Agriculture Committee on Feb. 3rd, 2009

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Just name them.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Well, I have working meals, witnesses' expenses, in camera meeting transcripts, and distribution of documents.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

So it's those four.

Mr. Bellavance.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

I just want some clarification. I have a comment to make about the presence of staff at in-camera meetings.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

That's going to be dealt with separately.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you. That is what I wanted to clarify.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Is there any further discussion on the motion?

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

That would make the next one, then, staff at in camera meetings.

Is there any discussion?

Mr. Bellavance.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

I have already had this discussion at other committees. I don't remember if the problem arose at this committee. I don't think that is a very serious problem, but it does limit us somewhat.

For example, my assistant is always here. France would be accompanied by her assistant. France may not be at the in camera sessions, but the Steering Committee meetings are usually in camera. I would be accompanied by my assistant. If a member of our whip's office wants to talk to me about something or wants to be here for some reason, my assistant will have to leave. I am speaking for all parties, I am not speaking just for us. I think that we should be able to always be accompanied by our staff plus a member of our party, be it someone from the leader's office or elsewhere. In other words, someone will have to leave if someone else comes in. I'm talking about one person, and not 25.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

At this point, if it's okay, I will read the way it was in the last session: that unless otherwise ordered, each committee member be allowed to be accompanied by one staff person at an in camera meeting. That staff member could be a member from the House leader's office, the whip's office, or the research department of the party, or the member's office.

That's just how it was. That information was just handed to me by the clerk.

Mr. Bellavance, you're up.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

I simply wanted to point out that that is why it is limited. We all have the right to be accompanied by one staff member, either from our office or from our party. I know that no one has ever raised the issue, but it could happen that my assistant would be present at an in camera meeting and that someone from the whip's staff from my party would also be present. Someone could point out that there would be one too many people with me. I would not want to do that to any of the others and I would not want anyone to do that to me either. We should allow for the presence of one member of our staff as well as one staff member from the party, who could come and go. We don't know what happens in such situations. As it stands, someone could make an issue of this, and say that there is one extra person in the room, and that therefore someone must leave.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Lemieux.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I agree with Mr. Bellavance. He raises a good point. I feel it is important that we be able to have one staff member here as well as one additional person for each party. We all have a whip's office and we'd like to be able to have someone from that office if necessary. I would therefore move an amendment to deal with your concerns. It would read as follows:

In addition, each party shall be permitted to have one additional staff member attend in camera meetings.

Is that acceptable? In fact, that would be one person per party. This would include one person for each member, but each party would also have the right to have an additional staff member attend. It is therefore an issue of four other staff members at most in the room during in camera meetings.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

You've heard the proposed amendment by Mr. Lemieux. Is there any discussion on that amendment?

(Amendment agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

We need to have a vote on the main motion as amended, as moved by Mr. Hoback.

Is there discussion?

(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

That will take us to notice of motions.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Was it 48 hours last time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Yes.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

That's fine. Does anybody have a problem with 48 hours?

I so move, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

We have a motion moved by Mr. Easter.

It would read the same as it does on the translated copy here, Wayne, but with “48 hours” added.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

That's what it was last time. Sometimes you guys complained, but that's not unusual.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Lemieux.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I have a question that is really just a clarification to you, Chair. A “substantive motion” would mean whether it's related to the business of the day or not. Is that right?

I've been on other committees where, if you're in the midst of the business of the day--for example, you're setting and discussing an agenda--then you don't need 48 hours to actually drop a motion about setting the agenda, even though it's a substantive motion because you're talking about discussing what your future agenda is. If it's outside the business of the day, then you would need 48 hours.

So my question to you is this: are we talking about all substantive motions or are we talking about substantive motions outside the business of the day?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I think the motion is fairly clear where it says “unless the substantive motion relates directly to business then under consideration”, and I think it's probably my job as chair to use my discretion to make a decision based on whether it deals with the business of the day or whether it's new business.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

That answers the question.