Evidence of meeting #2 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendments.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Clerk of the Committee  Mr. Marc-Olivier Girard

3:30 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault

Good afternoon, everyone. We will now begin our second meeting.

The first item on the agenda is committee business—so routine motions—followed by the planning of our future agenda.

We will go to routine motions right away.

Mr. Martin, do you want to take the floor?

3:30 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Chair, I wanted to ask for the floor briefly to properly congratulate you and welcome you to the new role of chairman that you've assumed for government operations.

I had the honour of chairing this committee for a couple of years and found it to be one of the more well-functioning and congenial committees that I can remember sitting on. There's some continuity on the government-side members as well here. I think they can attest that we were quite proud of not only the tone and the conduct of the committee, but also some of the quality work that we managed to produce in that time.

So it's in that spirit, Mr. Chair, that while I have the floor I have a motion to suggest under the heading of routine motions that would facilitate that type of tone for the committee as we go forward.

If you don't mind, I'll read the motion to you. I can then submit a copy to you to circulate to the other committee members. The motion is:

That the Committee may meet in camera only for the purpose of discussing: a) wages, salaries or other employee benefits; b) contracts and contract negotiations; c) labour relations and personnel matters; d) draft reports; e) briefings concerning national security; and That all votes taken in camera should be recorded in the Minutes of Proceedings, including how each member voted when recorded votes are requested.

If you find that motion in order, Mr. Chair, and as we're under routine motions, I would like the opportunity to speak to the motion to explain some of the rationale.

3:30 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault

I think the motion is in order. However, you need to choose where in the order of routine motions you want to insert it—perhaps at the end, or at the beginning. But we can make that decision later.

For the time being, since the motion is in order, we can move on to the debate.

My understanding was that you wanted to take the floor. So go ahead.

3:30 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Yes, I would, simply to introduce the debate, Mr. Chairman. As you say, it's irrelevant to me where in the order of routine motions this would find itself, should it succeed.

The reason I felt compelled to introduce this motion today, Mr. Chairman, is that it has come to my attention, through careful observation over the last three or four years, that there's been a gradual diminishing and deterioration of the conventional ways in which we've conducted ourselves, both in the House and in committee.

Notwithstanding what happens in the House of Commons, House of Commons standing committees were for a long time maybe the last bastion of some semblance of inter-party, non-partisan cooperation. Members of Parliament left their political baggage at the door, if you will, when they came into a parliamentary committee and we conducted ourselves in such a way that we were acting in the best interests of the country and in the best interests of making the best legislation that we possibly could.

That notion finds its origins in the premise that no one has a monopoly on good ideas. All of us, as members of Parliament, whether we're on government side or on opposition side, have a contribution to make on behalf of the people we represent, and that many bills that come before the House of Commons benefit not only from robust analysis and debate in the House of Commons, but also benefit from the amendments made at parliamentary committees. In fact, you could even point out, and it's worth putting on the record, that the opposition members in this particular Parliament represent more Canadians than the government side represents. We represent the majority of Canadians, if you will, in that the majority government, as legitimate as it is, won with 39% of the vote.

It's offensive to the sensibilities of anyone who calls themselves a democrat to deny the opportunity for those of us who represent Canadians who did not vote for the Conservative government, and by extension did not give a mandate to a certain legislative agenda to the Conservative government, to have their legitimate concerns heard and, in fact, debated and voted on in public—not in camera, in public.

I've been here for 16 years. I was a member of Parliament during Liberal majority governments. I was a member of Parliament during Liberal minority governments. I was here during a Conservative minority government. And now I represent my constituency here in a Conservative majority government. I can tell you, it was never this way.

I don't want ordinary Canadians to think this is the new normal, that parliamentary committees go slamming behind the shroud of secrecy every time anything of any controversy comes up and, in fact, not even when anything controversial comes up. Whenever it's convenient for the government side to go behind closed doors, they invoke the in camera rule which, as you know as an experienced chairman, Mr. Chairman, is non-debatable. As soon as a member on the other side doesn't like the tone or doesn't like the content of what's being said by a member on the opposition side, they get the floor, they move the in camera rule, everyone has to leave the room, the cameras get turned off, and whatever else happens is done in complete secrecy.

There's simply no justification for secrecy to be the default position of a standing committee of the House of Commons, yet that's become gradually, incrementally, the norm. I won't say the accepted norm, because those of us on this side of the benches do not accept it as desirable or normal. In fact, we will do all we can to try and turn this back to the way it used to be, to the more conservative approach where openness is the default position, not secrecy.

Mr. Chairman, it's more in sadness than in anger that I have to move this motion today.

In my tenure as a member of Parliament, and remembering back to those times when it was a Liberal majority government—and I'm not trying to blow any smoke up the kilt of the Liberals here—I'm just saying that I used to be the lone member, the lone NDP member, sitting where Gerry is sitting now. I would sometimes—not always, and maybe not often—but sometimes I would move an amendment to a piece of legislation, and if that amendment had merits, and I could defend the idea, it would succeed. But I think you're aware that not a single amendment to a single piece of legislation has been allowed in the entire 41st Parliament. Not one.

Is it possible that one party has a monopoly on everything that's good and true, and the rest of us, who represent the majority of Canadians, don't have a single idea of any merit whatsoever? I don't think anyone here would try to maintain that position. Why, then, is it impossible to get an amendment through and why, then, does every debate and every issue of any substance have to go behind closed doors?

Now I may, in fact, add one thing to this motion that I recommended here today, if that would be in order. I may wait until others have spoken. There's an argument for allowing one more category where I believe it would be justifiable to go in camera, and that would be for technical briefings.

There are times when this committee or others invite Treasury Board Secretariat officials to give us an explanation or to have a Q and A, if you will, for committee members. Nobody wants to look dumb on television, so we should be free to ask the simplest of questions. For that example of Treasury Board officials, perhaps it would be justified to go in camera when we have one of these tutorials, one of these educational sessions with officials from Treasury Board or any of the agencies or institutions that report to this committee. I'd certainly entertain that as a friendly amendment or be inclined to argue the same point myself.

But you can see the purpose of my intervention here today, Mr. Chairman. Things have changed very dramatically since the Conservatives won their majority government. Never, never before in the history of Parliament have we seen omnibus bills, for instance, used the way they are today. It used to be that when there was a piece of legislation that had consequential impact on other pieces of legislation, you'd cluster those together into one bill. Essentially, it was the same point you were trying to make, it was just spread over a number of different departmental jurisdictions. That was the accepted usage that you'd find in the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, whether it's O'Brien and Bosc or Marleau or going back throughout the years. Now we have omnibus bills that include everything and the kitchen sink thrown all together, with no opportunity to give a thorough, robust analysis, due diligence, or debate on any one of the important things that come up in there, and then they'll move closure.

Again, I don't want anybody in Canada to ever think that it's normal. That is not normal. It's an affront to everything good and decent about our Westminster parliamentary system, but yet it's imposed on us again and again. By extension, that same omnibus piece of legislation, which may seek to amend 70 pieces of legislation at once, comes before parliamentary committees with very, very limited opportunity for witnesses. Then, any time it gets even remotely controversial or an opposition member tries to do their obligation to scrutinize and examine it in any thorough way, down comes the black shroud of secrecy again, and we're forced to work behind closed doors. Not only are we forced to conduct our business behind closed doors, but we're never allowed to talk about it again or we'd find ourselves called before the bar and facing sanctions from the Speaker for violating the in camera rule.

So if you have any respect at all for the in camera rule, you should be one of those people who opposes abusing that rule for their own self-interest, Mr. Chairman.

I'm optimistic that enough fellow members of the committee agree that the in camera rule should be used as an exception, not as a rule, in rare circumstances where we can justify it and defend it. I've listed five here and I'm open to the possibility of adding, as I say, the technical advisers, when we have that sort of a meeting, to do it behind closed doors as well.

Having said that, I'd be interested in hearing whatever other MPs have to say, so if you have a speakers list I will yield the floor.

Thank you.

3:40 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault

Thank you, Mr. Martin.

My understanding is that you are officially proposing this amendment to your motion. Is that correct?

3:40 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

I think I will, in the interests of time. I would like to add a letter (f), if you will, although I apologize that it's not on the form that I submitted. We will simply call it technical advisers or representatives. I'm at a loss as to how to—

3:40 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault

You want to add point (f) for technical briefings. Is that right?

3:45 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Technical briefing; that would be the right terminology. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

3:45 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault

I hope this is clear for everyone.

Mr. Trottier, did you want to say something about the amendment?

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Bernard Trottier Conservative Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON

I wanted to intervene on the overall motion.

3:45 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault

It was said that this was a friendly amendment. Does the committee agree to it?

3:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

3:45 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault

(Amendment agreed to)

We will now move on to the main motion.

Mr. Trottier, go ahead.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Bernard Trottier Conservative Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would say to my colleague, Pat, that we have had a very collaborative and constructive committee in the first session of Parliament, in the first two years. I think we got a lot of work done. It was a very workmanlike committee. I don't know if that's considered an appropriate non-sexist term, workmanlike. We got a lot of work done and it was very effective.

I don't sense that this motion is in reaction to anything that we might have done on this committee. We went in camera for doing things like working on reports, for some technical briefings and so on, so I think we were wise in our use of in camera motions where it was appropriate.

I've met a lot of parliamentarians from different parliaments around the world. They've often asked about committees and how they function in our Parliament compared to theirs. I met somebody from Estonia recently. That country has a fairly new democracy, having.... It's an old democracy that disappeared for a while and then was renewed when it escaped or broke free from the Soviet Union. None of their committees are televised and they said there's a different comportment. It's not about secrecy, it's just the way people behave and act when the cameras are on compared to when they're not on. So there are some advantages to not having the cameras on at times. I think that's why we use in camera, for example, when we're just working on the wording of a report. There's no real benefit to having the cameras on where people are posturing and perhaps not just trying to work constructively. Other parliaments in the world do not have televised sessions.

The one challenge, and I think Pat raised it already, is that there are scenarios that you sometimes cannot predict. Even today there was a motion that was presumably well thought through. It identified another exception of another instance where we might need to go in camera. So it's a question of when you can exhaustively identify every scenario where you might need to go in camera.

For example, someone could be having a heart attack and it would be against the rules to go in camera while that person is having a heart attack. That's just one example. There could be others. For a variety of reasons there might be a reason to go in camera. It's hard to predict each and every scenario under which you might need to go in camera. That's the main challenge.

I think there's a certain responsibility to use that kind of motion wisely, which is in the rules. There's been no abuse of that rule within this committee, at least that I've observed in the last two-plus years. In a sense, nothing particular is broken on this committee, so no fix is required.

I hope that we'll continue to have a good collaborative relationship across all parties and work to do things that we're responsible for in a manner that bears in mind our responsibilities not just to Parliament but to all Canadians. That's why I won't be supporting the motion, because I think that we just need to have that flexibility, bearing in mind what our responsibilities are as parliamentarians.

3:45 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault

Thank you.

Ms. Day, go ahead.

3:45 p.m.

NDP

Anne-Marie Day NDP Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will support this motion, based on my short experience as a member. I was elected in 2011, and this is the third committee I am sitting on. I can tell you that in camera proceedings were used excessively, as meetings were closed for just about anything in some of the committees I sat on—which I will not name. People were constantly asking to go in camera, so that meetings would be closed. I saw some people, including aboriginals, come to testify and be given barely 20 minutes because the meeting would go in camera, so that their testimony would not be heard. In certain cases, witnesses were not given their due respect. Some of them had to travel for four or five hours to appear before us. Yet, as soon as they would start talking about a topic that the government did not like, someone would ask to move the meeting in camera. I am not talking about in camera meetings for voting results, but about cases where what was being said in camera was different from what was being said publicly.

It would be important for Canadians to know about the actual content of the comments and arguments underlying our decisions. We are asking that this motion be adopted because in camera meetings are being used excessively in a number of committees.

3:50 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault

Thank you, Ms. Day.

Mr. Byrne, you may speak to the motion.

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think it might be useful for all members of the committee to reflect on the evolving circumstances that each and every one of us, as members of the House and as a collective, face in terms of scrutiny. This is a government oversight committee. It's a standing committee established by order of the House of Commons and established in the Standing Orders as, by necessity, being chaired by a member of the opposition. That is based on both substance and perception in that it's very important that the public—the Canadian taxpayer—understands that this oversight committee is free and open to investigate whatever is deemed important to investigate in terms of the overall operations of the Government of Canada and its decision making.

We are living in a changing environment where even the House has decided and the House leadership has decided that the meetings of the Board of Internal Economy should be made public. Every time that we go in camera, every time a government oversight committee—which is by necessity, by choice of the House, chaired by a member of the opposition to ensure its integrity and the perception of its integrity.... Every time we move in camera, we diminish that overall perception of what it is that we are to accomplish or attempting to accomplish and whether or not we'll be effective at it.

Quite frankly, I think that if there is an extension or overuse of the in camera practice, at some point in time it will draw the attention of media and the Canadian public. I say this not as a threat or as some sort of hokey-pokey sort of caution. But the reality is, for this committee to function well, for all us to be seen as functioning well within the committee, we not only have to function well, but we have to be perceived as functioning well.

That's why I think this motion is eminently responsible. It should be supported. It's left enough room that reasonable and responsible business of the committee can still be done in a more productive way, which is at times during the in camera session. But that should be the exception rather than the norm. Whenever we're discussing specifics of a government decision or government operation, that should never be in camera. What's the function of having an oversight committee if we're to do so in secret?

So I'll be voting in favour of this. Mr. Chair, I'll be asking for a recorded motion on it. I don't think the government should feel threatened by this whatsoever. In fact, I think the government should put out a press release saying that the majority of members on the government side actually brought this into effect. I think that's the better headline than official opposition proposed the motion.

With that said, thank you. If it doesn't pass, it doesn't pass, but at the very least I hope we live by its spirit regardless.

3:50 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault

Thank you, Mr. Byrne.

It is now Mr. Blanchette's turn to speak to the motion.

3:50 p.m.

NDP

Denis Blanchette NDP Louis-Hébert, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Of course, I will vote in favour of the motion. That's not necessarily related to this committee's past, as Bernard said so well. I agree with him. The fact that members are putting forward such motions is necessarily due to the abuse that has taken place in the past.

This is a Westminster-style Parliament. Members have spaces where they can express themselves and do their work as MPs. They can do their best to improve bills and to study issues that are important to Canadians. Those spaces have to be preserved.

This motion aims to preserve those spaces of freedom where members can work transparently, and where integrity can be promoted in this Parliament. We cannot do our work without that guarantee and with a knife to our throats all the time. That's why I think that fairness and ability to be transparent must be guaranteed. That is what Canadians expect from us. They want us to be able to publicly debate issues that are important to them.

Earlier, Bernard was saying that the motion lacked flexibility. I would have preferred to hear how he would improve the motion, instead of simply rejecting it. That would have been a useful discussion.

I will end my remarks by suggesting that Bernard propose changes that could perhaps satisfy us by guaranteeing that space of freedom and, at the same time, helping achieve a flexibility that has nothing to do with the committee's actual operations. We do understand that in camera meetings are necessary from time to time for certain matters. That's understandable. However, all other kinds of debates must always remain public.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

3:55 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault

The debate continues. I yield the floor to Mr. Martin.

3:55 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Thank you.

Very briefly, Mr. Chair, I want to rebut two points that Bernard made.

The first involves his concern that it would be impossible to codify or list every eventuality whereby we might want to go in camera. There's nothing stopping the committee, by unanimous consent—or even a majority vote, I suppose... no, it would have to be by unanimous consent—to bypass the rules as they are, in an emergency exigency such as the example he used.

Second, the issue is not whether we're televised or not televised and about how the actors might behave differently if the TV were turned on. Most of our committee meetings are not televised, even when they're public. The issue is the secrecy associated with an in camera meeting: that no one is allowed to ever find out who said what or how people voted; they only learn the outcome of the meeting, but with none of the detail and none of the content associated with the meeting. That's the secrecy that I think should offend people's sensibilities. The people I represent have the right to know how I conducted myself at a committee meeting and how I voted on certain issues. Now all they know is the end result.

Those are two of the points that were made that I disagree with. I don't think there's any justification, for instance, to go in camera on the clause-by-clause analysis of a bill. We see that happen all the time. The public is probably interested, as we deal with clause-by-clause study and amendments that may be put forward. That door has been closed habitually at most committees that deal with legislation.

Our government operations committee rarely deals with legislation as such. We're dealing mostly with government operations or Treasury Board issues; we don't go clause by clause on bills quite as often. But the same reasoning and the same logic applies: the public has a right to know what their elected officials are doing, what they're saying, and how they're voting, except in what we believe are very limited circumstances.

4 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault

Thank you, Mr. Martin.

I now yield the floor to Ms. Ablonczy.

4 p.m.

Conservative

Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As you know I'm a new member of this committee, but I'm not new to the House. I've been here 20 years as of last week.

4 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear!