Evidence of meeting #1 for Finance in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was committees.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
There are three members at present, including one member of the opposition and one member of the government.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
I think it's only fair. We talk about these committees trying to not represent a particular ministry and so on and so forth. I think we're trying to keep the chair as neutral as possible on this, and in this case then, the only government member might be the chairman. It doesn't mention anywhere whether a vice-chair could run this meeting or that it has to be the chair. I think it's only fair, if we're going to have the committee meeting, even to receive information, that the government is represented by at least one body. I don't think that's an unreasonable request.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It's quite simple. I'm opposed to the amendment, because I feel that there are three opposition parties, and we can have one member from one of the three opposition parties. The government is only one party, and by one member of the government not showing up, it can actually inhibit or prevent the committee from sitting, and we don't want that to happen. It's a veto power.
Thank you.
November 13th, 2007 / 3:45 p.m.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
I was just going to make the same point, which is that it effectively gives the government a veto, which I don't think is appropriate.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
Well, as I read it, it would be that the chair would have to be there, as well as the other members, so I don't think it would be a veto. Nonetheless....
Go ahead, Paul.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
I would like Mr. Wallace to tell me if, with his proposal, there would be no meeting in the absence of government MPs. This would give you the full power to ensure that there is no meeting.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
That's correct. When there is no quorum, and a meeting is called, there have to be at least three members, and one of them has to be from the government instead of all of them being from the opposition.
Yes.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
So, there would not be a meeting? The government would decide if there was to be a meeting or not?
3:50 p.m.
A voice
Yes, and that is the problem.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
It's to receive and publish evidence. It's not to create a report. It's an absence of quorum.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
Okay. Is there any further debate on this? We're not going to stay on it very long. Are you good to go?
Do you agree on the amendment, which is to add one more member from the government?
(Amendment negatived)
3:50 p.m.
The Clerk
You have to vote on the motion.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
That was on the amendment. Now, on the motion, do you agree on motion number three the way it is written?
(Motion agreed to)
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
On motion four, on time limits and witnesses, this is the one the Bloc had some concerns about.
We'll go to John.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
At the bottom it says that when a minister appears, people get seven minutes for the first round. A minister is more important than we are, but I don't think he's infinitely more important, so I would propose that there be a twenty-minute limit for the minister.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
3:50 p.m.
Liberal