Transport Committee on Nov. 15th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Yes. I think that was the discussion we had when we came up with this motion the last time too.

I accept your point. It was up to the committee to make that final decision. We do have a motion, if we want to deal with it that way.

Mr. Zed.

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Chair, could I try to expedite this a little bit?

As for these routine motions that you have, could we as a group agree that routine motions 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 be moved?

I would like to move those as a block of motions, so that they're on the table. If there's any debate or discussion on that, then we would move forward. We could then come back to the more contentious issues.

Is that acceptable? If so, I'd like to move that as a motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Zed has moved that motions 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 are so moved as written.

Seconder? Mr. Shipley.

Debate? Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Actually, Mr. Chair, I wonder if the other parties would entertain a change in number 8. Number 8 is on the staff at in camera meetings.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

What would you want changed?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

My suggestion is to allow one member of each party there as well, as designated by the person. It allows each member to have a staff member there, but I'm wondering whether they would entertain the possibility of having somebody from the party there.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Do you mean the House leader or--

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Exactly.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I suppose if you said the House leader or the whip's office or the research bureau, that's fine. I think we're okay with that.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Do we have to designate that, or one person from the party?

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Let's just be specific about it. I think that's what our understanding is.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

The whip's office or House leader's office or one of the House officers.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

This one has to be the House officer. And by that we mean House leader, House whip, and the research bureau that responds to them.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

That's the only amendment that I would see out of those motions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Laframboise.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

I do not understand. We never had any problem with this before. I fail to see why this is being introduced today. We never abused this measure. There could be long in camera meetings during which we might need the support of our assistants. I just do not understand. If we had had problems in the past, I would understand, but there was never any problem with respect to this matter.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I also see, indeed, Mr. Chair, that we agreed last time that the parliamentary secretary would be a member of the subcommittee. I see that all of these are actually routine motions, not from our last meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'll have to verify that.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

So I would also ask for an amendment on motion 2, if it's the will of the committee, that the parliamentary secretary be in the subcommittee meetings.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Volpe.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

So far we have a motion to move all of these together. Perhaps it's turning out to be not the easiest thing to do. Why don't we simply go through them individually?

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Saint John, NB]

I was trying to be helpful.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

You were, and I appreciate that.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Why don't we just check off the ones in which they're...? If there's going to be an amendment to any one, we'll just skip it and come back to it. Is that easier?