Evidence of meeting #1 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Could you read Mr. Boshcoff's amendment? I think we would be willing to support it if we could get the text of it.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
My understanding is that what we have here is “that unless otherwise ordered, each committee member be allowed to be accompanied by one staff person at an in camera meeting, and that staff person may be from the member's office, the house leader's office, the whip's office, or the research department”.
Did you want to make comments on that?
(Amendment agreed to)
(Motion as amended agreed to)
We are moving right along here.
Next we have in camera meeting transcripts. Last time we put the two motions together. Now we have it separated.
Go ahead, Mr. St. Amand.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd St. Amand Liberal Brant, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would propose under this topic that our motion be “that one copy of the transcript of each in camera meeting be kept in the committee clerk's office for consultation by members of the committee”.
That's the motion, Mr. Chair. I'm happy to speak to it, if I may.
I understand the current long-standing policy has been for such transcripts to be kept for a minimum of 30 years. I haven't heard of a single instance in which that practice has been violated or abused, and I think it should continue.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
All transcripts of in camera meetings get forwarded to the National Archives. They're held to the end of the parliamentary session. They're in the clerk's office until the end of the session and then they go to the archives.
Go ahead, Mr. Anderson.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I'm going to make an amendment, because I always assumed up until this minute that my conversations in camera were private, and now I find out that in the future they will not be. So I'm going to make the amendment we had on our sheet and add that these transcripts be destroyed at the end of the session. I think that's reasonable.
In seven years I didn't realize that what we discussed in camera is going to be made public eventually.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
They aren't destroyed, but, like cabinet documents, they are still held in confidence for 30 years and then they're made available to the public after 30 years.
It's amazing what people read, and I've said so many nasty things.
And if somebody passes away, if it's about a specific person, they can release within 25 years.
So we have an amendment on the floor.
Mr. Miller.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
I'm like Mr. Anderson. I'd seen this on here today and wondered why it was there. I had no idea this could ever become public.
I don't think I've ever said anything in camera that I'm ashamed of, but at the same time, in camera is in camera. I'll support the amendment for that reason. This shouldn't be available tomorrow, today, or 30 years from now.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Other comments?
The question is on the amendment by Mr. Anderson, that these transcripts be destroyed at the end of the session.
(Amendment negatived)
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
We're back to the main motion by Mr. St. Amand, which is in front of you. Is there further discussion on transcripts of in camera meetings?
(Motion agreed to)
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I'd like to move that our motion, as printed in our presentation, be considered:
That 48 hours notice shall be required for any substantive motion to be considered by the committee; and that the period of notice be calculated from the time the motion has been distributed to the members of the committee by the clerk of the committee; and that the motion shall be distributed to members in both official languages; and that all motions received by the clerk shall be placed upon the agenda of the first committee meeting following the period of notice.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
It would seem that there is an abundance of suggestions to limit the work of members or to impose restrictions.
Once again, normally things have worked rather well at the Standing Committee on Agriculture. I do not understand why we are creating irritants to tabling documents, motions, carrying out the work that we do on a regular basis.
Therefore, we must do what we have always done and provide a 48-hour notice. This restriction is perfectly normal, and allows us a degree of flexibility. Now, we are adding restrictions that I do not agree with.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Guy Lauzon Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
I already had an experience that was not good.
One time, when I was chair of the official languages committee, one of the members did his due diligence and presented the motion to the clerk, but sometimes it gets caught up in the circuit and you get the motion--I think in this case it was eight hours before, and it really wasn't fair. I'm entitled, everyone's entitled, to 48 hours.
I guess that's never happened with this committee, but if you end up with an important motion eight hours before, you don't have time to prepare or do any research.
This is the rule, isn't it? It's 48 hours. I think that's just clarifying that rule. I think that's a good rule. It's fair for everybody. The clerk has to do his due diligence then and make sure that everybody gets this at the same time.
I would strongly support that.
November 14th, 2007 / 4:55 p.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I've always worked toward trying to have the notice lowered in any committee that I've been on. We managed to do that at the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development when I was on that committee, and also on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. Some committees require no notice, and that's certainly to the advantage of opposition members. Some committees require 24 hours' notice, and that's what I always push for and recommend, because when you're only meeting twice a week—some committees meet Tuesdays and Thursdays, some meet Mondays and Wednesdays—if you have a matter of some urgency and you want it at the next committee meeting, it's not always possible if a rigid 48 hours' notice is necessary to achieve that. We believe that one sleep is enough.
I will also certainly speak against the language in Mr. Anderson's proposed motion, that the period of notice be calculated from the time the motion has been distributed to other members of the committee by the clerk of the committee. That throws an additional spanner into things. The way we calculate it in other committees is one sleep, 24 hours' notice is required. If I get it to the clerk of the committee at 6 p.m., and the next meeting starts at 11 the next morning, that one sleep served as one day or 24 hours' notice. That's the way the other committees operate
. I'm only suggesting that's our preference, especially as opposition members are at a power imbalance disadvantage. Let's face it, the government side has all the power on committees--
4:55 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
--even when the numbers are like this, because they have the inside track to the government. A lot of these committees are structured to correct some of that historic imbalance by giving some powers to the opposition so that in this place at least, in this tiny little corner of Parliament, we can have a fair fight.
I would speak strongly against the motion put forward by Mr. Anderson, and I'll be moving an amendment of my own if we get back to the main motion.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I think Mr. Martin is being ridiculous, because this committee has always worked on 48 hours. This is an attempt to make it more fair for other members, including the opposition.
Can you let me talk, Pat? Could you be quiet?
5 p.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
I don't think that's parliamentary to say that what I say is ridiculous.
5 p.m.
Conservative
5 p.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Mr. Chairman, could you put some order in this place? First he calls me ridiculous, and now it's silliness. I resent that profoundly. We're going to have a debate about his motion or we shouldn't be debating at all.