Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 29th, 2013

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

I see.

Mr. Ravignat.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

I have absolutely nothing against honey. In my opinion, it is quite normal to add information to the rules, even if it is not necessarily perfected. It may happen, when there are technical information sessions, that the information is incomplete or still at the draft stage. I understand that that information might not be as useful to the public as it could be to parliamentarians. I of course share Mr. Angus's concerns, regarding the way in which this provision could be used in the future. I wonder whether it would not be preferable to decide which technical information sessions should be held in camera, and which could be public.

The idea is that there would not necessarily be exclusivity on this, and the committee would enjoy a certain flexibility in order to be able to make its decisions, and we could then give the Canadian population as well as journalists better access to these documents. We need to be able to use our judgment. We were elected with the expectation that we would use the head we have on our shoulders. I would agree to adding that, given that we could then call on the committee's judgment as well as that of our chair, without abusing this practice.

When I worked as a public servant, I sometimes provided information to officials and to ministers' offices. I can confirm that the quality and accuracy of that information sometimes varied. I recognize the effort made by my Liberal colleague who wants to add a provision that could satisfy everyone here. I thank him for his spirit of cooperation. It is pleasant to see that there can be cooperation around this table. My personal intent today was to see how it might be possible to draw up rules regarding the holding of in camera meetings that would be satisfactory, and to hold this important debate.

Mr. Andrews has just added a provision to the motion which is important, in my view. I am waiting to see what the government members think of it. I wonder if it meets their demands, and if it respects their desire to deal with certain matters in camera, or whether it meets their democratic instincts to some extent. Up till now, we have not had the opportunity to hear their point of view on this, but all is not lost. I think that a consensus is always possible. I am a person who likes to get up every morning with hope in his heart, and I hope that that is true about everyone around the table. I was not a member of this committee previously, but even if cooperation was sometimes difficult in your relationships and work here, that does not mean that it is impossible today to do things differently.

In that spirit of cooperation, and to extend cooperation to Mr. Angus, I am pleased to support the addition submitted by Mr. Andrews.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you, Mr. Ravignat.

Charmaine Borg, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

During my last intervention, I forgot to congratulate you on being elected chair. I would like to do so now and also welcome the new members to the committee.

Like my two NDP colleagues, I think it is a good idea to add the technical briefings to the list of reasons why it would be appropriate to sit in camera. We were able to work well together in the last session. We managed to address important issues. We tabled a report on privacy and social networks, important work that I think Canadians appreciated because it is something they are concerned about.

We were able to study the Conflict of Interest Act, which was very interesting and very necessary. We were able to work together to do good things, even though we sat in camera. I do not think we should be afraid of sharing the work we do with Canadians.

I remember the consensus that technical briefings need to be held in camera. You know, we can come to a consensus on things like this. However, we are finding that we are too often deciding to sit in camera simply so people won't know we voted against something worthwhile. Asking to sit in camera has become automatic for government members.

When my colleague Mr. Andrews spoke about one technical briefing in particular, I believe it had to do with the Conflict of Interest Act, a very complex piece of legislation. I think about 100 amendments were suggested by the various witnesses. It is a good think we were able to meet in camera to ask the commissioner questions in order to get some clarification because it was very complicated. However, we had a consensus on that. We were willing to work together.

I honestly hope that we—and this includes our new members and our new chair—can continue to work together in a more transparent way. That is what we are talking about today. The purpose of this motion is to move forward and continue to work together transparently. As I said, we should not be ashamed of what we are doing here. No, we should be very proud of it.

The amendment that my colleague proposed raises some concerns. Will there be abuse or not? I do not know, but I believe we will be able to work together, that there will be a consensus and that, when something very complex comes up and we will need to ask sometimes embarrassing questions, we will be able to proceed that way.

I would like to take this opportunity to respond to Mr. Gourde, who said that he would not support this motion because each committee should have the right to decide on its own how it will operate. What are we doing today? We are deciding how we will operate. By passing this motion, we can decide that our committee, which deals with ethics, will be transparent and that every meeting will not systematically take place in camera. If we want to decide on how we are going to operate, today is the day to do it. I invite Mr. Gourde to move forward with that in mind and to decide that the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics will operate transparently.

I reiterate my support for this motion. Adding technical briefings is a good idea, and we can include it in our motion, no problem. It respects the desire to work together, to move forward, to do good work and to share it with the public without systematically sitting in camera.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you very much, Charmaine.

Mr. Paul Calandra.

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

Briefly, I would like to thank Mr. Andrews for highlighting the problem with this motion. We've been debating it for about half an hour and already we've started to add things to the list. It highlights why the committees are in charge of their own destiny. As Mr. Gourde said, we will decide on a case-by-case basis what needs to go in camera. From what I understand, this committee has been pretty successful doing that in the past. I think we can be successful again going forward.

In the interest of making sure that we don't make mistakes, as Mr. Andrews highlighted, we'll certainly be voting against the amendment, because the amendment highlights why the main motion would pose a problem for this committee and other committees.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Seeing no further speakers, before we proceed I'll ask for clarification, just so we know what we're voting on.

Could I ask the mover of the motion.... Well, we'll be dealing with the amendment first, but the last sentence of the motion, Mr. Angus, states, “That all votes taken in camera be recorded in the Minutes of Proceedings, including how each member voted when recorded votes are requested.” Would you be saying that those results of votes taken in camera be made public?

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

Yes.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

So even if the committee is in camera, it's your position that the vote itself.... It would be only the debate that would be—

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

The debate would be in camera, but—

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

You're suggesting that the ultimate vote should be made public, even in an in camera meeting.

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

That would be the level of transparency and accountability. The public would then know that whatever was said was said. We are tasked with taking positions and to hide from that task is certainly an abrogation of our fundamental responsibilities. We certainly believe that if we're in camera and we're discussing sensitive issues, but if we're asked to vote on something, then the public should know how we voted. As they say in the good book, let their yes mean yes and their no mean no.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Very good. Thank you for that clarification, Mr. Angus.

Seeing as there are no further speakers, we'll deal with the amendment.

All those in favour of the amendment as put forward by Mr. Andrews?

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

A recorded vote, please.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

It's a recorded vote. We'll ask the clerk to deal with it that way.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

On the main motion, we'll be dealing with that accordingly.

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

A recorded vote, please.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

It will be a recorded vote again.

(Motion negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Proceeding with the items of business under routine motions, we have, as circulated by the clerk, a list of the recommended routine motions for the consideration of the committee. As Mr. Gourde pointed out, we're free to amend those in any way we see fit.

Mr. Calandra.

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

Mr. Chair, I do have a couple of things I wanted to put on at the table, but I know that our researchers are waiting. Before I get to mine, could we pass a motion that we invite the researchers? Is that okay, or is that completely out of order?

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Mr. Calandra, it's one of the routine motions. In fact, it's the first one, so it might be in order to deal with that first paragraph first, and then the analysts can join us at the table instead of hovering at the back and getting tired from standing, I would think.

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

Yes, I imagine so. I'm not sure how we do that, but just on that part, I would move that we invite the analysts to join us.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Let's deal with it in the language you see in the routine motions.

Mr. Calandra moves that the committee retain, as needed and at the discretion of the chair, the services of one or more analysts from the Library of Parliament to assist in its work.

(Motion agreed to)

Welcome to the table our wonderful analysts from the Library of Parliament.

[A voice]

It's nice to be here.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

I hope you're still getting paid.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Yes, I hope you were on the meter even while you were standing back there. I would hate to think you weren't.

Would you like to introduce yourselves?

[Dara Lithwick, Committee Researcher]

Bonjour. My name is Dara Lithwick. I'm one of the analysts here at the Library of Parliament and I've been with this committee since the fall of 2009. I very much look forward to working with you.

Both I and my colleague, Maxime-Olivier, who will introduce himself, are available as usual on the subject matter of this government area. If you or your staff at any point in time wish to have staff or information briefings and that sort of thing as well, we are always available.

Thank you.