Evidence of meeting #1 for Public Accounts in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
From three to four members—a one-word amendment. Okay, then.
Mr. Weston.
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
I'm hearing that the issues are a balancing of the political interests, making sure there's balance there; number two, making sure there's some reliable reporting going on; and number three, respect for the witnesses.
I've both a comment and a question. The comment is that it seems to me that 40% of the committee, as in four, makes a reasonable number. It's quite arbitrary, but it still seems a little more credible than three.
The question I have is that when this committee travels to gain evidence, it will make us more effective and streamlined if a smaller number can receive evidence. Is that not correct?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Yes and no. The first part of your submission is correct.
Historically, this committee has never travelled. There is nothing precluding us from travelling, but there's really no reason to bring us outside of Ottawa. In my eight years, and before that, I am not aware of it having travelled; it just doesn't travel as other committees do.
Ms. Ratansi.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I think that Mr. Shipley's increasing of the number to four members solves the problem. It is a fail-safe mechanism, and I hope we will be adult enough and not boycott meetings.
That's all we need to know.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
I would like to put the amendment to a vote. I think we've had a good discussion. You've heard the amendment. The amendment is simple, changing it from three to four.
(Amendment agreed to)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
The motion is quite clear. It's in front of you. I'm going to put the vote on the motion as amended.
(Motion as amended agreed to)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
The next item should be simpler: that the clerk of the committee be authorized to distribute to the members of the committee only documents that are available in both official languages.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
This next one is that the clerk of the committee be authorized to make the necessary arrangements to provide working meals for the committee and its subcommittees.
So moved by Mr. Kramp.
(Motion agreed to)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Witnesses expenses: that if requested, reasonable travel, accommodation, and living expenses be reimbursed to witnesses, not exceeding two representatives per organization; and that in exceptional circumstances, payment for more representatives be made at the discretion of the chair.
So moved by Christopherson.
(Motion agreed to)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
The next one is that, unless otherwise ordered, each committee member be allowed to be accompanied by one staff person at an in camera meeting.
That's an in camera meeting where we're discussing committee business like the reports. Everyone is entitled to bring one staff member.
So moved by—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Perhaps, we'll get it moved first.
It is moved by Ms. Ratansi.
And now your question.
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Is it the general practice, and perhaps the clerk can help us out...? When we called it in camera in the other committees that I was on, we didn't allow anyone to come in, because in camera was in camera. There had been times when leaks happened, and so we then stopped the staff from coming.
Has it been general practice that staff are not allowed in? I just want to know. If it is not general practice, then I'm fine with it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
The general practice of this committee—and perhaps Alex can correct me if I'm wrong—is that when we do have an in camera meeting, and most of our in camera meetings are to discuss committee business and to discuss reports, the staff are allowed in. And I'm not aware of any problems.
Is there any other discussion?
Mr. Christopherson.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I would like to make just a short amendment. There are some committees, Chair, that allow a representative from the whip's office of each party. I would put for consideration that we allow that too, because sometimes, especially in a case where I'm sending a substitute--maybe my assistant is with me--whoever is here is going to need the whip's office here to give advice. Otherwise it's going to slow the meeting down.
Some other committees are doing it. I would move an amendment that we would also be allowed a representative from each of the whip's offices.
Conservative
Daryl Kramp Conservative Prince Edward—Hastings, ON
I would ask to make a friendly amendment to Mr. Christopherson's.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
[Inaudible--Editor]...from a caucus office, the whip or the House leader, call it what you will.
Your point is well taken. How do you want to word that, though? Each of us can bring a staff support person plus the whip or the House leader or a caucus representative. Do you want to say one party staff representative?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
We're looking for some wording here. We can leave it the way it is and add one sentence: in addition, each party may have in attendance one official, or one representative. It's each party. It's one per staff, and then each of the four parties can have a representative.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Well, if we were in camera right now, then I would have my personal assistant, and Theresa Kavanagh would have the ability to come in from the whip's office. So that is exactly what we're looking for--only in camera and when there is more than one of you, you'd still have only one representative, so we're not doubling the number of staff who are in camera.
