Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Sept. 27th, 2011

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I would like to propose...well, what's the point? It should have been done the other way around, but I'll propose the amendment anyway: that decisions be by consensus.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

So that text would tag onto the final...?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Seeing no debate on the matter, we will vote on this new amendment by Ms. Duncan.

(Amendment negatived)

The amendment is defeated, so we go back to the main motion. Are members prepared to vote on the main motion? We are now on the main motion as it was amended by Mr. Rickford. Not seeing anybody intervening....

Mr. Rickford.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Just to be sure here, the main motion as it was amended is what we voted on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

What we heard, that was essentially...there were so many amendments to the main motion that, yes, the text that was read is now what the main motion reads as, the amended main motion. That is now what we're voting on.

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I've been through enough committees that.... We're on point number 2 here and what we're talking about is a subcommittee on agenda and procedure, which then actually reports to the ultimate authority, that being this committee. I would suggest to the government members that if you want to work together in a more positive environment, this is a pretty heavy hammer over a vote, a single individual vote, and no loss of control.

So as we go down this road, I don't know.... I've worked on other committees. I've been on the industry committee for, jeez, nine years, and we've had times when we didn't agree, but there was always an attempt to reach out to try to build that spirit. This is a pretty heavy hammer for a subcommittee procedure.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Are we prepared for the vote? I'm not seeing any interventions. All those in favour of the motion as it has been amended?

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

I'll be seeking somebody to move the third motion.

Mr. Seeback.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

I'm happy to move, on reduced quorum, 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 member of the opposition and one member of the government.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Seeing no intervention....

Ms. Duncan.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I frankly find that kind of provision very offensive. I mean, the whole role of the committee is to review legislation, to review any policies or matters referred by the government to this committee, and to review other matters that this committee agrees are substantive matters that should be reviewed, open to the public.

I find it appalling that there could be one opposition member and one Conservative member, and the chair presumably, to hear witnesses. To me that's not the process. I mean, I certainly wouldn't want to be a witness coming in and testifying on a significant matter implicating aboriginal Canadians, or opportunities in Canada's north, heard by two members and a chair.

Maybe this provision has been common within the committee, but I just find it really inappropriate to the whole idea of members of the public, experts, representatives of the civil service coming in and presenting to the committee when that committee could at any time consist of a meeting called where there is one Conservative member, one opposition member, and the chair.

I don't know how other committee members feel, but I just find it very bizarre.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

I may be able to offer some clarity on the reason it is in existence. This is a standard motion. It's a long-standing motion. It's very clear that it's simply to hear testimony.

Apparently, long before I showed up here, there were circumstances, either inclement weather or something else, that restricted people's mobility to get to a committee meeting where, in some cases, people had flown in at their own expense to provide testimony. This was a way for committee members to at least have that information on the record and be able to provide the courtesy actually to the witnesses in unfortunate circumstances where that may need to take place.

So it is the authorization simply to receive evidence, not to make any decisions.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

May I respond to that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Yes.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

In this modern day and age, where we are actually telecasting and teleprompting testimony from many witnesses, I find it really outdated and just frankly inappropriate. Just as important as hearing the testimony of the witnesses is the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.

I'm putting my own fellow members on the spot, but I just frankly find it inappropriate. At least it should say that it's only when absolutely no other means is available to hear that testimony and make available the opportunity to ask questions.

I just think it's really outdated in this day and age when technologically we can bring in the testimony of witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Mr. Rickford.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

In the original text of the reduced quorum motion for the 40th Parliament, the reason that the travel is.... I'm not sure it could be seen as offensive, but we can agree to disagree about that. We're just saying that certainly we have six members, and when a witness is here, a member of the opposition should be here and a member of the government should be here to listen to the witness and to cross-examine.

I think there's a matter of substance there that when we're hearing a witness, and we're hearing your questions, they can often have an impact on the questions that we'll subsequently ask. I don't see this as anything more than actually procedure that we would like to follow, and that is, if a witness is going to be presented, and if travel arises, we want at least one member of the government and one member of the official opposition present--always.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Mr. Wilks.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I concur with the three members being present, specifically because if a person comes to provide testimony to us and we don't have that quorum, then of course that evidence can't be received. It's a bare minimum. It's not to say that this is the way we want it to be, but it provides for a bare minimum.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Ms. Duncan, and then Mr. Clarke.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I was going to propose amendments qualifying that, something along the lines of adding--and I'm open to somebody wording it more appropriately--“provided that no other means of hearing and review of that testimony is available”.

That puts the onus on us to consider seeking another way to do that, because I feel very strongly that due process allows that we don't make decisions except based on the process that we all hear common testimony and that all members of the committee have the opportunity to cross-examine a witness.

That's my bigger problem with it. Yes, we can send a camera out and somebody can record the testimony and so forth, but an equally important role of this committee is to ask questions of our witnesses, no matter where they come from.

I would prefer that this be added in. I think it's a modernization amendment. We now have a lot of ways of receiving testimony and asking questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Committee members, we do have an amendment now. I don't want to intervene, but I just want to suggest that the breadth of the amendment may encumber our clerk in ways that maybe weren't intended. Because it would be his responsibility to be dreaming up possible.... There is always a way to have different circumstances, but it sometimes may delay things and it may cost an exorbitant amount. I just want you to be aware that you may be encumbering our committee.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

That's if no other reasonable means of hearing and reviewing that testimony is available.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

There may be issues of interpretation on that, but I'm not in a position to speak.

Mr. Clarke.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Some of us have experienced a reduced quorum on another committee. When a committee travels, we've had instances of the committee members, in order to make a flight or travel...instances where two government members and one opposition member and the chair were present. That's when the Liberals were acting in the chair position. With the reduced quorum, there were no problems. The only problem was that the members could not be present because they had to make their flights or travel arrangements on a Thursday or Friday night just to get home.

Really, I don't see this reduced quorum as an issue here. For one thing, if the committee does have to travel, sometimes a reduced quorum will be necessary.