Evidence of meeting #2 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 39th 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.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I have Monsieur Vincent, Mr. Carrie, and then I will likely seek a consensus.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
I take Mr. McTeague's points and I thank him for those. The idea behind this, though, is to be a little bit stronger. The committee always has the right with unanimous consent to override anything we have in front of us, the idea being that these are the rules, and these are the rules that are expected to be followed. We believe by strengthening the standard rules we're less likely to run into a situation where we'd have to rely on the chair to make a ruling that may or may not be controversial. It still allows us, with unanimous consent, to accept documents in one language, but by clarifying it and by being strong upfront, it gives everyone involved that expectation. I think it's the right expectation.
Robert Vincent Bloc Shefford, QC
I move a subamendment in order to eliminate the words "including motions".
Conservative
Bloc
Robert Vincent Bloc Shefford, QC
Yes, it is the same text:
That only the clerk of the committee be authorized to distribute to the members of the committee any documents and that all documents which are to be distributed among the committee members must be in both official languages [...]
The only words we wish to delete are "including motions".
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Okay. So the amendment by Monsieur Vincent is to take Mr. Carrie's motion and to remove “including motions”.
Do we want to have a discussion, or do we want to accept or reject this? Are members in favour of this amendment?
(Amendment agreed to)
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
NDP
Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON
Mr. Chair, just a small point. There is a typo. I believe the last sentence of the paragraph says, “The Clerk shall advise all witness”; I think it should say “all witnesses”.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Okay.
We have “Working Meals”. They're in a little different order here, so let's do “Staff at in camera meetings”.
Mr. Carrie, do you want to address that?
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Basically, it's to allow each party to be permitted to have one party staff member attend in camera meetings. If you wanted to clarify that they would be from the whips' offices, that would be fine too.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Members are allowed to have staffers here for in camera meetings. So the clarification is that we allow members of the Liberal, Conservative, Bloc Québécois, and NDP whips' offices—
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
It's to allow members from the whips' offices to attend in camera meetings. Is that the intent of the motion?
Liberal
Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
For greater clarity, could we insert the words “to have one party staff member, to include House officer and research”, which we have, “and whip staff”? I would prefer to allow that more formally.
Liberal
Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
It would be “whip staff”. So as opposed to having “one party staff”, have “one member of the whip's staff attend in camera meetings”.
Liberal
Joe McGuire Liberal Egmont, PE
You could get people from the PMO there too, as well as the whip's people.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Well, if you want to make that amendment, Joe, we could certainly do that.