Evidence of meeting #2 for Health in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was ndp.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
So what should we call this? Should we include working meals and snacks? Is that okay? It is working meals and snacks. So may I read this out now?
That the Clerk of the Committee be authorized to make the necessary arrangements to provide working meals and snacks for the Committee and its subcommittees.
(Motion agreed to)
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Mr. Carrie, we'll go to witnesses' expenses, and then we'll come back to yours.
I'll read it out:
That if requested, reasonable travel accommodation and living expenses be reimbursed to witnesses, not exceeding two representatives per organization; and that, in exceptional circumstances, payment for more representatives be made at the discretion of the Chair.
That's exactly what we had last year.
Is there any discussion?
(Motion agreed to)
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Thank you.
On staff at in camera meetings:
That, unless otherwise ordered, each committee member be allowed to be accompanied by one staff person at an in camera meeting.
Mr. Carrie, do you want to speak to staff at in camera meetings, which is on the sheet that was handed out to committee?
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
I would like a slight wording change. It gets rid of “unless otherwise ordered”. It just says that each committee member in attendance shall be permitted to have one staff member attend any in camera meetings and that in addition, each party shall be permitted to have one party staff member attend the in camera meetings. I don't think that is--
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
It says “one staff member designated from the respective parties”, if you look at number eight, Pat. I think we had that before, and “one representative from the whip's office” was in brackets.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
My apologies, but the old way, the one that was adopted last time, I believe, said:
That, unless otherwise ordered, each committee member be allowed to be accompanied by one staff person from his or her office; and in addition one staff member designated from the respective parties (i.e. one representative from the Whip's office) at in camera meetings.
I was saying we'd just say, “each committee member in attendance shall be permitted to have one staff member attend at any in camera meeting”, which I think is the same thing. It gets rid of “from his or her office”, and adds “in addition, each party shall be permitted to have one party staff member”. It doesn't necessarily designate who. It has an example here--one representative from the whip's office. It's slightly different wording.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
So it would read:
Each committee member in attendance shall be permitted to have one staff member attend at any in camera meeting; in addition, each party shall be permitted to have one party staff member attend in camera meetings.
Is that correct?
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Maybe I missed something, but I'm not clear what the difference is from the previous way of describing staff at in camera meetings.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
There's not much of a difference. What he's adding is, “each party shall be permitted to have one party staff member attend in camera meetings”. Would you like me to read them both out again?
Last year we had:
That, unless otherwise ordered, each committee member be allowed to be accompanied by one staff person at an in camera meeting.
What Mr. Carrie is suggesting is, “in addition, each party shall be permitted to have one party staff member attend in camera meetings”.
Is that right, Mr. Carrie? Whip staff is what it is, right?
Okay, is there discussion?
(Amendment agreed to)
(Motion as amended agreed to)
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Okay, let's go on to in camera meeting transcripts. The motion states:
That one copy of the transcript of each in camera meeting be kept in the committee clerk's office for consultation by members of the committee.
That was the same...well, it's slightly different. The year before we had that one copy of the transcript of each in camera meeting was to be kept in the committee clerk's office for consultation of the committee. The change this time is that it says, “by members of the committee”. It means the same thing.
Are you in agreement with that one? Is there any discussion?
Mr. Carrie.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
I would like to propose a slight change here, but it is significant. It's to say that in camera meetings be transcribed and that the transcription be kept with the clerk of the committee for later consultation by members of Parliament, instead of members of the committee. What it allows is that if somebody isn't a member of the committee, they could still view those transcripts.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Can I have the clerk speak to this one? There might be a problem here.
4:25 p.m.
The Clerk
If I may, by saying “any member of Parliament”, it means that a member who is not a member of the committee has access to in camera transcripts, which is not allowed by the rules. The committee would have to allow it.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Traditionally or historically that has not happened, because we don't want to leak in camera problems.
So is it okay? We'll go back to the original one, which states that one copy of the transcript of each in camera meeting be kept in the committee clerk's office for consultation by members of the committee.
(Motion agreed to)
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
The next one is on notice of motions. It says:
That
--and I'll leave a blank for the number--
hours' notice be required for any substantive motion to be considered by the Committee, unless the substantive motion relates directly to business then under consideration; and that the notice of motion be filed with the Clerk of the Committee and distributed to members in both official languages.
Traditionally it has been 48 hours' notice. Can we have discussion on that? Do you agree that 48 hours' notice is what we want?
Mr. Carrie.
