Evidence of meeting #1 for National Defence in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was motions.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
Is there any debate?
(Motion agreed to)
Thank you.
Next is motion number eight.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Yvan Baker Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
This motion is under “Access to In Camera Meetings”. It reads:
That, unless otherwise ordered, each committee member be allowed to have one staff member at in camera meetings and that one additional person from each House Officer's office be allowed to be present.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
Does anyone want to debate this motion?
Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe, you have the floor.
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Good afternoon, Madam Chair, and congratulations.
I don't know where to put my comment, because Zoom meetings are new to us.
Would it be possible for our assistants to have access to the Zoom meeting as well? I am the only one having to switch to the French channel so that my colleagues can hear me properly. Sometimes, with the interpretation and the English, it's a bit harder for a French speaker. My assistant certainly speaks better English than I do.
I am asking the clerk and the chair: since our assistants cannot keep track of everything that is going on over the phone, could they be given access to the Zoom meeting?
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
Thank you very much for that intervention.
Mr. Clerk, do you have some further information? I know it was a technology limitation. Do we think we might see our way to making it more available to staff members?
3:55 p.m.
The Clerk
At present, no. The policy is that staff members are allowed to use “listen live” telephone lines, or they can watch on ParlVU, which has about a 70-second delay.
However, if we have an in camera meeting, each MP is allowed to have a staff member in the Zoom meeting. They wouldn't have to be situated next to you; they could be elsewhere in the country. We would give them the link and the password, and they would sign in. We just wouldn't activate their camera, and we wouldn't have their microphone on. They wouldn't be “at the table”, per se, but they would be “in the room”.
4 p.m.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
I move an amendment to the motion to allow staff members to attend via videoconference at all times.
4 p.m.
Bloc
4 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
I don't have a great deal of difficulty with what has been proposed by Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe. I think that if we're going to have our staff come into in camera meetings, which we may have to move into relatively quickly, then we have to go through the whole process of having them come into Zoom after they've been watching on ParlVU or listening in by calling into the committee meeting live.
From the standpoint of moving people efficiently between in camera meetings and those not in camera, it would be good. I would just request, if that's the case, that they not be allowed to have microphone or even video privileges; they would strictly be there to watch the proceedings, as they would if we were in the House or in committee physically.
October 14th, 2020 / 4 p.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
I understand the amendment is to allow staff to be available for all meetings. I wonder if the clerk could elaborate a bit more on why the policy is in place the way it is. Was it a decision of PROC, or is it a technical thing?
4 p.m.
The Clerk
I believe it's more in line with a technical issue. House administration has made some policy decisions in this regard. I would just ask members to bear in mind that the transition to Zoom has been thrust upon the House, so a lot of these questions are being answered on the fly. The way committees proceeded throughout the summer, no members' assistants could participate in the Zoom meetings unless they were not in camera, and that only came partway through the summer.
I would need to do a bit more research on our technical capabilities and come back to the committee with an answer. I would not feel comfortable at this time saying, “Sure, that's fine.”
One thing I would like to clarify, though, with regard to a committee moving from a public sitting to an in camera meeting, is that it's not something we can do on the fly anymore. If the committee wishes to go in camera, we will have to suspend. We will have to actually create an entirely new Zoom meeting. It would be a completely different Zoom meeting. Members would be issued a new link, a new password, and then we would have to return in that fashion. Even if we want to switch over to in camera at lightspeed, we're looking at a 15-minute window, and that's moving really, really quickly. If we know in advance that part of a meeting is going to be in camera, we can trim that down a little bit, but even then 15 minutes is pretty much breakneck speed for switching from public to in camera.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
Okay.
I have four hands up. Do you all still want to talk?
Mr. Bagnell, do you want to speak again, or was your question answered?
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Madam Chair, my question was answered. It might be appropriate, then, to defer this to the next meeting while the clerk does his research on the technical stuff.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
With all due respect to the clerk, it's hard for me to understand how there could be a technical limitation that wouldn't apply to the in camera meetings. I think what we need to do, in the spirit of Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe's motion, is to say “under the same limitations as in in camera meetings”. If it works in in camera meetings to have one for each one, then it should work in our general meetings to have one staff member for each person and one for the whip's office, and there is no technical difference between those two.
I'm not sure whether you need a formal amendment, but all staff should be offered access under the same limitations as in an in camera meeting.
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Garrison just used an argument that I was going to use. I understand what the clerk said. It was thrust upon us and I am not blaming anyone. I made this motion in an effort to improve the situation and the spirit of debate.
Like my colleague Mr. Bagnell, I will look forward to hearing about it. We may get some technical clarifications at the next meeting and we will see. I believe everyone stands to gain if we change the way we do this.
4:05 p.m.
The Clerk
I would also insert that these are not just technical limitations. These are also the parameters that were agreed to by the whips of the various parties when they negotiated how these meetings would take place, and there is the House administration's ability to support the meetings.
I will get back to you at the next meeting with a concrete answer one way or another.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
Thank you very much, Mr. Clerk.
Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe, would you like a vote on your motion, or would you like to withdraw it and defer it to the next meeting, when we get a report back from the clerk?
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
We have a consensus. Let us wait for clarifications at the next meeting. We will talk about it again once we have the technical details.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
Okay.
Thank you very much.
Okay, so routine motion number eight is unamended, then. Is there any further discussion?
(Motion agreed to)
Thank you.
We will get an answer about the motion as time goes on. We're all just learning this. I am, as well. We'll need to have a bit of flexibility, and I appreciate your willingness to help here to keep this moving forward.
Okay, we have motion nine.