Evidence of meeting #1 for International Trade in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was meeting.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
The next one is access to in camera meetings. I move that, unless otherwise ordered, each committee member be allowed to have one staff member present from their office and from their party at in camera meetings; and in addition each party shall be permitted to have one staff member from a House officer attend in camera meetings.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
I also move:
That in camera meetings be transcribed and that the transcription be kept with the Clerk of the Committee for later consultation by members of the Committee or their designated staff member.
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
We could use clarification here. Does everybody reads this as meaning that we are all allowed to bring one person, not two people?
The clerk just wanted clarification, because you could read it both ways.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
It would be one person. Each party has one individual. It would be one here, and then one person from the Conservative Party.
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Surrey—Newton, BC
There would be one from the whip's office. This is what I understood, but the whip's office is from the second one.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Kyle Peterson Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
It doesn't read right now that each member could have two staff members. I think it was meant to be “or” as opposed to “and”.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
I think this one is a little convoluted.
We could go with the old one; it's clearer.
9:20 a.m.
The Clerk
This was the old one. This is something that could perhaps fix it.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Why don't you try this one, Randy? Try that one there. It clarifies it. It's a little bit tighter.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
This is the suggestion from the clerk. I move that:
That, unless otherwise ordered, each committee member be permitted to have one (1) staff member in attendance at any in camera meeting; and that one (1) staff member from each party also be permitted to attend any in camera meeting.
I think that's pretty straightforward.
9:20 a.m.
The Clerk
Can I record it as two different motions, then?
9:20 a.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
9:20 a.m.
The Clerk
(Motions agreed to)
February 4th, 2016 / 9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Karen Ludwig Liberal New Brunswick Southwest, NB
I move:
That forty-eight (48) hours notice shall be required for any substantive motion to be considered by the Committee; that the motion shall be filed and distributed to members by the clerk in both official languages; and that completed motions that are received by 4:00 p.m. shall be distributed to members the same day.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
That's pretty straightforward. There's no problem.
(Motion agreed to)
The last one, is about the minister.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Surrey—Newton, BC
For minister appearance, I move:
That whenever a minister appears before the Committee, every effort should be made in order for the meeting to be televised.
I'm sure the official opposition will be very happy to see that.
(Motion agreed to)
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Ministers are usually pretty good if you give them a heads-up of long enough. It's usually an hour, and that's the way it goes.
Is there any other housekeeping on routine procedures?
There are a couple of things. Sometimes when you're new here.... I remember it took me a while to ask what in camera means. In camera means that it's amongst ourselves.
Is that right, clerk?