Evidence of meeting #1 for National Defence in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was committees.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
We're back in session. I hope you guys had a productive discussion.
We are back to reduced quorum. Mr. Alexander.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Chris Alexander Conservative Ajax—Pickering, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
To reassure the committee, the changes our side is proposing are minimal, for today's purposes. In that spirit, I would like to adjust my previous motion to simply change the current rules for quorum to say that at least four members are present, including one member of the opposition. We'd be increasing the requirement for quorum by one, and dropping this whole question of notice of meetings outside the parliamentary precinct.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
As well as a member of the opposition, are you going to leave in “plus one member from government”?
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Chris Alexander Conservative Ajax—Pickering, ON
By definition it would have to be.... No, it wouldn't. You're right. Okay, including one member of the government and one member of the opposition.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
So the existing motion that's in the binder, then, you're saying would read that the chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence and to have that evidence printed when quorum is not present, provided that at least.... You're saying at least four members?
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
So provided that at least four members are present, including one member of the opposition and one member from government.
9:55 a.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
The purpose of this is.... You know, we're getting back to minutiae here. There seem to be some tactical reasons for this, but I....
The purpose of this reduced quorum is to allow evidence to be heard and to prevent people from manipulating meetings and evidence by not being present. So I don't know if I like that idea. We had a reduced quorum rule here, and if someone wants to change it I'd like to hear the reasons why. To go from three to four, well, that's inconsequential.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Then you'd suggest not having it defined by any member of any party, including the opposition. Is that right?
9:55 a.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
No, I'm suggesting that the way it's written, it was put there for a purpose, and that purpose is fulfilled by the wording that exists. With respect, we're now into a third version of the reduced quorum rule, and I don't see why we need to do that.
10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
To me it seems to be a little more balanced to get one from each side.
Anyway, are there any other comments? We have a new amendment on the floor.
Mr. McKay first.
10 a.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
I got lost on Jack's concern. I wasn't sure what your concern was, Jack.
10 a.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
The rule as it stands right now is to allow evidence to be heard, frankly, and to try to prevent people presenting evidence from being heard I guess is part of it. This has happened in the past. I wasn't here, but I'm aware of the fact that in the past there was an attempt to disrupt committees by preventing evidence from being heard on certain occasions, whether it was government or opposition or individual members doing it. That's why my comment outside was that you can't have a situation where if one person walks out of the room it can prevent evidence from being heard. So I was satisfied to leave it as it is.
As to the purpose here, there are two reasons. One is that sort of manipulation, but also the potential that when committees are travelling there may not be a full quorum. If committees have gone to the effort of travelling somewhere and you have an opportunity to hear witnesses, that can take place in a remote location, on a visit, and that evidence can then be available to the committee, even though you don't have a full quorum. That's the purpose of this particular rule. I don't think we need to be too proscriptive in terms of who ought to be present. The idea of one member of the opposition is to say that the government can't do it on its own; there has to be some measure of collaboration.
10 a.m.
Conservative
Chris Alexander Conservative Ajax—Pickering, ON
I'd simply like to observe to Mr. Harris that I count five members on the opposition side. It's only fair, if this reduced quorum be obliged to include one opposition member, that it be obliged to include one government member. I don't think that's a dramatic departure from past practice. We did discuss the idea of raising that quorum from three to four. It's a modest proposal, but I think we all agree--
June 21st, 2011 / 10 a.m.
Conservative
Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC
From my perspective, if one side of the table would be accused of being able to manipulate in this situation, surely the other side could be as well. This prevents that, does it not, by saying that it is one member of the opposition and one member of the government. Surely there is precedent in committee for manipulation to occur on both sides of the table, and I think this addresses that by saying that if one member of the opposition must be present, so shall one member of the government. So I think it's a good amendment that should proceed.
10 a.m.
NDP
Tarik Brahmi NDP Saint-Jean, QC
I feel there is one problem with your argument. The difference between this side of the table and the opposite side is that you have the majority. You are comparing the two sides, but you have a majority of seven against five. I see why it makes sense to include a member of the opposition to make up a quorum, but I don't see why it makes sense to include a member from the majority. If we were to make this change, the majority could choose to hear from no witnesses. I don't understand why we have to include a member from the majority.
10 a.m.
NDP
Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
This motion consists of two major amendments. If the members of the committee are not opposed, I would like to discuss them separately.
Does the committee agree to increase the quorum to four people and to add a member from the government? These are two separate things, but we are trying to discuss them at the same time. Even though I am fully bilingual, I must admit that this debate is slightly going over my head. If you have no objection—
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Speaking to Ms. Moore's comment as to why we would have four as opposed to three--because you were questioning the number--right now our chair is a Conservative. So it would make sense to have four people, as opposed to three, so that when we have a witness here, and the rounds of questioning occur, we could have a government member pose the question, because the chair is supposed to remain neutral and out of the questioning. That is the reason for the four.
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Let me just say, though, that not always am I going to be in the chair. When I was chair of the environment committee, I had a family emergency and I was out of the House for a month. So the opposition chair, the vice-chair, was in the chair. That's where you get the chance for possible games being played. If you have the balance when the Conservative is the chair, then you want an opposition member. The same is true, as well, when the vice-chair is chairing and because of circumstances may be in there for a long time. Then you need to have that balance with the governing party, as well. I think it's only logical to have that balance because of the unforeseen circumstances that may happen with health and other things to the chair.
Mr. Harris.