Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I was just looking at O'Brien and Bosc. I noticed that when this meeting was convened we had I think less than three minutes of notice. By the time I had received my notice of meeting, it was 2:57 a.m., for a meeting that was to commence at 3 a.m.
I'm sorry, was it at 1:57 a.m.? My apologies.
Oh, yes, you're right. Thank you for that clarification.
So June 13, 2013, at 1:57 a.m. is when I received the notice of meeting from the clerk of this committee. That was for a meeting to commence at 2 a.m. on the same day, June 13.
Looking at O'Brien and Bosc concerning convening a meeting, what I'm noticing is that there is a common practice in general, Mr. Chair. The practice we've been using is to generally give adequate notice to members so that we can participate in the committee meetings that were scheduled and that we're required to be at.
With less than three minutes of notice, I find it quite difficult for members to be able to be in their seats for a meeting to commence.
Mr. Chair, you know that even when there are votes scheduled in the House, the bells are rung for half an hour. The general requirement is that if there are proceedings within the House, it's important that people be within half an hour away so that they can make it back to the House for the votes, because the bells ring for half an hour.
When we have less than three minutes of notice, Mr. Chair, how is it that we are expected to make it on time to be in our seats for the meeting to commence?
My question to you, Mr. Chair, is whether this meeting is actually in order, because adequate notice was not provided to the members to participate in the meeting itself.
Thank you.