Evidence of meeting #1 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was move.
The Clerk
Normally that's not a problem. In most cases we've seen, the member who's giving notice of motion has already provided us with the motion in both official languages. If not, a two-page motion can be translated very quickly.
The Clerk
What Mr. Kenney is bringing up is the issue raised in Standing Order 115, that when a legislative committee is sitting on a certain subject matter—in this case it's Bill C-2, the bill on accountability—any other committee that has similar subjects that it is mandated to deal with shall step down, in the sense that they shall not sit at the same time.
How you interpret that is up for discussion with members. If we take the strict interpretation, this committee cannot meet when Mr. Tilson's committee is sitting. We can find an alternate time for this committee to sit when Mr. Tilson's committee is not sitting, but that would be jumping out of our block that is agreed to by the whips of the various parties, and it could cause us to be bumped out of any room we may book.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
As some of you know, Mr. Martin and I happen to have the honour of attending those meetings, and the Bill C-2 committee will be meeting on Tuesday afternoons, every Tuesday afternoon, along with a number of other afternoons. At this point, it has not been scheduled to meet Thursday afternoons, although it's possible. But there's no question, until the committee is finished its work with respect to the accountability legislation, we will be sitting Tuesday afternoons. So, quite frankly, I think it's an interesting point of order that Mr. Kenney has raised for you, Mr. Chairman.
As you know, the accountability legislation is dealing with all kinds of things. It's dealing with ethics; it's dealing with information. There will be money matters involved in this that would overlap into things. There are even privacy issues. The Privacy Commissioner may have some comments. So I don't see how this committee can possibly sit on Tuesday afternoons.
But the second point is whether it can meet at all. It might be worthwhile if the chairman could look at the standing order, unless he knows it by heart, and maybe he does.
I'm going to read it to you. Standing Order 115(1) says:
Notwithstanding Standing Order 108(1)(a), no standing or standing joint committee shall sit at the same time as a legislative committee on a bill emanating from or principally affecting the same department or agency.
So the first thing is, I don't see how we can possibly sit on Tuesday afternoon because the legislative committee will be sitting on that day. But the next question is, can they sit at all?
I suppose on a Thursday, for example, the Information Commissioner--we'll pick on him--could come to the legislative committee and talk about matters in Bill C-2 and then come to this particular committee in the afternoon, and the two committees could say something entirely different.
What I don't know is what the words “at the same time” mean, whether that's in a session or whether that's on a particular day. If it means in a session, then I think this committee is out of luck till after Bill C-2 is finished its work. If it's at the same time, the same hour, then I suppose they could sit on Thursday afternoons. That's assuming, out of the blue, and it may be possible--we could end up sitting on Thursday afternoons. At this point we're not.
Mr. Chairman, through you to the clerk, I've tried to give you some notice that this issue would be raised today, and I don't whether you've had an opportunity to look at the issue.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
I'll answer that. First of all, we haven't scheduled any meetings of this committee, since we're just having an organizational meeting.
Secondly, what I'd suggest we do is you and I sit down, as chairs of the two committees, and discuss the issue, get some advice from the whips, get some advice from some procedural people, and see if we can't come to a reasonable accommodation that doesn't require a ruling.
My initial reaction would be that the words “at the same time”, given the following subparagraphs, which talk about time, indicate physical 24-hour calendar time. But I don't need to make a ruling on that, and I think it's best if the two chairs see if we can make some accommodation. It makes total sense for us not to be sitting at the same time as the committee on Bill C-2 because we'll lose two of our most valuable members, particularly a former acting chair, who has experience on this particular committee and the issues surrounding it, and Mr. Martin likewise. So I would do everything I could to make an appropriate accommodation. And I know that most members don't like to sit on Thursday afternoon anyway, for a variety of reasons, so we'll see what we can do.
Yes?
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
Mr. Chair, I'm new to this, so I want to just revisit it.
If we can go back to the notice of motions, the 24 hours--you may have answered my question--are we going to take, literally, 24 hours? If we go to one day, it's quite possible that a motion could be amended or we could have an amendment and nobody would have time to respond to it. So would that be a literal 24 hours, then?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
I'm more of a literalist than most. Because it would be 24 hours, I would take it literally, because we would need to have enough time to have the motion received, translated, and distributed so that members would have proper notice of it within 24 literal hours of the minute of the beginning of the meeting. That's how I would interpret it for a 24-hour motion.
In camera meetings transcripts--could we have someone move that routine motion?
Mr. Dhaliwal will move that.
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
Staff at in camera meetings--who would like to move that?
A question, Madame?
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
I saw one version of these routine motions about two weeks ago. It really wasn't clear. I reviewed them with the whip's office. We thought it might be clearer if the French version of the motion read as follows:“Que, à moins qu'il en soit ordonné autrement, chaque membre du Comité soit autorisé à être accompagné d'un membre du personnel de son parti aux séances à huis clos.”
If memory serves me well, the previous version referred to the “personnel du député”. The wording has been changed, but it's not really that much clearer. I'd like it to be clear that a member can be accompanied by someone other than a staff member at in camera members. I'd like that stipulation to be clarified.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
This is the motion that was in fact passed at the last committee--that doesn't mean it has to be passed at this committee--and it did specifically refer to a staff person of the member.
Madame, you wish to have it as a person of the party of the member. If you do, then you must move such a motion. Before you do, perhaps we could go to Mr. Dhaliwal, if he has a question.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
I have a comment on this one.
When you say staff person, can that be a volunteer member as well?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
Yes.
The intent here is that it is a person who is under the control of the member who is a member of the committee.
We don't have a motion.
Mr. Wallace, go ahead, please.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Is that your interpretation of one staff member or one staff person?
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
All it says to me when I read this is “each committee member be allowed to be accompanied by one staff person at an in camera meeting”. It doesn't say it has to be my employee.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
The way I'm interpreting it is that it has to be a member of your staff. Because we haven't got a motion, we can make it as clear or as fuzzy as you want it to be.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Quite frankly, I don't care, because I think the chairman indicated quite clearly that the person has to be under the control of that particular caucus person. Whether it's your own personal staff or your caucus staff person, I think the chair has adequately said that as long as that person has control over that staff person, then it's okay. That would be my concern. You could read this any way you want, but I don't care. If you want to make it clear, that's fine with me.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
Except Madame Lavallée wants to make it crystal clear and not leave it to the interpretation of the chair. If Madame wishes to move a motion, then I'm receptive.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Does that mean my personal staff person isn't a member of the caucus staff? You can work it both ways, can't you?
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
I'm pleased that you don't have a problem with this. I simply wanted to clarify this point. I would prefer if the change was noted in writing. The objective here is to allow members to be accompanied by a caucus or party staff person.