Evidence of meeting #1 for Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) in the 39th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was witnesses.
Conservative
James Moore Conservative Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC
Yes, 48 hours is the standard, so I'm just wondering if Pat can tell us why he wants it changed.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Through the chair, I'll respond.
Some of the committees I've worked with have waived the notice or changed the notice to 24 hours. We find that 48 hours' notice actually is a real barrier to those working on the committee. It often spans a weekend, and it makes it very difficult to keep the committee moving promptly when you're bound by that 48-hour rule. It actually expedites the work of the committee to have only 24 hours. Anything shorter than that I would be reluctant to recommend, because the clerk and the staff need time to incorporate those motions--at least overnight. “One sleep” is what we go by.
Conservative
James Moore Conservative Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC
If I could continue, the one hesitation I would have on this is that on some committees that may be wise, but as for this committee--we'll get into this--we may be sitting on Mondays and we may be sitting on Fridays, and all members know we often have committed schedules through weekends and so on. So there's a reason why there's a 48-hour notice of motion. It's so that people can make those preparations and travel plans. If somebody gives a notice of motion on a Thursday--and half the House leaves Ottawa on Thursday, as we know--and then there's going to be a vote the very next day, people will have to cancel events in their districts and they'll have to make radical travel plans, which is often not the wisest thing.
I appreciate the sentiment, and believe me, I would like this process to be expedited, but I don't know that there's a real argument about why 48 hours won't suffice. So I would therefore speak against this.
Conservative
Conservative
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Mr. Chair, when I raised my hand, it was before Mr. Martin had an opportunity to respond to Mr. Moore's question, so the information I was going to impart to Mr. Moore was exactly the same. So I won't take up any more time of this committee on this particular issue.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
All right.
I understand that it's a frustrating rule, because I've missed the 48-hour deadline in the past, and it's a great frustration when that happens, but the benefit of having the 48 hours is that with the schedules all of us keep, it sometimes takes a couple of days for a committee member to get an opportunity to study a motion and to arrive with an informed position. I think 48 hours is a reasonable balance, so that you can arrive at committee, having seen the motion and having studied it, to return an informed opinion, to vote on it and debate it. So I personally believe we would be well advised to keep the 48 hours, though I do very much respect Pat's sentiments on it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Do you understand what the amendment is? Is everybody okay?
(Amendment agreed to)
(Motion as amended agreed to)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Everybody is happy--maybe.
In camera meeting transcripts: that one copy of the transcript of each in camera meeting be held in the committee clerk's office for consultation by members of the committee.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Staff at in camera meetings: that unless otherwise ordered, each committee member be allowed to be accompanied by one staff person at an in camera meeting..
Moved by Mr. Sauvageau.
(Motion agreed to)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Next is that amendments to Bill C-2 be submitted to the clerk of the committee 48 hours prior to clause-by-clause consideration.
Moved by Mr. Sauvageau.
(Motion agreed to)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We still have to deal with the reduced quorum and the sitting schedule. Who wants to take lead on this?
Mr. Sauvageau.
Bloc
Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Repentigny, QC
Mr. Chair, I'd eliminate this routine motion, quite simply because, as Mr. Moore explained so well, on several occasions, this is not a traditional committee, and so on. That's why I think the committee should sit when there is quorum, it's as simple as that.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Okay.
The rationale is that the proposal is only for the hearing of witnesses and that if any decision were to be made on anything you would require a full quorum. So if we have witnesses and we don't have a full quorum it enables us to proceed to hear those witnesses. That's the rationale.
Ms. Jennings.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
I move that the chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence and to have that evidence printed only when a quorum, defined by at least seven members including four representing two opposition parties, is present.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Could I ask you to repeat the proposed amendment to the motion concerning quorum.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Well, we don't have anything at this stage, unless Ms. Jennings is making a motion.
Are you making a motion, Ms. Jennings?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Yes, she is. So we have a motion on the floor, as Ms. Jennings advised. We don't need a seconder.
Mr. Petit, did you have a comment or a question?
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
I would first like Ms. Jennings to repeat the amendment so that I can comment on it.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
I move that the chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence and to have that evidence printed when a quorum, defined by at least seven members including four representing two opposition parties, is present.
That would mean, for example, that there would not be a quorum if there were four Liberals and two Conservatives present, because the rules require four members representing two opposition parties. Even if there were four Liberals and two or three Conservatives present, we would still not have quorum. There would have to be at least one other member from one of the two other opposition parties to ensure that three parties, including two opposition parties, are represented at all times.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to members of the committee that both the government and the official opposition are well represented on this committee. However, Mr. Martin will be the only representative of his party, and were we to adopt the proposed motion, the workload resulting from our continual demands on his time will send him to an early grave.
