Evidence of meeting #1 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I'm just wondering if we can have a chance to read through it and consider it.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Let's suspend for five minutes and give people a chance to huddle on this.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Thank you. We're back in session.
We have a motion presented by Ms. Gazan.
Ms. Gazan, would you like to speak to the motion, or are there any interventions on the motion?
Ms. Gazan, go ahead.
4 p.m.
NDP
Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
The purpose of the motion is just to make what we're discussing in the meetings more transparent to our voters and the public, which is why I'm putting forth this motion.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
Thank you, Chair.
Thanks for that motion. I think that, by and large, certainly, we do agree. I would like to propose a couple of amendments, though.
I'll just start right at the start here. The amended motion would read, “That any motion to go in camera should be debatable and amendable, and that the committee may only meet in camera for the following purposes: (a) to discuss administrative matters of the committee/witness selection, (b) a draft report, (c) briefings concerning national security, and (d) potential personal confidential information; And furthermore, minutes of in camera meetings should reflect on the results of all votes taken by the committee while in camera, including how each member voted when a recorded vote is requested.”
4 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm not sure we need to have.... For administrative matters of the committee, such as selecting someone as a witness, I would think that it would fall underneath it. Please don't take this as any kind of criticism of you, Mr. Long, but I don't think it needs to be there. I think that's clearly administrative, just helping the clerks to be able to move forward with it. I'm not going to fight this one, though.
On potential personal information, we could just say, “issues that may respect privacy” or those kinds of things. I would hope that as parliamentarians we would automatically seek to be on the up and up when it comes to the privacy of individuals.
4 p.m.
NDP
Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Perhaps we could amend it to “matters that fall under FIPPA legislation”. It would be more specific. I think “personal” matters is a bit vague. I think it's probably better if we have a clearer definition of that.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
I would just say, “respect the privacy of individuals pertaining to the committee's business”. That would give you enough wiggle room. If it's the committee's business and there's a privacy concern, then that can be brought in camera.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
Mr. Albas, we would take that suggestion. “Respect the privacy of individuals”, is that what you said?
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Of an individual in regard to committee business....
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
We now have a subamendment to the amendment.
Ms. Chabot, you have the floor.
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
Perhaps my question relates more to our housekeeping rules.
February 18th, 2020 / 4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
Based on what we just passed regarding motions, a 48-hour notice is required. We've added the clarification of Eastern time. Right now, we've received a motion that we're debating. However, is now the time to debate the motion or should we postpone the debate? My question also concerns the future. Since we've adopted a 48-hour notice rule, how can we move a motion on the spot and pass it? That's the first point.
I mean, as far as the second point is concerned, I don't have any objection. However, I thought, perhaps mistakenly, that we should be holding public meetings as much as possible. I also thought that, as committee members, we had the prerogative to request an in camera session, depending on the situation. Unless I'm persuaded to do so, I don't see any point in passing this motion.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Thank you, Ms. Chabot.
Concerning your first question regarding the requirement to give notice, I want to specify that we're now addressing committee business. In this context, notice isn't required. We can move a motion without notice. Even when the motion concerns the topic addressed by the committee, notice isn't required. The motion is in order and in proper form.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Okay.
You're putting me to the test here, folks. We have a subamendment. The subamendment proposed by Mr. Albas is to amend the amendment such that part (d) references “the privacy of individuals as it relates to committee business”.
Is there any further discussion on the subamendment?
4:05 p.m.
A voice
It's “respect” the privacy, I think, Mr. Chair.