Evidence of meeting #1 for Citizenship and Immigration 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.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
Thirty-six hours is perhaps a little short, but I would like to propose 42 hours, because that solves the problem that Mr. Karygiannis...
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
I do not know whether we have to debate the amendment first, or whether or not this is a subamendment. But first let us make sure that we understand each other. This would allow us to submit a motion up until 3 p.m. on Tuesday and still have it considered on Thursday.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We're having a chat back and forth. Could you please direct your comments to the chair?
Are you making an amendment, Mr. St. Cyr?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We'll go to that in a minute.
Mr. St. Cyr, I understand that your proposal is to change 48 hours to 42 hours.
Mr. Dykstra, you have a point of order.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Mr. Chair, I moved a motion of 48 hours, and an amendment to move to 42 hours is not an amendment; it's actually contrary to the motion. So I would suspect that we have to vote on the motion, and when that fails, Mr. St. Cyr can move his motion.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I am going to rule the amendment in order; we'll vote on Mr. St. Cyr's amendment.
I just shudder to think that someone is going to say 40 hours or 50 hours. Then we're in trouble.
Mr. Calandra.
February 3rd, 2009 / 9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
Perhaps I'm confused right now as a new member, but it would be extraordinarily helpful if we could vote on the motion that we actually have here, and then just re-explain--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We're going to vote on the amendment to the motion, which is proposing 42 hours instead of 48 hours.
(Amendment agreed to)
All those in favour of the motion as amended?
Conservative
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
I have a few proposals in terms of motions. Generally speaking, I think the ones I have here have been accepted by the previous committee.
The first is that in the case of previously scheduled meetings taking place outside the parliamentary precinct, the committee members in attendance shall only be required to wait for 15 minutes following the designated start of a meeting before they may proceed to hear witnesses and receive evidence, regardless of whether opposition or government members are present.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Mr. Dykstra, by chance do you have copies? They're shaking their heads, so maybe if you have copies, they could look at your proposal.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We're still in session here, folks. Could I just ask if everyone has a copy of this? The chair doesn't.
Conservative
Liberal
Maurizio Bevilacqua Liberal Vaughan, ON
I have a concern in reference to the last part of it. It says, “regardless of whether opposition or government members are present”. But if we look back at the quorum issue, it says, “That the Chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence and to have that evidence printed when a quorum is not present, provided that at least three (3) members are present, including one member of the opposition”.
So if we're saying that the quorum rule has to be respected, then this can't work, because you're saying here that regardless of whether opposition or government members are present....
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
Thank you. My impression is that this applies to committees that travel. I do not think that it is at all necessary, given that the quorum provisions already allow for this possibility when we hold hearings on the road. It is possible to function with three committee members only. Frankly, I do not think that we would hold the hearing if we did not even have three members at the table, if only out of respect for the people who have come to give evidence before us. This motion is not necessary, and, in my opinion, sets us on a slippery slope. It specifically applies only to meetings outside the parliamentary precinct. In other words, if you want to manipulate the quorum, you just have to call a meeting across the street or somewhere else in Ottawa. I do not think that is helpful.
So I am going to vote against the motion.
