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.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Clerk of the Committee  Mr. Michael MacPherson
Katherine Simonds  Committee Researcher
Marie Dumont  Committee Researcher
Evelyn Lukyniuk  Committee Clerk

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon

Mr. Bagnell.

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

I'm not sure about that, since the start of this Parliament. I thought we got a memo saying that anyone now in our offices had to go through that new screening, the same level of screening. I think we should probably know that before we decide on this.

4:10 p.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC

It takes longer than they are here.

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon

Madam Gallant.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

I was going to ask the same thing as Larry, that we not decide unless we know for sure that they go through the same level of screening as members of Parliament and their staff.

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon

That's the challenge. This was approved. This has already been negotiated with all of the parties, right? The parties didn't believe that any further restriction was needed.

Mr. Bezan.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

I appreciate that all of us are responsible for our staff. Not all the internship programs require you to sign non-disclosure agreements with your interns. Not all internship programs have you sign documents for any interns they are putting in your office, versus the PIP, for example, parliamentary interns program, where you get some highly competent staff who are completely vetted before they even start on the Hill. Also, they are signed into your office; you're responsible for them and their conduct.

There is a disparity between different internship programs. I think that's what Cheryl is saying. I agree that we are ultimately responsible for the people we bring into these rooms. I trust that all of us know that the secure information we often receive is something we want to keep to an in-camera situation. I know our staff are well informed of those requirements, but we did have that one incident last session, and that's why....

I think we can go ahead and approve this but with the understanding that we need to circle back and request more information on the parliamentary programs and those who are volunteers in our offices, where we don't have that proper managerial oversight and could compromise information security within this room.

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon

Could we could adopt it as it is currently written? Then we can maybe take it to the subcommittee, and get the answers to the questions that people have been putting on the floor.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Yes, as long as it's amendable.

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon

Yes. It would be amendable.

That will be our plan. We will put together a process for that.

All those in favour of the motion on staff at in-camera meetings, as written?

(Motion agreed to)

Mr. Spengemann.

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON

Madam Chair, the next motion is on in-camera meeting transcripts:

That one copy of the transcripts of each in camera meeting be kept in the Committee Clerk's office for consultation by members of the Committee or by their staff.

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon

Is there any discussion?

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON

Let's have a quick discussion. In light of the conversation we just had, we would want to attach the same consideration to the word “staff” here.

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon

That will be a discussion for the subcommittee then, right?

(Motion agreed to)

Mr. Spengemann.

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON

The next motion is on notices of motion:

That a forty-eight (48) hours notice, interpreted as two (2) nights, shall be required for any substantive motion to be considered by the Committee, unless the substantive motion relates directly to business then under consideration, provided that (1) the notice be filed with the Clerk of the Committee no later than 4:00 p.m. from Monday to Friday; that (2) the motion be distributed to Members in both official languages by the Clerk on the same day the said notice was transmitted if it was received no later than the deadline hour; and that (3) notices received after the deadline hour or on non-business days be deemed to have been received during the next business day and that when the committee is travelling on official business, no substantive motions may be moved.

(Motion agreed to)

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon

Mr. Spengemann.

February 24th, 2020 / 4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON

Madam Chair, here is the final routine motion.

This deals with independent members and clause-by-clause considerations.

That, in relation to Orders of Reference from the House respecting bills,

(a) the Clerk of the Committee shall, upon the Committee receiving such an Order of Reference, write to each Member who is not a member of a caucus represented on the Committee to invite those Members to file with the Clerk of the Committee, in both official languages, any amendments to the Bill, which is the subject of the said Order, which they would suggest that the Committee consider;

(b) suggested amendments filed, pursuant to paragraph (a), at least 48 hours prior to the start of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill to which the amendments relate shall be deemed to be proposed during the said consideration, provided that the Committee may, by motion, vary this deadline in respect of a given Bill;

(c) during the clause-by-clause consideration of a Bill, the Chair shall allow a Member who filed suggested amendments, pursuant to paragraph (a), an opportunity to make brief representations in support of them.

(Motion agreed to)

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon

Mr. Garrison.

4:15 p.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC

I have a proposal for an additional routine motion. I have copies of it in both official languages.

It deals with provisions of when we go in camera and for what reasons we would go in camera.

The motion suggests four situations in which it would be appropriate for the committee to go in camera. The first is for administrative matters, and that is the standard practice of most committees for looking at witness lists and scheduling meetings and locations of meetings. The second is also routine for most committees, and that's to consider draft reports. Again, I think the national defence committee is different from other committees. In the third situation, we are sometimes offered briefings on national security and it would be appropriate for us to go in camera for those briefings. The fourth one deals with the situation where we might want to receive testimony from a witness and where it would be necessary for the protection and security of that witness that it not be a public meeting.

This is an attempt to prescribe for some circumstances that we ran into before, in particular when we had whistle-blowers who wished to give testimony to the committee and the committee didn't have a provision for going in camera to hear from those people.

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon

Did this get discussed at PROC in the last Parliament?

Mr. Bagnell.

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Yes, I was chair of PROC in the last Parliament. We had a lengthy discussion with the parliamentary experts from each party for quite a number of weeks. We had Scott Reid from the Conservatives, and David Christopherson from your party. I forget who was from our party, but we discussed it at length and we came up with a list. Do you have copies to distribute just so we could compare?

Once you get a chance to look at it, this has some of the same things that yours does. You've added a couple of things, because it's on national security and for protection of witnesses. I don't think we had those in our motion, in the one that's coming around. I think those would be good additions.

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Yves Robillard Liberal Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

Are they only in English?

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON

Yes.

4:20 p.m.

An hon. member

No, it—

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON

Well, the 100th report of the procedure and House affairs committee included advice for the consideration of committees of the House of Commons in the 43rd Parliament. That was tabled in the House in both languages. It has a list from (a) to (i).

I was on PROC when this was discussed, and I remember that Arnold Chan, David Christopherson and Scott Reid sat for four months, and it came before committee at least three or four times. There was a lot of discussion.

I would suggest that might be something that the subcommittee—or even discussions amongst members—look at what PROC was recommending to the 43rd Parliament, then look at that one and make sure that the motion is going to be as complete as possible for our committee.