Evidence of meeting #1 for Official Languages in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was staff.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
In my riding office, obviously. It would have to be an MP's staff member.
9:20 a.m.
Bloc
Vivian Barbot Bloc Papineau, QC
Exactly.
It could be someone from the whip's office for instance. If you add the words “party”, you broaden the definition and we can invite these people.
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
We could specify “one staff person from the member's office or from his caucus.” The caucus is not the party as such. We need a researcher to accompany us and help us. So we should say “or caucus staff.”
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Luc Harvey Conservative Louis-Hébert, QC
We also discussed this issue at the finance committee. We discussed it for approximately 15 minutes and we came to the conclusion that it was the right wording. You are accompanied by the staff you need, whether it be party staff or not. I don't see why we would add anything else.
We should simply say “that each member be allowed to be accompanied.” You could be accompanied by whomsoever you choose, be it office staff or someone from your entourage, and that would be the case for in-camera meetings as well.
Anything we add will create limits and you will have to deal with them. If we state “party” and you want to bring an expert witness or someone else in who is not from your party, you will be limited. If we only use the word “staff” it is not a problem. It is as open as can be.
9:25 a.m.
Bloc
Vivian Barbot Bloc Papineau, QC
What we're concerned about is that by stating that it has to be a staff person, we may be prohibited from bringing along research staff, etc. That was the purpose of adding the word.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC
I would like to remind members that this does not apply to ordinary meetings. We're referring to in-camera meetings. At regular meetings, you could bring anyone you like. These regular meetings are public. We are discussing the few in-camera meetings which may take place during the session. It seems to me that we are nitpicking.
9:25 a.m.
Bloc
Paule Brunelle Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
When we have to vote on motions, we are pleased to have representatives from the whip's office with us. In that case, it would be party staff and not office staff.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
These people are necessarily members of our staff because the party is there to help you.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Luc Harvey Conservative Louis-Hébert, QC
If we indicate that only party staff can attend, we will limit ourselves. If we simply indicate that our staff can attend, we will be able to choose whom we want to bring with us.
9:25 a.m.
Bloc
Paule Brunelle Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
It seems that it is the opposite. If we say that it must be a staff member, we are afraid that it would be limited to our office staff or our assistants. But if we refer to party staff, it includes everyone.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC
I think there is a mistake here, Vivian. The whip's office or its staff do not represent the party. They are members of the party's caucus, but not of the party itself. Therefore, I do not mind it when people say they want staff from the whip's office to be present, but the wording cannot refer only to “the party”.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
I think that by adding the word “ party” or something else, it is limiting. In any case, as a Conservative member, if I invite someone to accompany me, I will not look for someone from Mr. D'Amours' office. It will be someone from my own staff. That way, it is not limiting. However, if we debate a motion, for instance, I might need the advice of a lawyer who is not necessarily a member of the Conservative Party, but who is an expert in a given field. I could take him with me for the day and he would be a member of my staff because he could advise us.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Jean-Claude D'Amours Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Mr. Chairman, we are straying from the motion. It is not true that we can bring whomever we want with us to in camera meetings of the committee, and it is not true that we can bring a lawyer who is not a staff member of our caucus or of our office. I understand what you are saying. The word “staff” refers to our office or caucus staff, but not people from the outside. I do not object at all to bringing members from our office or caucus staff, but this does not include people from the outside, otherwise, would it really be an in camera meeting?
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Jean-Claude D'Amours Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
I have no problem with the wording as it is: “to be accompanied by one staff person”. That person can be part of the office staff or of caucus staff.
9:30 a.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
The same wording is used in every committee. For instance, on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, the Bloc members had brought three staff members to an in camera meeting. We were studying a bill, and the Bloc had brought staff from the whip's office. There never was any question not to let them be present at a meeting.
This motion authorizes staff members to be present at in camera meetings. It has always been like that. We cannot open the meetings up to other people. That is important. After all, we are talking about in camera meetings. I would not want you to bring a member of your party to one of our in camera meetings. If that happens, it is not an in camera meeting anymore. We do not have any control on people from outside the House of Commons or on people who are not our employees. But we have to control these things. So when we refer to staff members, we are talking about people we have hired to work for our caucus or for our office. As far as I know, we have never forbidden these people to attend meetings when we study bills. At in camera meetings, we do not only discuss bills, but all kinds of other issues. Sometimes extremely sensitive matters are discussed in camera. We have had meetings where absolutely no information was allowed out of the room.
So I move that the motion be adopted as drafted.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
9:30 a.m.
Bloc
Vivian Barbot Bloc Papineau, QC
I agree. The confusion came from the fact that the previous version said: “by staff members”. The wording was changed before the motion was presented to the committee. I therefore withdraw my motion.
