National Defence Committee on June 21st, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Alexander.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Chair, on our side, based on the experience of returning members and our own experience of this committee and ambitions for this committee, we discussed this. We're against having staff consult transcripts independently simply because we think it will help this committee bring more substance to its in camera discussions.

If staff are at an in camera meeting, we can see who they are. That is a form of accountability because we all would know who was there. When you consult a document afterwards, we're not exactly sure whose staff has been doing it. We think it relaxes the accountability that we need to be strong to be able to use this tool.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Harris.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I'm satisfied with that argument, Mr. Alexander. Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Okay.

Mr. McKay.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Not entirely on point--and maybe I should have raised the point about distribution of documents--at the government operations committee last Parliament, we ran into an enormous problem that had to do with translation. Contracts were presented in one official language, and the cost of the translation was in the order of $300,000. That seemed to me to be a substantial issue. So the compromise we arrived at was that it could be read in the transcript.

I don't know if that will be an issue, but the cost of going from French to English or English to French was substantial, and then members never read the stuff.

I'll just plant that seed. It could possibly be handled by having it read by the members in the clerk's office without translation unless through a full vote of the committee there was a decision to translate it.

It's probably inappropriate to raise it at this point, but I just want to plant that marker.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

It isn't relative to the motion before us, because the transcript itself is bilingual.

Mr. Brahmi.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Would it be possible to find a compromise? The transcript copies could be read by the member of the staff who was there. Would it be too difficult to determine whether the member who reads the transcript was there? If it is actually possible, that could be a middle ground.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

In the last Parliament at the finance committee one staffer leaked a confidential document, and it turned out to be quite problematic and really hurt the budgetary process for that committee when they were doing budgetary consultations and preparing the report to present back to Parliament, because ultimately we as members are responsible, especially when we're dealing with national defence. Ultimately we are responsible for the issues we are dealing with and the documents we are studying. I think we want to minimize that type of opportunity for abuse within the parliamentary system.

We can hold each other to account by raising issues, as we do with our staff as well, but a member is ultimately responsible for their staff and can be held before Parliament on a breach of privilege to other members.

I think my role as chair is to try to minimize those opportunities, so I am happy with the way the motion reads right now and don't want to open up a new can of worms.

Mr. Harris.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I hear the notes of caution, and I'm considerably persuaded by them. I realize this is not quite on point, but with regard to John's point about examining documents that may not have been translated, perhaps we can consider another rule for that.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I think maybe we can bring that up as a secondary routine after we get through these. You can bring up another routine motion. I think we could have a subamendment to that motion or a new procedure on translation.

We have a question before us. Mr. Harris has moved that as it stands.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Next is notice of motions.

Mr. Harris.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I would like to accept the 48-hour notice, but I'd like to propose an interpretation and add at the end that notice be deemed to be received if presented to the clerk at 6 p.m. on the second day prior to the day of the meeting.

That's a deeming provision. It's two days before, but it's at the end of the second day before. The reason for that is if we have a meeting at 8:45 on Thursday, you have to give notice at 8:30 or 8:45 on Tuesday in order to get a motion on, which seems to me to be rather restrictive. The same would go for a Tuesday meeting. You'd have to give notice at 8:45 on Friday in order to have something discussed on Tuesday, which seems again to be rather restrictive.

I would propose that we have maybe the second business day prior. So for a Tuesday meeting, if the notice were presented to the clerk by 6 p.m. electronically and in both official languages, that would meet the provision of 48 hours' notice.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

That would be my only caution. I know from my own experience working with both clerks at the table here today that if you get it to them after 4 p.m. in one language, it's not going to be translated in time. So you're going to make it contingent upon members to make sure that if they're going to submit late, at perhaps 6 p.m., they should be submitting in both official languages.

The only other wording I would suggest you might want to add, not that I can move amendments, is “electronically”.

Mr. Alexander.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

I'd like to ask Mr. Harris if the following would meet his requirement and also the requirement....

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I believe that we have an amendment on the table, so if you want to move a subamendment....

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

I'm moving a subamendment that motions received by 4 p.m. on sitting days shall be distributed to members the same day. That essentially means that on a Friday, as long as it's in the staff's hands by 4 p.m., it would be distributed that day, meeting a requirement for 48 hours' notice, and similarly distributed on a Tuesday for a Thursday meeting.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Put that at the end.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Yes, that would be at the end. It replaces your language. I find it clearer, but I think it achieves the same thing. It is a change.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

If you're adding it at the end.... My motion says that 6 p.m. meets the requirement, and you're saying that if it comes in by 4 p.m., it should be distributed the same day. That's a different point, and I would accept that it's fine. Are you seeking to replace my motion with yours, or...?

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Yes. I think it achieves your intent and also the staff wish not to have things arrive at the absolute last moment on working days but at 4 p.m.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We have to make sure that we're speaking through the chair and are taking turns.

Therefore, I have Madam Gallant and then Mr. Strahl.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

I'd like to hear from the clerk how long it takes. Is it feasible to have a document submitted by 6 p.m. in both languages distributed to everyone?

Second, when you say notice of motion, are we talking about the clerk getting notice, the chair getting notice, or the time for the members, as well, to get notice of what's coming down?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Just so you know, when I run a committee, all questions, especially for the table officers, come through me.

I'll ask Monsieur Lafleur to talk about the technicalities of dealing with translating and distributing things on time. There is a problem with Fridays, as well, because the House rises at 2:30, and people tend to go home early on Friday.

Go ahead, Monsieur Lafleur.

[The Clerk]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As for the motion as it stands here and what Mr. Harris added, it says “received by 6 p.m.” So of course, if it's in both official languages, to add to this, it's quite easy for us. It could be sent in five minutes. Let's say I receive it at 5:57. It could be arriving electronically in members' offices by 6:15. That would be very easy.

I'm sorry, what was your next question?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Through the chair to the clerk, I wanted to know if the notice of motion given 48 hours ahead goes to the clerk or the chair.