Evidence of meeting #2 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
I am simply asking a technical question, but the burden of this is now far greater than quorum in general, only because it puts the onus on the Liberal member always to be in her seat, because there is only one Liberal member?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
No, no, I'm just asking this because that is what is being suggested, and I just want clarity.
The burden now is far greater, and Ms. Bennett would actually be in a position where she would have to attend or have a replacement for absolutely every meeting, otherwise we wouldn't be able to proceed with the hearing of testimony. We'd be able to do other things because we'd have quorum, but not necessarily to hear witnesses.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
It would be very difficult in a situation where the committee were split going east and west. It would be very difficult for me to have a replacement when I'd already be there.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
That's why I'm asking the question, because I think there was maybe an unintended prescription there.
Ms. Bennett.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
It would mean that you couldn't split a committee and that the other half of the committee would never get to hear witnesses. The Liberals are only entitled to one seat, so if the committee split, we couldn't have half a person in both places, right?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
I identify with that. I think what's happening here is there's been a prescription that would mean that as soon as you were to leave your seat, witnesses would be excused from the table—under the amendment that's being proposed by Mr. Rickford.
I don't think that's what you intended to do. I just point that out, because it seems odd that we would place such an onus on a single member of our committee.
Ms. Duncan.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
In fact, Mr. Rickford's amendment doesn't prescribe that. It simply says four members, and it specifies the official opposition. So it doesn't require that any one of those persons be a representative of the Liberal Party. If it did, it would have protected their interests, but it doesn't prescribe that at all.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
I misunderstood it, then, and I do apologize.
The way I heard it, and I think there were others who maybe heard it the same way, was that the prescription for on-precinct hearings was that a member of every party be present.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
So if Ms. Bennett were to leave her chair during a hearing, she would be considered absent and therefore we wouldn't be able to continue to hear from witnesses.
I think we're maybe becoming too prescriptive and that it's going to make it increasingly difficult, specifically for a party where there is only a single member representing it.
Mr. Masse, then Ms. Duncan, and then Mr. Rickford.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
I'll just revisit that a bit.
I have concerns over “recognized party”, because we have a situation in the House that could spill over into committees. Right now the Bloc is getting up and voting as the Bloc and they're not an official recognized party. They don't have that volume or stature that gives them official party status in the House of Commons. Yet there has been a tendency to allow them to take votes as a group that is different.... They're actually individual members who have been identified. Having been there before in that environment.... I'm a little concerned about the specifics of a recognized party and how that interpretation could lead to a House ruling on the committee at some point in time.
Keep “official opposition” in and drop “recognized party”. It's just a suggestion.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
So now we're talking about a subamendment to the amendment on the main motion.
Seeing no additional intervention on the subamendment to the amendment on the main motion, can we go to a vote? All those in favour of--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Mr. Masse's suggestion, as I understood it, was to remove your reference to officially recognized party.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
You have the text, Mr. Rickford. Do you see in the text where that would be removed?
Conservative
Greg Rickford Conservative Kenora, ON
Yes. If I understood Mr. Masse, my submission, Brian, on the official opposition was a safeguard for off-precinct hearings, and that would guarantee that.
With respect to on-precinct hearings, you're saying provided that at least four members are present.
Conservative
Greg Rickford Conservative Kenora, ON
I think the assumption is that that fourth position is the chair.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
No, the chair is already there. The assumption was that it would be the Liberals--
Conservative
Greg Rickford Conservative Kenora, ON
Oh, the chair would be authorized...yes, so that should be three, sorry. Did I say four?
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
I'm not opposed to four, but I was just more concerned about getting out “recognized party”.
Conservative
Greg Rickford Conservative Kenora, ON
Yes. In other words, if I understand, Brian, you're suggesting that it provide that at least three members are present, including one member of the opposition--