Government Operations Committee on Dec. 16th, 2021

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

The next motion deals with linguistic review:

That all documents submitted for committee business that do not come from a federal department, members' offices, or that have not been translated by the Translation Bureau be sent for prior linguistic review by the Translation Bureau before being distributed to members.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Kusmierczyk.

Is there any discussion?

All in favour?

(Motion agreed to)

Thank you, Mr. Kusmierczyk, for helping us get through those routine motions. It's greatly appreciated.

Now we are a committee formed and structured and have some goals.

I would now look to see if there are any motions put forward by any members for us to consider to study.

[The Clerk]

Mr. Chair, I believe Mr. Johns would like to intervene.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Mr. Johns.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Chair, we've circulated in both official languages a motion around committee business and rules around meeting in camera. I move:

That the committee may meet in camera only for the following purposes: (a) to consider a draft report, (b) to attend briefings concerning national security, (c) to consider lists of witnesses, (d) or any other reason that needs unanimous consent of the committee;

That all votes taken in camera, with the exception of votes regarding the consideration of draft reports, be recorded in the Minutes of Proceedings, including how each member voted when recorded votes are requested

Finally, we know that although it is set, we want to remove the final paragraph, which reads:

That any motion to sit in camera is debatable and amendable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Johns.

Is there any discussion on this motion?

Mr. Housefather, I see your hand is up.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Yes, Mr. Chair.

I want to mention that on other committees, the chair has ruled this motion not receivable, namely, that it is contrary to House rules that a majority vote of the committee can determine whether or not something is in camera or not. This would impose unanimity, meaning that as opposed to ordinary rules, where a majority of the committee could send something in camera, this motion would require unanimity, meaning that one member of the committee could prevent the majority of the committee from sending something in camera. I have difficulty with that part.

Personally, I think the majority of the committee should determine whether something goes in camera or not. We could set general rules related to in camera meetings, but the majority of the committee should always be able to determine that it wishes to go in camera. This list, which I haven't really had a chance to study, may not be an exhaustive list of the reasons that we may want to go in camera for one reason or another. I don't believe one member of a committee should have the right to block everyone else on the committee from determining that something should be in camera.

For that reason, Mr. Chair, I think it's non-receivable; but if it is receivable in your view, Mr. Chair, I would vote against this motion. I can appreciate that we should only be in camera very sparingly, and if it were something different, I might support that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Housefather.

I'm looking around the room. I see, Mr. Johns, your hand is up again.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It can't be that easy doing it from where you are, so I appreciate your seeing us.

The rationale here for moving in camera can sometimes.... There have been times in previous Parliaments when the government has tried to move committee meetings in camera to force difficult issues and votes behind closed doors to avoid public scrutiny. Even in minority Parliaments, where the government can't act unilaterally, there have been times when this has been attempted. As a consequence, valuable committee time ended up being wasted in debating this. For that reason, there is value to set out parameters at the front end and in routine proceedings that specify when in camera meetings can take place. Otherwise, we may get into situations where the work of the committee could be wasted in debating frivolous attempts to move in camera.

That's the rationale of this. I just wanted to share that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Johns.

Mr. Kusmierczyk, I see your hand is up.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As someone who was on this committee in the previous session, I can tell you that meetings in camera were used sparingly and judiciously. They provided this committee with the flexibility to discuss sensitive matters and issues in camera, so I cannot support this motion. It also allows us to listen to testimony that may be very sensitive as well, and thus is something that allows our committee that flexibility. I can't support this particular motion because I think it would hamstring our committee unnecessarily. Again, in previous sessions, the in camera option was used sparingly and judiciously, I would point out to the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Kusmierczyk.

Before I go to Mr. Jowhari, I want to thank everybody who is hitting the “raise hand” button virtually, because it is allowing me to see the hand come up. I appreciate that. I have one little picture of the room, which is great. It's focused on the one side where everyone is.

Mr. Jowhari.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and congratulations once again.

Mr. Chair, the argument presented by my colleague, Mr. Gord Johns, is not really relevant to this committee. In this committee, the government is not in a majority position, so it will never be able to use its majority to move the committee into in camera.

I'll be opposing it when it comes to voting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Jowhari.

With that said, we've now had a discussion on the issue. I will entertain a vote on this.

Mr. Johns, as you're the person who put forward the motion, I would give you one last chance to have a word before I call for the vote.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

We can just vote on it, Mr. Kitchen. That's fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you.

[The Clerk]

Mr. Chair, I'm sorry to intervene. The House order adopted on November 25 indicates that if there's any disagreement or if there's no consensus, the decision has to be taken in committee by a recorded division. You may want to see if there's consensus on the motion. If there is not, I can do a recorded division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Okay.

Is there consensus on the motion? I'm not seeing that.

[The Clerk]

Can I do the recorded division?

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Yes, please, Mr. Clerk.

(Motion negatived: nays 9; yeas 1)

Mr. Johns, you also had a second motion. Would you like to entertain that?

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

We are not going to move the second motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We're going to work collegially here. I'm confident with the team here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Johns.

Ms. Vignola, you have your hand up. I'm glad you put it up so high that I could see it.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to move a motion to debate the issue and, if possible, to send a letter to the Speaker of the House on the matter. All the committee members should have received the motion, or at least a hard copy. I move:

That, in light of the Prime Minister's call to the country's businesses to produce personal protective equipment and that since then several Quebec and Canadian businesses have responded, the committee deplores the fact that the masks distributed on Parliament Hill and in the various federal departments and agencies come from abroad and not from local businesses; That the administration of the House and the federal government take steps to ensure that, as of January 31, 2022, the masks distributed on Parliament Hill and in the various federal departments and agencies come from Quebec and/or Canadian companies that produce this type of personal protective equipment, or PPE.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Ms. Vignola.

I'm seeing Mr. Jowhari's hand for discussion.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Chair, is it possible for the text in both languages to be circulated by email as well? I appreciate the fact that it was circulated in the committee room. However, all our members are attending virtually and would appreciate if we received this electronically, as well.