Evidence of meeting #48 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 39th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was committees.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Well, you gave the example of someone who gives testimony in committee regarding something that we feel ought not to be kept secret because of its importance. We could then turn around and say, fine, we're going to meet in public, or we could recall the witness and have this information in public all over again from the witness, and compel the witness to make the same testimony.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Ms. O'Brien, as the expert on this, could you comment on that, please?
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Actually, maybe I haven't described it.... Maybe I can get Ms. O'Brien's comment. Am I correct that this could be done as a way of overcoming the problem that Mr. Proulx was talking about?
Clerk of the House of Commons, House of Commons
Yes, I guess you could invite them again and have them testify in public on the same things that you had talked to them about in camera.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Could I give some context to this, Mr. Chair?
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
There was a meeting of this committee where we had an individual who came. I was in it, and so were a number of people who are sitting here today. The witness insisted on testifying in camera.
I don't think I have to be careful about saying who this was. It was the Ethics Commissioner. He claimed that the testimony he was giving had to be given in camera.
Once he gave it, it was clear to me that there was no reason for this. We didn't pursue it. I'm wondering whether we had the authority to then say, “Fine. We've listened to it. In our opinion, you're not revealing any confidences. Maybe you're revealing some things that are embarrassing to yourself. We'd like you to repeat the whole thing in public.“
Would that have been within our powers?
Clerk of the House of Commons, House of Commons
Yes. I think you could invite a witness or compel a witness to come before you and ask him whatever questions you want. Sure.
Liberal
Karen Redman Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
What if they have a difference response? Can we say...[Inaudible—Editor] Can they refuse to answer?
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
How do you force him to give exactly the same testimony?
Clerk of the House of Commons, House of Commons
That's the trick. How he answers is another story.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
You could phrase your questions artfully enough to force him into the position of having to answer yes or no to things.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
I'm just wondering, Ms. O'Brien, if there's a legal requirement for witnesses to be truthful before a committee of the House of Commons.
Clerk of the House of Commons, House of Commons
Yes, there is. Again, I suppose you get into gradations of truth. Something that is spoken really baldly at an in camera meeting might be tempered in a public meeting.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Thank you.
Are there any further questions to the witnesses? Monsieur Guimond.
Bloc
Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
My question is not for the witness, Ms. O'Brien.
Later on, we will go to the issue of future business. I have two items to raise that could deal with amendments to make to standing orders. They're topics that are more or less along the same lines as what we are discussing now.
Would it be possible for a member of the clerk's staff—her staff is smaller than that of the Speaker—to be present later, when I provide my explanations on the two topics I would like to discuss regarding future business? Someone should perhaps represent the clerk. It is not that I don't have confidence in Jamie to report back to her, but—
Bloc
Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
Yes, it will be in camera. So we will have to give the staff member permission to discuss it. If Ms. Lajoie stays, we would have to give her permission to discuss the matter with Ms. O'Brien, and lift the in camera status for her.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Does the committee agree with the witnesses staying, moving into an in camera meeting to discuss future business, and allowing Mr. Guimond to raise his two points with the witnesses? Obviously we have an agenda here, but does everybody agree, assuming we have time?
Is that okay with our witnesses?
Clerk of the House of Commons, House of Commons
That's okay, Mr. Chairman.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Perfect, thank you.
Colleagues, seeing that there are no other questions, I'm going to try to draw the business into focus. We were dealing with two issues this morning. Perhaps we could go with the one that seems to me to have the consensus, regarding the changes to the Standing Orders, or the division bell issue.
Do you sense, as I do, that we would like to change the Standing Orders, rather than leave it up to individual committees? I'm seeing that.
May I propose to the committee that our witnesses work with our clerks to come up with some wording for the Standing Orders changes? My understanding from Ms. O'Brien's opening statement is that she has already done so. Would it be okay with the committee members to have them draft some wording to change the Standing Orders to deal with the suspension of a meeting and those kinds of matters, and then bring that back here on Thursday?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
I'm sorry, let's say Tuesday, because we may not have anything for Thursday right now.
Colleagues, that deals with the division bells. Thank you very much.
I'm not sure we have come up with the solution to deal with the in camera issue. What I'm hearing is that Mr. Owen raised a good point at the beginning, saying that there may be circumstances in which the committee chooses to make circumstances public, such as suspicion of perjury or illegal conduct—just to refresh your memory on the discussions.
Various members have held the opinion that under no circumstances should in camera meetings be made public. Also, there was the most recent suggestion that the committee may recall the witnesses to have them revisit their testimony in public, to the best of their abilities. But I'm not sensing a consensus here on this issue.
My thinking is that we need to discuss this more and come to a consensus either right now or defer the debate to another meeting, and then put it back on another agenda. We have other business to attend to today; I'm looking for the committee's advice on this piece.
Monsieur Godin.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
In my opinion, the matter has already been clarified. When a meeting is in camera, it is in camera. The standing orders at that time permitted a witness to be called back to testify if it was known that there were two versions. I think that this has always been the case. However, a committee cannot call back a witness and tell him that he already said in camera what he is saying today. You cannot do that.
Committee members can question him, but if he decides to lie, he will lie. It is as simple as that. But I think that this provision already exists in the standing orders, and I want it to remain as is. We have already discussed all this in the past.
