Evidence of meeting #1 for Public Accounts in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was information.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
I'm going to ask the mover to explain the second paragraph. If I understand it, the quorum is set by the Standing Orders. The regular quorum is seven, right? That's in the Standing Orders, and that can be from any party. To vote on a matter we need quorum.
We are entitled to hear evidence and run a normal meeting with reduced quorum. According to our present Standing Orders, with reduced quorum we need one member of the opposition, one Liberal member. That is the normal standing order that's--
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
You're right, Mr. Williams, it's not the official opposition; it could be Bloc or NDP. That is the normal standing order that's seen in most committees.
I'll read the second paragraph again:
In the case of a previously scheduled meeting 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 the meeting before they may proceed to hear witnesses and receive evidence, regardless of whether opposition or government members are present.
Perhaps, Mr. Sweet, I'll get you to explain that. I should point out, first of all, that I've been on the committee for over seven years now and we've never had a meeting, I don't think, outside the parliamentary precinct.
Mr. Williams, am I correct?
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Not in all the time I've been here, Mr. Chairman--since 1993.
Conservative
David Sweet Conservative Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON
Mr. Chairman, that simply was to make sure there was some efficiency, and obviously the clerk rightly said that the Standing Orders would be what we would operate by. This would not unduly hamper the committee from going forward. My main concern was the first paragraph of the motion, that there was a government member also available, and I'm quite fine to strike the second paragraph.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
Mr. Chair, I just don't see the need for the change. I think it's been pointed out that the circumstance simply hasn't arisen. I think the chair has the ability, under the Standing Orders, to make a determination when a meeting should start. There are also provisions as to what to do if we don't have quorum and when we can hear witnesses. I don't think handcuffing you in this manner is particularly productive.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Any other discussion?
We're going to vote on Mr. Sweet's amendment first....
Monsieur Laforest.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
Mr. Chairman, the Bloc Québécois was not in favour of adopting the proposed amendment. However, since Mr. Sweet has agreed to delete the second part, we will be supporting the amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Mr. Laforest has suggested a friendly amendment.
Mr. Hubbard, on this issue.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
Mr. Chair, I think it's getting a little bit complicated. It has a lot of significance here because it's a change in the way the committee has functioned, at least since John Williams started in 1993-94.
May I suggest that we table this until a future meeting, rather than deciding today. It would give us time to see it in writing and to look at the consequences of what that amendment would make in terms of our meetings.
November 13th, 2007 / 9:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Mr. Hubbard has made a motion to table this until the next meeting. That's not debatable, so I will ask for a vote.
On the motion to table, are we all in agreement?
(Motion allowed to stand)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
We will bring up that motion at the next meeting.
The next routine motion, colleagues, is the distribution of documents: that only the clerk of the committee be authorized to distribute to the members of the committee any documents, including motions, and that all documents that are to be distributed amongst the committee members must be in both official languages; the clerk shall advise all witnesses appearing before committee of this requirement.
Oh, I'm sorry. I just read Mr. Sweet's thing.
The routine motion is:
That the Clerk of the Committee be authorized to distribute to the members of the Committee only documents that are available in both official languages.
Were you proposing an amendment to the distribution of documents, Mr. Sweet?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Okay.
The motion is pretty simple. So moved by Mr. Hubbard.
(Motion agreed to)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
The next motion, dealing with working meals, is:
That the Clerk of the Committee be authorized to make the necessary arrangements to provide working meals for the Committee and its subcommittees.
So moved by Mr. Williams; he likes to eat.
(Motion agreed to)
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
The next motion deals with witnesses' expenses:
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.
So moved by Monsieur Laforest.
(Motion agreed to)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
The next motion is:
That, unless otherwise ordered, each Committee member be allowed to be accompanied by one staff person at an in camera meeting.
So moved by Mr. Christopherson.
(Motion agreed to)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
The next motion refers to the transcripts of in camera meetings:
That one copy of the transcript of each in camera meeting be kept in the Committee Clerk's office for consultation by members of the Committee.
So moved by Mr. Christopherson.
Yes, Mr. Williams.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
I have no problem with the destruction of in camera meeting evidence later on, if we're discussing reports and so on. But I remember way back we had a meeting with a gentleman who many people may remember, Mr. Chuck Guité, and another guy, Mr. Tremblay, who has since passed away. This was the first meeting regarding chapters 3, 4, and 5 of the Auditor General report of February of 2004, which became quite infamous in the country.
Anyway, it was agreed at the time that the in camera meeting testimony would be held secret until such time as all criminal proceedings, if any, were dealt with and subsequently made public. These transcripts were made public some years later, Mr. Chairman, and I think the committee should be cognizant of the fact that there may be times when we want to make in camera meeting testimony public at a later date.
So while in the normal course this would be fine, I would say to the committee that we of course can amend and make a specific rule regarding a specific in camera meeting to ensure that becomes public if we feel it's in the public interest.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
I'm not proposing any change to the motion, Mr. Chairman. I'm just telling the committee to remember that we do have the authority to waive this rule for any particular committee meeting we would have.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Mr. Williams is exactly right. The committee is master of its own proceedings, and it can change them in certain instances. In that case we did, I believe, with the consent of the witness--
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
No, there was no consent of the witness. We told them right at the beginning--we made the decision beforehand--that we would hear the witness testimony in camera but that it would be made public at a later date, and those were the conditions under which the witnesses appeared.