Evidence of meeting #1 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was going.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
One party plus the chair...?
Oh, there are just three. So you and three of your colleagues could form quorum. Is that not the case?
NDP
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
I would suggest we keep it to each recognized party so that we do not have one party taking control of the committee, or keep it to at least one member of the government and one member of the opposition.
NDP
The Chair NDP Nathan Cullen
What is being suggested is four members, including a minimum of one member of the opposition and one member of the government.
Could someone move that motion? Mrs. Davidson.
All in favour?
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Next is distribution of documents. It authorizes the clerk of the committee to distribute documents.
To the folks who are new to the committee, this sometimes can be a sticky point . Sometimes witnesses, on the day they appear, will bring documents in one language. Unless there is unanimous consent of the committee, we do not distribute them. They have to be submitted prior. All witnesses are given that information.
That goes for committee members as well. If there is something that you want the committee to read, you have to get it to us in sufficient time that we can get it translated. Otherwise, you have to get unanimous consent in order to distribute it.
Mrs. Davidson.
Conservative
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Mr. Chair, just for clarification, that includes motions that may come from a member.
NDP
The Chair NDP Nathan Cullen
Absolutely. It is particularly important for motions, so that all members can understand what it is they're voting on.
Could someone move this motion on the distribution of documents? Mr. Dreeshen.
All in favour?
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Next is working meals. This allows the clerk to order in food.
NDP
The Chair NDP Nathan Cullen
Charlie wants to get on that one quickly. The motion is enthusiastically moved by Mr. Angus.
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Next is witnesses' expenses. This is to enable us to spend money to bring in witnesses. Does this provide for telecommunications as well?
NDP
The Chair NDP Nathan Cullen
This essentially is part of our budget. Could someone move this motion? Mr. Del Mastro.
All in favour?
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Next is staff at in camera meetings. We go in camera from time to time, especially as we do our planning. We need to have a certain amount of staff. This also allows members to have a staff member with them at those in camera meetings.
Could someone move this motion? Mr. Angus.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
Mr. Chair, I want to amend that to make sure that one staff member from our House office also be allowed to attend in camera meetings.
NDP
The Chair NDP Nathan Cullen
Mr. Hiebert, I'm trying to understand how that is different from the last sentence “shall be permitted to have one party staff member in attendance”.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
I see; “one party” being not one of our staff members but--
Conservative
NDP
The Chair NDP Nathan Cullen
Yes. It's an additional one for House staff. The motion was moved. All in favour?
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Next is in camera meetings transcripts. When we go in camera and the meeting is recorded, only the clerk keeps a recording of it. It never gets released.
Could someone move that motion? Mrs. Davidson.
All in favour?
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
I have a comment on this for some of the newer members. Sometimes, maybe by intention but often by accident, committee members will be at an in camera planning meeting and then later in the House or in front of the media or with friends will mention what happened. It's a very bad mistake to make around this place. It's an easy mistake to make sometimes. You think it may be something innocent. One party blocks a certain witness, isn't in favour of a witness, or one party doesn't like a certain topic.
In camera is in camera. Until we break that in camera, you can't talk about it. That goes for everybody else and the staff who support us. I just mention that as a little warning. It's a very easy thing to make a mistake on, especially if you're new to this place. I have done it and it's embarrassing. You get embarrassed in the House of Commons and are made to look rather silly.
Next is notice of motions. This is the 48-hour notice of motion.
Mr. Angus.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Chair, this happens at every committee. What does 48 hours mean?
In fairness to the staff who are going to be dealing with the motions, I think the rule is two sleeps, as opposed to “I got it in at 8 o'clock on Tuesday night and I expect it at the Thursday morning meeting.” I think it should be two full days. Then at least we have a standard.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
I agree it is always contentious as to what 48 hours means. To me it means 48 hours.
I would prefer that the committee move such that if for a motion to be debated on, say, a Thursday, it would need to be submitted prior to committee on Tuesday. That way there is a full 48 hours' notice.
Otherwise, what often happens is a motion is moved late on a Tuesday afternoon or evening and then it is brought up for debate on Thursday, which is not even close to 48 hours' notice. Often the other parties don't learn about the motion until the day before the committee meeting.
I would prefer that we stick to 48 hours' notice. We all understand what that means. It's 48 hours.
NDP
The Chair NDP Nathan Cullen
Are there any other comments on this before I put something in?
This is language that does come out of the House of Commons, similar to proposing a motion or a bill in the House. In the House it doesn't technically mean 48 hours, because often reality and the House of Commons aren't the same thing, but it means two physical sleeps before the motion can be addressed.
It's very similar to what's happening with the back-to-work legislation. When Minister Raitt puts it in, it's a certain number of sleeps, actually, just before.
I hear your point very well, Dean. There are other committees that are saying this. Let's take the Thursday morning example. If you want a motion to be heard and debated Thursday morning, there has been a suggestion and adoption at other committees that by 4 p.m. on the Tuesday, that working day, if it's submitted by then, it gives the clerk and the translators enough time to get it out to everybody so you can hear it Thursday morning.
So I hear your point very well, Dean, but I'm wondering if the suggestion....
This is what I've seen happen quite a bit. You're engaged in something. You hear witnesses on a Tuesday morning. Your interest in something or other gets piqued, and it seems like the committee could go in another direction. You work that day on a motion. You submit it by that afternoon. The next Thursday you have the option of debating it at the committee rather than having to have it in before 9 a.m. on the Tuesday, which is essentially what is being suggested.
I don't know if that's acceptable. I've just seen it at other committees. If you want to be hard and fast on the 9 a.m. Tuesday morning, which is what we're suggesting right now, for a Thursday....
The Tuesday mornings won't matter, because it will have to be before the weekend, essentially, will it not? You're not going to get things at 9 a.m. on Sunday?