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
Mr. Rickford.
Again, we are speaking to the amendment now, not the main motion. It is Ms. Duncan's amendment.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
It was “provided no other reasonable means of hearing and reviewing that testimony is available”.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Yes. It's not that anybody was going off.... I just wanted to remind members that this is what we were discussing.
Mr. Rickford.
Conservative
Greg Rickford Conservative Kenora, ON
I guess I've lost an understanding of how that adds anything to this particular item. The changes that have been proposed were to accommodate, as a standard, all three political parties that sit on this committee, in the event that travel arises or to the extent that it becomes an issue. Simply, it is that there would always be a member of the government and a member of the official opposition and that there would be no other basis or ability for a reduced quorum to hear testimony from witnesses.
It's simple. We'd like to play fair and we'd like to ensure that in a worst-case scenario--which I think, not to digress, is really what these motions are talking about, particularly the last one--this would be built in.
The standard would be to make sufficient arrangements so that everybody could be there, all three members, a member from each party--I'm sorry, Linda--but in the event that travel occurred and gave rise to an issue outside the parliamentary precinct, we would not proceed unless there were a member from the NDP and a member from this government.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
I think Rob has raised a very important point about committee travel. I've been on certain committees that have split up so that half the committee has gone east and the other half has gone west, and then both have come back together.
I agree with Ms. Duncan that having three people is a bit paltry, but I think this standing order allows us the flexibility to divide up and go many places if we have to and still be able to hear witnesses. All of us can then review the testimony that was heard in the other places.
I would probably feel more comfortable if it were five or something like that, but I think, Mr. Chair, as long as you promise we'll travel, I'll go along with it this time.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Let's make this absolutely clear: Committee members are entitled to attend every single committee hearing. If there's a decision by the committee to reduce the quorum, that will be the committee's decision. But this is just ensuring that there is a bare minimum, a worst-circumstance threshold below which testimony would never be heard. This is the bare minimum, and I don't think anybody would suggest that we would have to go into this type of situation. However, this is the bare minimum at which testimony would ever be heard. This is the worst-case scenario in which testimony could be heard.
Ms. Duncan, and then Mr. Rickford.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
The problem is this can be read two ways. I can understand where the government is saying, “Well, we want to make sure we're represented if there's going to be a quorum of just three”. But it works the other way too. Given that the government is now determining the entire agenda of this committee, it's fully possible that sessions could be held for which none of us was available or only one person was. So you have to be careful, because this can be read both ways. It is now fully authorized that every meeting can be two members and the chair. That's why I wanted to add that provision in. It doesn't take away from the quorum. It simply--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
I'd like to just jump in here. Just to be absolutely clear for your benefit, there seems to be a misunderstanding. This is only to receive testimony. There is no ability under a reduced quorum to make any decision whatsoever. This is simply to intake testimony that would be provided by witnesses. This is a long-standing motion of the House of Commons, and I don't believe this has been modified by anybody.
This is one of the simple motions, folks. We have to get through these. If there's any way we could expedite this, it would be--
Conservative
Conservative
Greg Rickford Conservative Kenora, ON
Again, I agree. This is very simple. It is saying that as the standard where a reduced quorum prevails, every member of a party is reflected to take that witness, to take the information. In a worst-case travel scenario outside of the parliamentary precinct when, for example, we go to Yellowknife and we have scheduled hearings, and people coming from different parts of the country can't all get there, there would be a guarantee that we could never proceed with hearing a witness unless there was one member of the government and one member—and this actually says, as it stands, of the “opposition”. We're suggesting “official opposition”, so the de minimis--
Conservative
Greg Rickford Conservative Kenora, ON
Well, no, it doesn't, but we were not in a position to vote on that. The chair directed us to talk about your amendment, which we--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
We are speaking to just the amendment, folks. Are we ready to proceed to a vote on the amendment?
Ms. Bennett, I do have your name on my speaking list.
Can we proceed to a vote on the amendment? It is Ms. Duncan's amendment.
Mr. Payne.
Conservative
The Clerk
At the end of the motion, you would add “provided no other reasonable means of hearing and reviewing the testimony is available”.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Are we prepared to go to a vote on the amendment?
Seeing no interventions, all those in favour of the amendment?
(Amendment negatived)
Now we go back to the main motion.
Mr. Rickford.
Conservative
Greg Rickford Conservative Kenora, ON
Mr. Chair, if you'll indulge me, is it the case that I can't propose an amendment? Is that what I can't do, or do I have to—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
You can, as we're back to the main motion now. If you do want to bring forward amendments to the main motion, it would be the time to do it.
Conservative
Greg Rickford Conservative Kenora, ON
Okay.
So under the motion on reduced quorum, I move that the chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence and to have that evidence printed when a quorum is not present, provided that at least four members are present—those being the chair and a member from each party that sits at this table—including one member from each recognized party. And then on the matter of travel, if scheduled hearings occur outside the parliamentary precinct, that is, to take in witness information, at least one member of the official opposition be present and one member of the government.
