Oh, oh!
Evidence of meeting #1 for Natural Resources in the 43rd 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.
Evidence of meeting #1 for Natural Resources in the 43rd 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.
3:50 p.m.
An hon. member
Oh, oh!
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Patrick Weiler Liberal West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
I'm going to continue in French.
The next motion concerns the travel, accommodation and living expenses of witnesses.
That, if requested, reasonable travel, accommodation and living expenses be reimbursed to witnesses not exceeding two representatives per organization; and that, in exceptional circumstances, payment for more representatives be made at the discretion of the chair.
(Motion agreed to)
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Patrick Weiler Liberal West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
The next motion is about access to in camera meetings.
That, unless otherwise ordered, each committee member be allowed to have one staff member at an in camera meeting and that one additional person from each House officer’s office be allowed to be present.
(Motion agreed to)
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
James, I don't know whether this would fit, but I was trying to raise my hand.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
I have another.... I don't know if this is an amendment to that. This is about in camera meetings. We discussed this back in February. I want to bring it forward again. It is in regard to in camera meetings. There should be a clause added that reads as follows:
Any motion to go in camera shall be debatable and amendable, and that the committee may only meet in camera for the following purposes: to discuss administrative matters of the committee, to discuss a draft report, or for briefings concerning national security matters and furthermore, minutes of in camera meetings should reflect the results of all votes taken by the committee while in camera, including how each member voted when a recorded vote is requested.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
It's completely blank in my mind as to where we landed. I remember bringing it up. We had quite an involved discussion.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Bryan May Liberal Cambridge, ON
I'm wondering if maybe the clerk can weigh in on whether or not that motion's in order. We had a similar question in our committee.
The piece I'm concerned about is the very first thing you said, about the motion to go in camera being debatable. If I'm not mistaken—I'm not the expert on this, by far—I don't believe it is within the rules to change that.
Through you, Mr. Chair, I'm wondering if the clerk could respond.
3:55 p.m.
The Clerk
Thank you very much for the question.
I'm sorry to be giving a mixed message, but to answer your question directly, Mr. May, it is indeed against the regular practice and also the Standing Orders. Such motions usually, at the House of Commons level and also in the committees universe, are decided without any debate or amendment.
3:55 p.m.
The Clerk
That being said, we need to be fair. Some committees have passed this type of motion with the special provision of that motion being debatable and amendable. Obviously, Speaker Rota won't necessarily come and tell you that it's wrong. On the other hand, if point-blank your question is whether it is contrary to the Standing Orders, the answer is yes.
This is, unfortunately, the mixed message I have to offer here.
4 p.m.
Liberal
October 14th, 2020 / 4 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
Normally, committees are the masters of their own destiny. This is where certain amendments or changes could be made by the committee in certain cases.
I think, Bryan, what it reflects is that instead of having a majority party on committee, now the majority really is made up of other parties. It denotes that influence now, you could say.
It's up to each specific committee to make that decision, even though it's not part of the Standing Orders. I would say that the Standing Orders typically reflect a majority situation, so maybe that's why this is coming into play. I still think it's up to the committee to decide what it wants to do in this case.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Bryan May Liberal Cambridge, ON
Yes, I understand that. I'm the first to say that committees are their own masters of the way they move forward. I would just point out, Bob, that it swings both ways. If somebody moves a motion to go in camera, it's not just the government. It could be a member of the opposition as well.
As I said, the Standing Orders are clear. What's not clear is that.... Out of order motions have been accepted by committees. Yes, they have maybe made a precedent here, but I do want to point out that we'd be moving a motion that's not in order.
4 p.m.
NDP
Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
Can I just say something to that?
I don't know the Standing Orders off by heart. I'm told by my staff that this isn't explicitly forbidden in the Standing Orders. However, I'm willing to just leave that here for now. I don't know if we can revisit it later. I don't want to tie up any more time.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
That's what I was going to suggest, Richard, that maybe we can just table this for now and revisit it.
4 p.m.
NDP
Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
I think that's how it was left, actually, after the first meeting this spring.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
It was, yes, at least one meeting.
Let's do that, then, and deal with it at the next meeting, whenever that may be.
(Motion allowed to stand)
Mr. Weiler, you still have the floor.
