Evidence of meeting #2 for Official Languages in the 41st Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was meeting.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Members are talking about a waste of time, but I just want to point out that I am paid on an annual basis. So it will not cost the government more if we clarify certain matters today. I don't think that it's a waste of time. There is a motion on the table, and we are free to adopt it or not.
I have to say that we did not know that anyone could consult the transcripts.
Conservative
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
There you have it. Since that is the case, we should be able to adopt the subamendment in order to clarify this aspect for everyone. That's all we were saying. I hope that no one will object.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Okay.
On the subamendment, is there any further debate?
Seeing none, I'll call the question on the subamendment.
(Subamendment negatived)
We're back to the amendment.
Just to refresh everybody's memory, the amendment is
to add the following: “or by one of their staff members authorized by the Committee member”.
Is there any debate on the amendment?
Seeing none, I'll call the question.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC
I just wanted to know where we are at. The subamendment has been passed. We are now....
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC
So we are now dealing with the original version. Correct?
Conservative
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC
You should reread it, so that it is clear.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
The amendment aims to add the following: “or by one of their staff members authorized by the Committee member“.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC
I would like to withdraw my amendment, Mr. Chair.
We are talking about my amendment, right? I'm no longer sure where we are at.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
No, we are talking about Mr. Godin's amendment.
You defeated your own subamendment. We're now back to the amendment as proposed by Monsieur Godin. We're now on the amendment as proposed by Monsieur Godin, which would add to your motion that you originally presented the phrase “or a member of their staff authorized by the member”, which is current practice but is not explicit in the routine motion that was adopted in the first session.
Monsieur Godin.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Chair, if this is common practice and the government agrees, there is no problem.
Mr. Gourde, if this is common practice, do you still object?
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC
Frankly, I'm starting to think that this is a problem. I think that Ms. St-Denis was right. I never dared to send a member of my staff to the clerk in order to consult the transcript. I didn't even know this could be done; I thought that it was not allowed.
A Pandora's box has been opened, and we need to think about this. I personally think that Ms. St-Denis is right. We should not change the procedure. We should go see the clerk ourselves to consult the transcripts of in camera meetings.
It was a good idea to say that this was an accepted practice. That helped clarify things regarding a practice we in this committee were not familiar with. I'm no longer sure.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Is there any further debate on the amendment?
Seeing no further debate on the amendment, I will call the question.
(Amendment negatived)
We're now back to the main motion moved by Mr. Gourde.
Is there any debate on the motion?
The motion reads:
That one copy of the transcript of each in camera meeting be kept in the Committee Clerk's office for consultation by members of the Committee.
If this motion is adopted, the chair will use past practice to guide our interpretation of this motion, which is if a staff of a member wishes to see the transcript and that staff member has express authorization from the member, the clerk will allow that staff member to see the transcript.
Is there any debate on the motion?
Mr. Benskin, go ahead.
NDP
Tyrone Benskin NDP Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
I'm sorry but I'm slightly confused at this point. Maybe my blood sugar is low or something. I'm type II diabetic and I'm on new meds and so forth, so maybe it's the blood sugar sort of going weird, but I thought we just voted on that and defeated that, did we not?
NDP
Tyrone Benskin NDP Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
The practice, unbeknownst to many of us in this room, has been that we could send an authorized member of our personnel to go see the transcript. This has been the practice.
The amendment we just voted on basically put that on paper. We just defeated it. The fear that Mr. Gourde put forward of other people having access to this, this amendment now comes into play if we're going to go back to past practice.
I'm confused.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Is there any further debate on the motion in front of the committee?
Mr. Gourde, go ahead.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC
We have discussed many things. The motion reads as follows:
That one copy of the transcript of each in camera meeting be kept in the Committee Clerk's office for consultation by members of the Committee.
As drafted, the motion does not allow our assistants to consult those transcripts. In practice, this may have been allowed, but I would have never thought so. This issue should really be cleared up.
Does this kind of a motion allow that procedure in all committees? We need to think about this. We could perhaps set this issue aside and think about it in our own corner.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Okay, I will consult the clerk, who will consult his colleagues in order to answer your question.
I will ask the clerk to consult, to double-check what the practice is if and when this motion is adopted. I will ask the clerk to remind me to confirm at the next meeting what the interpretation of this routine motion is if it's adopted.
Is there any further debate on this routine motion in front of us?
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC
Did we adopt the last motion, Mr. Chair? It's the one that states that 48 hours' notice is required for any substantive motion to be considered by the committee. It seems to me that we did not.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
No, we have not adopted the motion regarding notice of motions. We're still on the motion regarding transcripts of in camera meetings.
Is there any further debate on the motion in front of us?
Mr. Nicholls, go ahead.