National Defence Committee on Nov. 19th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

I call the meeting to order.

Good morning, colleagues.

Yes, Mr. Harris?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Chair, thank you for acknowledging me. I have two things.

This is the first public meeting since we've had the election of officers—and Cheryl and I have discussed this. A series of resolutions were passed at the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, which we both attended recently in Croatia, regarding a series of issues involving NATO and its allies in world affairs. We have agreed to jointly table them to this committee in both official languages.

I don't have the final copies here today, but I wanted to let the committee know that we had talked about doing that. We will make them available to the chair, and I guess the chair can make them available to all committee members. I don't know if that counts as tabling them at this point, but—

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

Anticipation.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

—I just wanted to give notice that this was something we thought we should share with the committee, being the parliamentary committee, and of course I wanted to mention it today because we're looking at our report.

Chair, the second thing I want to do while I'm on my feet is move:

That in the Standing Committee on National Defence, the Chair may receive a motion to move 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 agenda or draft report; and

(e) documents or matters requiring confidentiality, such as national security.

And that furthermore, all votes taken in camera be recorded in the minutes, including which member voted which way when recorded votes are requested.

I have copies of that, sir, in both official languages, and I will give them to the clerk for distribution. If this is not in order, sir, although I know we're discussing rules later in the report from the committee, then I would ask it to be considered as notice.

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

Comment or discussion?

Mr. Bezan.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Can we see the motion first?

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

Sure.

Mr. Harris, you do realize that procedure does allow for decisions on in camera proceedings to be taken on the day of any consideration of in camera or not. But we'll certainly take a look at your proposal.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Are you giving notice of motion or giving the motion?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

The motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

I'll give everybody a chance to read the motion.

Colleagues, the clerk has advised that this motion is appropriate at this time, although as I noted earlier, Mr. Harris, the committee does have the ability to decide on in camera on the day when issues may require it; the committee may decide to go in or out of camera.

The clerk advises that the motion is certainly in order, but....

I think your term was that it is somewhat “problematic”. Clerk, could you speak to that?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Leif-Erik Aune]

Yes. The issue that other procedural clerks and the Table considered was the effect of having an in camera meeting and requiring that recorded votes appear in the minutes. One of the provisions of in camera meetings traditionally is that recorded votes don't appear in the minutes.

But that being said, I recognize that the committee and you as members are fully within your right to manage your own affairs. So I don't have any advice to the members as to the procedural inadmissibility of the motion—just recognizing that the workability of it would not be the usual practice.

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

Mr. Bezan.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Speaking to this motion, I think it's overly prescriptive. I think we've always managed our affairs reasonably at this committee, and I think the committee deserves the opportunity to decide on a case-by-case basis what parts of meetings, or which meetings, are going in camera.

I really take offence to the idea or the suggestion that votes that happen in camera, which are all supposed to be confidential, will be recorded and reported.

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

Ms. Gallant.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

One of the items missing from this, Mr. Chairman, is the committee business. It's not listed as one of the items that should be here. The practice, as long as I have been a member of Parliament, is that committee business is discussed in camera.

Now, while it may not have occurred in this committee, I have been in committees where we would have brought in witnesses, at a cost to taxpayers of tens of thousands of dollars, coming across Canada, and the witnesses themselves, heads of companies, who were there really giving of their time—so it's a cost to their business as well—only to have these witnesses begin their testimony and an opposition member bring forth a motion that really is committee business. The entire schedule of work that we had all agreed to is then hijacked, and at a huge cost to taxpayers.

So I will not be supporting this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

Mr. Harris.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

If someone wishes to amend the motion, of course that would be in order too.

In reference to the clerk's comments, and I know the clerk is not engaging in any debate on this issue, obviously the motion here would change the so-called tradition or the usual practice. That's the purpose of the motion.

Our party has presented similar motions in most committees—as perhaps the clerk is aware and as are other members, perhaps, who sit on other committees—where we have seen the Standing Orders or the in camera rule being used to avoid anything that has political controversy.

We're trying to seek transparency in this committee and in other committees. This motion is here for that purpose. We don't want people to be hiding behind in camera meetings and fail to face up to matters that they really should be taking a position on in public.

That's the purpose of the motion, and we stand behind it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

Is there any further discussion? Are we ready to vote?

Yes, Ms. Murray.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Chair, in looking at this, it occurs to me that there may be other occasions when the committee members would like to move in camera that have not been foreseen here.

One amendment that could address this would be to add a paragraph (f), indicating that other matters for which there's unanimous agreement could also be moved in camera.

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

Are you proposing a sub-motion?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Yes. I'm proposing a friendly amendment or a sub-motion. I'm not sure of the technical term.

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

Could you repeat it just for the record, please, Ms. Murray?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Sure. Paragraph (f) would be: “any other matter for which there is unanimous consent of the committee members”.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Do you need me to second it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

No.

Are we prepared to vote on the amendment to the motion?