A Perfectly Cromulent Politics Blog
When procrastinating from law school, I write about politics, tech, or whatever else I'm interested in. Feel free to tweet me up (@devinjohnston).
When procrastinating from law school, I write about politics, tech, or whatever else I'm interested in. Feel free to tweet me up (@devinjohnston).
Posted by Devin Johnston on December 15th, 2009
If the government members of a House of Commons committee fail to show up to a meeting, can the opposition members elect a temporary chair and proceed with the meeting anyway? I'm honestly not sure what the answer is, so please feel free to leave your thoughts in the comments. What follows is the answer, as far as I can tell.
The first issue is whether the opposition can make quorum without the government members. Quorum for a special committee of the House of Commons is a majority of its members. The Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan (AFGH) consists of 12 members. Six are Conservatives (Casson, Abbott, Hawn, Kerr, MacKenzie, and Obrhai). Six are opposition members (Wilfert - Liberal, Dewar - NDP, Dosanjh - Liberal, Rae - Liberal, Bachand - Bloc, Lalonde - Bloc). However, the Chair does not count toward quorum. This means that the opposition members constitute a clear majority (6 of 11) and can hold meetings in the absence of the government members (See update at the end of this post; the terms of reference for this particular committee require seven members for quorum).
If the Chair is absent, the Vice-Chair can step in to preside over the meeting. In this case, the Vice-Chair is Byron Wilfert, a Liberal. No problems there.
The final issue, and the one I am having trouble answering, is what happens when the Clerk of the committee fails to show up? I can't readily find an answer in the online version of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, but maybe one of you smart folks out there could? I would point out that the Clerk is supposed to be "a non-partisan and independent officer". Failing to show up for what appear to be partisan reasons is extremely unprofessional. Carmen DePape owes the people of Canada an immediate and compelling explanation.
As a final thought, if the opposition members can conduct a meeting on their own, doesn't it follow that they can pass whatever motions they wish including disciplining the absentee members, establishing a one-sided list of witnesses, and recommending that the government call a judicial inquiry? That's what I would have done.
Update: I tweeted Ian Capstick about this issue. He responded and indicated that he believes that the government Chair must be present in order for a meeting to proceed. I'm not sure that I agree, as House of Commons Procedure and Practice seems to indicate:
The Vice-Chairs of committees may serve as replacements for the Chair, presiding over meetings when the Chair is unable to attend. All of the Chair’s powers can be delegated to the Vice-Chair, but the Vice-Chair cannot preside over a committee meeting while the office of Chair is vacant. Normally, Vice-Chairs also serve as members of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure.
My interpretation of the above is that the Vice-Chair can preside over the meeting when the Chair is absent, just not when the Chair is vacant. As I understand those terms, the Chair is absent when he/she doesn't show up. The office is vacant only if a proper Chair has not been elected. Hmm...
Further Update: Capstick just sent me another message. He indicated that Vice-Chairs have attempted to run meetings in the past without success. He's been on the Hill long enough to know what he's talking about, so I tend to trust him. Still, this is at least incredibly disrespectful on the part of the government MPs on the committee. With each passing day, more and more Conservative members are showing outright contempt for the institutions of Parliament.
Additional Update: It seems I was wrong about quorum. The terms of reference for the Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan specify that quorum is seven members, not six of eleven, and at least one government and one opposition member must be present.
Spread the word and fan the winds of change:
This page is at least a month old. Feel free to read it, but you might also want to check out something a little fresher:
Procedure
Posted by Anonymous (not verified) on December 15th, 2009.
Kady O'Malley blogged that this particular committee requires seven members be present for quorum--not just a simple majority.
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/author/author0b70f/
The problem with Vice-Chairs taking over meetings--the problem that I believe Ian Capstick is referring to, at least--is that given the numbers in this particular parliament when a Vice-Chair takes over a meeting that winds up giving the government a majority instead of the opposition.
This is my understanding of the situation:
Based on the current make up of the House of Commons there are six government members and six opposition members on each committee. The chair is normally a government member but can only vote to break ties. That means that on a party line vote the opposition wins 6-5. If the government member in question vacates the chair and the Vice-Chair takes over that reverses the results of the vote.
That, however, is not the case here as there were no government members present.
Hmm... it seems you are
Posted by Devin Johnston on December 15th, 2009.
Hmm... it seems you are correct. The terms of reference specify 7 members are required for quorum, including at least 1 government member and at least 1 opposition member:
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mod...
The other problem with going
Posted by Alison (not verified) on December 16th, 2009.
The other problem with going ahead and running meetings unofficially anyway is that witnesses would not have parliamentary protection for their testimony, ie legal immunity.
Raising the question
Posted by The Jurist (not verified) on December 16th, 2009.
Good post Devin, you've definitely tracked down some of the substance which I only speculated about. Note that one response to my comment at Macleans links here, which has a detailed explanation of what can normally be done with a "reduced quorum" (taking evidence) and what can't (voting on motions).
The number of the members on
Posted by Kyle (not verified) on December 17th, 2009.
The number of the members on the committee baffles me why do the conservatives and the opposition have the same number of members? The opposition has more members in the House then the conservatives so thus that should be represented in the committee. Most committees do that so I'm not sure why this one didn't. The conservatives should have 5 and the opposition should have 7.
That's a good question. It
Posted by Robin (not verified) on December 21st, 2009.
That's a good question. It was always my understanding that committees were selected proportionally from house members by party. Anyone know how it is actually done?
Well, it's roughly
Posted by Devin Johnston on December 21st, 2009.
Well, it's roughly proportional, but it's quite difficult to boil 308 seats and 4 parties, plus independents into a 12 person committee. As a result, it ends up being approximate at best.
But on top of that, there are ad hoc and special committees (this particular one is a special committee) that may or may not have their own terms of reference specifying the breakdown of committee seats. In this case, the terms of reference specified six government and six opposition members. De facto, this gives the opposition a majority, because the Chair doesn't vote except to break a tie. That means that a party line vote will generally break 6-5 for the opposition. As a result, the only tactical move for the Conservatives is to boycott.
Post new comment