm not sure what other committees are doing on this question.

Mr. Lemay.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Some do not know what a reduced quorum is and why we have this provision. In the case of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development — and we're not talking about referring this matter to the procedure committee and doing as other committees have — this provision is invoked when we travel to meet with witnesses. I'll give you a very specific example, namely our trips to Yellowknife when we wanted to keep costs in check. Again, I can give you the example of this particular committee. We've never had a problem with setting the quorum at three committee members because as a rule, the Chair travels with the committee. The English wording may appear somewhat different, but the motion in French reads as follows:Que le président soit autorisé à tenir des séances pour entendre des témoignages et à les faire publier en l'absence de quorum, si au moins trois (3) membres sont présents, dont un membre de l'opposition.

According to the French wording, tomorrow morning, three members of the Conservative Party and one Liberal Party representative could travel to Yellowknife to hear from a witness. We've never had a problem with this provision because quite often, we travel to parts of the country where it's not necessary to have 12 members come along. It's an expensive proposition to organize travel plans for 12 people in addition to all of the House staff. That's why we reduced the quorum to three committee members. In truth, the only reason for having a reduced quorum is so that we can hold committee meetings with the fewest possible number of people in order to keep costs to a minimum and to prevent situations where witnesses have travelled hundreds of kilometres to testify, only to go away disappointed because we didn't have a quorum.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Monsieur Lévesque.

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

If I translate this provision literally, it says that the Chair is authorized to act. We need to remember that the Chair is a government member. I think that if the Chair were to decide to hold a meeting with a reduced quorum, he was make sure that a government colleague was present if he could not attend. He is the one who decides. I don't think the Chair would be foolish enough to allow the opposition parties to make the decisions. At the very least, he will make sure that a representative of his political party is present at the meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

To that point, Monsieur Lemay makes the point that these reduced quorums are used as a tool when the committee is faced with the practicalities of hearing evidence that you may need to inform a question that's before the committee, or a study, so that you have the ability then to receive evidence when it's difficult to get all members present. That could be here or it could be, as Mr. Lemay pointed out, in different parts of the country. So there are some practical considerations here.

Have we heard all of the comments on this question? We kind of devolved from the notion of having a government member, and then we began to talk about yet a fourth member on the reduced quorum. Let's continue on the question of adding a government member here.

Mr. Bélanger.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

There are two questions that I would like to have answered, if possible, Mr. Chair.

First of all, does the Chair factor into the calculation of the quorum?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The answer to that question is yes, the chair is considered one of the members present.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Secondly, according to the rules of procedures of the House and of committees, is it possible for the chair of this committee to be occupied by someone other than a government member?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Yes.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Therefore, what I was saying earlier holds. The same rule applies to all committees. It is acceptable to have a reduced quorum in order to hear from witnesses. The Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development is not the only committee to operate with a reduced quorum. It's perfectly normal to have a reduced quorum. I will always defend the principle whereby the government cannot hear from witnesses unless an opposition party member is present.

The reverse is also true. I believe that it is important for a government member to be present when witnesses give testimony and that neither the government nor the opposition parties must conspire against one another. We are here to be fair.

In that spirit, I think it's normal for our rules to state that a reduced quorum—it matters not whether that quorum is set at three or four members—cannot hear testimony from witnesses unless someone from the opposition and a member of the government party are present.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is the committee ready for the question on this motion?

Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

I just want to ask for clarification. If the chair is a government member and there are two other people at the meeting, then under the amendment that would be acceptable, right? The chair counts as a government member under your amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Mr. Bagnell asks a good question here. The practical way that this reduced quorum would work in its lowest sense, with three members present, is if the chair were there and were a government member, that would satisfy the requirement for a reduced quorum. If, on the other hand, for whatever reason, one of the vice-chairs were chairing the reduced quorum, then another government member would need to be present under the rules that have been suggested here.

Is that understood?

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

I have a further comment, Mr. Chairman.

I know my colleagues are concerned, because we have seen in the past that the government, in its infinite wisdom, can decide to boycott committees. That's probably in the playbook that you have received or will be receiving shortly.

Let me finish, Mr. Chairman.

If it is the government's wish to jam the work of this committee or of the government, it can do so, but I suspect that the public will have them wear it. So if that is the intent behind this motion, if it is not one of fairness, I expect it will boomerang and come back and haunt the government members who have put it forward. I'll make sure of that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All right.

Just to summarize before we ask the question, the proposal has been to add to the reduced quorum clause, to take the last phrase, “including one member of the opposition and one member of the government”. Is that understood?

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Very good.

In terms of going through the remaining motions, it has been proposed that we adopt these. Are there any other proposed amendments to any of the clauses?

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I move the adoption of all routine motions, as amended.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Okay, we have the question on the floor.

Mr. Clarke.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

With regard to the speaking order here, just seeing the addition of another government committee member, I'd like to see the committee—with regard to the order of questioning in order to give everyone the opportunity to ask a question if time permits during a committee session—add an extra government question at the end, if possible.