Evidence of meeting #1 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was briefing.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I do appreciate that. The reason I didn't bring it up as an amendment at that particular time is that it related to staff at in camera meetings and in camera meeting transcripts. It wasn't presented as an in camera topic, per se.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
That is a separate motion, so we can't consider that.
I would ask all members if they've had an opportunity to read the proposed change, and to make comments if they wish.
Mr. Drouin.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
I have a couple issues with (a), (b), and (c). When we're discussing administrative matters, does that include witnesses?
The other point I'd like to make is on confidentiality. That is not reflected in the motion. We as a committee may choose.... For example, if we have whistleblowers come before the committee, they may not want to be portrayed in public. That's not necessarily a matter of national security, but it's a matter of confidentiality, so I would ask that we include confidentiality in there as well.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
Francis's point is fairly germane, because in the last Parliament we completed a study on whistleblower protection. On several occasions, we've had witnesses come forward wanting to give testimony, but who have been quite concerned that their anonymity might be compromised. Therefore, we've made sure to grant confidentiality and anonymity to those witnesses who so desired. It would not be a bad thing to include that in the body of this motion.
Are there any other comments?
Mrs. Block.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Would the clerk be able to comment on how this would impact our meetings procedurally, and if in fact this is something that other committees are contemplating adopting?
The Clerk
This motion has been moved in certain other committees. Certain committees have adopted it. I believe some have adopted it even with amendments made to it.
The question I have about this is where it states that “in camera meetings should reflect on the results of all votes taken by the committee while in camera”. I'd like some clarification from Mr. Green, if he could provide it. What level of detail does he or the committee suggest that should include? For example, when the committee drafts a report, if there are 100 paragraphs in the draft report, and the committee takes a decision on each and every paragraph, is that the kind of information you would want revealed in the minutes?
Usually, with a draft report, even if it's considered in public—though it's rare but it has happened—we don't reveal all of that information. My concern is that if we were to do that for a report with 100 paragraphs, it might slow down the process of the committee working its way through the report, because in each paragraph, there are....
One potential amendment motion could be “with the exception of proceedings on a draft report”, for example.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Yes, it sounds like a very practical and reasonable amendment.
The Clerk
As for admissibility, we haven't heard any other issues on admissibility come up with this motion. It's more the concerns that members have brought up, such as some issues that Mr. Drouin raised. If the committee is going to consider making another modification to personal information, for example, I would appreciate it if you could flesh out how you want that to read in the motion so I would know what to put in the minutes in this case.
Mr. Drouin, did you have any thought as to text on that?
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Clerk, like you, I do have some questions about the results of votes if we're moving to go in camera but we're publishing votes.
Again, it goes back to, for instance, selecting witnesses. We might not agree on all witnesses, but procedurally, how would you publish that information?
We don't have a lot of time in committee, and we sometimes have to select certain witnesses we want to see. I just don't know how that would work.
The Clerk
On that point, we've had some discussions in our offices with my colleagues on that. I think we've arrived a fairly common sense consensus.
The committee, first of all, can give any instruction it wants to us, the clerks, as to what we're going to put in the minutes. We have a tradition where, with in camera, we do not reveal anything except decisions that are taken positively by the committee, things that the committee has agreed to. If the committee disagrees with something or defeats a motion, traditionally we haven't put that in.
The committee is well within its rights to issue instruction to me as the clerk as to what it wants as the minutes, and this is part of the aspect of this motion. However, if we are going to produce the results of a vote, it strikes me as common sense that we would include what the subject matter of that decision was.
To put in the minutes that a decision was taken, and x members voted this way and other members voted another way, without putting what the substance of that is wouldn't make any sense.
To my mind, this essentially makes the minutes of an in camera meeting exactly the same as those of a public meeting. If that's what the committee wants, that's the will of the committee and that's fine, and we'll do that. However, committee members might want to consider that one of the reasons that in camera minutes have always not reflected that information was to preserve the anonymity and the confidentiality of the discussions taking place therein. This is an issue for members to decide in terms of how they want to proceed on it.
The only ramification we see is that it is essentially rendering in camera minutes the same as those of a public meeting. Again, the committee can do that, but that's at the committee's discretion.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I realize that I put the motion without really speaking to it. Obviously, this was passed in PROC in the last Parliament. We're asking for a spirit of transparency and open government here. I just think, amenable to any additions, this would be a great step forward for us to provide the greatest amount of openness and transparency to the public.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
Thank you, Mr. Green.
My understanding is that this final paragraph was not included in any of the PROC from the last Parliament, so this in fact would be a new procedure to be followed if this committee so agrees.
Mr. Drouin.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
I understand where the member is coming from, the spirit of openness and transparency, but it creates a lot more problems that I don't understand yet. I think someone, or PROC, should look at this further before we make a decision on that particular paragraph, because if we put that in there, then who makes the decision about whether to publish in camera meetings and subjects, and what's the point of going in camera?
We're not going to support this particular paragraph. We're willing to entertain the in camera proceedings, but adding an amendment for confidentiality.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
Colleagues, I suggest, then, so we don't completely throw this out or adopt it, that we adjourn the debate on this particular motion at this point in time. Number one, that will give our colleagues at PROC an opportunity to examine it and perhaps make comment and some suggestions; and if we adjourn the debate now, we can always come back to this at some future time.
There is agreement to adjourn the debate on this particular motion. Thank you.
Mr. Green, you also have a proposal on quorum.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Just as a point there, as I was following along, based on my past experience, I tried to chime in at the appropriate time. That's why I put the item on quorum when we dealt with it originally.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
That's fine. It was an order. We dealt with it appropriately and we will come back to this. We'll give all our colleagues a chance to perhaps determine whether or not they're in favour of this.
Now, we we're on...?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
I think we're complete. Was the last one on notice of motions?
Now I'll entertain a motion to adopt the amended routine motions as a package.
All in favour?
(Motions as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
That's done. Thank you very much.
As you know, we are regularly scheduled for meetings every Tuesday and Thursday. At this point, we don't have any proposals for study. I will inform the committee that we know there will be some items coming before this committee that we are obliged to deal with on an immediate basis.
Let's invite the analysts to the table.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
Before we proceed any further, I'll ask our analysts to introduce themselves and give us a brief background of their experience as analysts in Parliament.
Raphaëlle, please.