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.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Yes, Mr. Virani. I am proposing that two senators speak for two minutes each, so that will be four minutes total for two senators, and the rotation is...they will determine themselves, among the four senators, who would speak in that length of time.
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
I am seeing agreement. Thank you.
(Amendment agreed to)
(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Thank you very much.
We'll move to motion number six, on document distribution. Do I have a mover for motion six?
It is moved by Mr. Brock that the joint clerks of the committee be authorized to distribute to the members of the committee only documents that are available in both official languages, and that witnesses be advised accordingly.
Is it agreed to adopt the motion?
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Do we have a mover for motion number seven?
Bloc
The Joint Co-Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
Madam Chair, with your permission, I'll come back to the sixth motion. I'm sorry. I wasn't quick enough. A small issue with the translation may need to be resolved. The French version states “que seuls les cogreffiers du Comité soient autorisées à distribuer aux membres du Comité seulement des documents qui sont disponibles dans les deux langues officielles”, whereas the English verison states “that the joint clerks of the committee be authorized to distribute to the members of the committee only documents”. The French version contains both the word “seuls” and the word “seulement”, whereas the English version expresses this notion just once. I think that the word “seuls” is a small issue with the translation.
Bloc
The Joint Co-Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
The word “seuls” should be removed so that the text states “que les cogreffiers du Comité soient autorisées à distribuer ... seulement des documents qui sont disponibles dans les deux langues officielles”. I think that this reflects the spirit of the English text. In the French version, the word “seuls” at the start of the sentence is superfluous. It isn't that serious. However, I'm suggesting this correction for the sake of consistency.
The Joint Clerk Mr. Paul Cardegna
Madam Chair, what Monsieur Fortin is suggesting is that the word seuls in the French text be removed. That was probably an editing error when I wrote it originally. My apologies.
Bloc
The Joint Co-Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
There's also an error in the word “autorisées”. It should be spelled “autorisés” instead. The e should be removed. It's simply a French error. It doesn't change the substance of the motion. However, since we're correcting the text, we might as well do so properly.
Thank you.
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
Is the committee agreeable to this friendly amendment?
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Fortin.
We'll move back to motion number seven. Do I have a mover for motion seven?
It is moved by Mr. Green that the joint clerks of the committee be authorized to make the necessary arrangements to provide snacks and beverages for the committee and its subcommittee.
Is it agreed to adopt the motion?
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Motion number eight is about committing and certifying accounts. Do I have a mover for motion number eight?
It is moved by Senator Harder that either chair or, in accordance with the direction of the chairs, either joint clerk be authorized to approve payment of expenditures of the committee.
Is it agreed to adopt the motion?
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
Madam Chair, I apologize. I was a bit late to my button before the motion was moved.
May I suggest that we come back to motion number eight? Otherwise, I would flag for my colleagues that we might wish to agree as a committee on any expenses of outside counsel.
The Joint Clerk Mr. Paul Cardegna
Madam Chair, if I may bring some light to this issue here, what “committing and certifying accounts” usually deals with is paying for witnesses and the costs for that. That's my understanding. On the House of Commons side, hiring outside counsel is a completely separate matter. It will require a separate budget and further approval by the committee. I would say that this aspect is not contained in this motion.
However, I would defer to my Senate colleague to see if he has anything to add on this subject.
The Joint Clerk Mr. Mark Palmer
No. I was going to make the same comment.
I believe hiring would be a totally separate motion and agreement of the committee.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
That is an extremely useful clarification.
Thank you to both of you.
Liberal
Yasir Naqvi Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Do we need clarity in this particular motion as to the point that both clerks are making about hiring outside counsel? Would that be clarified if there's a subsequent motion to that effect?
The Joint Clerk Mr. Paul Cardegna
If I may, our financial policy manual on the House side is quite clear that hiring outside staff requires a separate budget and separate approval. In the financial policy manual, I don't believe the two issues are linked at all.
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
For clarity, it's the same on the Senate side.
Are we okay then to move on with motion number eight and agree to it?
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
It has been moved by Mr. Green that, if requested, reasonable travel, accommodation and living expenses, including child care and/or personal attendant care, and/or the cost of approved headset be reimbursed to witnesses upon application, not exceeding two representatives per organization, and that in exceptional circumstances payment for more representatives be made at the discretion of the chairs.
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
Do I have a mover for motion number 10?
It has been moved by Mr. Brock that each committee member be allowed to be accompanied by one staff member at an in camera meeting, and that one additional person from each officer's office be allowed to be present; and for the Senate, that the office of the leader of the government, or the leader or facilitator of each recognized party or parliamentary group be entitled to one additional staff member at these meetings, provided that all committee members and staff present shall take the oath of secrecy as set out in subsection 62(3) of the Emergencies Act.
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
On motion number 11—
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
I'm sorry. I should have let you read it out before I interjected. Regarding the transcripts of in camera meetings, I oppose destroying documents and having a direction at the beginning of this committee to destroy documents of in camera meetings.
I want to reiterate the nature of this committee and the ability for us to provide a blueprint and detailed information on the spirit of discussions to those who, perhaps at a future date, may be seeking guidance from previous committees. I know how helpful it would have been for us if we had that access. That underscores and understands that if we were to maintain these documents, we would be doing so knowing that those in future proceedings would also have to have the kind of security clearance that would be necessary.
I suggest that we delete “that the transcripts be destroyed when the committee ceases to exist”, given the unique nature of this and holding those documents in trust for future contemplation. I would also add “that the analysts assigned to the committee also have access to in camera transcripts”.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
I want to clarify something with the clerks.
Does this mean that anyone who wants to see these documents and the minutes of our in camera meetings must take an oath?