Evidence of meeting #12 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was pandemic.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:50 a.m.
Deputy Clerk, Administration
It was not per se a layoff, Mr. Tochor. It was more a case of some contracts not being renewed in the normal cycle of the activity of Parliament. There were 83 individuals who were in that situation.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
11:50 a.m.
Deputy Clerk, Administration
Do you mean in terms of the current contingent of administration staff?
11:50 a.m.
Deputy Clerk, Administration
The administration has been continuing to work and operate during the pandemic. What has happened since the start of the pandemic in March is that a lot of staff have transitioned to working from home. In terms of people who come on site to work, it depends on the nature of the activities, as necessary to maintain the operations of committees or the chamber.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Corey Tochor Conservative Saskatoon—University, SK
All right.
I understand some of the sensitivities of the following. I'm going to switch gears to security. How do we measure the security risk for members? This might have to wait until we're in camera, but I'd like to know how we actually measure that.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
11:50 a.m.
Director, Parliamentary Protective Service
Thank you, Madam Chair.
We work collectively with law enforcement partners and the intelligence community to determine the overall threat environment domestically. With respect to the individual security threats faced by certain parliamentarians, I think that the Sergeant-at-Arms would be better positioned to respond to those questions.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Perhaps there's something you'd like to say in 10 seconds. We are over time.
November 24th, 2020 / 11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Ginette Petitpas Taylor Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
On a point of order, Madam Chair, I really feel that we have to be very aware that these conversations are not taking place in camera. I certainly appreciate that it's really important for all of us, but if we're going to have these conversations, I believe they should really be in camera, as we don't want to put ourselves at an elevated risk.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Fair enough. I do think if the members are interested, we could have a meeting about this issue. I know that Mr. Tochor is interested by his line of questioning, and I think there were a few other questions. Monsieur Therrien had quite a few questions, and obviously it's very concerning to hear that he's been facing these threats. I'm sure there are many other stories too.
So—
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I was going to save this for my time for questioning, but it has been raised a number of times now, and we have the Sergeant-at-Arms, as well as other members of the House administration here. I think we should move in camera to continue this conversation. Clearly, our colleagues have some serious conversations on this. As we all know, the world is getting more and more divisive, and online attacks as well as the threats to members of Parliament are becoming more and more pervasive. I think it would serve us well to be able to have some sense of appreciation of where we're at, and the knowledge that our Parliamentary Protective Service has the resources it needs to be able to carry out its roles accordingly.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Hold on, Mr. Gerretsen.
I believe Ms. Vecchio is next, and then it could be you.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
I thank you very much. Just as my colleague was indicating here, I think this is a very important conversation that we're having, especially after what Mr. Therrien has shared about his situation. I know that a number of other members have gone through things. Unfortunately, we're seeing that it's a little bit crazier out there in the world right now, and we do need to make sure that we're taking into consideration our safety.
I too believe that going in camera.... I'm looking at these panels. I recognize that we have the best of the best on these panels, so trying to orchestrate it once again might be difficult. Perhaps we can talk about going in camera and vote on that.
Thank you.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
I think it's a great conversation to have, but there are some questions. Not everybody has questions, particularly with stuff that's dealt with in camera. We do have other items on which people have questions to pose legitimately in public, and the public have a right to know the answers to those questions.
Would it be possible to arrange a separate in camera meeting to exclusively deal with items that should be in camera? That would be my preference.
The questions that I have to ask I would like to be on the public record. I want people to be able to see the answers to my questions. They are not of a nature that deserves to be in camera.
The other aspect is that there's a bunch of work that needs to happen here to go in camera, which is going to delay our meeting and cut off our opportunity to ask questions.
My preference would be that we invite the witnesses back for a separate in camera meeting so we can discuss those items that should be discussed in camera.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Okay.
Mr. Blaikie, speak very quickly, if you can, because we're cutting into time for the speakers, and we only have them until 1:30.
11:55 a.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Along similar lines, I'm open to going in camera almost now.
I do have another question that I wanted to ask that doesn't pertain to security, so I'll just ask that, if we are going to go in camera, I'd be able to do that.
Alternatively, if we'd like to arrange for another meeting, I think that's probably not possible between now and December 11, because our schedule is very tight.
I do have another question.
Maybe we could go in camera 10 minutes from now for 20 minutes, or something like that. I'm open to different ideas.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
I have discussed it with the clerk, and it is going to be difficult to do that at today's meeting. We've done it before, and it takes almost 15 minutes to transition from public to in camera.
Would you be okay with discussing things that we can discuss publicly at this point and then still be comfortable with voting on the estimates today?
I could then set a separate meeting where we could talk about just the security issue and bring in only the relevant witnesses for that. We could have one full meeting on that issue. I think it's very important, but I don't think it's necessary for us to vote on the estimates today to have that in-depth discussion.
I know it's difficult to find that time, Mr. Blaikie. We don't really have that time up until the winter break, so it could be in January that we have to find that time, unless I can talk to the whips and see if there is extra time.
We have Mr. Turnbull and then Mr. Therrien.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Thanks, Madam Chair.
I really appreciated Mr. Gerretsen's comments.
I totally value the opportunity to have an in camera discussion about security matters, but I really think today's meeting should be focused on getting our questions answered on the public record.
I would humbly submit that I think a separate meeting would be better. It would certainly be my preference.
Thank you.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
I'm glad there are some members who feel that way. I think we do need to have these questions.
Like I said, it's just technical; otherwise, I would do it today, because there's no time better than the present. We just can't do it due to technical difficulties.
We have the Métis witnesses waiting to get on at 1:30.
Mr. Therrien, go ahead.
