Publication Search

Welcome.

It's Thursday, March 12, 2020, and we'll proceed with meeting number three of the Board of Internal Economy.

The first item on the agenda is the minutes of the previous meeting.

Is everything in order? There are no adjustments; everything's fine. Do we have approval? Good.

The next item we'll look at is the parliamentary precinct long-term vision and plan.

Before we go to that, I want to inform everyone that we'll be going in camera should the person from Health Canada come here a bit earlier. Because it is a pressing matter, I want to make sure everyone is here. We may have to interrupt our meeting at some point to proceed with that.

We'll hear from our presenters: Michel Patrice, deputy clerk, administration; Stéphan Aubé, chief information officer; and Susan Kulba, director general, real property.

Mr. Holland.

Mr. Speaker, there have been very productive discussions among members of the board with respect to this item. I first want to thank my colleagues for those conversations, which have been very fruitful, and provide a recommendation. I thought it would be appropriate for me to start by summarizing as best I can the conversations we've had.

The intention would be to create a subcommittee, a working group, if you will, comprised of members of Parliament from all recognized parties that would be a subcommittee of the Board of Internal Economy, and would report its recommendations to the Board of Internal Economy. We've had some conversations on this to get the composition right. I'm proposing three Liberals, two Conservatives, one Bloc and one NDP for that working group.

From our own perspective, we'll be populating it with members of PROC to harmonize the process and the work PROC has been doing with the work we are doing.

The Senate would then choose its own working group format. It could have a conversation about matters specifically of import to the Senate, the Senate chamber, the Senate meeting rooms and that sort of thing. However, where there is overlap, those two bodies could meet jointly and try to find a way to get on the same page.

The Board of Internal Economy, though, and we would be seeking to do it at this meeting, would be looking to provide specific direction that the overriding principle be the preservation of heritage.

Candice, I know you had some specific thoughts about some of the pieces, some “thou shalt not touch” provisions: Thou shalt not touch the chamber. Thou shalt not touch the Hall of Honour. Thou shalt not touch the entrance for members. Thou shalt not touch la Francophonie. We would place specific direction to restore these elements of heritage and not contemplate any amendment or potential destruction of these elements of heritage.

I don't think this needs to be part of a motion, but it's important to state that the assistant deputy minister for parliamentary infrastructure of the Department of Public Services and Procurement, or his or her designate, would operate as liaison to the working group to make sure there's that connection between the ministerial side and the work of the parliamentary group. Obviously, it would be led by the parliamentary group, and the minutes of the working group meeting would be recorded and made public 30 days following a meeting.

Mr. Speaker, that builds on the conversations we had at the previous meeting, where we really heard from all members around the importance of—

Do we have that?

Yes, that is my understanding. I'm looking at Charles to see if this has been circulated to members.

I think the text is available in both official languages.

Members should have that in front of them. I'm suggesting that as a framework for the motion that we can hopefully proceed with today.

Mr. Julian, I'm sorry.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I feel that the text reflects our discussion quite well.

However, I would actually write that the government will have three members, the official opposition two members, and the third and fourth parties one member each. This would ensure that the subcommittee's work can continue if we have an election, whether scheduled or not.

So what are you suggesting, exactly: more members?

I am suggesting replacing the reference to the Liberal Party by “government” and the reference to the Conservative Party by “official opposition”, and so on.

Okay, I understand. So we will use the terms “government”, “official opposition”, “third party” and “fourth party”.

[Inaudible—Editor]

The figures will stay the same.

Do we have consensus to proceed in that manner?

Is everybody in accordance—

On the numbers.

—on the numbers? Well, I guess we would have to....

Madam Bergen, did you want to say something?

I think the one thing we want to make sure of, and I think we would probably all be in agreement, is that this committee doesn't get too overly bureaucratic where they are calling witnesses and satisfying curiosities. I'd like to make sure that we have some of those parameters. Maybe right now isn't the time to do it. Maybe we want to establish that we will have this subcommittee made up of the composition that you outlined. Or do we want to lay down a few more parameters now?