Health Committee on Dec. 13th, 2021

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

So it's just an email. There's no vote or anything like that. We'll just be notified.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Yes.

[The Clerk]

It would be helpful for me, just for clarity, to know whether you simply wish to have distributed the information that a request was received and by whom, or if you wish for the full request to be translated and distributed as it was received.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I would just suggest whatever is easiest and quickest. The point of this routine motion is just that we would all be kept abreast on who wants to appear before the committee, so whatever would be easiest is best.

I would perhaps suggest that maybe you consult with the clerk from the last health committee and ask how they did it. Usually it was just an email that said, “the BC Nurses' Union has requested to appear for this study”. It was usually something very simple.

[The Clerk]

I think, regarding translation, it would be fastest and most efficient to simply distribute information on who made the request, what study it pertains to and when it was received.

It seems that everyone's in agreement with that understanding, so, Mr. Chair, I think we can move forward that way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Is there any further discussion on the motion?

Do we have consensus in the room to adopt the motion as presented?

I'm advised that there is consensus in the room.

(Motion agreed to)

The motion is adopted.

Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The next one is similarly uncontroversial and it is, as well, a routine motion that has been adopted by many committees. It would read:

That whenever a Minister appears before the committee, every effort be made to ensure that the meeting is televised.

It's pretty standard fare. It doesn't require it be televised. As you can tell by the language. it just indicates that every effort be made. It's usually something that all sides want to be done anyway. When a minister appears before a committee, it's usually very important.

When you have it in the routine motions, as has been the case before, it just indicates to the clerk, in terms of booking rooms, to book a room that has the capacity to be televised. That's the purpose of this.

I'm surprised that it wasn't in the routine motions by the whips. I'm going to guess that it was just missed, as opposed to a deliberate issue, because it's really been standard in all routine motions that I've seen in committees for many years.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Are there any further motions?

Thank you, Mr. Davies.

Is there any discussion on the motion?

There's no discussion. Do we have consensus to adopt the motion as presented?

(Motion agreed to)

Go ahead, Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This last one is my final proposal. I will pass it around, but I will read this one into the record as well.

Members will have seen that we passed a couple of routine motions that have to do with going in camera, but there is no motion that specifies when it is appropriate to go in camera. I've re-tabled a routine motion that was passed by this committee in the last Parliament. This was taken from another committee that was chaired by a former colleague of mine. I think some eight committees had language similar to this in their routine motions last Parliament. I'll read it as such:

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) for any other reason, with the unanimous consent of the committee;

It goes on to say the following:

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; that any motion to sit in camera is debatable and amendable.

If I may speak just briefly to it, Mr. Chair. I think one of the most hopeful statements I heard our current Prime Minister say when he first took office was that he wanted to lead a government that was open by default. I think he's right about that. I think, as a parliamentarian, that the people's business should be by definition and by default open.

We have all seen—at least those of us who have been in other Parliaments—that sometimes parties and governments want to go in camera a little too earnestly. They dive in camera to basically shield debate from the public, and there's no real reason for it not to be in public but simply that they prefer it to be in secret. I think it's really important that we be seen as parliamentarians who are conducting the people's business in public.

Having said that, there are obviously situations where it's appropriate to go in camera. The situations that have been designated here are the ones that I think everybody agrees on. If there's a situation that's been missed, I'd be happy to entertain an amendment.

Generally, when we're considering a draft report, that is done in camera because we want to be free to haggle over wording and paragraphs, and we want people to be able to speak their minds. As well, reports deal with witness evidence. Sometimes if we're critiquing witness evidence, out of respect for the witness, we want to do that in camera. We don't want to be looking like we're being disrespectful to their evidence.

Second, obviously national security is very broad. That would be something I think we'd all agree should be done in camera.

Considering lists of witnesses is another thing that we do where we don't want to be politically grandstanding on witnesses, but to have a fulsome discussion about who would be good witnesses to have before the committee.

The last part I think is the most important one to me, which is that the list is not exhaustive. It's for any other reason that the committee may determine to be legitimate, but it would require unanimous consent. When we all agree that it's appropriate not to conduct our business in public, then we can leave that open for the committee to determine.

In terms of votes, I think, except for votes when considering draft reports, every other vote in Parliament is conducted publicly. I think our constituents deserve to know where we stand on issues. It's only in committee where there's this perverse ability to dive into secrecy and vote in a way that nobody will know how you voted. I don't think that's right.

There are certain cases where it's appropriate, and that's why there's provision made for it in certain cases.

I'll conclude by saying that the reason I'd like this in our routine motions, as opposed to leaving it out, is that the presumption should be that we conduct our business in public and we narrowly define when we don't. It's not the other way around. If we don't adopt this, that means we'll go in camera whenever we want to by majority vote. I think that's putting the cart before the horse.

This has been done before by our committee. It worked very well, by the way, and I don't think we ever had a problem with it. I would say that this is a good chance for us all, as committee members, to make a statement to the public that we will be conducting our business in public, except in very narrowly circumscribed circumstances where going in camera is appropriate.

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Davies.

During your remarks I received an email from the clerk to indicate some procedural concerns. I'm going to suspend to take advice from the clerk. I'll reconvene the meeting in three minutes to rule on the admissibility of the motion.

We stand suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

All right, colleagues, thank you for that indulgence.

I've had an opportunity to be advised by the clerk on the admissibility of this motion, and I rule the motion out of order by virtue of its not being in compliance with the Standing Orders. In particular, the Standing Orders consider a motion to go in public or in camera to be a non-debatable motion—that is, under Standing Orders 67(1) and 67(2). This is outlined in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, chapter 20, at page 1089, where it says:

Any member may move a motion to go from sitting in public to sitting in camera (and vice versa). The motion is decided immediately without debate or amendment.... In practice, committees often change from one to the other at the suggestion of the Chair, with the implied consent of the members.

With that, is there any further business to come before the meeting?

[The Clerk]

Mr. Davies has an intervention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Yes, Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for that ruling.

I would then move another routine motion, identical to the one I just did, but with the words “That any motion to sit in camera is debatable and amendable” deleted. It's the exact same motion, but I'll take out the part that caused you to rule it out of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Davies.

Mr. Clerk, do we need to huddle, or can I consider the motion to be in order?

[The Clerk]

I don't have any further advice, and I think your conclusion is correct.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Very well, then, I declare the motion to be in order and now open for discussion.

Are there any interventions on the motion?

[The Clerk]

I do not see any.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Very well, I take it that we are ready for the question.

Do we have consensus in the room with respect to this motion? If not, would someone please ask for a standing division?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Chair, may I have a recorded vote, please?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

You most certainly may.

Mr. Clerk, could you look after that?

(Motion negatived: nays 9; yeas 2)

I declare the motion defeated.

Is there any further business to come before the meeting?

[The Clerk]

Mr. van Koeverden has an intervention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. van Koeverden.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

First, I'd like to thank everybody in the meeting for helping us get through the humdrum stuff in the first meeting. It's always routine, but I thank everybody for playing along.

I thank the chair and congratulate him on his election.

I would like to say that, in the spirit of where we are currently in Canada and around the world, in the state of a global health emergency, what an extraordinary obligation we all have to work together to improve the situation in Canada and get the answers that Canadians deserve, ultimately, in a spirit of collaboration. That ideal of coming together on this committee shouldn't be lost.

In that regard, I also want to acknowledge that this has been a long month of sitting. It's rare that we sit four weeks in a row. We have an opportunity to go home now and see our families, our constituents and stakeholders. We should not lose sight of the work ahead in this committee.

What the next step could be, if we all agree, is for the first meeting back when we reconstitute to be a briefing from officials—not necessarily any specific official, but in the context of the pandemic. Wherever we are when we do reconvene, the first meeting should be one with officials, so that we can start off with a question-and-answer period and a statement from those officials.

That's just for the sake of conversation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Van Koeverden.

Are there any further interventions?