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.
4 p.m.
Liberal
John Cannis Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON
Mr. Chair, maybe this might help. In the past we've all served in other capacities--minister, parliamentary secretary. The exception that was permitted at that time, if I recall, was ministerial staff. For example, I had a ministerial staff person supporting me who was not paid by my member's operating budget.
Is that what you're referring to?
4 p.m.
Liberal
John Cannis Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON
Then, to me, that is acceptable. For a moment, and I apologize, I thought you might have been referring to somebody who works in a different capacity paid by the Government of Canada, the Canadian taxpayer, but not in the capacity of....
I have no problems with that, Mr. Chairman.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
That's exactly what I was referring to.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
I believe parliamentary secretaries have somebody in their office working with them.
That's not part of it. Okay.
Mr. Bachand.
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
I have a problem. Firstly, if my friend Russ carries on with his great comments, and continues to hold the same opinion, I will tell the Conservative Party that the parliamentary secretary should not sit on the Standing Committee of National Defence. We all recall the issue. Since he looks like a nice fellow, I think he can stay. However, the issue is outstanding.
As well, I would remind you that the Department of National Defence, is, if you will, divided into two structures: a military structure and a structure made up of elected officials. I would feel uncomfortable if we were holding an in camera meeting amongst ourselves, and somebody in uniform came in to sit behind Russ. I want to avoid that scenario. I don't know if his proposal would allow this, but I believe that it would be wise to prevent this from happening because our discussions must be kept private. Uniformed officers hold many private meetings that we do not attend. Therefore, I don't see why we should deprive ourselves of the privilege of meeting amongst ourselves.
Therefore, I would prefer that there only be members of Parliament, accompanied by their staff members. We can allow people from the department to attend, but I don't want to see anyone in uniform here, not because I hate them, but because some discussions must be held amongst ourselves.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
Okay. Your comment is taken.
Are there any other comments? Have we exhausted the need to define “staff”? Are we all clear on where we are on that?
We'll vote on the amendment first, and if it's passed we'll vote on the amended motion.
Go ahead and read the amendment.
4:05 p.m.
The Clerk
I've drafted it as follows:
That one staff member of an absent member's staff be permitted to attend during in camera proceedings during that member's absence.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
Is that clear as mud? Is there any further discussion?
(Amendment agreed to)
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
Now to the amended motion. Do we need to put the two together, and then we'll vote on that?
4:05 p.m.
The Clerk
The full motion, as amended, would be:
That, unless otherwise ordered, each Committee member be allowed to be accompanied by one staff person at an in camera meeting and that one staff person of an absent member's staff be permitted to attend in camera proceedings during that member's absence.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
The Clerk
The motion reads as follows:
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.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
Does somebody want to move that?
It's moved by Ms. Black.
Is there discussion?
Mr. Bachand.
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
I don't understand the phrase “for consultation”. Does that mean that if I go to the clerk's office, I can make a photocopy of the document? No.
However, I have been to the clerk's office and was not allowed to make a photocopy of a document. However, I was able to take a few notes, that is allowed. We agree on that.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
Is everybody all right with that? Is there any further discussion?
(Motion agreed to)
4:05 p.m.
The Clerk
The motion reads:
That 48 hours' notice be required for any substantive motion to be considered by the committee, unless the substantive motion relates directly to the 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.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
Is there any discussion?
This is moved by Mr. McGuire.
I think this is a standard rule that all committees work under on the notice of motion.
(Motion agreed to)
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
May 9th, 2006 / 4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Joe McGuire Liberal Egmont, PE
Mr. Chair, should the time limit for witnesses and questioning be included in this list?
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
Yes, we can deal with that if you wish.
I just want to confer with the clerk.
Can the notice of motion that we received be dealt with at this organizational committee, or does it have to be deferred to the next committee?
4:10 p.m.
The Clerk
If the committee is ready to proceed with it, they can, because more than 48 hours has certainly been given.