Evidence of meeting #1 for Official Languages in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Seeing unanimous consent, we'll now go back to the main motion on the floor, which is the motion as originally moved by Monsieur Galipeau.
Is there any further debate on the main motion as originally presented?
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
Royal Galipeau Conservative Ottawa—Orléans, ON
Let me clarify one thing. We mentioned a parliamentary secretary, but I would like us to specify that we mean the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
We'll ensure that the clerk has noted that it will be more specific in the routine motion.
Is there any further debate on this motion?
Monsieur Godin.
9:10 a.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
I would like Mr. Galipeau to reconsider his motion. The reason is simple. We will have work to do and we will have to meet. My question is, if the parliamentary secretary is away somewhere for a couple of weeks, will we be able to meet?
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
If that's the case, then you have the extra vote on the subcommittee.
9:10 a.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Does that mean that the meeting will be called anyway, Mr. Chair?
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Well, if we book a meeting, everybody agrees to it, and the parliamentary secretary agrees to it but doesn't show up, then you have the extra vote on the committee.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Okay.
Is there any further debate on this motion moved by Monsieur Galipeau?
Seeing none, I'll call the question. All those in favour?
(Motion agreed to)
We'll now proceed to the consideration of the third routine motion.
Could I have a mover for the third routine motion, reduced quorum?
It's moved by Monsieur Godin.
It reads as follows: “That the chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive and publish evidence when a quorum is not present, provided that at least four (4) members are present, including two (2) members of the opposition.”
Is there any debate on this motion as moved by Monsieur Godin?
Monsieur Galipeau.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
Royal Galipeau Conservative Ottawa—Orléans, ON
That would be three members of the government party and two members of the opposition.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
We have an amendment to the main motion on the floor.
Monsieur Galipeau has moved that the main motion be amended so that five members be present instead of four, three of whom are from the government party, two of whom are from the opposition parties.
Monsieur Godin.
9:10 a.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
I don't know why Mr. Galipeau keeps talking about the government and such. The mere fact that it mentions five members, including two from the opposition makes things perfectly clear. I have been here for 14 years and these motions have always been drafted in this way. It says that five members will be present and that two of them will be from the opposition. The other party is not going to come here from England or France, after all. I say we should keep the motion the way it is.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Royal Galipeau Conservative Ottawa—Orléans, ON
If we say that there must be a minimum of four and we specify that two members must be from the opposition, it follows that two must be from the government party. I wanted three, but I can live with two. But it cannot be four opposition members.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Royal Galipeau Conservative Ottawa—Orléans, ON
I want to make it clear that, at the meeting, there must be at least two members from the government party and two members from the opposition.
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Mr. Chair, I think I understand what my colleague Mr. Galipeau is trying to say. There must be at least one member from the government party and one from the opposition. The idea here is to make committee work easier, to hear from witnesses and to publish what we have heard. This is not about making decisions or passing motions. This is strictly about making the work easier. The intent is for us not to look stupid if people come to testify from Yukon, for example, and we do not have a quorum because something else is going on. We have to avoid situations like that and make sure that we can hear the witnesses.
If we are starting to say that there has to be a government majority on the committee, what is going to happen when four opposition members show up but only three government party members do? They would not have a majority then. Does that mean that we could not have the meeting? That gets a little awkward. I agree that there must be at least one person from the government side—and I would add it here—and at least one member from the opposition side. But going any further would start to get complicated and could tie our hands. I think we need to stay away from that, given that we are not talking about meetings where decisions are made. We have to keep the quorum the same as it is at present for all committees.
9:15 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I agree with that. We are talking about a reduced quorum, and the committee cannot make any decisions under those circumstances. All it can do is hear witnesses. If we make things too complicated, so that the committee cannot meet or hear witnesses when we don't have a quorum, it would be a real pity.
9:15 a.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
I remember that motion very well. The objective is to have a reduced quorum. I don't really have a problem with the five members, including the two from the opposition. But I don't agree with mentioning the government, and I will tell you why. We are talking about five members, two of which must be from the opposition. The government members could easily not show up at the committee if they didn't like some of the witnesses. The meeting would then automatically be cancelled. If five members are supposed to be present, it is the government's responsibility to ensure that its members are there. The meeting is public and it is called by the chair, who is a member of the government. With a reduced quorum, no votes can be held. You only hear from witnesses and gather information.
Nothing has ever stopped the government from sending its members to committee. However, it could choose not to do so, which would automatically lead to the meeting being cancelled. That's why we are not talking about the government. The idea behind having two members of the opposition is to prevent the government from calling a meeting with witnesses when the opposition cannot be there. This ensures that the opposition is present. And it is up to the government to just send its members to committee. That's its guarantee. The quorum is five members and at least two must be from the opposition. At no point in time does this prevent the government from sending its members to committee.
In terms of the quorum, the required presence of government members has never been discussed in the past. The issue has always been the two members of the opposition in order to make sure the opposition was present at committee. It is up to the government to send its own members to committee. Otherwise, it would be too easy. We have already seen meetings being cancelled that way. I don't mean to be casting stones, but the members were not the absent ones in those cases, it was the chair who didn't show up. And we had invited people from Manitoba. Their flights had already been paid. The witnesses were all here for the meeting. As you well know, a war broke out because of that. I am saying that the motion is fine the way it is. I have no objection to talking about five members, including two members of the opposition. But I definitely do not agree with what is being proposed. That goes against what we want to do and what we need. So I would ask that my dear friend Mr. Lauzon withdraw it.