Evidence of meeting #1 for National Defence in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
I recall the situation the day of the meeting when that happened. It wasn't that the government just wanted to walk out. The witnesses were there at the demand of the opposition, who did not have the courtesy of appearing and sitting through the meeting. So there were very few opposition members, who had demanded that these witnesses testify, and in the absence of the opposition, the government members saw fit to adjourn.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
I think we've heard enough on this. We have the amendment that.... Mr. Coderre.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
Claude does have a valid point. Could someone clarify this for me? As far as the quorum is concerned, can we draw a distinction between the start of the meeting, and situations where members walk out? If we're talking about a quorum at the start of the meeting, strictly speaking, they can't walk out because they aren't even there. That's a valid point and I would like some clarification, from a procedural standpoint, before I make my final decision.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
That's what I asked the clerk for. I thought the quorum was necessary to start the hearing but that it could change after the meeting was started.
Go ahead.
4:10 p.m.
Jacques Lahaie
There have often been requests in the past to be allowed to start a meeting with a reduced quorum. Many times during the course of meetings, someone has taken over for a regular committee member, or some members have had to leave. In such cases, if the quorum is reduced and the committee still wants to continue sitting, then unanimous consent is required.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Dawn Black NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC
The point is that one government member could then stop a meeting from taking place by not showing up, or a member could stop a meeting in progress by walking out if someone called “quorum”.
I'm absolutely in opposition to this.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
That would hold true if we were at the minimum quorum and any one of the members walked out. From what I understand, if it drops below that number of three, that's it. It's not one side or the other.
Okay, we're discussing an amendment from Mr. Hawn that four members be present, including one member from each opposition party.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
I have a point for further clarification. You said that a meeting could continue with unanimous consent if it fell below reduced quorum. Is that what I understood the clerk to say?
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
If the government member walked out, could that meeting carry on with the unanimous consent of the remaining members? Then in fact the government member would not terminate that meeting.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Dawn Black NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC
The government member not showing up would stop the meeting from starting.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
Technically, you're right. But if those who are left agree to carry on, then it should carry on, if there is unanimous consent.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Dawn Black NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC
The point, Mr. Chair, is that if the government member does not show up, you can't start the meeting. It's that simple.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
I guess we do need to get some clarification. But I take what the clerk has indicated as being the way it is. If we start the meeting with the reduced quorum, if one of the members leaves and the other members who are left agree unanimously to continue, we can. We're working on that.
The amendment is that a reduced quorum consist of four members, including one member from each recognized party.
(Motion negatived)
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
That's defeated. The reduced quorum will remain as it is.
Go ahead.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
I have a question on the main motion. We spoke about the amendment, but before we vote on the motion, I have a question.
Does that mean that in the absence of the Chair, there is no quorum? If the Chair isn't present, but three committee members are, including one opposition member and one vice-chair, can the latter substitute for the Chair? He can? Fine then. Thank you.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
You have confirmed that? Okay.
(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
On the distribution of documents: That only the clerk of the committee be authorized to distribute documents to members of the committee, and only when such documents exist in both official languages.
I'm sure everybody accepts that.
(Motion agreed to)
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
Working meals: That the clerk of the committee be authorized to make the necessary arrangements to provide working meals for the committee and its subcommittees.
(Motion agreed to)
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
Witnesses' expenses: That, if requested, reasonable travel, accommodation and living expenses be reimbursed to witnesses, not exceeding two representatives per organization--I didn't remember that part--and that, in exceptional circumstances, payment for more representatives be made at the discretion of the chair.
Okay, we can have two representatives per organization, but if there are any more than that it is at the chair's discretion to include them.
Is there any discussion?
Go ahead, Claude.