Evidence of meeting #1 for Public Safety and National Security 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.
NDP
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Why don't we take them...? There are changes, from my point of view, to the motions on the subcommittee on agenda and procedure and the time for opening remarks and questions of witnesses that I would like to move as amendments. I would invite Pam to have the motion that would adopt all of the previous routine motions adopted February 20, with the exception of item two and item four. I think we can have agreement on those.
I would move my amendments then for the other two, if that's procedurally okay with Pam and the chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I'm agreeable to that. Is there anything that's procedurally incorrect about that, Mr. Clerk? Okay.
In effect, we're modifying Pam's motion to say we're moving for unanimous consent on everything except the time for opening remarks and questioning witnesses, and what was the other one?
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
It's the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. It's just the insertion of one word.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
I have a point of order. It's just a question on the procedure. It's my understanding that, without unanimous consent, we adopt each individually through the routine motions. Is that correct?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Generally speaking, that's quite correct, but what we're trying to do is deal with everything else but the ones that are contentious. We're dealing with it that way, unless there's some real major objection to it.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
I will note that I will be suggesting a number of amendments that would apply to the meeting without a quorum, the time for opening statements, opening remarks and questioning of witnesses, and then working meals as well.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
That's pretty much everything. With that, and seeing no unanimous consent to proceed in the other fashion, we'll have to go through it paragraph by paragraph.
I will ask the committee to speak to the motion on analyst services:
That the committee retain, as needed and at the discretion of the Chair, the services of one or more analysts....
Does someone want to move that?
NDP
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
The motion on the subcommittee on agenda and procedure states:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be established and be composed of five members, namely the Chair and one member from each party; and that the subcommittee work in a spirit of collaboration.
Does someone want to move that?
Liberal
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Yes. I just wanted to introduce the word “recognized” before “party”. Where it says, “one member from each party”, I would ask that the word “recognized” be inserted. That word is used in the PROC routine motions, but it's not in the original motion we have here.
The only reason for this is that, lest there be any confusion, I notice that in the chamber, even when voting now, the chair calls upon the members of the Green Party to have their votes counted. They're not a recognized party. I don't want there to be any reason for confusion in the subcommittee. They're not a member of the committee, or they don't have appointed members of the committee, but if we're going to do it in accordance with the normal procedure, then “recognized” ought to be inserted after the word “each”.
I would move that the routine motion be amended to read as follows:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be established and be composed of five members, namely the Chair and one member from each recognized party; and that the subcommittee work in a spirit of collaboration.
I am in favour of that part.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
You're in favour of collaboration. Good.
Does everyone understand the amendment to the motion?
Is there any debate on the amendment?
(Amendment agreed to)
(Motion as amended agreed to)
Moving on, the third motion is with respect to meeting without a quorum:
That the Chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence and to have that evidence printed when a quorum is not present, provided that at least four members are present, including two members of the opposition and two members of the government, but when travelling outside the parliamentary precinct, that the meeting begin after 15 minutes, regardless of members present.
Damien, I believe you had an amendment to that.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
I did, Mr. Chair, but it appears that the routine motions I have differ from the ones you just read.
I will not be needing to move a motion in this regard. It has clearly outlined what I was going to amend.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Well, there we are.
Is there any other commentary or amendment on that motion?
(Motion agreed to)
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
As a point of information, does that mean the chair could hold a meeting by himself or herself, with no members present? Is that the idea?
NDP
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Yes.
I like the idea that when we get outside the parliamentary precinct, which is just basically down the street, I can start a meeting. That sounds good.
