Fisheries Committee on May 9th, 2006

[The Clerk]

“That, unless otherwise ordered, each Committee member be allowed to be accompanied by one staff person at an in camera meeting.”

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Is that right?

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Yes, that's right.

(Motion agreed to.)

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

In camera meeting transcripts: that one copy of the transcript of each in camera meeting be kept in the committee clerk's office for consultation by members of the committee, and that the clerk destroy these transcripts at the end of the session.

[John Cummins, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Is it general that they're destroyed at the end of the session?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Some committees destroy them at the end of the session--it's only for the in camera meetings--and some do not. If you don't destroy them, they're there for 30 years. I don't think there's anything too secretive that we discuss in camera that would require the minutes to be held, but it's the wish of the committee.

[John Cummins, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

I don't see any need to destroy them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Mr. Stoffer.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

The only concern I have is when we have individuals like protection officers before us, as we did a few years ago. If they know they are being recorded--even if it is being held in trust and in secret--they could be a bit cautious about appearing before us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

I think that's a legitimate point.

What's the feeling of the committee?

Mr. MacAulay.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

In camera means in camera, and the public does not find out what has been stated. That's why it's in camera. I don't care if you keep the minutes or not, but I don't fully understand why you want to destroy them either. It's held in camera so that people are protected. If we can't hold a meeting in camera and have it in camera, then we're not acting properly.

[John Cummins, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

I agree. The minutes Mr. Stoffer's referring to were important. We might have wanted to reference them, and if they had been destroyed they would have been lost. What is the purpose of having the meetings if you're not going to keep the minutes?

I move that this business in brackets, “and that the clerk destroy these transcripts at the end of the session”, be struck and taken out of there. I don't like that.

(Amendment agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Okay, I'm just going to read this back again so we're all clear on what we're discussing: “That one copy of the transcript of each in camera meeting be kept in the committee clerk's office for consultation by members of the committee.”

I just want to add to that, because I know Mr. Stoffer is still not quite satisfied with this. I think there's an assumption there--and we can make that clear, if you wish--that these then become documents that are protected under the Privacy Act, and will be kept for 30 years before they are ever made public.

Mr. Stoffer.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Would it be possible to get a ruling on that from the justice department or somebody? I'm worried that if we again invite people who come here and then they present testimony with the assumption that when they speak they won't lose their jobs, they won't get harassed, they won't be curtailed in any way, that what they say will be off the record and is for our ears and eyes only, we have to give them the absolute assurance that under no circumstances will that be given to their superiors in any way, shape, or form.

I'm wondering, what would be the legal ruling on that, because if something did happen.... With the new whistle-blower protection coming along, if somebody says something in here, we eventually use that information in a roundabout way in the House to ask questions, and then all of a sudden the government says we're going to get to the bottom of this, and they start looking for all available evidence and they.... I don't know. I'm not a legal person, but they could subpoena the clerk to get that information. Is that possible?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

No, it's....

And the other issue--just before I recognize Mr. MacAulay--would be that the committee still has the right in camera to decide not to record, so if there is sensitive testimony to be heard then we can decide prior to that testimony not to have it recorded. If there's an individual who absolutely doesn't want any chance of this testimony being recorded, we have that option as a committee. At that time we would decide whether we wanted to hear that testimony or not. So that right is there.

Mr. MacAulay.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

No, it's been said, but I think what you're losing if we don't deal with in camera as in camera.... I understand what Peter is saying, but in camera means, in my understanding, that if it becomes public we've broken the law.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Yes.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

So I think we'd better hold back.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

But I think the procedural question is whether in camera testimony that this committee heard is also the property of future committees. If it is, then we shouldn't destroy it. If it isn't, then we have the option to do so.

I think this motion, as amended, wouldn't preclude the committee deciding to destroy the evidence, say at the end of a session. We could still fight that out later if we think there was something we heard in the session that we don't feel comfortable passing on to future generations of fisheries committees. We could entertain a motion at that time, I think.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

For a point of clarification, Mr. Kamp, none of the in camera testimony is passed on to future committees. Every committee's information is separate of any.... For instance, we can't go back and ask for any of the in camera testimony or discussion that went on from the past committee. This is a separate committee and we have no right to access information from the past committee that was in camera.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

So what would be the point of keeping it if the next session's committee doesn't have the right to go and look at it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

The only point of keeping it is that if we thought that in 30 years' time somebody may have some type of interest in it, it's historical evidence, it's part of the public record even though it's not public for 30 years.

Mr. Stoffer.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Chairman, in terms of Mr. Kamp's concern, if the next committee is not permitted to have it, is there any other aspect of government that could get that information?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

No.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

So under no circumstances can any other aspect of government, even through the Prime Minister's Office, access that information if they so desire?