Evidence of meeting #1 for Declaration of Emergency in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
The Joint Clerk Mr. Paul Cardegna
Yes, actually, but that is following the provisions of the act, because anybody who is involved with the committee will have to take the oath. However, the motion also mentions that anybody who has access to the transcripts will also have to take the oath of secrecy.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
Okay. Perhaps I misunderstood, Mr. Green, but in reference to the value of having these records reviewed in historical fashion, that would mean that each subsequent person reviewing the documents would also need to swear the oath of secrecy.
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
Are there any other comments?
Mr. Green is proposing on this motion that we eliminate the last clause. Therefore, the motion would actually end at “subsection 62(3) of the Emergencies Act.” There would be a period at that point.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Is that with the addition of the analysts included as well?
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
It would be “that analysts assigned to the committee also have access to the in camera transcripts”.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Are you referring to having access to the transcripts moving forward beyond the ceasing of this committee, or are you saying that as the committee sits, it will have access to the in camera ones from before? It would be in an in camera session anyway, would it not?
The Joint Clerk Mr. Paul Cardegna
Normally, when we talk about the analysts having access to the in camera transcripts, that's within the parliamentary session. At the end of a session, the committees directorate does not keep the in camera transcripts. They are put into the wallets that go off to the national archives. The analysts, theoretically, would have access only while the committee still exists in that parliamentary session.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Is that the practice? Is that the convention now?
The Joint Clerk Mr. Paul Cardegna
That's the convention now. For example, analysts would never have access to in camera transcripts from a committee from a previous session. They wouldn't be able to access them.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Then, Mr. Green, can you provide any clarity as to what you're referring to by “the analysts having a copy of the transcripts” as well?
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
My thoughts around this are that future committees that are dealing with the Emergencies Act, given the sensitive and unique nature of it, would have the ability to retrospectively contemplate what was discussed in camera for the purpose of guiding and providing better procedures and better information on a move-forward basis. I personally don't see the value in our doing this body of work, which is really substantive, very unique and precedent-setting, and then taking some of the information, which would be sensitive and again still remain confidential, and destroying it.
On the contrary, I feel as though in future occurrences, there would be an administrative value, for those cleared to have access, and that would include analysts, in being able to provide information to future sittings.
We have young analysts before us. Hopefully they will never have to be back before us in this way, and hopefully we'll never have to be back in this way, but it could happen. If it does, I feel as though starting from where we finish would be better than starting from the beginning all over again.
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
Mr. Motz, I'm wondering if clarity from the clerk would be helpful on this in terms of how it would normally be done.
Mr. Clerk.
The Joint Clerk Mr. Paul Cardegna
Normally, in camera transcripts at the end of a session are included, as I said, in the wallets, and they're sent to the National Archives. Under the memorandum of understanding between the National Archives and the House of Commons, those documents remain confidential for 30 years.
Now, if the committee wishes to investigate perhaps amending that, we could look at the possibility of the committee's rendering them publicly available in a shorter period of time, but we'd have to do some research on our side to see if that might contravene a decision of the House. If it would, that could be problematic.
That being said, if the committee doesn't want to destroy them, the committee doesn't have to destroy them. They will go into the wallets.
Alternatively, this is something the committee doesn't necessarily have to decide now. It can decide as we get into the work more and the committee has a better understanding of the documents we're talking about. At this point, it's difficult for me to say, since we don't know which documents we're going to be dealing with that might have to be kept secret under the act, versus those that are under the purview of the committee.
Thank you.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
For one point of clarity, in the explanation, I believe I heard the clerk say “for public availability”. It's never contemplated in my remarks that it would be made public. I want to make sure. Maybe I heard incorrectly, but to make sure for those watching, it is not the contemplation that people would have access to this in any kind of public way. The transcripts wouldn't be destroyed; they could be referred to by people who have sworn a secrecy oath under the context of this committee moving forward.
Thank you.
Liberal
Yasir Naqvi Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
I think the clerk is informing us of the arrangement that exists between the House of Commons—I assume it is the same with the Senate—and Library and Archives, and it is totally appropriate that we not look into changing that memorandum of understanding.
I agree with Mr. Green about not destroying the documents, as has been stipulated. I think there is a fair bit of agreement on that, but everything else on access we should leave as is until 30 years later or so, when it is made public as contemplated under the existing protocols.
During that time, anybody who wanted to access those documents would be required to take an oath of secrecy, as stipulated in the legislation.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
To defend my point about being open by default, I would suggest that we at least entertain and receive back whatever opinion there is on whether or not these remain sealed for 30 years. The spirit of my amendment in this regard is to provide a context for future contemplation. To me, it would defeat itself if future MPs, staff or analysts who are working on this didn't have access for 30 years. At that point, it might not make sense.
The analysts have their hands up.
Committee Researcher
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to point out that there is the future aspect, but there is also the near future. The clerk can correct me if I'm wrong, but the in camera blues help the analysts quite a bit when we're either preparing a work plan or reviewing evidence for reports.
There is the thing far down the road, but if the one copy of the transcript is available only for members of the committee or their staff, that could potentially make our work difficult.
The Joint Clerk Mr. Paul Cardegna
I'm glad the analyst mentioned that. I forgot to mention earlier that one of the advantages of the suggestion that the analysts have access to the in camera transcripts is that when drafting reports and preparing briefing notes on behalf of the committee, if they want to access the in camera discussions that were held by committee members, they have access to these transcripts.
In the last few years, we started adding this text into the routine motions. Part of the reason for that is that it greatly helps the analysts do their work, which is on behalf of the committee, so I appreciate the analyst raising that point. One of the reasons we added that in was so that the analysts have the resources to do their work on behalf of the committee.