You what?
Evidence of meeting #2 for Official Languages in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was meeting.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #2 for Official Languages in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was meeting.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Corneliu Chisu Conservative Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
You still bear the responsibility if something is leaked.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Jamie Nicholls NDP Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
We just adopted an amendment to allow the researchers to attend our in camera meetings. It is logical, then, to also give them permission to consult the transcripts of in camera meetings. If we are trusting them to be present at the meetings, we should also trust them to consult the transcripts.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC
Mr. Chair, the amendment put forward by Mr. Godin is too broad in scope, because it doesn't ensure that it will be the same staff member looking at the transcript of the in camera meeting. The member could ask any other person on staff who did not attend the meeting to check the transcript of that meeting. That would pose an ethical problem.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC
I understand that, in their mind, it's that person who will check the transcript, but the member could also ask someone else to do it.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Would anyone else care to comment?
Mr. Godin, the floor is yours.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
I have to trust my staff member. If he wants to look at the transcript of an in camera meeting held on a given day, he has to have my permission first. He works for me; I am the person sending him. It's not just anyone. What does it matter if it's someone else? In order to do our job, we need staff and we trust them. That's why we suggested the words “authorized by the member of the Committee”. If the person isn't authorized, then they can't look at the transcript.
If I was working on a file, I could ask a staff member to check the transcript for me. Regardless, if I were to check the transcript myself, I could memorize it and tell my staff about it anyways. There is nothing stopping me from telling my staff about it. So what's the difference? We work together. In camera proceedings don't prevent us from working with our staff.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC
Mr. Chair, I would like Mr. Godin to clarify a few things for me. I see what he means, but what I was trying to tell him earlier was that another motion would authorize certain people to attend the committee's in camera meetings. We are talking about people who advise and assist us. I would be fine with their being able to look at the transcript. But I wouldn't be fine with a member of my staff who wasn't at the in camera meeting going to the clerk. Otherwise, what would be the point of us meeting in camera. Too many people would be able to access the information and the in camera meetings wouldn't be confidential.
As soon as we give someone else permission to do our work, we risk contravening our own procedure. We would be going down a very tricky road. I was somewhat open to the idea, but not anymore. I'm really not convinced that it will be possible to keep the committee's in camera discussions confidential if we give too many people access to the transcripts. Once that happens, we'll task someone else with our responsibility, and that person could talk about our discussions and so forth.
For that reason, I will vote against any amendment to that effect.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Thank you, Mr. Gourde.
Mr. Dionne Labelle has the floor, followed by Ms. St-Denis.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Pierre Dionne Labelle NDP Rivière-du-Nord, QC
I would like to move the following subamendment. I move that we add “or a member of his or her staff who was present at the in camera meeting” to the end of the motion.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Lise St-Denis Liberal Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
I am stricter than that. I am going to vote against the amendment and the subamendment because leaks do happen, and everyone knows it. There are people who pass on information, no matter what it is. It could even be a staff member we've put a lot of trust in.
This amendment would take away from committee members a responsibility that is theirs and theirs alone, a responsibility that should be kept intact. In my view, this opens up access to in camera meetings a bit too much.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Tyrone Benskin NDP Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
I think there's an inherent responsibility each of us has as committee members when we meet in camera, which is a given. We don't give up that responsibility, but if it helps, as my colleague suggested, I think if we amend it to “authorized person in attendance at said meeting” we might be able to limit it so it's not just anybody, that it's personnel who were in attendance at that meeting.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Chair, I listened to Mr. Gourde, and I am ready to move a subamendment specifying that it would be a staff person who had attended the in camera meeting.
I have no choice but to disagree with Ms. St-Denis's comment that if we authorize that person to consult the transcript of the in camera meeting, he or she could then tell people about it. That would not happen. Staff members have responsibilities and must respect Parliament's rules on in camera proceedings.
A staff person who attended the meeting has already heard it all. It's the transcript of what was said. They won't see anything new, just what was said while they were present at the in camera meeting.
All I am saying is that we need to help parliamentarians do their job. If a committee member doesn't want someone on their staff to hear what the committee discusses in camera, then the member should not invite them. If the member doesn't trust their staff, the member doesn't have to invite them to the in camera meeting. I can assure you that my staff members know what an in camera meeting means. I am the one responsible for keeping what is said in camera confidential. If a leak comes from my office, the staff member isn't the person responsible. I am entirely responsible for maintaining that confidentiality. I have never seen someone on a member's staff being called before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The member is the one who broke the in camera rules, so the member is the one accountable to the committee.
This amendment merely seeks to help members. I agree with Mr. Gourde's argument. If we let just anybody consult the transcript, we won't even know who was present at the meetings and who wasn't. I agree with the idea of moving a subamendment to rectify that. I repeat, this is strictly to help members. The people on our staffs aren't constantly changing. If the same staff person can't consult the transcript, the member will do it.
Am I allowed to propose a subamendment, Mr. Chair, since I'm the one who put forward the amendment in the first place?
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
You may suggest a subamendment, but it has to be moved by another member.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Mr. Dionne Labelle has therefore moved the subamendment.
What is the subamendment? I don't know what it is.