Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 29th, 2013

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

We'll call this meeting to order.

Welcome to the committee.

Charlie Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Yes, Mr. Chair, I feel a little remiss in regard to my duty last time. When you were elected chair, we didn't get an official chance to congratulate you. We're looking forward to working with you. We have a very good committee here, and we work on all matter of things. I'm looking forward to working with you as chair. I'm glad to see you at our committee. You probably know this file better than any of us.

I would like to suggest that we move forward in a collegial attitude. I think one of the key issues will be how we deal with the in camera issue. I would like to move a motion regarding the rules for meeting in camera, which we should be debating here.

I was on a school board. Some people come from municipal boards, school boards, or municipalities. We have very clear rules in regard to in camera in all manner of things except, it seems, the House of Commons. Even in the dodgy old Senate they actually have rules for meeting in camera that are superior to ours, and I'm saying as an elected member of Parliament that I am rather shocked, a little let down, and perhaps a little embarrassed by that.

I would like to move the following motion:

That the Committee may meet in camera only for the purpose of discussing:

(a) wages, salaries and other employee benefits;

(b) contracts and contract negotiations;

(c) labour relations and personnel matters;

(d) a draft report;

(e) briefings concerning national security; and

That all votes taken in camera be recorded in the Minutes of Proceedings, including how each member voted when recorded votes are requested.

I think you'll find that this is basic for democratic accountability. Certainly, I have heard you in the past, Mr. Chair, say about openness and transparency are the lifeblood, the oxygen, of democracy. As a student of that, I think this would be a good way. I just want to go through it.

Certainly, it's a standard when you're dealing with municipalities, provincial.... Even on the issue of wages, salaries, and employee benefits, certainly, that has to be done in camera out of respect for the employees in question. Certainly, for issues of contracts or contract negotiations, that's obviously something you would want to deal with in camera. If you're dealing with personnel matters, or labour relations, or issues about someone, we would have to actually walk through this and try to figure out a way to deal with someone's reputation, perhaps, and we would want to go in camera as colleagues to discuss it.

On the work of our draft reports, it's very important that we be able to speak freely to each other within the form of a draft report so we can actually make sure that we come to the best conclusion. Sometimes that's better done in camera. We've never had a practice, as far as I can recall, of doing that in public for the work of all parliamentarians.

Obviously, on the issue of anything to do with a sensitive briefing, for example, national security, we would certainly, as parliamentarians, go in camera.

I think the issue of making sure that in the Minutes of Proceedings the votes are recorded is important, because what happens is that we're seeing the suppression of discussion. A motion comes before committee, then we go in camera, and then the public never knows who supported and who opposed the motion. I think that's very, very problematic, because what ends up happening is the actual privileges of the members, I believe, are interfered with when you go in and you have a very clear position on how you want to vote for something but you're not allowed to tell people how you voted. If your vote is defeated or the other...you are left giving the public the impression that perhaps you supported a vote you were opposed to, or that you opposed a vote you think is important. On the issue of how we are recorded, even if we are in camera and have an in camera discussion, the recording of the vote and releasing that publicly I think allows a little amount of transparency for the public in understanding how their committee is working.

Also, Mr. Chair, no committee I think is more important for accountability and transparency than the ethics and accountability committee. We're charged with the issue of ensuring fair, open, and accessible government. It seems to me that if we run a secretive, paranoid club where every time there's an issue that comes before a committee we go in camera and the public never knows what we're doing, then obviously this is not much of an ethics committee at all. It would be a rubber-stamp committee, so we perhaps would be compelled to change the name of the committee.

If we are going to be the committee that deals with the four officers of Parliament—the lobbying commissioner, the ethics commissioner, the privacy commissioner, and the access to information commissioner, who's coming before our committee on the issues of the accountability of government, and particularly on the issues of transparency—then I think this motion on where we meet in camera is a very reasonable one.

I certainly am open to debating it with my colleagues right now, and I'll put forward the motion.

Thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

I'm going to consult with the clerk to see that a motion is in order before we've even adopted any rules of the committee.

The clerk advises that seeing as the first item of business was in fact routine motions, and that this would be an amendment to our routine motions, it is in order.

We have a speakers list that's developed here. For debate on the motion, the next speaker would be Charmaine Borg.

Is there anyone else?

Mr. Gourde?

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

I should be on the list.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Yes, you are.

Mr. Gourde, are you asking to be on the list?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

No, I'm sorry. The order of speakers is Charmaine Borg, Mathieu Ravignat, and then you.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

This motion is really important. Indeed, this government uses in camera hearings on a regular basis to hide the work we do in committee. However, we should be proud of that work. We raise really important topics. This committee studies ethics in all areas. At this time, there are several ethical issues at the House of Commons and in the Senate. For our part, we are not studying the issues that relate to the Senate. In my opinion, Canadians are increasingly concerned by ethical matters. If we cannot hold these debates, submit motions and ideas in full view of the public, we will not be supporting Canadians.

Moreover, it happens from time to time that closed proceedings are called for to prevent the result of a vote from becoming known. To me, this is a very important matter. My fellow citizens elected me for a reason, that is to allow me to vote in a way that represents them 100%. So, if they do not know how I vote, how can they know whether or not I represent them well? It is our duty when we vote to express an opinion that represents our fellow citizens. However, if it is neither recorded nor published, how are they supposed to know if we represent them and if we are doing our work? All too often, members are hiding behind closed doors because they are putting forward a position that is not in keeping with that of the citizens we represent. We should not be acting in this way. The NDP is going to see to it that we no longer abuse closed proceedings. And that is the intent of this motion.

In addition, Mr. Chair, motions are often introduced to have us work in camera when that is not appropriate. We should only do so for the reasons listed in this motion. If we were doing what the Standing Orders intended right from the outset, we would only work in camera for the purpose of discussing wages and other employee benefits, contracts and contract negotiations, labour relations and personnel matters, as well as documents related to national security.

Mr. Chair, our committee deals with access to information, privacy and ethics. We do not deal with matters of national security, or only very rarely. I don't think it is appropriate that our committee or several others, in particular the Environment Committee and the Human Resources Committee, work in camera because the Conservatives do not want people to know that they voted against transparency or other issues. If they are proud of their position and really think that they represent their fellow citizens well, they should not be hiding how they vote or avoiding public debate on motions we introduce or on those they present. Everything should be transparent and accessible to all. That is a fundamental principle here in the House of Commons. The transparency principle should absolutely be respected. It is really the basis of everything we do here.

The motion my colleague Mr. Angus presented is in keeping with what was required in the past. I insist that all of the members of this committee support this motion, which really constitutes a basis for transparency. We owe that to our fellow citizens who elected us and whom we proudly represent.

I will close on this Mr. Chair, and reiterate my support for this crucial motion. I will also ask all of the other members of the committee to proudly support this motion, which aims to further transparency. Thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you, Ms. Borg.

Just to be clear, do the members on the government side have a copy of this motion? It's a little unfair that it's being debated without the advantage of seeing it.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

No, we don't have a copy of the motion.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Perhaps we could circulate it if there are going to be more speakers on the topic. Is it possible to have that photocopied and circulated?

In the meantime the speakers list has Mathieu Ravignat and then Jacques Gourde.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I too would like to congratulate you, since I did not have the opportunity to do so at our last meeting. I am delighted that you were elected and to know that we will continue to work together. Now that this committee has been struck, I also want to greet all of my colleagues around the table. I look forward to working with you.

I believe parliamentary work really takes place in committee. The House is important, of course, but committees are essential to analyze legislation and hear witnesses. A parliamentary committee is also a privileged space that allows us to have contact with the public. It is one of the rare opportunities we have to consult people from the outside, whether they be experts, stakeholders or ordinary citizens from all sorts of communities in Canada. For instance, the Kitigan Zibi chief, Mr. Whiteduck, has often been asked to appear before committees. The people of my riding know that committees are a link between Parliament and the Canadian population.

When my constituents chose to vote for a member of the NDP, they clearly voted for change. I don't know if my colleagues know this, but the riding of Pontiac is one of the oldest ridings in the country. It was there from the inception of Confederation and has not changed all that much. Since Confederation, my fellow citizens voted for Liberal candidates or Conservative ones. In 2011, they chose to do something historic by voting for the NDP. One of the reasons why they chose our party was that our platform talked about transparency and a new, real democracy in Canada.

Dear colleagues, you know as well as I do that in our country there is incredible cynicism with regard to politics. According to polls that are taken every year, politicians are at the bottom of the list, after used cars salespeople. That opinion on politics is shared by several people in my riding,

present company excluded and excused.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Patricia and John; we're waiting on the rest.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

I come back to what I was saying. We can feed that cynicism, or we can cure it. In choosing to feed it, we are not helping parliamentarians, nor are we helping the Canadian population.

I decided to get into politics after the birth of my two young daughters in order to change this country for the better. I am sure that some of my colleagues on the other side made the same choice. They wanted a more transparent Parliament, that would be closer to the population and reflect Canadian democratic values.

Like my colleague Mr. Angus, I was particularly disappointed when I became a member of Parliament to see that the general practice of this government was to do things in camera and to keep things hidden. That practice helps no one. Journalists are frustrated that they do not have access to information.

I should add here that I find it particularly ironic that the access to information committee systematically holds its meetings in camera. That is really not funny. It's a matter of legitimacy, and to create that legitimacy and inspire trust in the Canadian population, we have to have some very clear rules. If we told Canadians that there is a rule and that we are going to apply it, most of them would understand that way of doing things. The problem is that we have breached all of the rules and broken all of the conventions. In a British parliamentary system, a convention is as important as a rule; we agree on that. Canada is not a republic, but a British constitutional monarchy, with traditions and conventions we should be respecting. I expected the Conservative Party to respect those traditions and conventions, but we may not be talking about the same type of conservatism.

Mr. Angus's motion aims to add entirely appropriate details to the routine motion. The working relationships with the personnel and the operations of Parliament must remain confidential, which is entirely normal. By the same token, we would not expect collective bargaining to be completely public. These discussions have to be held be behind closed doors.

In that spirit, this motion is very explicit. It refers to wages and other employee benefits, contracts and contract negotiations, labour relations and personal matters, and the reports or matters that require confidentiality. All of that is reasonable. What is not is to hide certain debates and certain information that must be accessible to the public and to journalists by presenting motions requiring in camera meetings.

Allow me to add that those motions are not debatable, which is even more unfair. The Canadian population cannot know why members want us to go in camera or why we don't want to. We remove all access to information. The in camera motions are being used as a gag and abused. I am against this abuse. It is unhealthy for our democracy, for the legitimacy of our parliamentary institutions, as well as for the vision and opinion that the average citizen has of politicians and parliamentarians.

I must add that the scandals are adding to the cynicism. I am talking about the Senate scandal and all of the scandals related to the expenses, secret cheques and hidden tactics to get people to keep quiet. As we are about to begin our work anew, we have here a golden opportunity. We, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, really have a golden opportunity to send the Canadian public and our fellow citizens the message that we believe in our institutions, in the role of the committee, in its importance in our democracy and the importance of the contact with citizens it provides. We really have a golden opportunity, and I hope that my colleagues from all parties, in particular those of the government party, will seize this opportunity and find in themselves their democratic essence. When I look at my colleagues' faces, I know that they are democrats, but I know that some people, I don't know which ones, are asking them to systematically hold our hearings in camera. I am asking them to make a different decision and support this motion.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you, Mr. Ravignat.

Next is Mr. Jacques Gourde.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank my colleagues for their arguments, but I can tell you that for my part, I will be voting against this motion, for the simple reason that all of the committees always have the freedom to choose the way in which they operate. It is up to each committee to choose how it wants to function. This motion would diminish the fundamental privilege of all committees, in my opinion, to choose the manner in which they work. That is quite simply the reason, Mr. Chair. I am going to vote against the motion because I want us to keep our freedom to choose the way in which we operate.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you, Monsieur Gourde.

Are there any other speakers?

Scott Andrews.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and congratulations on becoming the chair of this committee.

I support the motion, but it's unfortunate that the NDP have taken the tack they have in making this such a partisan motion. That's one of the problems with this committee. It is politically charged. This committee has been politically charged over the years, hence the reason we have gone in camera so often.

There's a saying that you attract more with honey than you do with vinegar. This is an opportunity. We have new players and some returning faces around the committee table, as well as the motion itself, and I do think this could be a goodwill gesture for how this committee operates.

One thing I'd like to see added to the motion, or given some consideration, is technical briefings. I can remember one time in the last year when we had a very good in camera session with a technical briefing by one of our commissioners. We were studying one of our reports and we could go in camera and speak freely and ask sometimes stupid questions, because we didn't want to ask stupid questions in public meetings. That was actually a very good example of how in camera meetings work. I thought that was a very good opportunity.

We should look at adding such technical briefings at which we can dive into some of the nitty-gritty in a piece of legislation in such a non-partisan manner.

In closing, I'll be voting yes to this motion. I cannot vote no to secrecy any more.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Mr. Andrews, did I understand you to mean you wanted to move an amendment to the motion? Are you moving an amendment to add technical briefings to the list that Mr. Angus has proposed?

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

If that would be acceptable to Mr. Angus—

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

It would certainly be in order. We don't recognize friendly amendments as such. It would have to be dealt with as a separate matter.

Mr. Andrews has moved an amendment to include, I suppose, technical briefings from departmental officials. Is that acceptable language? It won't be departmental officials so much in this committee, because we don't really have a government department to report to. Let's just leave it as “technical briefings”.

The debate would be on the amendment. Are there speakers on the amendment?

Mr. Angus is on the list, as are Mr. Ravignat and Charmaine Borg. Is there anybody else?

On the amendment, go ahead, Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you. I appreciate my colleague's intervention. There's certainly no vinegar over here this morning; we're all honey.

I'm surprised we had overlooked the issue of technical briefings. I thank my colleague for examining that, because I look at the way our committee has worked. Certainly some of the reviews we've done have been extremely technical, and it's incumbent upon all of us to really know the file. Sometimes that's difficult when we are in the issues of the traditional cross-examination. It's the issue of trust we're talking about, how a committee works. Certainly, there has been a lack of trust regarding the issue of meeting in camera because when it's overused, it makes people feel that it's being abused, and then people become defensive.

Towards the end of last spring our committee was starting to work fairly well together. We could actually sit down and say there were issues we all probably needed to delve into more deeply. We would agree to sit down and go through an issue. One time we had technical people come before us. Sometimes even among ourselves we feel there's maybe something we're not hitting accurately. I think it's well worth adding technical briefings. We're not trying to tie the hands of our committee here. We're just trying to make sure we have basic rules of accountability so that anyone from the public who's looking will say that this is a committee that is meeting the criteria of accountable democratic processes.

I was on a very small rural school board, the Northeastern Catholic District School Board. We had many rules that seemed to be much stricter than those existing in Parliament. I find that shocking. We had only 13 schools from Cochrane down to Cobalt. There was little St. Pat's in Cobalt which I represented. We had really clear rules. When you come here it sometimes seems to be a little bit of a wild west situation. The rules are whatever the majority makes. That's not really accountability. I'm sure my colleagues in all parties would agree.

I'm worried about how we would interpret the term “technical briefings”. We get technical briefings that deserve to be in public. Certainly, when departmental staff come, when a minister's staff comes, those are technical briefings.

For the goodwill of the committee we would be willing to accept this amended motion within the spirit in which we all understand it. This is about our sometimes being able to dig deeper as a committee working together to make sure we fully understand an issue before we come back on a report, because it is about our ability to do due diligence. I'm certainly trusting that my colleagues on the government side wouldn't be using the words “technical briefing” to allow for all manner of in camera work that wouldn't be in the spirit of this.

So, in the spirit of the honey with which it was given, I will add it to the tea we're making here this morning and offer everyone to have a cup of kindness.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

It's the Scottish in me.