I am proposing that amendment.
Evidence of meeting #1 for National Defence in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was documents.
Evidence of meeting #1 for National Defence in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was documents.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
Okay.
You've heard that this motion be amended by allowing the staff member to be present if the MP is not.
Is there any discussion?
Go ahead, Ms. Black.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Dawn Black NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC
I take it that you're talking about a staff person who is employed by the House of Commons. Mr. Bachand was talking about someone who might be a political party employee and not necessarily someone who is a staff person of the House of Commons.
I think it should be clear that when you're talking about a staff person, you mean someone who is employed in the House of Commons, not someone who might be attached to your political party. I think that needs to be—
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
I'm not here to further amend my friend's suggestion that any staff member, however we define “staff member”, be allowed to attend. I'll defer to the committee on what that definition is.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC
I think the intention here may have been—and I obviously wasn't around when the rule was crafted—that the in camera meetings usually occur when it's a question of security of issues you are discussing and when you don't want wide circulation of the information that's being shared by the committee, because of the nature of the business we're discussing.
Therefore, I think the issue Dawn Black raises is an important one. House of Commons staff are governed by certain ethics and codes of conduct because they work for the House of Commons. I think we should limit the staff to staff employed by the House of Commons.
That may have been the intent of the motion the way it's worded.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
Good.
It's an understanding, then, that when we're talking about a staff member, it is staff of the House of Commons.
Go ahead, Russ, and then Cheryl.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
Just to clarify, every now and again it's quite possible I might have somebody who is formally employed by the Department of National Defence, who is actually my staff member, attend this committee with me. I just want to clarify that that would be acceptable to this committee, because that person is employed not by the House of Commons but by the department.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
Yes, this is just to clarify that when we're talking about staff, it's a staff person.... We're not going to look at their employment records to see if they're being paid for by a government department rather than a member's MOB. That's all I am trying to distinguish.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
That pretty well is the essence of my question: that the staffer is coming out of the MOB or a department, and that it's not a clerk or somebody coming out of the House of Commons' budget.
4 p.m.
Liberal
John Cannis Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm glad Mr. Hiebert explained it. I think this opens up an entirely different area for us, because that would then permit each and every member, given the issues to be discussed, to designate somebody as a staff member.
If I understood it correctly, it could be staff of another department, who will come in to accompany you as a staff member of your team. In other words, I could say, “Tomorrow, I'm going to bring in a military friend. He's not my staff member; he's not on payroll.”
I think we have to define now what a “staff member” is. Is he under an MOB, for example—I think that's one criterion that defines a staff member—or another staff member from a colleague in the House of Commons who is on his or her MOB?
I think, then, the common denominator is the MOB, as Cheryl prompted me to....
4 p.m.
NDP
Dawn Black NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC
I believe the purpose of the committee is to hold the executive accountable. So if you're talking about bringing in staff people who are part of the staff of the executive, of government, then I don't think that is appropriate. When we're talking about staff people, we're talking, I would assume, about the staff people to members of Parliament, not staff people to members of the executive council of government.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
Perhaps we could clarify the definition by defining a “staff person” as somebody employed by the federal government.
To address Ms. Black's question, my staff person, who works in my office--and the former minister would know this--is actually paid for by a particular government department. So it would seem a little bit strange if that person were not allowed to attend these meetings with me, since that's their formal responsibility.
Perhaps if we define “staff person” as somebody employed by the federal government, that might address Mr. Cannis's concerns.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC
I might know what you said I might know, but I also know that not all staff who work in your office when you're a member of the executive are paid by the department. You still have parliamentary staff. I think in that sense that staff is available to you.
What I had alluded to was the confidential nature of the business we discuss sometimes, and that's why it's important to have House of Commons staff. Although Ms. Black has an objection, I would have no objection to someone sitting and listening, because if they are under certain oaths of confidentiality or a code of conduct and they are employed by the government at large, I think that would be a common sense approach. If we're discussing something here and it is of a confidential nature and we're not supposed to go out and say something about it, I'm assuming that person wouldn't go and say something about it in a place that he or she shouldn't say anything.
