Official Languages Committee on Nov. 4th, 2013

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

The motion uses the words “one of his or her staff“. According to your amendment, we have to find out if that staff member is paid from the same budget as the member of Parliament or not. It discriminates against members of Parliament who have people on their staff paid by a department. That needs to be clarified.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you.

Mr. Godin, you have the floor.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

We drafted the amendment to read “one staff person from the party”. A person who works for the minister is automatically a staff member from the party, because the minister is a member of that party as well. But if you say that it has to be a member of the staff of a member of Parliament who works here, that person would be excluded because they do not work for the parliamentary secretary, but for the minister. There is a difference between a member of the minister's staff and a member of the parliamentary secretary's staff. This is because that person is not paid by the parliamentary secretary's budget, but by the minister's budget.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Excuse me, Mr. Chair. but a parliamentary secretary's assistant is tied to the parliamentary secretary. He or she accompanies the parliamentary secretary at work.

I agree that they are part of the governing party, but when it happens under circumstances like these, you are going to say that he or she is not paid from the parliamentary secretary's budget and that he or she has no business here. That is just playing with words.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Go ahead, Mr. Godin.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Chair, we could look at the transcripts. I am sure that, if the same thing happens, he could say that the person is not working for him, but for the minister, and was sent by the minister. That actually happened: the person in question did not work for you, but for the minister.

The way we have drafted it does not say the opposite; it gives you the option. We want that in the motion so that it is clear and so that we do not start getting bogged down again if the situation comes up in a month or two. I do not think you would be opposed if we brought a member of our party staff with us.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

No, no. The staff member—

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Instead of saying a staff person from the office of the whip—

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

So who pays people on your party's staff?

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Through the chair, please.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Chair, could you ask my colleague opposite that question? He is talking about a member of staff paid by his party. Basically, he is saying that he would be fine with someone paid by the New Democratic Party attending an in camera meeting, rather than someone paid by a member of Parliament on this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Gourde.

Go ahead, Mr. Godin.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

I was not talking about a staff member paid by a political party, but by a member of the party staff. That is not the same thing. Staff members are paid by the House. It could be a researcher, for example. The same applies to you. But if you say that it has to be a staff person from the office of the whip, and a researcher comes anyway, that will not work because researchers do not work for that office.

When one of the minister's staff was going to come, we felt that we could call on someone too. The motion specifies that a member of party staff, Conservative, NDP or Liberal, can help us in our work. They cannot ask questions and they have no right to speak, but they come with us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Godin.

Ms. St-Denis, you have the floor.

[Lise St-Denis, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

For us, it could be someone from the whip's office, but it could also be someone from our leader's office, or a researcher, for that matter. We have no interest in preventing an assistant or employee from coming to a committee meeting. But we are interested in keeping the door open a little, specifically to replace a staff person from the office of the whip with someone else with a role to play and who wants to come to a meeting. This does not seem very complicated to me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Ms. St-Denis.

Mr. Gourde, the floor is yours.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

I agree with Ms. St-Denis. Actually, the motion says “unless otherwise ordered”. That means that, if someone's presence at a meeting raises concerns, we could decide if the person can attend the meeting with a vote. We could talk about it for ever, but the basic motion is enough if someone were to wonder whether it was appropriate for a person to be at a meeting. The question has already come up for interns. Sometimes we agree to their being present, but not always. It has happened previously in other committees, but I am not sure about this one.

The words “unless otherwise ordered” gives us all the flexibility we need to start a discussion and to ask committee members if they agree to the people with us being here.

Personally, I would leave the motion as it is.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you.

Mr. Nicholls, you have the floor.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Chair, the intent of the amendment is to improve the efficiency in the future and to avoid those debates that might happen if someone other than what is recorded here is present. It will increase the efficiency of the committee and the work of the committee, because we won't have to have the debate over who this person is and who they are paid by. We're taking that out of the way right now. It's going to clear up future business, so I think it should pass.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Okay, if there's no debate, I'll call the question on the amendment.

The amendment is to replace “from the office of the Whip of each party” to “from his or her party”.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Just before the vote—

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Yes.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Gourde says that it is not a problem, given the phrase “unless otherwise ordered”. But we have to comply with what the motion indicates. It must be a member of a member's staff or a member of the staff of the office of the whip. So researchers are out.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

We can include researchers, we can include members of the staff of a parliamentary secretary to a minister, we can include anyone we want to have with us.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

But if we are talking about a member—