Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
Welcome to the second session of the 41st Parliament. On this Monday, November 4, 2013, the Standing Committee on Official Languages is holding its second hearing. We are here to discuss committee business.
Before dealing with our routine motions, I would first like to welcome our clerk, Mr. Chad Mariage. Mr. Mariage is replacing Ms. Suzie Cadieux who is on leave for personal reasons. I hope she will be able to return soon.
I also wish to congratulate Mr. Williamson on his marriage this summer.
[English]
Congratulations, John. It is fantastic news. I'm sure everyone here is very excited about the new path you're on.
We have a number of new members. I'd like to welcome all of you to this committee.
We finished last spring in the middle of the study on French immersion. Today if we can finish them both, we're going to do two items of business. First, we'll consider the adoption of routine motions. If there is time remaining, I'd like some direction from the committee as to whether they would like to start with a brand new study or continue with the study we were conducting on French immersion.
We'll move on to the first item of business in the orders of the day, and that is the consideration of routine motions.
That the committee retain, as needed and at the discretion of the chair, the services of one or more analysts from the Library of Parliament to assist it in its work.
I am opposed to this motion because it would interfere with the independence of our committee in future. Consequently, I think that this motion is out of order.
I think that the motion is in order, and that we need to vote on it.
Mr. Chair, this motion is important because we are accountable to Canadians. They have to know what we are talking about and we are doing. We should be holding a transparent debate.
Our committee has sat in camera repeatedly. People do not like that and do not accept it, according to comments we have received. What do we have to hide from Canadians? We talk about our work and the witnesses who come here. We have already established rules concerning in camera meetings. For instance, we sit in camera to prepare our reports and drafts. We have to have certain rules. We can't at the drop of a hat go behind closed doors when certain things do not suit the government.
The motion proposes clear rules. We have a responsibility to the Canadians who chose us. They have a right to hear what their members have to say and to weigh in on those discussions. Ultimately it is up to them to decide what will be taken away from members.
As I said, the motion sets out certain rules. Certain meetings would be held in camera, but this would be done according to some clear rules, and not whenever the government wants to hide certain things it does not like. It is important for some things to not take place in camera, as the motion indicates.
Mr. Chair, as you know, our system is based on the Westminster system, and there are procedures and traditions that go along with that tradition. Responsible government has been in Canada since at least 1848. The basis of this system is the idea of parliamentary accountability. It's the foundation of the system.
Select committees in the Westminster system allow the discussion of issues deemed to be relevant to parliament and to legislation. The mother of all parliaments, Westminster itself, has looked at the role of select committees to find out what the role and tasks of those select committees are. They came up with the idea that scrutiny of government, or forms of government legislation, is one of the core tasks of select committees that allow for concepts such as ministerial accountability.
There is some debate now among parliamentarians in Westminster whether that scrutiny is for openness and transparency or whether it's for improving government itself.
It could be said that going in camera might save the government some face when it needs improvement, and often this government doesn't like to be reminded that it needs to improve legislation in certain places. I also think the idea of scrutiny for openness and transparency is an important one. It's one that was popular in this government about seven years ago; it came to power on that idea. Therefore, I find it troubling that we can't limit the use of in camera to what it was specifically intended to do.
I believe that our motion before you shows that we're trying to frame in camera procedures in a way that would protect their original intent, rather than in camera being used for partisan purposes and the avoidance of putting the government in an embarrassing situation where they'll be reminded that they have to improve legislation and therefore open themselves to public scrutiny on this point.
I appeal to you, Chair, to vote in support of this motion, in the sense that we are working within the Westminster system. Certainly as the government in the U.K. has looked at the role of select committees, I would suggest you consider this carefully when casting your vote.
Thank you, Mr. Nicholls. I generally don't vote on this committee, but I'm assuming you're asking members, through me, to vote for the motion. Your point is well taken.
Mr. Chair, my argument will be a little less technical and just a little more grassroots.
One of the things I've discovered since being elected is that our job as MPs is twofold. We are elected by our constituents, the people in our neighbourhood for many of us who live in our constituency. They look to us to be their voice and their eyes and ears on issues that concern them directly within their constituency. It's our job to bring those thoughts, those concerns, those suggestions to the big table in Ottawa. The second level of that is to sometimes represent some of those ideas, or if you hold a ministerial position or a critic position, the broader ideas that touch the rest of the country.
Although question period can be a hoot to watch sometimes, it's a small fraction of the public image or the public visibility of what we do. For many years, and when I entered into this world, I was told that the really heavy lifting was done in committee. This is when everybody sits down and takes time on a proposed bill or takes time on a study to look at certain issues.
I'm hearing from more and more of my constituents that they're tuning in, that they are becoming more and more a part of the process, this governmental process. I think it's a service to our communities and to Canadians for them to have the opportunity to see how we come to some of the decisions to make some of the studies.
There are a lot of things that come across our table. We can only talk about so many things. How do we come to those decisions? When we're making those decisions and when we get to those decisions, what kind of discussion do we have not only with witnesses but among ourselves about those topics?
For that reason, the more often and the more public we can make our committee meetings, the more they serve the people who elected us, the more they serve Canadians, the more they serve us as parliamentarians in openness, debate, discussion, and sharing of ideas.
I think I support this motion. I don't think I support it, I do support this motion, and I urge, through the chair, that fellow members on this committee support it as well.
In Quebec, we have just gone through a very troubled period involving elected municipal officials, the lack of transparency of management, and the lack of transparency around contracts. Citizens do not have any way of forming some clear idea of what goes on in the back offices of municipalities. Behind all of that is a desire to keep democracy blind.
Since I used to sit on this committee, it seemed to me that everyone here was concerned first and foremost with defending minorities and linguistic duality throughout the country. In order to do so, we have to be able to speak openly without hiding behind smoke and mirrors or closed doors. Since my arrival here, three quarters of discussions have been held in camera. That's incredible. It feeds the cynicism of the population regarding politicians. We are all here because we have a common goal. We should depoliticize this committee and work toward a common objective. That is why I am entirely in favour of this motion.
I hope, Mr. Gourde, that you will share this opinion. Otherwise, when you go back to your riding and people ask you what you did this week, you will answer that you worked in committee, and if they ask you what you worked on, you are going to have to answer that you can't talk about it.
What type of democracy is that? These people who pay our salaries and all of the expenses of this committee don't have access to the content of our meetings. As Conservatives who like to manage money well, in theory, you should be able to justify what you do during your hours of work. This whole situation seems out of balance to me.
And so I am asking you to consider this motion carefully.
Very quickly in response to Mr. Benskin, when I'm home in the riding, I, too, point to the work that goes on in committee as a real strength of Parliament and urge voters not to get dismayed by some of the theatrics they sometimes see in question period.
I'm voting against this motion because I actually think this committee—and I'm returning to this committee—does good work when we hear from witnesses, write the reports, and prepare the work. I think when it comes to debating issues of contention about how this committee is going to operate—not the actual points that we're hearing from witnesses—I'd prefer to keep that in camera in order for us to get through it quickly, because I worry, frankly, that if we open it up, we're going to lose focus on the importance of the official language component of this committee and the work we need to do, and we're going to get consumed by politics.
I am going to vote in favour of the motion, mainly because it is one way of rebuilding the confidence of the population. We do very serious work in this committee. I have had the opportunity of replacing other members in several committees. Sometimes the people who come to testify do not agree with the government or, on the other hand, do not agree with the opposition. This allows people to see that we aren't just puppets, and that we do do serious work. So this could restore the confidence of the population in the work parliamentarians do. That is why I am going to vote in favour of the motion.
I'd like to answer Mr. Williamson who said that he wanted the committee to work and that is the reason why we should be sitting in camera. I remember one time where we were made to sit in camera during almost two months. Two government members had to leave the room to bring about the decision to go back into public hearings, and after that we were able to begin work on the items on our agenda and buckle down. Otherwise, we would have sat in camera perhaps till Christmas. I remember this.
Indeed, we want to work. However, holding in camera meetings prevent us from working. Certain things are done in camera, such as drafting our reports after having listened to witnesses and examined a bill. That will always be done in camera. However, it is not acceptable to move meetings behind closed doors as soon as you don't like to hear what the opposition has to say.
That is democracy. As members of Parliament, we have the right to express ourselves, and the population has the right to hear what we have to say. It will be making up its mind. By imposing in camera meetings, not only are you trampling the rights of the members, but also the right of Canadians to hear what is going on. Your government claims that it wants transparency; your government was elected thanks to promises of transparency. However, you now state that you want to sit in camera, because you don't want Canadians to hear us. I find this problematic in the extreme. I could not defend that.
Over the weekend, someone said that he would be doing things his way, and justified that in the following way:
[English]
“I don't care what they think. I just don't care.”
[Translation]
We feel we are stuck with the vision of your government, and that things have to go your way, otherwise no one will get to hear about it. This is prejudicial to parliamentarians. It eliminates our rights. Moreover, Canadians want to hear us.
As I said, we are not asking that any possibility of working in camera be eliminated. We are simply saying that a lot of things can be done without sitting in camera. That is all that is in our motion.
I would really like you to support it. By doing so, you would show us whether the Conservative government believes in transparency, or whether everything it said in 2006 was false.
I would like to add to Mr. Williamson's point about politicization and the worry that the committee might get paralyzed by the politics of a situation. The report that Westminster itself did said that some members are keen to use their privilege in parliament in select committees to improve legislation, while others obviously use that privilege to expose weaknesses in the government.
You could point out that pointing out weaknesses in the government continually is more politics than improving the legislation, but that's for Canadians to judge. If we are under the public gaze, Canadians will judge who is playing politics and will punish the parties responsible for doing so, but without that transparency and openness, the Canadian public cannot know if any political shenanigans are going on. They're kept in the dark.
Don't you believe it's better that Canadians know what is going on in parliamentary committees rather than not know what's going on? If one or the other party, the government party or the opposition, is playing politics and using procedural tactics to jam up things, the public should know that's going on.
Our motion is responsible in the fact that we are limiting the use of in camera to what has been traditionally in camera and not misusing in camera to avoid members who might want to expose weaknesses of the government.
I'd like to remind members that if they're going to direct comments to individual members to do it through the chair. It makes it less confrontational.
I simply want to say that my comments were not addressed directly to Mr. Williamson, but that I was speaking through you, Mr. Chair. In fact, I was only commenting Mr. Williamson's remarks. I was not attacking him personally.
When witnesses appear before us, they have the opportunity of criticizing the government or of providing us with positive ideas. Sometimes, they may have better ideas than those of the government.
This committee has the opportunity of meeting Canadians to discuss government bills. As a member of the committee, I think that when we discuss the business of the committee, we should do so in camera.
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be composed of the chair and two vice-chairs, another member of the government party, and the parliamentary secretary, and that quorum...
[...] and that quorum be set at three (3) members, one of which shall be one (1) member of the government party and one (1) member of the opposition, and that each member be authorized to be accompanied by one member of his staff, and in addition that each party be authorized to have one representative present.
I am going to repeat your motion for the members of the committee:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be composed of the chair and the two vice-chairs, plus another member of the government party and the parliamentary secretary, and that quorum be set at three (3) members, one of which shall be one (1) member of the government and one (1) member of the opposition; and that each member be authorized to be accompanied by a member of his or her staff, and that each party be authorized to have a representative present.
Mr. Chair, these changes seem somewhat redundant to me. In fact, vice-chairs are always members of the opposition. I am not sure I understand the reasons or the rationale behind these changes.
Yes, members of the opposition were already mentioned, but I am talking about members of the official opposition. Hence, the changes are not redundant. The words “one (1) member of the opposition, and that each member be authorized to be accompanied” apply to the quorum.
It concerns the quorum, and not the constitution of the subcommittee.
The motion calls for the subcommittee to be made up of five members, that is to say the parliamentary secretary, the two vice-chairs, the chair and another member of the government party.
As for the quorum, there have to be three members, and one of them has to be a government member, as well as a member of the official opposition, and each member is authorized to be accompanied by a member of his or her team or a member of the staff.
I want to be clear. I suggested nothing that would eliminate Ms. St-Denis' presence. If Mr. Gourde had read the motion correctly, he would see that it mentions the chair and the two vice-chairs. Since Ms. St-Denis is a vice-chair, she has not been eliminated.
It is almost the same motion as the one we passed in the first session of the 41st Parliament. Mr. Godin simply added a sentence regarding the quorum for the subcommittee.
According to the words pertaining to the quorum, a meeting could not be held without the presence of a member of the official opposition. Is that what is being proposed?
Should there be a reduced quorum, a meeting could not be held strictly with members of the government party, without members of the official opposition being present. It seems to me that that is very reasonable.
I'd like some clarifications on the second motion, regarding the quorum, Mr. Chair. It only talks about the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, and not about reduced quorum, correct?
I want to explain this clearly. The subcommittee will be composed of five people: the chair, the two vice-chairs, another member of the government party and the parliamentary secretary. That would be the makeup of the subcommittee. The rest of the motion concerns quorum. We want the meetings to take place and in order to do so, there would have to be at least three people. This isn't the same thing as what is in the beginning of the motion.
The quorum would be made up of three members, among them one member of the government and one member of the official opposition. We will not hold any meetings without informing the Liberals. If we decide that there have to be at least three members, this gives an opportunity for all three parties to be present. Afterwards, we can begin the meeting of the subcommittee. That is what we are explaining here; there must be three people present in order to have a quorum.
I have sat on the subcommittee before and I think it is best to keep the motion as is. We have been criticized in the past for holding subcommittee meetings when the other members were not aware. The decisions were challenged and we decided to go back to the way we used to do things, meaning that the whole committee would make all decisions regarding future business.
We can try to reduce the quorum, but I do not think it would benefit anyone. Whether we leave things the way they are or we completely eliminate the subcommittee, I don't want three members only making the decisions at the subcommittee, because that is not respectful to the other members of the committee. You need at least five members.
I will pass the floor to the clerk, who will take a recorded vote on the motion from the committee, which is that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be composed of five members, including the chair, the two vice-chairs, the Parliamentary Secretary for Official Languages and a member of the government party; that quorum be a minimum of three members, one of whom is a member of the government party and another of whom is a member of the official opposition; and that members of the subcommittee be authorized to bring a member of their staff with them to the subcommittee; and that each party be authorized an additional staffer, presumably from the whip's office.
The clerk has the floor and he will take a vote.
(Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Now we're going to consider another motion.
Does anyone have another routine motion they would like to see adopted?
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 (4) members are present, including one (1) member of the opposition and one (1) member of the government party.
Would you like to introduce that motion, Mr. Godin?
Yes, and I would like to add the following: “and that when travelling outside the parliamentary precinct, the meeting begin after fifteen (15) minutes, regardless of members present”.
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 three (3) members are present, including one (1) member of the official opposition...
Or rather:
...four (4) members are present, including one (1) member of the opposition and that when travelling outside the parliamentary precinct, the meeting begin after fifteen (15) minutes, regardless of members present.
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 (4) members are present, including one (1) member of the opposition and that when travelling outside the parliamentary precinct, the meeting begin after fifteen (15) minutes, regardless of members present.
That is correct. The motion refers to meetings held outside the parliamentary precinct. For example, we may travel somewhere to meet with people. The idea is for the meeting to begin after 15 minutes, even if some people do not show up. We cannot keep the witnesses waiting because no one shows up.
However, everyone shows up on time within the parliamentary precinct. That is not an issue here.
The Chair: Okay, just let me clarify for members of the committee.
The motion says that reduced quorum is available within the parliamentary precinct, which includes buildings like this, if four members are present, one of whom is from the official opposition, and another of whom is from the government party. If the committee ever decides to meet outside of the parliamentary precinct, the meeting shall begin 15 minutes after indicated in the orders of the day, even if a reduced quorum is not available.
A new issue is being introduced. There are two issues: the quorum and this motion. The second rule applies only when a committee meeting is held somewhere else, when we travel and we want to interview people there. Is that correct?
Are we all clear on what the motion says? The motion says that we can have a reduced quorum here simply to receive testimony and publish it on the parliamentary precinct with four members, one of whom is a member of the government party, the other of whom is a member of the opposition party. If we are off the parliamentary precinct in an official committee, after 15 minutes after the meeting was to have started on the orders of the day, the meeting will start, even if there is not a reduced quorum of members present, to receive testimony and to publish it.
I will oppose this motion, because it can cause substantial harm. For instance, when we travel, a member might be delayed because of a snowstorm. The member will then have to take all the blame for something that was not his fault. Since I know how our friends opposite are, if the member happens to be from the government party, a whole host of negative comments will be made at that person's expense.
The motion says the opposite. It says that we will not wait for members who are late so that we don't keep the witnesses waiting. The motion actually says: “when travelling outside the parliamentary precinct, the meeting begin after fifteen (15) minutes, regardless of members present”.
It is simple. The motion says the complete opposite of what you are saying, Mr. Gourde. We are not going to keep the witnesses waiting. They will be able to give their testimony.
We must make sure, especially when we travel, that the chair and the people working for us who must be on the committee are present. If something happens, someone will be held responsible.
That is the type of roadblock you are always trying to create; that is all part of your game.
Mr. Gourde's reasoning amazes me. He thinks that we will make the person who didn't show up take the blame for the meeting being cancelled. Yet it is the opposite. Even if a member does not show up, the meeting will be held. If we don't and if we tell the witnesses that they came for nothing because one of the members did not show up, that member will really have to carry the can.
I feel that it is the opposite of what you are saying.
I am not sure if I am allowed, but I would like to introduce two motions. The first one has to do with what has already been introduced and agreed upon by everyone. We will see about the second one.
Mr. Chair, the things I am hearing here, I'm a logical person and to me, a quorum is a quorum. Whether you are on the moon or anywhere else, it is a quorum. You cannot make a deviation from the quorum when you are discussing issues when something is happening. It is not a quorum. That's it.
I don't understand. We are the ones travelling. If some members are not at the location of the meeting, we will wait for them. If we want to hear from the witnesses in their ridings, they can wait for us. When they come here, we listen to them and then they go home, but , if we are the ones travelling, I think there should be enough members.
Let's try to look at a less complicated motion. I will start by reading the initial motion:
That 48 hours' notice be required for any substantive motion to be considered by the Committee, unless the substantive motion relates directly to business then under consideration; and that the notice of motion be filed with the Clerk of the Committee and distributed to members in both official languages.
I would add:
and that;
(a) notice be emailed to the Clerk no later than 5:00 p.m. from Monday to Friday;
(b) notice be distributed by e-mail to members in both official languages by the Clerk on the same day the said notice was transmitted if it was received no later than the deadline hour;
(c) notices received after the deadline hour be deemed to have been received during the next business day; and
(d) this rule does not prevent a member to give notice of a motion orally during a meeting of the Committee, in which case notice shall be deemed to have been given before the deadline that day.
Why complicate things when we can keep them simple? Our rules were relatively straightforward. Could the clerk tell me how we would operate based on the new motion? Does he see a problem with that? We can adapt to anything, but I feel things were working well before. Traditionally, that is how all committees have worked. This new measure will complicate things.
I will not give you my personal opinion. However, the addition seems feasible. The only new thing is the hour for the notice and the instructions to the clerk on how to distribute the motions. That is sort of how we do things already.
It's just the framing of the current practice, so that it's clear and doesn't deviate from what we're already doing. There is no addition of red tape. They're not going to hire another clerk to figure this out. It's the practice that's already used; we're just describing it in a better way.
Okay, I will pass the floor to the clerk for a recorded vote.
I'll read the motion again before the clerk takes a recorded vote:
[Translation]
That 48 hours' notice be required for any substantive motion to be considered by the Committee, unless the substantive motion relates directly to business then under consideration; and that the notice of motion be filed with the Clerk of the Committee and distributed to members in both official languages, and that;
(a) notice be emailed to the Clerk no later than 5:00 p.m. from Monday to Friday;
(b) notice be distributed by e-mail to members in both official languages by the Clerk on the same day the said notice was transmitted if it was received no later than the deadline hour;
(c) notices received after the deadline hour be deemed to have been received during the next business day; and
(d) this rule does not prevent a member to give notice of a motion orally during a meeting of the Committee, in which case notice shall be deemed to have been given before the deadline that day.
That 48 hours’ notice be required for any substantive motion to be considered by the Committee, unless the substantive motion relates directly to business then under consideration; and that the notice of motion be filed with the Clerk of the Committee and distributed to members in both official languages, and that;
(a) notice be emailed to the Clerk no later than 5:00 p.m. from Monday to Friday;
(b) notice be distributed by e-mail to members in both official languages by the Clerk on the same day the said notice was transmitted if it was received no later than the deadline hour;
(c) notices received after the deadline hour be deemed to have been received during the next business day; and
(d) this rule does not prevent a member to give notice of a motion orally during a meeting of the Committee, in which case notice shall be deemed to have been given before the deadline that day.
The clerk has the floor to call the vote.
(Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)
The Chair: Do we have any other routine motions for consideration?
That will be easy; the wording is the same as in the former motion:
That, if requested, reasonable travel, accommodation and living expenses be reimbursed to witnesses, not exceeding two (2) representatives per organization; and that, in exceptional circumstances, payment for more representatives be made at the discretion of the Chair.
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be composed of five (5) members including the Chair, the two Vice-Chairs, the Parliamentary Secretary for Official Languages and a member of the government party.
It is the second routine motion, without the amendment introduced earlier.
Mr. Chair, I have another motion, this time on the reduced 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 (4) members are present, including one (1) member of the opposition and one (1) member of the government party.
Mr. Chair, in terms of debate, I find if unfortunate that we couldn't have “official opposition”. That's all; it's just to register that. Instead of just “opposition”, it should be “official opposition”.
Mr. Chair, I have another routine motion. This one is about the distribution of documents:
That only the Clerk of the Committee be authorized to distribute to the members of the Committee any of the documents, including motions, and that all documents which are to be distributed among the Committee members must be in both official languages; and that the clerk shall advise in advance all witnesses appearing before the Committee of this requirement and inform them of the availability of translation services.
That, unless otherwise ordered, each Committee member be allowed to be accompanied by one of his or her staff person, in addition to one staff person from the office of the Whip of each party, at in camera meetings.
Meaning that the committee could decide something else.
—each Committee member be allowed to be accompanied by one of his or her staff person, in addition to one staff person from the office of the Whip of each party, at in camera meetings.
Mr. Godin has moved an amendment. He suggests replacing the words “du bureau du whip de chaque parti” with the words “de son parti”. So it would read “un membre du personnel de son parti”.
I make this proposal for a reason. Last time, you caused a problem. Government members brought someone from the minister's staff. I do not know if you remember, but he was not from the whip's office. He clearly did not work for Mr. Gourde. It was not a staff member of his. He worked for the Department of Canadian Heritage.
We just want to make things clear now, instead of having to argue later. We discussed this, but we dropped it.
In this way, the party will decide whom it will send to the committee. If we leave the words “one staff person from the office of the Whip”, we will want to know who the person works for. If they work for the minister, they will not be able to attend the meeting.
If we use the words “his or her staff person”, they refer to a committee member's staff. It will be someone paid from a committee member's budget. On the government side, however, staff members can be paid by a department, because—
A member of a parliamentary secretary's staff can be paid by the department, everyone knows that. Assistants to parliamentary secretaries are paid by the department; they are not paid from the member of Parliament's budget. This is because parliamentary secretaries have more responsibilities than a regular member of Parliament. If parliamentary secretaries used money from their own budgets to pay their assistants, there would be less money in the budgets that are set up to serve their constituents. That distinction has to be made.
In that case, it is not someone from the staff of a member of Parliament who works here. In my case, it comes out of my budget. If the person is paid by a department, it is not the same thing.
The amendment is simply trying to clarify things, that's all. With the amendment, as the vice-chair of the committee, I could bring someone who is paid by the party and say that, since that person works for me and assists me, the person has the right to be here. So I could use the same argument. The government's ability to bring someone here must be the same for me.
The motion uses the words “one of his or her staff“. According to your amendment, we have to find out if that staff member is paid from the same budget as the member of Parliament or not. It discriminates against members of Parliament who have people on their staff paid by a department. That needs to be clarified.
We drafted the amendment to read “one staff person from the party”. A person who works for the minister is automatically a staff member from the party, because the minister is a member of that party as well. But if you say that it has to be a member of the staff of a member of Parliament who works here, that person would be excluded because they do not work for the parliamentary secretary, but for the minister. There is a difference between a member of the minister's staff and a member of the parliamentary secretary's staff. This is because that person is not paid by the parliamentary secretary's budget, but by the minister's budget.
Excuse me, Mr. Chair. but a parliamentary secretary's assistant is tied to the parliamentary secretary. He or she accompanies the parliamentary secretary at work.
I agree that they are part of the governing party, but when it happens under circumstances like these, you are going to say that he or she is not paid from the parliamentary secretary's budget and that he or she has no business here. That is just playing with words.
Mr. Chair, we could look at the transcripts. I am sure that, if the same thing happens, he could say that the person is not working for him, but for the minister, and was sent by the minister. That actually happened: the person in question did not work for you, but for the minister.
The way we have drafted it does not say the opposite; it gives you the option. We want that in the motion so that it is clear and so that we do not start getting bogged down again if the situation comes up in a month or two. I do not think you would be opposed if we brought a member of our party staff with us.
Mr. Chair, could you ask my colleague opposite that question? He is talking about a member of staff paid by his party. Basically, he is saying that he would be fine with someone paid by the New Democratic Party attending an in camera meeting, rather than someone paid by a member of Parliament on this committee.
I was not talking about a staff member paid by a political party, but by a member of the party staff. That is not the same thing. Staff members are paid by the House. It could be a researcher, for example. The same applies to you. But if you say that it has to be a staff person from the office of the whip, and a researcher comes anyway, that will not work because researchers do not work for that office.
When one of the minister's staff was going to come, we felt that we could call on someone too. The motion specifies that a member of party staff, Conservative, NDP or Liberal, can help us in our work. They cannot ask questions and they have no right to speak, but they come with us.
For us, it could be someone from the whip's office, but it could also be someone from our leader's office, or a researcher, for that matter. We have no interest in preventing an assistant or employee from coming to a committee meeting. But we are interested in keeping the door open a little, specifically to replace a staff person from the office of the whip with someone else with a role to play and who wants to come to a meeting. This does not seem very complicated to me.
I agree with Ms. St-Denis. Actually, the motion says “unless otherwise ordered”. That means that, if someone's presence at a meeting raises concerns, we could decide if the person can attend the meeting with a vote. We could talk about it for ever, but the basic motion is enough if someone were to wonder whether it was appropriate for a person to be at a meeting. The question has already come up for interns. Sometimes we agree to their being present, but not always. It has happened previously in other committees, but I am not sure about this one.
The words “unless otherwise ordered” gives us all the flexibility we need to start a discussion and to ask committee members if they agree to the people with us being here.
Chair, the intent of the amendment is to improve the efficiency in the future and to avoid those debates that might happen if someone other than what is recorded here is present. It will increase the efficiency of the committee and the work of the committee, because we won't have to have the debate over who this person is and who they are paid by. We're taking that out of the way right now. It's going to clear up future business, so I think it should pass.
Mr. Gourde says that it is not a problem, given the phrase “unless otherwise ordered”. But we have to comply with what the motion indicates. It must be a member of a member's staff or a member of the staff of the office of the whip. So researchers are out.
We can include researchers, we can include members of the staff of a parliamentary secretary to a minister, we can include anyone we want to have with us.
I would agree with the opposition's request that a committee member could be accompanied by a researcher. In return, I would like to add an assistant to the parliamentary secretary to a minister to the list. Then I think we would have an agreement.
That, unless otherwise ordered, each Committee member be allowed to be accompanied by one of his or her staff person, in addition to one staff person from the office of the Whip of each party, at in camera meetings or another staff member, for example, a research officer, and a government staff member who is the parliamentary secretary’s assistant.
I have an amendment. I would like to add “or by one of their staff members authorized by the Committee member” after the words “by members of the committee”.
I have heard some people say that we would be able to take the transcripts and pass them on to them. However, we cannot take the documents out. They must stay where they are. We have to go and consult them. We cannot bring them to our offices. That applies to you as well. If members want to check what was said in the transcripts, they could authorize a staff member to do that so that no time is wasted.
I am sure we can rely on those people. They go to in camera meetings and they know what happens in them. In this case, all they would have to do is look at the transcripts and note what is in them. Sometimes, we want to check the transcripts of in camera meetings just to refresh our memories. That is why I am suggesting the addition that a trusted member of our staff can consult them. It is not difficult.
We just adopted an amendment to allow the researchers to attend our in camera meetings. It is logical, then, to also give them permission to consult the transcripts of in camera meetings. If we are trusting them to be present at the meetings, we should also trust them to consult the transcripts.
Mr. Chair, the amendment put forward by Mr. Godin is too broad in scope, because it doesn't ensure that it will be the same staff member looking at the transcript of the in camera meeting. The member could ask any other person on staff who did not attend the meeting to check the transcript of that meeting. That would pose an ethical problem.
I have to trust my staff member. If he wants to look at the transcript of an in camera meeting held on a given day, he has to have my permission first. He works for me; I am the person sending him. It's not just anyone. What does it matter if it's someone else? In order to do our job, we need staff and we trust them. That's why we suggested the words “authorized by the member of the Committee”. If the person isn't authorized, then they can't look at the transcript.
If I was working on a file, I could ask a staff member to check the transcript for me. Regardless, if I were to check the transcript myself, I could memorize it and tell my staff about it anyways. There is nothing stopping me from telling my staff about it. So what's the difference? We work together. In camera proceedings don't prevent us from working with our staff.
Mr. Chair, I would like Mr. Godin to clarify a few things for me. I see what he means, but what I was trying to tell him earlier was that another motion would authorize certain people to attend the committee's in camera meetings. We are talking about people who advise and assist us. I would be fine with their being able to look at the transcript. But I wouldn't be fine with a member of my staff who wasn't at the in camera meeting going to the clerk. Otherwise, what would be the point of us meeting in camera. Too many people would be able to access the information and the in camera meetings wouldn't be confidential.
As soon as we give someone else permission to do our work, we risk contravening our own procedure. We would be going down a very tricky road. I was somewhat open to the idea, but not anymore. I'm really not convinced that it will be possible to keep the committee's in camera discussions confidential if we give too many people access to the transcripts. Once that happens, we'll task someone else with our responsibility, and that person could talk about our discussions and so forth.
For that reason, I will vote against any amendment to that effect.
I would like to move the following subamendment. I move that we add “or a member of his or her staff who was present at the in camera meeting” to the end of the motion.
I am stricter than that. I am going to vote against the amendment and the subamendment because leaks do happen, and everyone knows it. There are people who pass on information, no matter what it is. It could even be a staff member we've put a lot of trust in.
This amendment would take away from committee members a responsibility that is theirs and theirs alone, a responsibility that should be kept intact. In my view, this opens up access to in camera meetings a bit too much.
I think there's an inherent responsibility each of us has as committee members when we meet in camera, which is a given. We don't give up that responsibility, but if it helps, as my colleague suggested, I think if we amend it to “authorized person in attendance at said meeting” we might be able to limit it so it's not just anybody, that it's personnel who were in attendance at that meeting.
Mr. Chair, I listened to Mr. Gourde, and I am ready to move a subamendment specifying that it would be a staff person who had attended the in camera meeting.
I have no choice but to disagree with Ms. St-Denis's comment that if we authorize that person to consult the transcript of the in camera meeting, he or she could then tell people about it. That would not happen. Staff members have responsibilities and must respect Parliament's rules on in camera proceedings.
A staff person who attended the meeting has already heard it all. It's the transcript of what was said. They won't see anything new, just what was said while they were present at the in camera meeting.
All I am saying is that we need to help parliamentarians do their job. If a committee member doesn't want someone on their staff to hear what the committee discusses in camera, then the member should not invite them. If the member doesn't trust their staff, the member doesn't have to invite them to the in camera meeting. I can assure you that my staff members know what an in camera meeting means. I am the one responsible for keeping what is said in camera confidential. If a leak comes from my office, the staff member isn't the person responsible. I am entirely responsible for maintaining that confidentiality. I have never seen someone on a member's staff being called before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The member is the one who broke the in camera rules, so the member is the one accountable to the committee.
This amendment merely seeks to help members. I agree with Mr. Gourde's argument. If we let just anybody consult the transcript, we won't even know who was present at the meetings and who wasn't. I agree with the idea of moving a subamendment to rectify that. I repeat, this is strictly to help members. The people on our staffs aren't constantly changing. If the same staff person can't consult the transcript, the member will do it.
Am I allowed to propose a subamendment, Mr. Chair, since I'm the one who put forward the amendment in the first place?
Under the initial proposal, the young man who talks to you regularly would not be entitled to consult the transcript of an in camera meeting. The woman who accompanies our Liberal friend, along with my assistant Benoît, would not be allowed either, even if they had been present at the said meeting.
To make our job easier, it would be appropriate for them to be able to consult the transcript of a meeting they had attended. That makes sense to me.
To clarify, and the clerk can tell me if it's otherwise, I do believe that staff of members are authorized to take a look at the transcript if and only if the clerk receives an e-mail from the member confirming that the staff person can take a look at the transcript. It is already the case that staff can take a look at the transcript, but before the clerk would allow a staff member to look at the transcript, the clerk would need authorization from the member himself or herself.
It was my intention, in line with the subamendment, that people of our staff who have already been authorized to be here in camera be able to consult the minutes.
I would like a clarification. Unless I'm mistaken, all our assistants—with our permission—have access to transcripts for analytical purposes, whether they attended the meeting or not. Isn't that right?
The way it works is that if you want to see the transcript for an in camera meeting, they are kept physically with the clerk. You can at any moment in time visit the clerk and see a transcript of that meeting. If you wish to send a staff person there, the clerk will require your express authorization for that staff person to take a look at the transcript.
Members are talking about a waste of time, but I just want to point out that I am paid on an annual basis. So it will not cost the government more if we clarify certain matters today. I don't think that it's a waste of time. There is a motion on the table, and we are free to adopt it or not.
I have to say that we did not know that anyone could consult the transcripts.
There you have it. Since that is the case, we should be able to adopt the subamendment in order to clarify this aspect for everyone. That's all we were saying. I hope that no one will object.
You defeated your own subamendment. We're now back to the amendment as proposed by Monsieur Godin. We're now on the amendment as proposed by Monsieur Godin, which would add to your motion that you originally presented the phrase “or a member of their staff authorized by the member”, which is current practice but is not explicit in the routine motion that was adopted in the first session.
Frankly, I'm starting to think that this is a problem. I think that Ms. St-Denis was right. I never dared to send a member of my staff to the clerk in order to consult the transcript. I didn't even know this could be done; I thought that it was not allowed.
A Pandora's box has been opened, and we need to think about this. I personally think that Ms. St-Denis is right. We should not change the procedure. We should go see the clerk ourselves to consult the transcripts of in camera meetings.
It was a good idea to say that this was an accepted practice. That helped clarify things regarding a practice we in this committee were not familiar with. I'm no longer sure.
Seeing no further debate on the amendment, I will call the question.
(Amendment negatived)
The Chair: We're now back to the main motion moved by Mr. Gourde.
Is there any debate on the motion?
The motion reads:
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.
If this motion is adopted, the chair will use past practice to guide our interpretation of this motion, which is if a staff of a member wishes to see the transcript and that staff member has express authorization from the member, the clerk will allow that staff member to see the transcript.
I'm sorry but I'm slightly confused at this point. Maybe my blood sugar is low or something. I'm type II diabetic and I'm on new meds and so forth, so maybe it's the blood sugar sort of going weird, but I thought we just voted on that and defeated that, did we not?
The practice, unbeknownst to many of us in this room, has been that we could send an authorized member of our personnel to go see the transcript. This has been the practice.
The amendment we just voted on basically put that on paper. We just defeated it. The fear that Mr. Gourde put forward of other people having access to this, this amendment now comes into play if we're going to go back to past practice.
We have discussed many things. The motion reads as follows:
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.
As drafted, the motion does not allow our assistants to consult those transcripts. In practice, this may have been allowed, but I would have never thought so. This issue should really be cleared up.
Does this kind of a motion allow that procedure in all committees? We need to think about this. We could perhaps set this issue aside and think about it in our own corner.
Okay, I will consult the clerk, who will consult his colleagues in order to answer your question.
[English]
I will ask the clerk to consult, to double-check what the practice is if and when this motion is adopted. I will ask the clerk to remind me to confirm at the next meeting what the interpretation of this routine motion is if it's adopted.
Is there any further debate on this routine motion in front of us?
Did we adopt the last motion, Mr. Chair? It's the one that states that 48 hours' notice is required for any substantive motion to be considered by the committee. It seems to me that we did not.
Mr. Chair, according to my understanding of the discussion, Mr. Gourde wants the motion to be set aside until we receive an official notice confirming that the motion as read before our amendment would enable the committee members' staff to consult the transcript—if that is indeed a common practice. That's what I heard. I think we could set the motion aside and wait to see what the situation is.
If the motion is adopted, I have already instructed the clerk to seek advice from his colleagues as to the interpretation of this motion with respect to staff members accessing and looking at the transcript of in camera meetings. At the next meeting I will endeavour to clarify the interpretation of this motion.
It's just that you're saying we should vote on something which we don't know the meaning of yet. I'm very uncomfortable doing that because I want to know the meaning.
My view of the motion as it's currently worded is that staff members, with the express authorization of a member of this committee, are allowed to view the transcript at the clerk's office, in the same way staff members of a member of this committee can review the draft report before it's released, even though they may not be present in the room when that report is being discussed. That's my interpretation of the motion, but I will double-check with senior people in the clerk's office to get an exact interpretation.
Now, if you wish to adjourn debate on this particular motion I'm prepared to do that.
Mr. Chair, this is the last motion, and it reads as follows:
That 48 hours' notice be required for any substantive motion to be considered by the Committee, unless the substantive motion relates directly to business then under consideration; and that the notice of motion be filed with the Clerk of the Committee and distributed to members in both official languages.
Let me just provide some clarification of the motion.
We can request that the meeting be televised. It doesn't necessarily mean that the media will pick it up. What it means is that the meeting will be recorded and will be available to the media if they so choose to pick up the feed. It depends on whether or not the rooms are available as well. Not all rooms have television capability, and it's first-come, first-served for the committees that wish to access them.
Current practice, even though the routine motions are silent about it, is that when a member asks for a meeting to be televised, the chair makes his or her best effort to book a room where that can be done, and it's on a first-come, first-served basis.
I would like to clarify what Mr. Gourde said. He used the words “if possible”. I would say that, when a minister appears before the committee, every effort should be made for the meeting to be televised. So every effort will be made to try to find an available room. The idea is the same; the effort will be made.
We would just have to replace the beginning with the words “that whenever a minister or the Commissioner of Official Languages appears before the committee”. That way, we would not need to ask for that every time; it would already be done. We currently have to ask for that. If we do not ask for it, we realize it in the middle of the week, after receiving the notice, and then we have to ask for it.
Mr. Chair, you have always made the necessary efforts, so there's no issue there. We cannot say that you have not made the efforts for those meetings to be televised.
The only difference this motion would make is that efforts would be made automatically to televise the meetings with any ministers or the Commissioner of Official Languages. That's all.
That the meetings with the Commissioner of Official Languages and any Minister be televised if possible.
This is just a motion that replaces the other one.
Here's what we could do. We will vote on Mr. Godin's proposal, but we will reject it. Then, we will be able to put mine to the vote. That way, we would no longer be talking about an amendment, but rather another motion. So things will be clearer for you.
Okay, I'm going to consider the amendment that Monsieur Gourde has presented defeated, because it's clear that he is going to defeat the amendment he's proposed. We're now back to the main motion as proposed by Monsieur Godin.
Is there any debate on the main motion, which says:
[Translation]
That whenever a minister is appearing before the Committee, every effort should be made in order for this meeting to be televised.
[English]
That's the main motion as proposed by Mr. Godin. Is there any debate on the main motion?
I'm going to suggest defeating this and reverting to the routine motions from the last session, simply because of the language that says we use all possible measures. I don't know what that means. Does that mean changing dates?
To me it's important to have these individuals come and speak to this committee. I don't want to get into a debate beforehand about what level we are.... Don't get me wrong; I believe it's important to have this televised, but I believe what we have done in the past has worked sufficiently. I don't want to be debating timing and rescheduling meetings just to ensure that the practice we've been using, which has been successful, will now suddenly turn into a debate every time we're having one of these individuals come to see us.
We have a new motion in front of us to the effect that meetings with the Commissioner of Official Languages or with any minister be televised, if possible.
That whenever an Order in Council appointment or a certificate of nomination for appointment is referred to the Committee, the Clerk, pursuant to Standing Order 111(4), shall obtain a copy of corresponding curriculum vitae for distribution to all Members of the Committee.
Mr. Godin, are you saying that you would like to have the curriculum vitae after the appointment? That would certainly be after an order in council appointment. In any case, we can invite the appointed person to appear before us to answer questions about their curriculum vitae. I don't understand why you want to have that, as well.
If the procedure is already established, the clerk would do that in advance. We should clarify this with him. Currently, the clerk does not have to request the document ahead of time. We have to remember to do it.
When an order in council appointment or a certificate of nomination for appointment is referred to the committee, the clerk knows it. By adopting this motion, we would make sure that the clerk would ask an appointee in advance to send him their curriculum vitae. That way, when the individual appears before the committee, we would have already read their curriculum vitae and would be able to do our work.
We are talking about an order in council appointment.
[English]
We need to deal with an order in council nomination. Whenever the cabinet makes an order in council nomination and it concerns this committee, we are notified by the minister's office of the nomination. The committee, under Standing Order 111, has the option to call that nominated candidate in front of the committee for questioning.
[Translation]
Would any other committee members like to debate this motion?
I am not sure I understand why Mr. Godin wants to move this motion. The committee can always ask its guests for their curriculum vitae, without exception.
I don't understand why we have to ask for it every time. The motion only aims to make it so we no longer have to ask every time. It's normal for the work to be done automatically prior to the person's appearance before the committee. That way, we won't have to repeat that we want their curriculum vitae to be distributed to everyone. I think that every member will want to have it, including you.
The idea here is to work together. We are not proposing much in this motion. We just want to have information on individuals who will be appearing before us. If you are not prepared to vote in favour of that, then don't. However, we are not asking for much. We simply want to give our clerk the authorization to provide us with the curriculum vitae of the individuals who are invited to appear. That way, we will arrive here prepared and ready to work. That's what we want, and that's what you want, as well. You will not always be a member of the government, you know.
Look, under Standing Order 111, there's the right of the committee to demand a resumé. We're making it explicit in our routine motions, but the committee already has the right to demand a curriculum vitae from anybody. If a member of the committee asks for it, the chair, through the clerk, will get that resumé.
We only have a minute left. Is there any further debate this motion?
Seeing none, I'll call the question on this motion. A recorded vote has been requested. I'll pass the floor to the clerk for a recorded vote.
(Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)
The Chair: Before I adjourn the meeting, I just want to let members know that we will have a meeting on Wednesday at which we will consider any remaining routine motions and also plan for future business.