Natural Resources Committee on Feb. 5th, 2009

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Next is the matter of reduced quorum. Are there any proposals on reduced quorum?

Mr. Allen.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Chair, the routine motion regarding reduced quorum, which was adopted in the second session of the 39th Parliament, said:

...provided that at least four (4) members are present, including two members of the opposition.

I have no problem with including two members of the opposition so long as we have at least one member from the government, and that could be the chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

You've heard the proposal from Mr. Allen. Is there any discussion on the proposal?

Madam Brunelle.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The motion as it was in the last Parliament seems very reasonable to me. It is not very difficult to have two members of the opposition and at least four members present. With all the members that the Conservative Party has, I do not see why we want this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Is there any other discussion on that?

Mr. Siksay.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Chair, I believe Mr. Allen's proposal was to say that there should be one member of the government present, and I am nervous about that. I believe that when we designate one individual in that way, it allows that party to in fact control when that committee meets or not. The opposition is not designated by party, but in the sense that the government member is designated, it would allow that person to refuse to show up and therefore make it impossible to hold that meeting.

So I would oppose that. If we need an amendment, I would like to move what was decided on by the committee in the last Parliament.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

I would just remind the members of what we're talking about here. This is only for the purposes of hearing witnesses. Of course, you need a full quorum to deal with any business of the committee. You're aware of that?

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Is there any further discussion?

Mr. Hiebert.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

I just want some clarity, Mr. Chair. Ms. Brunelle made a suggestion that sounded reasonable. Could you just clarify what her suggestion was?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

I believe it was to go to the same quorum that we had last time, as in the second column.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

I see.

The one thing that does come to mind is that when the committee is travelling I think it would be appropriate for witnesses to have an opportunity to speak to members of the government during that time. So including a requirement to have at least one member of the government, which would normally be you, I think is just reasonable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Regan.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Chairman, considering the fact that the committee doesn't travel unless it's authorized by the House leaders to do so, and also that the committee would have to decide on such travel, it would seem to me rather unlikely that you'd have a situation like that described by Mr. Hiebert, unless in fact someone decided they wanted to try to shut things down by not appearing. That's not satisfactory, in my view. In this regard, I think the motion that existed last time is quite satisfactory.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Tonks.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I think we should start off on the same foot that we did last session, which worked very, very well, as you've said.

[An hon. member]

I agree.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Let's stay with what we had last time unless there is some glaring reason why we should change that. I would highly recommend to the committee that we go with the reduced quorum we had last session.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Monsieur Bigras.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am going to oppose Mr. Allen's amendment. There is one important factor: respect for our witnesses. Very often, witnesses come from the West and go to the trouble of travelling for many hours to come to the committee. They are quite disappointed when they see a meeting cancelled because the committee cannot come up with a reduced quorum. That is the first point.

Mr. Hiebert's argument does not work because you, as chair, can call committee meetings. It could be that some meetings are chaired by the vice-chair. So the argument that the chair is a member of the party may not apply with a reduced quorum if a vice-chair chairs a meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Monsieur Bigras.

Mr. Allen.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Chair, going back to the point you made, this is for evidence, not for motions or anything of that nature. The opposition is arguing against themselves now, because they're saying “provided that at least four members are present, including two members of the opposition”. So if we don't have two, they can hold up committee evidence as well.

It is for evidence. I just don't understand why one member of the government being there to hear the evidence being presented by people who come in is such a big deal. I understand the other side of it, which is that government members could hold something up if it were a motion at a regular meeting, but this is evidence only, and reduced quorum. I just don't understand the position. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Allen.

Mr. Hiebert.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Do we have any motions on the table right now?