Evidence of meeting #1 for International Trade in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
Why don't we just take that and vote on it right now, then.
It is moved by Mr. Cannan 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 government and one member of the opposition.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We've had a very clear indication from opposition members--from Mr. Cannis, from Mr. Cardin, and from me--that what we want to do is stay with the structure we had, which was a quorum of three, including one member of the opposition. That's been the standard practice. We don't want to deviate from that. So Mr. Cannan's saying he's providing a friendly amendment isn't quite truthful. What he's saying is directly contradictory to what the opposition parties have all indicated.
So we can't accept the motion. What we'll have to do, if you move this to a vote, is defeat this and then move a new motion that says very clearly what has been past practice: three members, including one member of the opposition. Mr. Chair, it makes sense to structure it that way.
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Let me finish, Mr. Chair.
As you represent the Conservative caucus--you're elected by this committee but you represent the government--you do have veto power over meetings, that's certain. What we certainly wouldn't want to see happen is what's happened to a number of committees over the past couple of years, where the government members have simply left and, in that way, shut down the committee. We can't have that, particularly for a file that's as important as trade.
So I think the opposition parties have been pretty clear. We want a functioning committee. It has functioned very well with the past practice, and we want to continue that past practice and not provide some additional procedural possibilities for the government. I would expect government members to be here at committee. If they choose not to be, well, the committee will continue.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
You are on the list, but we've stepped off the list because we're now dealing with Mr. Cannan's amendment. We have heard one speaker on the amendment, and I think Mr. Julian puts it well. I think that is the point. I don't know if we need to proceed anymore.
Why don't we just quickly move to vote on the amendment, then, and then you can bring another motion, if you'd like, Mr. Julian, apart from the one that's before us; that is, as originally moved, that it was four members and all that. I don't want to get ahead of you, but after we deal with Mr. Cannan's amendment, if it doesn't happen to pass, maybe Mr. Cannis or others might just want to move the original motion.
(Amendment negatived)
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Dick Harris Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
On a point of order, Mr. Chairman...[Inaudible--Editor]
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
I did. You'll get to understand my signals; they're like those at auctions.
9:25 a.m.
An hon. member
It's a nervous twitch.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
John Cannis Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON
Mr. Cardin was speaking, and he did present his case. Maybe he presented it very mildly when he said, if I may quote, “If, for one reason or another”. I think what he really meant, Mr. Chairman, for all of us to understand, was that if one member is not here from the government, the meeting just cannot proceed, period.
The best way to address this is.... There are two ways, if I may suggest them, based on the original wording. One is to go back to the number of three members that was suggested, and I don't think people are having problems with it; two is to eliminate the words “one member from the government and one member from the opposition”. Just leave it as “and one member from the opposition”, so that you or whoever is here can begin the committee proceedings. I think that would solve it.
Mr. Julian, I think you will agree—I'm trying to influence some people here now—that we just go back to the number of members, which would be three, and take out the wording “one member from the government”. This “one member of the opposition”, period, will allow us to start off the committee.
That's my suggestion, sir.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
We have an amendment from Mr. Cannis that would say “at least three members, including one member of the opposition”. Is that correct?
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
Does anyone want to debate that amendment?
We have Mr. Keddy and then Mr. Cannan on the list.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
Mr. Cannis, with respect, if you listened to Mr. Julian's argument, it was that the committee would be hijacked, possibly, by members' not showing up, and we wouldn't be able to hear witnesses if you put “one member from the government”. If you put the rule in for “one member of the opposition”, the same thing can happen: if none of the opposition shows up, then we can't hear witnesses either. So in the interests of fairness—because that's what you're talking about—just make it “three members present”. Then the onus is upon all of us to be here. But you can't argue on one side that something might happen from one group and then argue that, for the same thing, on the other side it wouldn't happen somehow.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Dick Harris Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Mr. Julian doesn't argue points without having some sort of--I hate to use the word “scheme”—
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Dick Harris Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
—motive in mind, and the motive clearly is this. He wants a motion to pass that says that if no government members happen to show up, then the opposition can carry on with the meeting; however, if no opposition member shows up, then the meeting can't go ahead. I see the subtlety of his argument—it's very coy—but the fact is that this creates an unequal situation, and in a committee that maybe has a basic desire to get along, we should start off this session with a sense of fairness.
That would be, to make it fair for both sides—notwithstanding Mr. Julian's wishes—that if none of the three members of the government shows up, the meeting can't proceed, and if a member of the opposition isn't present, then the meeting can't go ahead. The way it is written now—reducing that number to three, as Mr. Cannan suggested—would have created that fairness and the equity in this motion.
That's the point. Let's get started on a good footing, rather than start the fireworks early. That's your choice, but fairness is always a good starting point, Mr. Julian.
