Evidence of meeting #1 for National Defence in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was minutes.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
On the routine motion on document distribution, is there any further discussion?
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Spengemann.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Madam Chair, the next motion is on working meals:
That the Clerk of the Committee be authorized to make the necessary arrangements to provide working meals for the Committee and its Subcommittees.
4 p.m.
Liberal
4 p.m.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
The next motion is on witness expenses:
That, if requested, reasonable travel, accommodation and living expenses be reimbursed to witnesses not exceeding two (2) representatives per organization; provided that, in exceptional circumstances, payment for more representatives be made at the discretion of the Chair.
(Motion agreed to)
The next motion deals with the presence of staff at in camera meetings.
That, unless otherwise ordered, each Committee member be allowed to have one staff member at an in camera meeting and that one additional person from each House officer's office be allowed to be present.
4 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
On the question around staff, it says “House officer's office”. In the past, I think it was limited to the whip's representative.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
I don't know if it was textually limited, but it was interpreted by us as the whip's office. It could be House leader or whip.
4 p.m.
Conservative
4 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
One additional, okay, that's fine. There's the restriction.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
We had an issue arise with having interns instead of a staff person at in camera meetings. We may wish to stipulate that it is not an intern.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
I think that's a good discussion. I think that's something we could commit to as a committee.
The clerk said that, even if it's an intern, an intern can present, but they have to ask permission to be able to stay. If it's not okay, they'll be asked to leave.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Madam Chair, how do we know with an intern? Let's say they're a foreign student, and maybe we're talking about Huawei and defence systems, and we've got a student at an in camera meeting who's from another country and committed to that communist party country. I think it's untenable that we risk having any intern at an in camera meeting here.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Yves Robillard Liberal Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
I don't think we have to get hung up on this. Each member is allowed to have one person. It is clear.
It's always been like that.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
If I recall correctly, Madam Chair, there was a discussion, as Ms. Gallant said, in the last Parliament, and the interpretation of staff members was such that it was at the discretion of the member of Parliament, who was fully authorized to staff his or her office with the appropriate personnel, and that this personnel would go through an HR process to be onboarded. It would be at the discretion of the member to then bring that person into the room or not. There was no reference anywhere in regulation that an intern requires any extra security screening, HR screening or any other kind of screening beyond that applicable to a regular staff member. She or he, once in the room, would be subject to the same scrutiny.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Richard Martel Conservative Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
I feel that Mrs. Gallant makes an interesting point. We have a regular team. That is important when we are talking about being in camera. I would have trouble seeing someone whom we have not seen during this session show up when we are in camera. Everyone has designated people. It should be a designated person.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Yvan Baker Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
I'd just like to add that I don't know the current practices in each of the offices of the members who are here, but I know that, in my case—and I suspect it's the case for many members—when we hire staff, they go through appropriate HR and other screening processes. Once they've been brought into our office, we as members are confident that they can be trusted with the information that's presented to them as part of our work as members of Parliament.
From my vantage point, I know that we have interns here who have positively contributed for years to members' offices in all parties. I think it would be a shame, for us as members, to not be able to take advantage of what they offer to our offices in the context of our work here on the defence committee. I think it would be a shame to have to exclude them from this work. I think each of us needs to take responsibility for the staff we hire and bring into the room.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
I believe the situation of the national defence committee and interns is different. I accept Madam Gallant's point. Interns here are normally on a waived security process. They are not normally assessed through the normal processes of employees because of the time lags. When you bring an intern in, you are asked to waive the security process as a member of Parliament, so they aren't subject to the same scrutiny as regular employees.
It says a “staff member”, and I believe that has usually been interpreted as not an intern unless there's permission of the chair. I think that's the way things have, in my memory, proceeded at the defence committee, and I think that's a good way to proceed. It isn't true that interns go through the full security screening. They don't, because of the short-term nature.