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.
Noon
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
In light of Mr. Green's addition of the analysts and to answer your earlier question, Madam Chair, about where we would insert that, may I suggest that it goes in “that one copy of the transcript of each in camera meeting be kept with the joint clerks and the analysts for consultation by....”?
Would that work as your addition, Mr. Green? It would include allowing both the joint clerks and the analysts to keep a copy of the transcript.
Noon
The Joint Clerk Mr. Paul Cardegna
I appreciate what you're saying.
We usually have the transcripts housed on our servers. The way Mr. Green has talked about the analysts having access allows them access to the servers, instead of having a copy.
The reason we prefer to do it this way is that we retain control of them in our office, on our servers, but we can now allow access to them and the analysts can readily have access, rather than having multiple copies being sent around.
Noon
Conservative
Noon
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
Mr. Clerk, if we did, “that one copy of the transcript of each in camera meeting be kept with the joint clerks for consultation by members of the committee or by their staff, or by the analysts”, would that cover it? Would that put it in the right context?
Noon
Senator, Ontario, PSG
Madam Chair, I would suggest that we leave the issue that Mr. Green has raised outside of this motion. This motion is for the conduct while we are operating as a committee.
I would also suggest that we instruct the clerks to investigate whether a motion could be considered later to accomplish what Mr. Green has suggested with respect to the work of this committee once it is completed.
I'm for the spirit of transparency, but I don't want to confuse this motion with what the situation will be once we are functus officio.
12:05 p.m.
Bloc
The Joint Co-Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I agree with Senator Harder. I think that it would be good to delete the last two lines of the motion, which state that the transcripts will be destroyed when the committee ceases to exist, and to include the reference to analysts, as the clerk suggested. I think that we would then have a motion that could be passed.
12:05 p.m.
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
Can I ask you to move that, Mr. Fortin? Thank you.
(Motion agreed to)
Motion number 12 has been moved by Mr. Green: “That the committee publish its public proceedings in both official languages.”
(Motion agreed to)
Motion number 13 is moved by Mr. Naqvi: “That a 48-hour notice, interpreted as two nights, be required for any substantive motion to be considered by the committee unless a substantive motion relates directly to business under consideration, provided (1) that the notice be filed with the clerks of the committee no later than 4:00 p.m. from Monday to Friday; (2) that the motion be distributed to members and offices of the whips of each recognized party in the House of Commons and recognized party or parliamentary group in the Senate in both official languages by the joint clerks on the same day the said motion was transmitted if it was received no later than the deadline hours; (3) that notices received after the deadline hour or on non-business days be deemed to have been received during the next business day; and that when the committee is travelling on official business, no substantive motion be moved.”
(Motion agreed to)
Motion number 14 has been moved by Mr. Green. It is “that the joint clerks inform each—
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
It's on motion number 14.
I don't know if this is the subject of a friendly amendment or whether it can be dealt with at a later occasion, but my experience has shown that far too many times committees have been delayed as a result of connectivity issues, so can we ensure, for whoever is arranging the connectivity tests, that so much time be allowed in advance of a start time to deal with those technical issues, so we're not wasting precious time at the start of a session?
12:05 p.m.
The Joint Clerk Mr. Paul Cardegna
Thank you, Madam Chair and Mr. Brock, for your comment.
This motion insists that, as the joint clerks, we inform each witness who is going to appear before the committee that technical tests have to be done before the witness appears. These are done regularly with all witnesses, and they are not done immediately before the meeting begins. They are actually done, in some cases, several days in advance, so we can try to allow our technical team time to troubleshoot issues. We also make sure to try to send, whenever possible, a headset, so that the appropriate headset is used by the witnesses when they are giving testimony.
We have faced cases in the past—and I have seen this even as recently as in the last few weeks—in which we have had a witness test everything, and their equipment has all worked, and then for some reason there's been a technical problem at the meeting itself.
We do a sound test when they sign on, to make sure their sound is sufficient. I caution all members of the committee, however, that there are always instances in which, despite all the work we do, we continue to have technical issues.
That being said, this motion was set up so that we could also put pressure on the witnesses to make sure they do that technical testing. I have to say that the vast majority of witnesses are quite happy to do that technical testing, and in many cases it has prevented problems.
However, I caution all members that we can't offer a 100% guarantee that we're not going to have technical issues. We do everything we can, and part of the reason this motion was set up was to add pressure to convince witnesses that we really do need to do these tests before the meeting itself.
12:05 p.m.
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
Mr. Brock, does that require an amendment, or are you satisfied?
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
12:10 p.m.
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
I think we share your concerns. As indicated by the clerk, it's best intentions. We do the best we can.
12:10 p.m.
Bloc
The Joint Co-Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
I don't think that I've seen any provisions in the routine motions that specify whether witnesses must appear in person.
This motion addresses technical tests. We all experienced technical issues during committee meetings. Some evidence was difficult to hear properly. The interpreters were often unable to do their jobs as a result of inadequate equipment or inaccessible WiFi. Technical issues can arise for any number of reasons.
In this situation, wouldn't it be a good idea to include a separate paragraph in our routine motions that specifies that witnesses with offices on the Hill must appear in person rather than virtually? I'm saying this because staff from members' and ministers' offices or other officials will likely be asked to give evidence.
Is this a good idea? If so, could we make a provision for this somewhere?