Evidence of meeting #1 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
Along the same line, by the same token, what Mr. Thibault is suggesting is that the opposition could refuse to show up en masse and at the same time prevent evidence from being presented as well, so it goes both ways.
What we're simply trying to do here is make it fair so that if the opposition is required to be present, certainly members of the government should be allowed to be present.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
Robert Thibault Liberal West Nova, NS
Could we ask the clerk? When I read “opposition” I'm thinking it would be any members of the opposition totalling three.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I believe that's the committee's understanding. Thank you.
We are at Mr. Hiebert still.
You are finished? Okay.
We have no further members wishing to speak. The amendment by Mr. Hiebert is that the phrase “and one member of the government” be added to what's printed on your text. The question is on the amendment.
(Amendment negatived)
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
I'd like to move that the words “including one member of the opposition” be deleted.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
I am following along the same rationale. What's fair is fair. The argument was just made by someone that the government could stifle a proceeding by not showing up. The government can say the same thing. If the opposition....
This whole issue, quite frankly, is very silly, but if we're going to get into that, I'll play that game too. I simply say that the opposition could do the same thing, Mr. Chairman. They could say they don't want to hear witnesses, so they are not going to show up. Hence, you can't even hear the witnesses. So what's fair is fair.
November 15th, 2007 / 11:35 a.m.
Liberal
Andy Scott Liberal Fredericton, NB
I don't think it is analogous at all, because you are talking about one party in one case and three parties in the other. The likelihood of one mind is a lot less on this side than on that side. That's the reason it has been that way.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
No further debate.
The amendment suggested by Mr. Tilson is that we drop the last phrase, “including one member of the opposition”. Is that correct, Mr. Tilson?
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I would like to put the question now on the amendment of Mr. Tilson to delete the phrase “including one member of the opposition”. Do all members understand the question?
(Amendment negatived)
11:35 a.m.
Bloc
Gérard Asselin Bloc Manicouagan, QC
On the issue of quorum, Mr. Chairman, the best idea is to base ourselves on past practice. This has always worked well in the past. I move that the reduced quorum be composed of three members, including one member of the opposition.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
You're saying what is written there now, the existing wording.
Okay, seeing no other debate, I would like to put the question on the main motion, which is the motion before you as written initially. Does everyone understand that?
(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
On distribution of documents, could I have a mover, please?
Mr. Martin.
11:40 a.m.
NDP
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Next is working meals.
Can I have a mover, please?
Mr. Martin moves it.
(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
11:40 a.m.
NDP
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Okay, hang on for a second.
The witnesses' expenses motion is moved by Mr. Martin. And on debate, I have Mr. Martin.
11:40 a.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
This is something that was introduced, actually by the government side, at the last committee I sat on: that witnesses' expenses be expanded to contemplate reasonable child care costs when necessary.
I thought that was a very timely and contemporary and progressive move.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal