Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on May 3rd, 2006

[A voice]

He could send a substitute.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

If we want to ensure continuity in the committee's work, the majority of members should be present at all meetings to avoid leaving ground uncovered. If, for example, I always sent a substitute because I was tired, you would get pretty fed up.

In my view, if we say “only when a quorum is present”, we will be so restricted that it will be essentially impossible to hold meetings because, given the number of weekly meetings that we have planned, we will not always manage to have quorum. I therefore think it would be easier to work in small groups and, in the event of somebody being absent, he or she could read the clerk's notes and intervene at a later date.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Lukiwski.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Where Ms. Jennings suggested that members of two opposition parties be present, I don't have a problem with that, but saying there should be four opposition members from two different parties could potentially be a problem. I'm not saying this would happen, but let's just assume for a moment that if none of the Liberal members showed up and if the NDP and the Bloc were in full complement; we would have two opposition parties but only three opposition members. We would not have a quorum, under Ms. Jennings' suggestion.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

We're okay even if all four Liberals show up. If there is not another opposition party, either a Bloc or an NDP member, there is no quorum.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

No, no, I understand. I'm just saying I appreciate the two opposition parties; I haven't got a problem with that. But having four members as opposed to three....

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Poilievre, do you still want to say something?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I think that it is a reasonable amendment. To my mind, as members of this committee, we ought to attend meetings. If we fail to do so, the media will get talking, and everybody will hear about it on the television.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We don't have an amendment; we have a motion, and I'm going to ask you to make sure we all understand it.

Ms. Jennings, go ahead, please.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Once again, 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.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Does everybody understand?

Okay, we're going to vote.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Now do we have sitting schedules?

I'm going to raise the topic of sitting schedules. There's no draft motion, but somehow we have to deal with that issue.

Mr. Sauvageau, go ahead, please.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Chairman, you said that we do not yet have a draft motion. If that is the case, I would ask that you allow me to propose one and that you then put it to a vote.

I move that this committee sit twice as often as standing committees. Normally, committees meet twice a week. I know that the Conservatives are in a hurry to get this bill adopted, and we are prepared to cooperate fully. That is why I am suggesting that we have twice as many meetings, in other words, four meetings instead of two.

I would suggest that meetings be held on Tuesday from 9:00 a.m. to midday, and from 3:30 to 5:50 p.m. I would remind you that some members are still in their ridings on Mondays. There would be no meeting on Wednesday mornings, because we all have caucus. We could, however, meet on Wednesday afternoons from 3:30 to 5:30 p.m., and on Thursday mornings from 9:00 a.m. to midday. That would allow members who have a long way to travel to go to the ridings at weekends. I have not had the chance to calculate the number of sitting hours that would give, but it would give us twice as many meetings as a normal committee.

My proposal is, therefore, that the committee meet on Tuesdays from 9:00 a.m. to midday, and from 3:30 to 5:30 p.m.; on Wednesdays from 3:30 to 5:30 p.m.; and on Thursdays from 9:00 a.m. to midday.

If, for example, a witness were unable to attend a daytime meeting due to his work schedule, and we had to hold an evening meeting, I am certain that, in the spirit of cooperation, we could unanimously decide to occasionally hold one of our meetings outside of our scheduled slots.

As you said that you did not have a draft motion, I consulted with colleagues, and I think that this draft motion will have the support of most, perhaps even all, members of the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I think we all understand, and it's nine hours.

Ten hours? I don't know.

Mr. Lukiwski, go ahead, please.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate Benoit's suggestion and I agree with it. I would like to suggest, however, that for 317 clauses, for a massive bill, for many witnesses, we might need additional time. I appreciate the fact that the committee could decide to meet in the evenings. Would it be fair, though, to suggest, since some are flying Monday morning and most members are here Monday afternoons, that we add a two-hour session Monday afternoon, from 3:30 to 5:30? That would be my suggestion.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

My only comment is that I notice that it does conflict. This is news to me. Actually, I was okay with this, but I understand the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics meets Tuesdays and Thursdays 3:30 to 5:30. I am on that committee, so I serve notice that I will have one conflict. However, I am happy with this arrangement, so I will find a substitute for that one conflict.

I would point out that ten hours a week--

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm on that committee too, so maybe we can just pair.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I did notice that, Chair.

But I would like to add that ten hours a week is a lot. I asked of my finance critic.... Even the all-powerful Standing Committee on Finance only meets twice a week for two hours at a time, unless sometimes they take on special projects. But I've never heard of them meeting more than ten hours a week.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

The clerk has just told me, and I hope I get it correct--and most of you will know this--that a standing committee cannot sit at the same time as a legislative committee dealing with the same subject matter. So it will put the ethics committee in an interesting dilemma.

Mr. Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

On the issue of the members having other committee obligations, I have another committee I'm a part of, public accounts. I have found a permanent replacement, and in fact all of the members of the Conservatives are planning to do that. I would suggest that other parties do the same thing, because this is a massive omnibus bill. We have to have undivided attention from members of this committee on this particular bill. The committee cannot wait for other committees in order to schedule around it.

Secondly, we're talking about a very large bill. I've done the clause-by-clause already. I can tell you it took me about 15 or 20 hours just to go through, and that wasn't even debating the clauses or proposing amendments; that was just to read them and be briefed on their complexities. So I would propose that this agenda that Mr. Sauvageau has offered is too light. I don't think there's any reason why we could not do something Monday afternoon or evening. In fact, when I spoke to him that was my understanding, that we were going to include an afternoon or evening on Monday night, but that we would cut short on Thursday night because members such as him leave Thursday night to return to their constituencies and arrive late on Monday morning.

So I would suggest that we add to his amendment a further amendment that allows for a meeting from 3:30 to 5:30. Then do you want to do a later one after that? Yes, 3:30 to 5:30 on Monday or 6 to 9, whichever would be more agreeable to Mr. Sauvageau.

Do you have a preference between those two, Mr. Sauvageau?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Could I just ask the committee's indulgence for a moment, please? I just want to be clear on what's going on.

There's a motion Mr. Sauvageau made. Did Mr. Lukiwski have an amendment to that suggestion?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

I did not have an amendment. It was a suggestion. I didn't make a formal amendment. I think Mr. Poilievre may have an amendment.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

For the purposes of expediting this, of the two options, or the third option being both, which would the opposition members be more inclined to support, a 3:30 to 5:30 or a 6:30 to 9 on Monday night? Is it possible to indicate that? Then I will put my motion for my amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Sauvageau is next, but if you're having a chat, maybe you could do it through the chair.

Mr. Sauvageau.