Evidence of meeting #1 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
One of the other changes we made in PROC, which I think would be appropriate for your committee as well, would be that at the end of this, it would read, “provided that members have confirmed their physical presence for the meeting”. This would put the onus on the members to tell the clerk that they will be there so that the clerk can then provide meals. Otherwise, you end up with a lot of meals when a number of people are virtually attending and it would be a waste.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Robert Gordon Kitchen
Certainly.
Is there any further discussion?
Ms. Vignola, you had your hand up, or was that along the same lines?
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Thank you.
Yes, it’s a good idea to confirm our presence with the clerk, but I think we are able to buy a muffin before a meeting. Can we just do without a working lunch? With the salary we earn, we are able to afford it. I’m just asking the question. I’m willing to discuss it, but I don’t think we can’t buy a muffin before a meeting.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Robert Gordon Kitchen
We have two points.
Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Gerretsen.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
I guess I have the benefit of having been through this debate already in PROC.
We had a lengthy discussion on this, and there were multiple different reasons for why members were advancing different ideas. That is how we came to this particular wording. We had the exact same discussion. Given the fact we are in a pandemic, we asked why it was necessary to have meals delivered to us.
At PROC at least, we determined that there was no reason why we couldn't get our own food—and here I agree totally with what Ms. Vignola is saying—even if it were just from upstairs in the West Block and we brought it with us. Members decided that if they were going to attend in person, they would inform the clerk they were going to be there but would not require a meal.
At the end of the day, this gives the clerk the ability to do it if he or she has to. That's why we caved in on that wording.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
If this committee chooses to strike that and just take the whole part out, I'd definitely be supportive.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Robert Gordon Kitchen
We're going to go with Mr. MacKinnon, then Mr. McCauley and then Mr. Paul-Hus.
Liberal
Conservative
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Thanks.
I was just going to agree with Ms. Vignola. Obviously, it's just virtual right now, and I see no point in using up taxpayers' money. That's just to back up Ms. Vignola's comments.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Meals are for people attending a meeting in Ottawa. If the meeting is held in the West Block, we can make arrangements since the cafeteria is open there. However, there is nothing in the Wellington Building. If a meeting is held there and it’s at lunchtime—I don’t know what our hours will be yet—it might be more complicated to get a meal. If not, indeed, it’s not necessary.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Yes, I totally understand the rationale. I think that people who may be serving on only one committee would have the time allocation to do that, but before I vote in support of striking the ability to provide food, has it been in the past a custom, or is there an availability, for staff to also access the snacks? While we're meeting virtually and while our meetings tend to be short, I just imagine times where we might be hours in a committee meeting on a particular topic without the ability to retreat. There's also a cost allocation to us for sending our staff off-site to go out and pick up food somewhere. I come from a city council, where we had these conversations numerous times as well, and at the end of the day, it always occurred to us that a $5 sandwich was a time/cost savings in terms of the allocation of the work we did to be able to take time to go off to get food or to bring in food.
Having said that, I'm also proud to say, Mr. Clerk, that I'm down by 20 pounds. I'm on a very restricted diet. I won't be able to have those tasty little doughnuts that you purchase anyway, so I'm out. I wouldn't even be eating the food. I'm just saying that if there were apples available for staff and other people from time to time, I don't see that as being an atrocious use of taxpayers' time and money.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
I think the doughnuts are a personal attack on me, Mr. Green.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Robert Gordon Kitchen
Thank you, Mr. Green. I appreciate your comments. As you've said, the bottom line is that staff are at those meetings and, ultimately, if it's in the Wellington Building, they can't access the cafeteria as well. That's a good point.
At this point, I think maybe we should move forward with the recorded division on this, Mr. Clerk.
The Clerk
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The recorded division will be on the amendment by Mr. Gerretsen to add to the motion, at the end, “provided that members have confirmed their physical presence for the meeting”. I will proceed with the roll call on this.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
If my question from earlier has become a motion, you can cancel it altogether.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Robert Gordon Kitchen
Thank you. We will make those amendments.
(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The next point is on travel, accommodation and living expenses of witnesses:
That, if requested, reasonable travel, accommodation and living expenses be reimbursed to witnesses not exceeding two representatives per organization; provided that, in exceptional circumstances, payment for more representatives be made at the discretion of the Chair.
Is there any discussion?
(Motion agreed to)
The next is on access to in camera meetings:
That, unless otherwise ordered, each committee member be allowed to have one staff member at in-camera meetings and that one additional person from each House officer’s office be allowed to be present.
Is there any discussion? Mr. Paul-Hus.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Normally, both government and opposition parties have people from the whip’s office on committees who are often present at these meetings. Are they included? There is a person on the MP’s immediate staff, but if we need someone from the whip’s office, are they included?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Robert Gordon Kitchen
The motion calls for one additional person from each House officer's office to be allowed to be present.
The Clerk
If I may, Mr. Chair, in the past, I believe the definition of “House officer's office” has been sufficiently fluid to be considered to include the whip's office. That is to say that in addition to each member having a staff member at an in camera meeting, it would also include somebody from the whip's office.
Where this may be problematic now in hybrid meetings in the context of COVID is that there may not be enough seats in the room for everybody. However, this is a routine motion that was adopted back in the time when we were meeting entirely in person and there were sufficient seats. I might suggest that the committee may want to adopt this to allow for the possibility of it while keeping in mind that the Board of Internal Economy has adopted provisions to reduce the presence of staff at committee meetings simply due to the ongoing pandemic.
Again, the pandemic won't be here forever and it is possible that in the future these provisions won't be in place, but I do want to raise the issue with the committee that there are fewer opportunities for staff to appear at hybrid meetings. At least that's my understanding based on what I've received.
Thank you.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Clerk, we have to understand that we operate in hybrid mode. The important thing, in my opinion, is to be clear. Since in camera meetings are few and far between, we want to make sure that no one will object to having a member of the whips' offices participate in the meetings. We are in hybrid mode. It still needs to be clarified, because questions have been raised about this in other committees.
The Clerk
Mr. Chair, I’ve always heard that this means that House officers include whips and that they have access to the meeting. You’re right that in hybrid format, they may only have access to the meeting in virtual mode. As for their presence in person in the room, it could be problematic if there are changes due to the pandemic.
