Evidence of meeting #2 for Public Safety and National Security in the 39th Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clerk.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Bonnie Brown Liberal Oakville, ON
I would like to propose that we put a period after the word “opposition” and eliminate “one member of the government”, because I don't see how the meeting can happen unless you as the chair call it, and I don't think you'd call it unless you were sure at least one member of the government was going to be present.
We've never--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
I guess we should clarify it. This does not include the chair. I think it would be one member of the government sitting on the right side of the chair.
Liberal
Bonnie Brown Liberal Oakville, ON
Yes, but that also implies that if the government members didn't like something that was happening in the committee and they all got up and left, the meeting would have to stop, and that's why the previous motion had always been that it included at least one member of the opposition.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
It said in the previous one...it included the government, I believe. Let me compare. I don't think we've changed that.
Liberal
Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC
Was “one member of government” included in the original rules?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
It used to be “including one member of the opposition”, but that is the....
Liberal
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
The clerk informs me that that would be a redundant motion, if it passed.
Mr. MacKenzie.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
Mr. Chair, just by way of clarification, we took out one part of that...it wasn't to divide the committee or create any issue. But if we were off the Hill and held a meeting somewhere, Winnipeg or Edmonton or wherever it might be, this would cover off the fact that if witnesses were called they would be heard, even though the whole committee might not show up, or one or two who intended to be there weren't there. It wasn't intended to take advantage of any situation, other than that if witnesses were before the committee they could be heard, as opposed to not being heard. It was to give comfort to witnesses, not to the government.
Liberal
Bonnie Brown Liberal Oakville, ON
Anyway, Mr. Chair, I am proposing we use the original motion, which just says “one member of the opposition” and doesn't mention the government. Having been a chair myself, I know you can usually count on at least one member of the government being there, if not the whole group. I don't think you have too many worries that way, but you could get into a situation when you only have government members and you. That's why it was put in, that there has to be at least one member of the opposition, and the chances are you will have at least one member of the opposition. Even if one party is in a tiff with you or something, there are three parties, and I'm sure at least one would be there.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
I would feel more comfortable dealing with this motion if I had the text of the previous one. It is funny, I do not remember this motion, probably because it has never been used,
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
The clerk has a copy of this.
Do you wish to have the previous discussion on this, in 2006? The clerk has a copy of that.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
I do not want the discussion, just a copy of the rule as it was before.
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Roger Préfontaine
There is no rule, Mr. Ménard, but we have what was previously passed by the committee.