Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Oct. 14th, 2020

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

[Technical difficulty—Editor]

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

The motion is adopted.

(Motion agreed to)

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

On to the next one—

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Sorry.

Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Ms. Kwan, please.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I don't actually know how to get onto the rotation. It seems that my “raise hand” feature is not working. Every time I press it, nothing happens.

Before this vote gets passed, I just want to ask a question.

For witnesses who are appearing virtually, there would be no impact. If one organization, let's say, wanted to have three individuals represent it, is that going to be an issue with respect to this motion? I just want to get clarity on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

Can I ask the clerk to please clarify this situation?

[The Clerk]

Yes. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Traditionally, the limit of the expenses is due to travel. It does not cost us more to have additional witness participating by Zoom. Were we, however, to use a video conferencing studio, for example, if Internet connections were poor in a remote area, then there would be costs incurred. Sometimes those costs can be in the neighbourhood of, say, $500 to $1,000 per session.

Members, as your administrative officer, I should remind you of those costs so that you can be aware when considering the limit to the maximum number of organizational representatives to reimburse for costs incurred.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you for clarifying that.

Ms. Kwan, I hope the clarification given by the clerk is okay.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Am I understanding correctly, then, that the limitation on the number of representatives from an organization is strictly tied to the cost? For example, in an instance where witnesses appear virtually or via video conferencing, if there's no additional cost and they want to have three members in one room, then we would be able to allow them to do that.

It doesn't happen all that often, but it does happen from time to time. I just want to make sure that this does not restrict those organizations' wishes in that regard. As long as there are no additional cost implications, then they would be able to have potentially, let's say, three witnesses instead of two. Am I understanding correctly?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

I think the clerk would like to clarify it.

[The Clerk]

To your clarification, Ms. Kwan, it is our established practice that the chair has the right, on a case-by-case basis, to expand the number of witnesses for extenuating reasons. Even if the committee decides to set a limit, be it two, three, four or whatever it is, if there is some reason why an organization would like to have more representatives and it is a compelling reason to the committee or the chair, then the committee reserves the right to allow for more representatives, despite the cost.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you for your clarification.

Mr. Dhaliwal, can we please move forward?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The next motion is on access to in camera meetings: That, unless otherwise ordered, each committee member be allowed to have one staff member at an in camera meeting and that one additional person from each House officer's office be allowed to be present.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

All those in favour of this motion?

Yes, Ms. Normandin.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

I would like us to add that those employees would be authorized to participate using Zoom.

I will quickly explain what I mean. Otherwise, those employees can only participate by telephone, so they cannot see people, or they can follow us on ParlVU, which has a 40-second lag. That complicates the exercise a bit. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs did some testing, and it was working well with employees using Zoom.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Mr. Regan, were you saying something?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Chair, I thought I was voting in favour, but let me say something in French.

Should we specify that the assistants using Zoom must not use their camera? That is what I wanted to mention. I am of the impression that Ms. Normandin agrees with this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Ms. Normandin, can you please read your amendment so that all the members can vote on it?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

I propose:

That those employees be authorized to participate through Zoom.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Mr. Regan was also proposing something.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

I propose a subamendment that would be added at the end of the motion. I would be fine with changes being made to terminology or wording in general. I propose:that those assistants must not use their camera.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Mr. Serré, did you want to say something?

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

If I understand correctly, and I would like the clerk to confirm, employees participate in our meeting by telephone. Members are the only ones to participate by video, while employees will participate by telephone, all through Zoom.

I would like the clerk to confirm that this is indeed the procedure in the House of Commons.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Just to clarify before we move forward, Ms. Normandin and Mr. Regan, are you proposing this amendment and subamendment to the motion on in camera meetings?