Evidence of meeting #2 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 39th Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
Mr. Chair, with due respect, we did vote on this. It's done. Had the parliamentary secretary wanted to bring this up, he should--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
Well, this is what I'm saying. We've already voted on it now, and it has been defeated.
So at some point after we deal with the rest of these motions, can you--
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
In fairness, the point I want to make is that you defeated the motion that was going to add a government member to the group. That's gone. All I'm saying is now we're back to the routine motions, and I'm saying I want to amend it by taking away the reference to having at least one member being in the opposition.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
I'm informed by the clerk that Mr. Komarnicki has the right to go back, because there was a vote on the amendment to it.
Are you moving a subamendment to this particular one?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
All in favour of Mr. Komarnicki's subamendment, please raise your hand.
(Amendment negatived)
On the distribution of documents, are there any amendments?
That one is passed.
Are there any amendments with regard to working meals?
Passed.
For staff at in camera meetings, any amendments?
We have an amendment.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
I move that the routine motion be amended by adding, after the words “in camera meeting”, the following:
, and that each party shall be permitted to have one additional party staff member attend in camera meetings.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
So it would now read:
That, unless otherwise ordered, each Committee member be allowed to be accompanied by one staff person at an in camera meeting, and that each party shall be permitted to have one additional party staff member attend.
Mr. Karygiannis.
Liberal
Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
Does the parliamentary secretary want to say that a party person, being a member of the Conservative Party, a member of the party of the NDP, the Bloc, or the Liberals, could come here?
In other words, Chair, I can have a member of the party, being my president, walk in here--
Liberal
Liberal
Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
Well, party staff member could be....
I think we have to clarify that, be it the research, be it the leader's office, or be it the legislative branch.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
Please clarify, Mr. Komarnicki, before I call for discussion on it.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Hold on: just to clarify and maybe to answer Mr. Karygiannis' concern, we could say “one additional staff member from the whip's office of each party”.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Or research, House leader, or whip's office; would that work?
Okay, here's what I would say: “that each party be permitted to have one additional staff member from the whip's, House leader's, or research office attend in camera meetings”.
Liberal
Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON
I have a degree of discomfort with that, given the fact that we have had information being leaked from in camera meetings. The more people you have, the more that's going to happen. Then you could have the possibility that you would have more...well, never mind the possibility; you would have the probability that you would have more outside members than members at in camera meetings.
I don't think we need that.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
All right. If there isn't any further discussion, we'll vote on the amendment.
The amended motion would read: That, unless otherwise ordered, each Committee member be allowed to be accompanied by one staff person at an in camera meeting, and in addition to that, one person from either the whip's office, the House leader's office, or the research division of each party.
(Amendment agreed to)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
In camera meeting transcripts--are there any amendments to that? No?
Carried.
Notice of motions: That 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.
Are there any amendments?
Mr. Komarnicki.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
It's a very technical amendment.
I know we get these notices of motions, and I've often wondered, when do you calculate the time of the 48 hours to commence? For the sake of certainty, I would like to include the following:
and that the period of notice be calculated from the time the motion has been distributed to the members of the committee by the Clerk of the Committee.
That would be the start of the 48 hours' notice.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
Are there any further comments?
Ms. Chow, and then Mr. Karygiannis.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
I have a question to the clerk. If a substantive motion relates directly to business--for example, if we are supposed to deal with the supplementary estimates--then that does not require 48 hours' notice. Am I right in that assumption?
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Andrew Chaplin
If the committee is in a meeting where the orders of the day are the supplementary estimates, and someone moves a motion directly related to their consideration or following out of their consideration, that is in order and no notice is required.