Evidence of meeting #2 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:40 p.m.
Bloc
Alain Therrien Bloc La Prairie, QC
I want to make sure I understand correctly. Is the question whether people could find themselves in two paid positions? Is that the question?
I said I wouldn't comment, but I did anyway.
12:40 p.m.
Bloc
Alain Therrien Bloc La Prairie, QC
I took a quick poll, and I think that, if every committee had a Bloc Québécois vice-chair, two other people would be in the same boat: doing two jobs, shall we say.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Obviously, we've just had one member who could potentially be in a conflict here indicate that he believes he's in a conflict and will not be participating in the debate or voting on it. We have another member who could potentially be in a conflict.
My interpretation of what she's saying is that she's uncertain as to what the situation is on that right now. I don't really want to put anyone in that position. I think at this point we should adjourn debate and allow those members a chance to go back and get advice on whether or not they in fact would be in a conflict of interest.
I move that we adjourn debate.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Would that be adjourning or just suspending debate? I'm looking for clarity on that.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Ms. Blaney, it's the same situation we were in last time on your motion. Adjourning it would mean that this committee meeting for today is over—or the debate is over, sorry. It would be up to the committee the next time to pick this debate back up or not.
A helpful suggestion was made by the clerk that we could have House administration here to clarify these things. Once again, though, I want to preface it by saying that the exercise we're doing on this amendment may be moot once it gets to the House. We do have to understand that as well in considering how much time we want to spend in this committee debating this and understanding it better. Practically, it may not have an effect; I do want to remind you of that. I feel I have a responsibility to let you know that before we carry on down that road. But we can. It's up to you; it's your decision.
Since Mr. Richards has moved to adjourn debate on the matter, that issue is not debatable.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Okay.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Madam Chair, given that we have only 10 minutes left in the scheduled meeting, I move that we adjourn the meeting.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
I've been so involved in the interesting topics we've been talking about today, but we have a former member of PROC in the committee room today. Mr. Graham is here. I'm sure the committee would like to welcome Mr. Graham. He was an excellent member of this committee for many, many years.
Welcome to the meeting, Mr. Graham.
There's been a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Can we have a vote on that? All in favour?
(Motion agreed to)
The meeting is adjourned.