Evidence of meeting #1 for Declaration of Emergency in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
Claude Carignan Senator, Québec (Mille Isles), C
I agree with Mr. Fortin. If the committee is working as a whole, it should address public matters in public. The committee can still meet in camera to discuss the more sensitive security issues. Not everything should be done in camera, however.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
Madam Chair, could I intervene on this very same point, please?
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
Pardon me. I'm sorry. I couldn't see your hand.
Go ahead.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that.
I'm just trying to reflect on this. I think it's absolutely wise that we are moving away from a subcommittee. I think we're all in agreement on that. As to matters that are administrative in nature, such as the scheduling of meetings, the timing of meetings or the witness allocation between parties or Senate groups, these are rather mundane and administrative matters. In my parliamentary career, I have never seen such matters ever discussed in public. I don't think the public has a strong public interest rationale for being privy to those kinds of conversations.
I think transparency is important in terms of what Monsieur Fortin is mentioning, but that's transparency vis-à-vis the witnesses coming and their testimony, the questions that are asked of those witnesses by the various members and the responses that are heard. That is what we have a critical public interest in being transparent with Canadians about. I'm not sure that whether we have a meeting on April 10 or April 11, the length of that meeting and how many witnesses appear for what length of time is particularly salient or important for Canadians to be privy to.
To my mind, when we're discussing routine matters such as the scheduling of witnesses, that should be done in camera.
Bloc
The Joint Co-Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
Madam Chair, the motion doesn't refer to work in camera. Did I read it wrong? Is there a reference somewhere else in the text? If we could clarify this, we might resolve the issue.
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
I think the proposal was that if we didn't deal with this particular motion, we would in fact ensure that there will be some discussion in camera in terms of the more mundane issues, if I can use that term, if I understood correctly.
Senator Harder, do you have a solution for us?
Senator, Ontario, PSG
Well, it seems to me that we have all agreed that the whole committee should be a party to the discussions on procedure and agenda, but I would suggest that when the committee is dealing with procedure and agenda, it do it in a normal in camera fashion, so that we can have a non-public conversation around whom we hear and in what time frames, but our committee work.... I totally agree with the bias. Our bias should be on transparency, except for issues around security, on which we will have to take advice, but let's do the sausage-making in camera [Technical difficulty—Editor] acting as a subcommittee on agenda and procedure in the whole committee.
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
I think we're seeing agreement around the table. I think what we'll have to do is just move it as we go. We'll come to those issues and we can then have the discussion on whether it would necessarily move in camera or not. Is that suitable to everyone? Okay.
For this motion, then, Mr. Motz, would you be agreeable to withdrawing the motion?
Conservative
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
Thank you.
I think this would therefore apply to motion number three as well. That would be withdrawn.
Then we'll move to number four, on communications.
Do I have a mover for motion four? It is moved by Mr. Green that the chairs be empowered to direct communication officers assigned to the committee in the development of communications plans and products where appropriate and to request the services of the Senate communications directorate and the House of Commons social media team for the purpose of promotion of the committee's work.
Is it agreed to adopt the motion?
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Motion number five is regarding time for opening remarks and questioning of witnesses. Do I have a mover for the motion?
Senator, Ontario, PSG
In motion five, there is no reference to the Senate for the second round. Is that an oversight or intentional?
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Madam Chair, I would like to speak to that as well.
I have a proposal to make a friendly amendment to motion number five.
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
Can we move it first and then do the amendment?
It is moved by Senator Harder that witnesses be given five minutes to make their opening statement; that, whenever possible, witnesses provide the committee with that opening statement 72 hours in advance; that, at the discretion of the chairs, the order of questions for the first round of questioning should be: four minutes House of Commons Conservative, four minutes House of Commons Liberal, four minutes House of Commons Bloc Québécois, four minutes House of Commons New Democratic Party and four minutes for each senator; and that the questioning during the second round shall be divided as follows: three minutes House of Commons Liberal, three minutes House of Commons Conservative, three minutes House of Commons Liberal, two minutes House of Commons Bloc Québécois and two minutes House of Commons NDP.
Senator, Ontario, PSG
I've been informed that there's a difference in procedure between the House and the Senate. The second round in the House is a different concept than that in the Senate. I withdraw my comment.
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
Thank you. I was going to ask the clerk to explain that when we had that discussion.
Mr. Motz, do you have an amendment?
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm fine with the motion as moved, up to and including “during the second round shall be divided as follows”. From there, I would suggest that it read, “three minutes House of Commons Conservative, three minutes House of Commons Liberal, two minutes House of Commons Bloc Québécois, two minutes House of Commons NDP and two minutes each for each senator.”
The Joint Clerk Mr. Paul Cardegna
Madam Chair, could I ask Mr. Motz to repeat the amendment, just to make sure I have it, please?
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Yes.
The wording up to “during the second round shall be divided as follows” remains the same in the motion. The change will then be “three minutes House of Commons Conservative, three minutes House of Commons Liberal, two minutes House of Commons Bloc Québécois, two minutes House of Commons NDP and two minutes each for each senator”, of the four senators.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
As an addition to that, this would go generally in line with the way in which many of the committees are operated now in the House.