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.
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
John Cannis Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON
Mr. Chair, I've just been informed that other committees are still holding to the practice of past committees, that being three, and unless there is a specific reason that I haven't heard so far, I would suggest we keep it at three.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
If it's going to be three, then the chair represents the committee. The chair doesn't represent any single party here. The chair is appointed from a party but he represents everyone on the committee. So if it's going to be three, it should be the chair plus three members of the committee with one of those three members being a government member. That's all, if you want to have three. Otherwise you're going to get down to the chair plus two members of committee.
That's all.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
That's all I would say, the chair plus one member of the government and--
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
Three members, one of whom is in opposition, one of whom is in government. Do you have any problem with that?
9:15 a.m.
Bloc
Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I would like to point out something I noticed at the outset. I very politely signalled to the clerk that I wanted to speak, but four or five people spoke before I did. I would like to know whether these proceedings will favour those who move more quickly, or those who tell the clerk they wish to speak. I don't know whether you noticed, but at the beginning of my comments, I very politely asked the clerk to put my name on the list. Yet a number of other members took the floor before me. I would like to see this committee maintain decorum in its proceedings from the very start.
I would like to say that we would prefer to stay with three members. You know that meetings with witnesses are essential. I would not like to see a situation where, for one reason or another, whether it be deliberate or not, the committee is unable to hear witnesses. In many cases, the witnesses travel and it took a lot of work to prepare for the meetings. Out of respect for our witnesses, I would say that three members are enough.
I would also like to make the following comment: since our party leaders have given us the responsibility of sitting on this committee, our primary duty is to be present at the meetings. And if we are present, we need never worry about dealing with a reduced quorum. That is what I hope will happen.
The only difference I would suggest is that there should be three committee members present, including one member of the opposition.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
Could I take it from that, then, that this would also mean at least one member of the government?
9:15 a.m.
Bloc
Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC
Yes, I hope there will be one. If you wish to include a government member as well, I have no problem with it.
There may be cases where for one reason or another, depending on their strategy at the time, government members might be less interested in hearing some witnesses, and thus not attend the meeting. Please forgive me for saying this, but that is why I have greater confidence in the opposition when it comes to ensuring there are members here in such cases.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
We could go all day, and I don't want to go all day. If that's the will of the committee, I think we're going to get a reasonable consensus here. All we'd have to do is change what's in front of us to three, and that, it seems to me, would at least get a consensus.
Before I do that, let me respond to Monsieur Cardin's additional point, and that was being recognized. For those new to this committee, with me as the chair.... Our previous practice has been that I would ask the clerk to watch for those who wished to speak. This is not when we're hearing witnesses, but in the normal course of the committee. I'm paying attention to whoever is speaking and I don't always catch who would like to speak.
So if you would like to address the committee, get the attention of the clerk, and the clerk will keep the list so I don't have to do that. I'll just look over and see who's next. At this moment I see Mr. Cannan, Mr. Cannis, and Mr. Harris next on the speakers list. So I will go in that order. But I would also say that just because you're on the list, you don't have to speak if it looks as if we're getting a consensus. Otherwise we'll never get done.
But having said that, Monsieur Cardin, have I interpreted correctly that you are prepared to accept the proposal in front of us, with the minor exception that it's three rather than four? One government, one opposition.
9:20 a.m.
Bloc
9:20 a.m.
Bloc
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
All right. What is written here is “three members present, including one member of the government and one of the opposition”. Is it the same thing?
February 5th, 2009 / 9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Dean Allison Conservative Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON
We're going to change the rules from last time?
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
No, those were our agreed rules last time, as you know, Dean. Those were our rules. They are the same rules as last time. Why do you guys want to change them?
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
When there is a lack of quorum there are no votes anyway, so it doesn't really matter.
9:20 a.m.
Bloc
Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC
There is an important difference in meaning here. If we look at the paragraph entitled “Reduced Quorum”, we read: “[...] provided that at least three members are present, including one member of the opposition, and provided that if no member of the opposition is present 10 minutes after the designated start of the meeting, the meeting may proceed.” Then we come to the section on meetings outside the parliamentary precinct. That means there would be no member of the opposition 10 minutes after the start of the meeting. I say that we must have three committee members at the start of the meeting, including a member of the opposition.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
Yes. Again, just for clarification, in the second paragraph to which you've just referred, Monsieur Cardin, that is when we are scheduling meetings out of the parliamentary precinct. This refers specifically to when we're travelling, and the only reason for that is that if we're out and we have witnesses who have come while we're visiting some other country or whatever, they're not sitting there without members should someone, for some reason or other, not make it to a morning meeting.
In any event, I want to repeat that there doesn't seem to be anything nefarious going on here. There are no votes allowed when there is not a quorum. It's just a courtesy to the witnesses that we have this at all, and we were just looking for a little balance.
I'll go back to the speakers list.
Mr. Cannan.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Ron Cannan Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In the spirit of cooperation, I was just going to make a friendly amendment and move that to three members, the way it's written. The fact is that if you're not here, then--in this case, as Mr. Cannis had indicated, three members are standard practice in other committees--he would also be the chair. So we wouldn't have anybody from the government if he was in the chair's position as well.
Just change “four” to “three”, the way it's written, and I'd like to make that friendly amendment.