Evidence of meeting #1 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
Any other questions about the motion?
(Motion agreed to)
The next motion is regarding staff at in camera meetings, and it says that, unless otherwise ordered, each committee member be allowed to be accompanied by one staff person at an in camera meeting.
It's moved by Mr. Bagnell.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
I also want to make an amendment that each party's whip be allowed to send one person to an in camera meeting.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
So the amendment proposed by Mr. Bagnell is to include that each party's whip also be authorized to send one staff member.
Monsieur Blais, on the question.
11:45 a.m.
Bloc
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
I am willing to support this motion, particularly since I considered tabling it in the form of an amendment for the following reason: a member can ask a staff person to be in attendance during one of these meetings. Yet, it may happen that we need a specific research analyst, for example somebody from the Bloc Québécois research office. That person could also be from the government side, the NDP, or the Liberal Party. I think that this motion would also cover that possibility.
That is probably how things would unfold if that were to occur. As far as I am concerned, I would be accompanied by someone from the research office.
We can leave it up to each party to determine who may or may not accompany a member to help him in his work.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
I think we're not opposed to that. We may want to broaden it and just say “one party staff member”, or something like that, because they may not come from the whip's office; they might be from some other branch.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
Mr. Kamp, would you like to propose some wording as a subamendment?
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
Yes. I don't know what his complete amendment was.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
All right, that simplifies it.
Mr. Kamp, do you wish to make an amendment?
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
Yes, I'd like to amend the motion to add this: “In addition, each party shall be permitted to have one party staff member attend in camera meetings.”
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
Okay, Mr. Kamp moves that, at the end of the existing paragraph for staff at in camera meetings, it will include, “In addition, each party shall be permitted to have one party staff member attend in camera meetings.”
Are there any comments on that?
(Motion agreed to)
It's a lot quicker now that I know we don't need a seconder.
So the next motion is regarding in camera meeting transcripts, and it's from the 39th Parliament: that one copy of the transcript of each in camera meeting be kept in the committee clerk’s office for consultation by members of the committee.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
It has been moved by Mr. Calkins that we accept the wording. Are we ready for the question?
(Motion agreed to)
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
The next one is notice of motions. The 39th Parliament motion reads:
That forty-eight (48) hours’ notice be required for any substantive motion to be considered by the Committee, unless the substantive motion relates directly to business then under consideration; and that the notice of motion be filed with the Clerk of the Committee and distributed to members in both official languages.
Do I have a mover for that motion? It will be moved by Mr. MacAulay.
Discussion?
Mr. Kamp.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
Yes, although we've never misused this in the years I've been on the committee as far as I can recall, I've always been a little concerned by that clause in the middle that says “unless the substantive motion relates directly to business then under consideration”, because that's quite broad. You could be talking about the seal hunt, for example, and it could lead to some pretty significant substantive motions condemning the government, for example. Those kinds of things I think we want 48 hours' notice on.
As I say, I don't recall it being misused, but I'm not sure why we would want that clause in there, as we've never used it. There have been some non-substantive motions, things under consideration, and I think that's fine. They've been minor motions, perhaps. But I think I would feel more comfortable and I think our party would feel more comfortable if it read without that clause.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
So delete “unless the substantive motion relates directly to business then under consideration”.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
Right. So in the interests of time, I'll move that we amend this motion to remove that clause.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
So Mr. Kamp's amendment is to remove this wording from the previous motion: “unless the substantive motion relates directly to the business then under consideration”. Is that correct?
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
I can understand where the member is coming from, but I would disagree. That hasn't occurred in any other committee, and as the member said, it hasn't been abused. But I think the purpose of it is that when you're discussing whatever issue you're discussing, all sorts of motions come up, amendments, subamendments. So you have to be able to make motions while you're discussing a topic and you can't wait 48 hours for all these motions every time you want to have a discussion. You can't break the discussion, stop the committee meeting, wait for 48 hours, and then discuss again. So I think you have to be able to make amendments and subamendments while you're discussing something. That's why it has always been like this in all the committees.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
I believe if you check the record, Mr. Chair, you'll find that I did use that part of the motion in the last session, at one committee meeting. So with great respect to Mr. Kamp, I would oppose what he's trying to do.
